Biden's Eviction Moratorium Order May Not Be Enough

[Kooky]

Apartments occupied by non-paying tenants have problems....
- They aren't available to paying tenants.
- They cause costs: utilities, maintenance

We've already established that there are likely fewer paying tenants than there are apartments on offer (if that wasn't the case, then apartment prices wouldn't be falling, given the general rules of supply & demand). So some apartments would remain empty regardless. Why not put people in there who can't afford housing during the pandemic? Maintenance and certain utilities would have to be paid regardless, wouldn't they?

 

[Revoltingest]

We've already established that there are likely fewer paying tenants than there are apartments on offer (if that wasn't the case, then apartment prices wouldn't be falling, given the general rules of supply & demand). So some apartments would remain empty regardless. Why not put people in there who can't afford housing during the pandemic? Maintenance and certain utilities would have to be paid regardless, wouldn't they?

If you propose government assisting troubled renters,
then we agree.

 

[Kooky]

It isn't such a reciprocal situation.
Tenants who get far behind in rent are unlikely to ever catch up.
They're generally uncollectible, so eviction is a necessary tool.
(That's been my experience in the business.)
Landlords who get behind on loans, utilities, taxes, & insurance.
are always held accountable because we can't run from those bills
because the property itself is the security.
Property taxes are liens on the property, & must be paid lest the
property be sold at a tax sale. Utilities will be cut off if unpaid.
Insurance will be cut off if unpaid. Loans unpaid will cause
foreclosure. Maintenance vendors will cease service if unpaid.
Loans, if they're not Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (federal gov
controlled) or a foreign owned bank (eg, Citizens NA) can
sometimes be renegotiated for a manageable payment.

Any landlord could, in theory, sell their property and get a regular job to pay their bills.
That is not an option if you don't own any property to begin with.

 

[Kooky]

If you propose government assisting troubled renters,
then we agree.

I'd actually propose public housing, with rent assistance only as a last resort. As far as I have read on the subject, the latter has the iffy unintended consequence of contributing to rising apartment prices.

EDIT: This is actually something communities should finance from the property taxes they already collect, in my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Any landlord can sell their property.....

Selling a distressed property (eg, a rent roll with non-paying
tenants) is a bad idea because buys will heavily discount the
value. This typically means a price that won't cover the
loan payoff. On top of that, if the bank forgives principal
& interest due, this immediately becomes taxable income.
To generate no proceeds from the sale, & incur a huge
income tax liability isn't at all workable.

.....and get a regular job to pay their bills.

That doesn't sound like one could make a living,
& still cover debts incurred by the sale.

 

[Shaul]

There shouldn’t be any government imposed rent moratorium whatsoever.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd actually propose public housing, with rent assistance only as a last resort. As far as I have read on the subject, the latter has the iffy unintended consequence of contributing to rising apartment prices.

EDIT: This is actually something communities should finance from the property taxes they already collect, in my opinion.

I dislike public housing for several reasons...
- Not integrated with the community, ie, those on assistance
are surrounded by others on assistance.
- Inefficiently operated because government isn't skilled at
residential property management.
- Stigma of living in public housing.
Tis better to assist renters to allow them to choose where
they live in the general housing market. This affords them
greater liberty.

 

[Revoltingest]

There shouldn’t be any government imposed rent moratorium whatsoever.

But it's so attractive....simple...punishes those hated
landlords...make them pay instead of taxpayers....tenants
get a free apartment. What could go wrong, eh.

 

[Kooky]

I dislike public housing for several reasons...
- Not integrated with the community, ie, those on assistance
are surrounded by others on assistance.
- Inefficiently operated because government isn't skilled at
residential property management.
- Stigma of living in public housing.
Tis better to assist renters to allow them to choose where
they live in the general housing market. This affords them
greater liberty.

This is the particularly American way of implementing public housing, which, if I recall from my reading on the subject, is largely agreed upon to be terrible.

It is absolutely toxic to government programs to conceive of them as, essentially, 'poor services for poor people', the way American governments have so often implemented them. Specifically with public housing, you want this to be accepted by as wide a range of your urban population as practically feasible, so the government shouldn't restrict affordable housing arrangements to only poor people, but rather include people from all walks of life.

