Landlords upset ...

[Trailblazer]

I think a % of the unemployment some people are drawing should go directly to the landlords.

My tenant who owes me over $14,000 is not even drawing any unemployment, so how can he even say his failure to pay is because of Covid? His days living in my house are numbered unless I get that money. Right now I am just biding my time while I wait to see if the county gets the rental assistance money to pay me what he owes me.

 

[Revoltingest]

My tenant who owes me over $14,000 is not even drawing any unemployment, so how can he even say his failure to pay is because of Covid? His days living in my house are numbered unless I get that money. Right now I am just biding my time while I wait to see if the county gets the rental assistance money to pay me what he owes me.

The bad news....
When tenants get significantly behind in rent...say 3
months, the odds of them ever catching up are under 1%.

 

[Watchmen]

My heart goes out to all the capitalist who are barred by law from making miserable people's lives even more miserable during a global pandemic.

That’s one way to look at it.

 

[Trailblazer]

The bad news....
When tenants get significantly behind in rent...say 3
months, the odds of them ever catching up are under 1%.

I pretty much know that if I do not get the money from the county rental assistance program I will never get the money......
That said, this same tenant was once 11,000 behind on the rent and when I threatened him he came up with 10,000 in two months..... Miracles are possible but I am not hoping for another one..

 

[Trailblazer]

That’s one way to look at it.

But there is another way.

 

[Revoltingest]

I pretty much know that if I do not get the money from the county rental assistance program I will never get the money......
That said, this same tenant was once 11,000 behind on the rent and when I threatened him he came up with 10,000 in two months..... Miracles are possible but I am not hoping for another one..

Your threats are much more effective than mine are.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your threats are much more effective than mine are.

I am pretty good at threatening tenants when I set my mind to it.
That tenant has no idea what is in store for him..... yet.

 

[Shaul]

My heart goes out to all the capitalist who are barred by law from making miserable people's lives even more miserable during a global pandemic.

Then why don’t you invite the squatters to come live with you?

 

[Kooky]

No, there is no funding for that, but I am not worried that he will damage the property. On the other hand I have never really threatened him before so he could turn on me if I do.

Perhaps it would be a good idea not to threaten people if we know they're already in a desparate situation, because that never seems to go well, in my humble experience.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps it would be a good idea not to threaten people if we know they're already in a desparate situation, because that never seems to go well, in my humble experience.

I do not know that my tenant is in any desperate situation. He has been consistently behind on the rent for years, long before Covid-19. I could have evicted him on any given month but I never did, and I never even threatened him with an eviction. Once several years ago when he owed me 11,000 I told him I would have to take legal action if he did not pay me. Magically, he came up with 10,000 within two months.... Desperate? No, I would rather call it taking advantage of my leniency now that he knows I cannot evict him because of Covid-19.

 

[PureX]

It is definitely a big mess.
And a big part of the reason, IMO, is because the ones declaring rent amnesty are not responsible/liable for the financial disaster it has caused.

I have lost count the number of people in my neck of the woods BRAGGING that they are bringing in more money a month now than they ever have in their life and since they do not have to pay rent.....

Do not get me wrong.
I also know quite a few who are paying their rent/mortgage because they fear being kicked out when all is said and done.
I also know some who are honestly struggling to pay rent.

And no, I do not even pretend to know the percentages of each group.

Well, to be clear, unemployment plus the pandemic money still does not add up to much. So if these people are making more now than they ever have, they never have made much money. And that is the beginning of the problem. The percentage of money that most people are paying for rent or mortgage is way too high, because the wages they are being paid are generally way too low. And the people that have been pocketing the difference for the last 40 years have been using that wealth to corrupt our government to the point of making it virtually non-functional. Then, when we are confronted by a pandemic, we can't make the right and effective decisions to deal with it. And the result is that everyone but those who have been pocketing all those profits all those years get caught in the dysfunctional disaster that results.

