SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
rent
Landlord Doublespeak and the Rise of the 'Housing Provider'
What drives the preference of landlords to call themselves “housing providers” is a desire to euphemize the landlord-tenant relationship and to obscure some of its basic and most important features.
Jul 30, 2025
Landlords want to be called “housing providers.” Industry organizations in California, Washington, Rhode Island, and elsewhere are proudly claiming the label. Equal to this craving to be called “housing providers,” it seems, is the wish among landlords to no longer be called landlords. The term is antiquated, they say, and has a negative stigma that doesn’t reflect reality. The industry is not particularly secretive about these desires or the reasons behind them, which have to do with image and narrative.
The dictionary definition of landlord is precise enough, however, and, in fact, couldn’t be plainer: “The owner of property (such as land, houses, or apartments) that is leased or rented to another,” according to Merriam-Webster.com. The definition identifies the essential feature of any residential landlord—that they engage in a financial transaction to lease living space. This seems straightforward enough and noncontroversial. The motivation of the industry is thus not related to any mismatch between our common understanding of the word and its most essential attribute.
Instead, what drives the preference of landlords to call themselves “housing providers” is a type of Orwellian doublespeak intended to euphemize the landlord-tenant relationship and to obscure some of its basic and most important features. What does the phrase obscure? For one, it elides the basic extractive nature of landlording, the fact that landlords expect, in fact, rely upon the relationship to be monetarily profitable to them. This is the critical fact of landlording, that it is done in the main to make a profit.
Granted there are some instances of landlords renting to family members or others without expectations of profit, but these exceptions are merely that—exceptions. The English language routinely makes distinctions between services rendered for a fee and those provided on other bases. The difference between “housing provider” and landlord is the difference between a date and a paid escort or sex worker, it is the difference between the volunteer and the mercenary, between a financial gift and an interest-bearing loan. The English language is not unique in containing words that make clear the monetary exchange and profit that define some relationships. We use these words because the information they contain is consequential.
If the landlord industry truly wants to do something to burnish its public image, it might consider publicly rejecting or sanctioning members of its community who hiked rents in Los Angeles County by 20% in the aftermath of the fires of January 2025.
This attempt to obscure the profit motive in landlording is all the more problematic because those who would call themselves “housing providers” in one breath, will, in the next, argue against rent stabilization, tenant protections, and other regulations on the basis that these policies make their business unprofitable, or less profitable than they would prefer. This is wanting it both ways—attempting to hide the profit motive while simultaneously insisting on it.
“Housing provider” is also meant to conceal the power dynamics of the landlord-tenant relationship, one in which landlords hold the privileges associated with property ownership, the ability to define the terms of acceptable behavior and limits of property use available to tenants, and the ultimate power of eviction. Moreover, at a time when corporate landlords are extending their reach into the market, and we see the spread of price-fixing algorithms to maximize rents and profit, AI-driven tenant screening algorithms to perform background checks, and greater concentration and market power at the industry scale, the insistence on the phrase “housing provider” is an obvious attempt at happy-faced distraction.
Just as important as the attempt to disguise profit motive and landlord power is the effort to dodge whatever negative connotations attach to the term landlord. “Housing provider” is meant to avoid images of rapaciousness and greed, or to conjure images of benevolence and even charity, or to do both. The use of the phrase is, in other words, an attempt, acknowledged by the industry, to control a narrative. As such it is a political act, an effort to persuade and to establish a particular understanding of who landlords are and what they do, all in the service of influencing public debate and public policy. This is not to argue that tenants don’t also try to influence the public narrative; of course they do. It is merely to note that this phrase, “housing provider,” is a calculated bid to construct meaning in a highly contested policy area and it needs to be recognized as such. Those who choose to adopt the phrase choose to adopt the narrative.
