Originally Posted by
Bjauck
Many tenants may not be able to commit to a fixed term lease because of the nature of the employment market. Why shouldn't a landlord be obliged to provide his investment property, which is the tenant's home, to an otherwise good tenant for at least a year? Maybe one of the reasons for NZ residential houses being amongst amongst the most unaffordable in the World is because residential tenancy investments, despite the hassles, provide a very good "tax efficient" return to investors in a tenancy environment favourable to landlords.