We have created a culture where all that matters to anyone is money. And where it's reasonable to do whatever we can, regardless of how it effects others, to get that money. We have become a society of criminals because of the rich, greedy, ignorant criminals that are now in control of everything: government, media, wealth, property, and opportunity. And they are forcing everyone else to become as they are just to survive in the criminal environment they've created. And sadly, all this greed and brutal stupidity have become so normalized for us that we don't even see ourselves participating in it, anymore. We think it's "just the way it is"; like weather. Those people who are refusing to pay their rent even though they could are just doing what they believe they should, for themselves, in a society and culture that has justified doing things just for ourselves, for generations. And when everyone is just looking out for themselves, there are bound to be a great many victims of all that selfishness. It's a culture of exploitation and abuse, and therefor of victimization. And most of us are so steeped in it that we can't even see it. And worse, we DEFEND it. Especially if we are getting by, or getting ahead in it.

 

[Stevicus]

I am not paying $29 a month to read one article.

I use the "Bypass Paywalls" extension myself.

 

[Stevicus]

Government, both Dem & Pub, like create mandates for
which they get political credit, but someone else pays.
The anti-capitalists (as we see on RF) are chortling &
praising landlords' suffering....good ole stereotyping &
class hatred, eh. But their way would lead to ruin, since
no one would provide housing if they must operate at a
loss.
Where would renters live?
They don't think about that.

The government could buy or build housing and offer it to renters, either free of charge or at substantially reduced rates. Just like government pays for police departments, fire departments, public sidewalks, public education, and the like, they can pay for housing.

 

[Stevicus]

Then why don’t you invite the squatters to come live with you?

Good question. One might just as easily ask why these landlords invited squatters on their property in the first place if they didn't want them there?

If you don't want squatters on your property, why invite them at all? If you freely choose to invite them to live on your property, then you have to face the consequences for that choice.

More than likely, these landlords invited these squatters to come live on their property because they thought they could gain profit and become more wealthy on the backs of the lower classes. But there are clearly risks that go along with such a venture.

And isn't that what capitalists always say? They say "Capitalists take the biggest risks and thus deserve the biggest rewards." But if the risk turns sour, they suddenly act as if "it's not fair" and "it's those darn socialists and leftists trying to ruin us!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting.
Do YOU support the current system that has decided it is the landlords who are to "wander off and die"?
Why was it set up that way to begin with?
Lets screw over the landlords because there are far less landlords than there are renters....right?

NO, I am not a landlord.
So there goes that theory....

That's been the response for every other class of investor.

I know I certainly didn't get offered any sort of bailout when my investments tanked last year. Neither did the people going into retirement who wouldn't be able to wait a few years for their portfolio to come back.

Why do landlords deserve this special treatment?

Or it might be they understand that an empty property is better than one obtaining wear and tear with no income at all...

One wonders where this "landlords have to be rich" attitude comes from...


What is YOUR proposed solution?

Landlords definitely don't have to be rich.

There are a shocking number of people who have overextended themselves with mortgages on investment properties. They've put themselves in a situation where they can't handle the carrying costs of their investment without tenants who are willing to pay the rent they need.

These people failed to heed the advice that every investor worth his salt takes to heart: leveraging with borrowed money greatly amplifies your risk.

These people might not have had enough ready cash to buy a house, but if they had enough for a down payment, then they had enough to buy a decent amount of mutual funds or - if they just had to be in real estate - shares in a REIT. They looked at their likely return from those options (or at least they ought to have), decided it wasn't high enough, and decided to roll the dice, overleverage themselves, and hope the gamble would pay off.

These people took on extra risk with the hope of extra return, so, well, they took on extra risk. They gambled and lost. I see no particular need to bail these people out.

