Yes, but the point is that the tenant doesn’t want to break the lease then, but the landlord does. 12 month leases protect the tenant from rent hikes as much as they protect the landlord from losing a tenant. If legislating easy breaking of the leases results in removing landlord protection, the landlords will stop offering 12 month leases as they confer no benefit to them, and will only offer month to month lease. Then, you’ll be able to break lease easily too, but so will the landlord be able to kick you out on the month notice.

Why on earth would the tenant spend $1500 to break their lease, just so they can go find a new place for $10000/month?

Another option is for landlords to price the additional risk into the rent itself.

But there’s no way you’re going to add risk into the market without that having some effect on pricing.

palo alto