If the landlord industry truly wants to do something to burnish its public image, it might consider publicly rejecting or sanctioning members of its community who hiked rents in Los Angeles County by 20% in the aftermath of the fires of January 2025. It might help to police property owners who evicted tenants during the pandemic in violation of federal and local laws. It might take action to address sexual harassment of low-income women by landlords, or address any of a number of discriminatory or exploitative practices that haunt the industry. Those wishing to hide behind the “housing provider” label will argue that not all landlords are bad, which is of course true. They will say only a portion of landlords engage in the practices that give landlord its stigma. But, if the only response by the industry is to stop using the word landlord, it betrays a self-serving concern that does little to improve negative public perceptions and, in fact, largely confirms them.
We don’t call Exxon an “oil provider,” nor do we call GM an “automobile provider.” We don’t even call the corner mom-and-pop store a “grocery provider.” There is no reason to accept the kind of politically motivated doublespeak behind the rise of “housing provider.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Betrayal': Colorado's Democratic Governor Vetoes Bill Targeting Algorithmic Rent-Setting
The veto, said one critic, "sends the devastating message that corporate landlords can keep using secret price-fixing algorithms to take extra rent from people who have the least."
May 30, 2025
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat seen as a potential 2028 presidential contender, used his veto pen on Thursday to block legislation aimed at banning rent-setting algorithms that corporate landlords have used to drive up housing costs across the country.
The bill, known as H.B. 1004, would have prohibited algorithmic software "sold or distributed with the intent that it will be used by two or more landlords in the same market or a related market to set or recommend the amount of rent, level of occupancy, or other commercial term associated with the occupancy of a residential premises."
A report issued late last year by the Biden White House estimated that algorithmic rent-setting cost U.S. renters a combined $3.8 billion in 2023. According to the Biden administration's analysis, Denver tenants have been paying an average of $1,600 more on rent each year because of rent-setting algorithms. The approximate monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in the city is $1,600.
Pat Garofalo, director of state and local policy at the American Economic Liberties Project, called Polis' veto "a betrayal" that makes "his priorities clear."
"Governor Polis had a simple choice: stand with working Coloradans or side with corporate landlords using secretive algorithms to allegedly price-fix rents," said Garofalo. "The governor talks a big game about affordability and abundance, but when given the chance to take real action—at no cost to taxpayers—he protected profiteers and let families keep paying a 13th month of rent. It's a betrayal of the values he claims to champion, and Colorado renters won't soon forget it."
"Governor Polis vetoed the most meaningful legislation we had to lower costs for renters."
Sam Gilman, co-founder and president of the Denver-based Community Economic Defense Project, said that the governor's veto "sends the devastating message that corporate landlords can keep using secret price-fixing algorithms to take extra rent from people who have the least."
"At a time when costs keep rising for working people and Republicans in Washington are attacking the social safety net," Gilman added, "Governor Polis vetoed the most meaningful legislation we had to lower costs for renters."
In a letter explaining his veto, Polis voiced agreement with the bill's supporters that "collusion between landlords for purposes of artificially constraining rental supply and increasing costs on renters is wrong." But he warned the bill could have the unintended effect of banning software that helps "efficiently manage residential real estate."
The governor's reasoning did not assuage critics.
"It stood up to corporate power," Gilman said of the legislation. "It promised to bring apartments back online. And it took on economic abuse that steals $1,600 a year from renters."
State Rep. Steven Woodrow (D-2) said it is "unfortunate that someone who claims to care so deeply about saving people money has chosen the interests of large corporate landlords over those of hard-working Coloradans."
State and local legislative efforts to rein in algorithmic rent-setting have gained steam in recent years following an explosive ProPublica story in 2022 detailing RealPage's sale of "software that uses data analytics to suggest daily prices for open units."
"RealPage discourages bargaining with renters and has even recommended that landlords in some cases accept a lower occupancy rate in order to raise rents and make more money," the investigative outlet reported. "One of the algorithm's developers told ProPublica that leasing agents had 'too much empathy' compared to computer-generated pricing. Apartment managers can reject the software's suggestions, but as many as 90% are adopted, according to former RealPage employees."