The landlords I do have sympathy for are the widows, widowers, single parents, etc. who are renting out their basement or whatnot so that they can afford to stay in their family home and the neighbourhood they raised their kids in... but these people are covered by homeowner protections that help people who live in the property, so they don't need special protections for landlords.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And isn't that what capitalists always say? They say "Capitalists take the biggest risks and thus deserve the biggest rewards." But if the risk turns sour, they suddenly act as if "it's not fair" and "it's those darn socialists and leftists trying to ruin us!"

Indeed. Privatized profits and socialized losses is the worst of both systems.

I'm sure that none of the landlords crying for government help now because they're overextended and overleveraged would have been offering the government a cut of the profits when times were good.

 

[Shaul]

Good question. One might just as easily ask why these landlords invited squatters on their property in the first place if they didn't want them there?

If you don't want squatters on your property, why invite them at all? If you freely choose to invite them to live on your property, then you have to face the consequences for that choice.

More than likely, these landlords invited these squatters to come live on their property because they thought they could gain profit and become more wealthy on the backs of the lower classes. But there are clearly risks that go along with such a venture.

And isn't that what capitalists always say? They say "Capitalists take the biggest risks and thus deserve the biggest rewards." But if the risk turns sour, they suddenly act as if "it's not fair" and "it's those darn socialists and leftists trying to ruin us!"

But they didn’t invite squatters. They agreed to renters. Then the government came and told the landlords you have to let them now stay as squatters. And some people, who don’t like landlords for whatever reason, are cheering. Capitalists would agree that what the government is doing in this situation is not a free market. It is tyrannical.

 

[Revoltingest]

The government could buy or build housing and offer it to renters, either free of charge or at substantially reduced rates. Just like government pays for police departments, fire departments, public sidewalks, public education, and the like, they can pay for housing.

They.could.indeed.
And.they.already.do.
(Note:space.bar.not.working.)
But.it's.much.cheaper.to.force.landlords.to.do.it.for.free.
Not.a.sutainable.model.though...as.landlords.run.out.of.
money.for.utilities.&.maintenance.&.taxes.

 

[Stevicus]

But they didn’t invite squatters. They agreed to renters. Then the government came and told the landlords you have to let them now stay as squatters. And some people, who don’t like landlords for whatever reason, are cheering. Capitalists would agree that what the government is doing in this situation is not a free market. It is tyrannical.

They invited people who started out as renters, but then turned into "squatters" (which itself is a misnomer here) due to circumstances outside of their control. Because it was viewed as a national crisis affecting millions, the government imposed this because the alternative could have meant millions more homeless people, sick and dying on the streets. That could have been a massive public health disaster.

But as I understood it, there was money set aside for landlords to recoup their losses, although I'm not sure if that was ever implemented or what happened with that. An article I linked upthread mentioned that tenants can apply for rental relief, or some kind of government funds to help them pay their rent - and the landlord was upset because the tenant had not applied for it.

Yes, it's true that there may be those who are cheering, although it's akin to cheering for your team scoring a touchdown when they're already behind 49-0. I think dislike of landlords may be due to cultural reasons, often portrayed as some kind of villainous Scrooge-like character or an evil slumlord threatening to evict a poor widow who works in a dilapidated laundry to support her 10 children. It's been a longstanding trope which goes way back.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But they didn’t invite squatters. They agreed to renters. Then the government came and told the landlords you have to let them now stay as squatters. And some people, who don’t like landlords for whatever reason, are cheering. Capitalists would agree that what the government is doing in this situation is not a free market. It is tyrannical.

What the government is doing is addressing a market failure.

To a tenant, a rental property represents basic needs: home and shelter.

To a landlord, a rental property represents return on an investment portfolio.

These concerns do not have the same weight.

Without intervention, we would not have had "free market" conditions anyway. When your decision to withdraw from a transaction would mean homelessness for you and your family, your decision to enter into the transaction can't reasonably be said to be "free." Taking away some - but certainly not all - power from landlords brings the market equilibrium back closer to hypothetical actual free market conditions.