As an example how to get rid of the "public housing" stigma that seems so prevalent in the US, in Munich, the municipal government provides partial financing to apartment complexes that house a certain proportion of poor people, so a number of brand new apartments is open to people from disadvantaged backgrounds, while the rest would still be availabe on the free housing market.

A different take is what the city of Vienna did in the 1920s and then again in the 1970s, which was to engage in a massive public construction program, and then hand out houses based on relatively relaxed income restrictions that would still allow people with middle class backgrounds to get an apartment with massively reduced rent compared to the private housing market.

In either cases, these programs resulted in areas that largely avoided ghettoization and stigmatization, either by blurring the line of "public" and "private" housing, or by simply making public housing so common that it didn't acquire a stigma to begin with.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is the particularly American way of implementing public housing, which, if I recall from my reading on the subject, is largely agreed upon to be terrible.

It is absolutely toxic to government programs to conceive of them as, essentially, 'poor services for poor people', the way American governments have so often implemented them. Specifically with public housing, you want this to be accepted by as wide a range of your urban population as practically feasible, so the government shouldn't restrict affordable housing arrangements to only poor people, but rather include people from all walks of life.

As an example how to get rid of the "public housing" stigma that seems so prevalent in the US, in Munich, the municipal government provides partial financing to apartment complexes that house a certain proportion of poor people, so a number of brand new apartments is open to people from disadvantaged backgrounds, while the rest would still be availabe on the free housing market.

A different take is what the city of Vienna did in the 1920s and then again in the 1970s, which was to engage in a massive public construction program, and then hand out houses based on relatively relaxed income restrictions that would still allow people with middle class backgrounds to get an apartment with massively reduced rent compared to the private housing market.

In either cases, these programs resulted in areas that largely avoided ghettoization and stigmatization, either by blurring the line of "public" and "private" housing, or by simply making public housing so common that it didn't acquire a stigma to begin with.

The UBI is a simple solution to address many problems.
It's the most libertarian one I've yet found.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It isn't such a reciprocal situation.

I didn't say it's reciprocal. In fact, it shouldn't be.

A rental agreement is inherently unbalanced. To the tenant, it represents their home; to the landlord, it represents an increment on the return on their investment. Protections should be greater for tenants than landlords.

Tenants who get far behind in rent are unlikely to ever catch up.
They're generally uncollectible, so eviction is a necessary tool.
(That's been my experience in the business.)

And a company that cuts its dividends for 2020 is unlikely to do double dividends to make up for it in 2021.

Investment involves risk and volatility. The only class of investor I've ever seen have a problem with this concept are landlords.

Landlords who get behind on loans, utilities, taxes, & insurance.
are always held accountable because we can't run from those bills
because the property itself is the security.
Property taxes are liens on the property, & must be paid lest the
property be sold at a tax sale. Utilities will be cut off if unpaid.
Insurance will be cut off if unpaid. Loans unpaid will cause
foreclosure. Maintenance vendors will cease service if unpaid.

Yep - many investments have carrying costs. One would hope that someone deciding to make an investment would have a plan to cover those carrying costs during lean times.

Loans, if they're not Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (federal gov
controlled) or a foreign owned bank (eg, Citizens NA) can
sometimes be renegotiated for a manageable payment.

Investing with borrowed money is generally a risky proposition.

If someone really wants to invest in real estate but they don't have enough for a whole property, they can buy shares in a REIT.

If they decide to leverage themselves to get a higher return, well, they made the gamble and they can deal with the outcome themselves. Privatized profits and socialized losses is a bad deal for everyone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Protections should be greater for tenants than landlords.

And they certainly are.

And a company that cuts its dividends for 2020 is unlikely to do double dividends to make up for it in 2021.

Investment involves risk and volatility. The only class of investor I've ever seen have a problem with this concept are landlords.

You don't know many landlords then.
We discuss such things often.
Over the years I've learned to diversify my
risk with real estate investments independent
from the same risks.

Yep - many investments have carrying costs. One would hope that someone deciding to make an investment would have a plan to cover those carrying costs during lean times.

Investing with borrowed money is generally a risky proposition.

If someone really wants to invest in real estate but they don't have enough for a whole property, they can buy shares in a REIT.

If they decide to leverage themselves to get a higher return, well, they made the gamble and they can deal with the outcome themselves. Privatized profits and socialized losses is a bad deal for everyone.

Sometimes reality throws a curve ball, eg, the plague.
You could say to let renters be evicted, or landlords lose
their property, or banks fail due to uncollected loans.
I prefer that government assist those on the bottom of
a vertically integrated industry so that prosperity flows
all the way up. Not what our government does though.

 

[Kooky]

The UBI is a simple solution to address many problems.
It's the most libertarian one I've yet found.

It's certainly one way to sell the total elimination of all social programs.

EDIT:
I would normally find it curious why you would qualify a massive, government-run public assistance program as "libertarian", but then again I don't think that term has any real meaning left at this point in history.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's certainly one way to sell the total elimination of all social programs.

It wouldn't eliminate all....just many.

I don't believe in perfection or total solutions.
Just making improvement where useful.

EDIT:
I would normally find it curious why you would qualify a massive, government-run public assistance program as "libertarian", but then again I don't think that term has any real meaning left at this point in history.

I didn't say "libertarian".
I very intentionally said "most libertarian".
There's a big difference.
We're going to have massive government run assistance.
Taking that as a given, I prefer that programs that are the
most libertarian of the options available. For example, the
UBI provides more liberty than giving them a subsidized
apartment in a government housing complex. The tenant
chooses how much to spend, & where to live.

 

[Kooky]

It wouldn't eliminate all....just many.

I don't believe in perfection or total solutions.
Just making improvement where useful.

I didn't say "libertarian".
I very intentionally said "most libertarian".
There's a big difference.
We're going to have massive government run assistance.
Taking that as a given, I prefer that programs that are the
most libertarian of the options available. For example, the
UBI provides more liberty than giving them a subsidized
apartment in a government housing complex. The tenant
chooses how much to spend, & where to live.

If you conceive of "liberty" exclusively in the form of "capitalist market economy", yes.

Not everyone runs with that conception of freedom and liberty.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you conceive of "liberty" exclusively in the form of "capitalist market economy", yes.

Not everyone runs with that conception of freedom and liberty.

I know that many people prefer a command economy.
I just express opinions based upon my personal preference
for how society should function. Liberty is more important
to me than to most people. Security is less important.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't know many landlords then.
We discuss such things often.
Over the years I've learned to diversify my
risk with real estate investments independent
from the same risks.

Of course. Most landlords aren't so stupid as to make their entire livelihood depend on having their properties all occupied and all generating their desired rent.

This is just the picture they paint for the public.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is just the picture they paint for the public.

Source?

 

[McBell]

Any landlord could, in theory, sell their property and get a regular job to pay their bills.
That is not an option if you don't own any property to begin with.

Who is going to be buying these properties if no one can even pay rent?

 

[Revoltingest]

Who is going to be buying these properties if no one can even pay rent?

Some people have never bought & sold rental properties.
Buyers want financial reports, rent rolls, estoppel certificates,
environmental reports, & even tax returns (as verification of
financial info). Price is determined by either pro forma (expected
performance) or alternative use value.
What's an apartment building with many non-paying tenants worth?
Maybe 2 buckets of warm spit.

 

[McBell]

Some people have never bought & sold rental properties.
Buyers want financial reports, rent rolls, estoppel certificates,
environmental reports, & even tax returns (as verification of
financial info). Price is determined by either pro forma (expected
performance) or alternative use value.
What's an apartment building with many non-paying tenants worth?
Maybe 2 buckets of warm spit.

I was a "property manager" (my official 'government' job title) for a little over 8 years.
During such time I I started out managing 3 properties.
My employer sold the two smaller properties.
So I do have a better than average understanding of what is involved.

What kills me is the number of people who assume that landlords are richer than rich and do not have bills to pay.