The Denver Post reported Thursday that the vetoed bill "essentially targeted RealPage," which lobbied aggressively against a similar measure that died in the Colorado Legislature last year.
Polis also used his veto authority on Thursday to tank legislation that would have "limited how much ambulance services can charge for transporting patients and required health insurance companies to cover the cost, minus deductibles or copays," The Colorado Sun reported.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Need a Shared Working-Class Agenda to Overcome Economic Hardship and Defeat Trump
If we resist getting caught up in the endless drama, divisions, and distractions—and work together to further our own slate of issues—we have the power to create meaningful change.
Jan 30, 2025
As Trump creates crisis and chaos, testing the limits of his authority and driving the news cycle, it’s critical we keep returning to what matters most to the American people. By focusing on our shared priorities and working together, we can stay grounded during the turmoil and build the power to drive positive change.
At the top of Americans' concerns is economic hardship and inequality. Ninety percent of voters told Gallup the economy was a top influence on their 2024 votes. The rising cost of housing and everyday expenses was cited as the most critical issue by both Trump voters (79 percent) and the broader electorate (56 percent).
These concerns reflect real struggles. According to the Federal Reserve, more than one-third of American adults lack the resources to handle a $400 emergency without borrowing. Families face crushing costs—median childcare runs $1,100 monthly, matching typical rent payments. Natural disasters have financially impacted nearly one in five adults.
By focusing on the issues that affect the lives of millions of Americans, we can build common ground for organizing and advocacy.
The ALICE framework helps us understand this crisis. These Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed families—now 42 percent of all U.S. households—often work multiple jobs yet still struggle to cover basics. They are our neighbors, many of them working nearby in businesses, medical facilities, and factories living paycheck to paycheck, while caring for children and elders. Many are forced to choose between rent, food, gas for the car, and paying the power bill.
Millionaire and Vice President JD Vance said at the recent “March for Life” rally in Washington, D.C., that he wished more young people would have children. Yet over half of parents surveyed said that they suffer anxiety due to not having enough money to support their family.
It is not unusual to find people living in their cars or in tent encampments, going to work at multiple jobs but unable to afford rent. The numbers of these ALICE families have grown by 23 percent since 2010 and now make up 42 percent of American households.
Meanwhile, America's billionaire class has accumulated unprecedented wealth—$6.72 trillion among 813 individuals, growing by $1 trillion in just that last nine months of 2024, according to the Institute for Policy Studies. This concentration of wealth translates directly into political power that even many wealthy Americans recognize as wrong. The Patriotic Millionaires group, representing 500 wealthy individuals, has called for higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy, warning that extreme wealth concentration is corroding democracy.
In spite of his populist language, the Trump administration’s millionaires and billionaires show few signs of being interested in addressing the economic hardship of American families. The president’s true priorities were on display as the billionaires lined up to kiss the royal ring with large donations for the inauguration and were seated in the most prestigious seats at the events.
What can be done? How can ordinary people build sufficient power to put the wellbeing of ordinary families first?
The American people understand these challenges and 89 percent of them recognize that excessive political influence by the wealthy drives inequality, according to the Pew Research Center. Two-thirds believe our economic system needs major reform. Even wealthy Americans largely share these concerns, polling just 9 points lower in their worry about inequality.
With MAGA Republicans dominating Congress and the Executive Branch, national reform is tough. But if we resist getting caught up in the endless drama and distractions, and work together to further our own agenda. we have the power to create change.
- We can remind elected officials at all levels of government that their constituents expect support for child care, healthcare, education, minimum wage increases, and housing policies for working families;
- We can support state and local initiatives to tax wealth and invest in communities;
- We can keep economic hardship and inequality at the center of public discourse; and
- We can join organizations, like the Working Families Party, and build coalitions around shared economic concerns.
By focusing on the issues that affect the lives of millions of Americans, we can build common ground for organizing and advocacy. Instead of being distracted, divided, and overwhelmed, we can set our own agenda, build power together for positive change, and insist that our elected leaders act on our shared priorities.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular