In my state, Section 8 Assistance makes up the difference between a tenant's income and the market rate of the area. So the tenant is responsible for 1/3 of the rent and section 8 money is responsible for the rest, then the landlord is guaranteed to get the 2/3 from Section 8, but if the tenant doesn't pay their 1/3 you are out of luck. Eviction is a slow process here too.

But of course it means you’ll have “those people” as tenants, for whatever worst-nightmare definition of “those” the landlord can concoct.

In my property management experience (~80 units), Section 8 tenants have no assets and limited income, so when they incur thousands of dollars of damage to a unit, there is no recourse.

Non section 8 tenants have skin in the game: assets to pursue or income that can be garnished using a judgement if there’s damage beyond what a security deposit covers. This encourages a shared responsibility model where they treat the property with enough respect that the only damage is expected wear and tear (there are outlier events, kids will be kids and whatnot).

It’s not about race (in my case, at least). It’s about resources and means.

This is one of those small-time landlord urban myths. Section 8 tenants stay for a _lot_ longer than average, and because of that they are systematically less likely to trash the place.

By comparison someone with a high income and a lot of assets is very, very likely to leave as soon as they can, meaning even if they don't trash the place you still have a higher vacancy cost (which is a landlord's main risk) and because of their wealth you'll never get anything out of them other than the deposit, because they have and can afford lawyers.

That's academic theory, not reality. The actual behaviors and background of the tenants is what makes the difference, and people who have higher income tend to pay their bills.

Also vacancy management is an entirely different problem than quality of tenants and how they treat the property. Turnover of good quality tenants is much better than bad quality tenants who stay trashing the place for years.

Spoken like someone who has never actually rented to Section 8 tenants.

Can you provide data to backup your assertion? My data points come from experience of myself and other large scale residential landlords (100s of doors, a mix between Florida and Midwest properties).

Personally, I will happily take vacancy risk over damage risk. Vacancy risk is limited by monthly burn (mine is low for each property), damage risk is much greater amount imho.

HUD provides comprehensive data on length of tenancy for housing voucher program participants. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Lengt...

This part:

> and because of that they are systematically less likely to trash the place.

Anecdotally, my data agrees with HUD that Section 8 tenants who don't damage the property stay longer (although Section 8 makes up a small percentage of our total tenant population, primarily in the northwestern Chicago suburbs). Our costs have been high when (intentional) damage is done though (sometimes tens of thousands of dollars), causing the property to be in the red for years after.

One of our Section 8 tenants in Aurora was a great tenant; their son moved back in after a stint in a correctional facility, altercations in the front yard occurred, culminating in a drive by shooting attempt (I have the receipts to repair the bullet holes in the siding and replacement of the front door). Per the jurisdiction's rental guidelines and lease addendum requirements, we were required to terminate the lease (the jurisdiction's requirements, not ours). We helped them relocate out of state at our own cost.

There's nothing preventing any tenant from being related to criminals. The only thing shared in common among all housing voucher users is they can't afford housing. Imputing upon them as a class a tendency toward crime or other tendencies is the definition of prejudice.

> There's nothing preventing any tenant from being related to criminals.

The jurisdiction I mention specifically has mandatory landlord classes and lease addendum requirements to aggressively inhibit the housing of anyone associated with criminal activity (which includes the tenant(s) being held liable for any criminal activity that takes place on the property where they're not the victim). Background checks are mandatory for all adult tenants. Lease agreements with the mandatory jurisdiction provided lease addendum must be submitted to the jurisdiction's rental management department ("Division of Property Standards") to receive a rental license. I take no issue if you receive vouchers; if you're a criminal or associate with them, I can't provide you with housing (in this jurisdiction), and it's grounds for eviction based on a preponderance of the evidence (no conviction required).

https://www.aurora-il.org/356/Crime-Free-Multi-Housing-Progr...

https://library.municode.com/il/aurora/codes/code_of_ordinan...

https://www.aurora-il.org/DocumentCenter/View/4677/New-Landl...

Would it be possible to require insurance? Possibly as part of the rent?

When I tried researching it online, I could not find a policy that covered intentional damage / vandalism. Either be it a policy owned by the landlord or the renter. I'm guessing insurance companies are expecting your to get your money via a civil suit in that case. Would love know if there is one.

Isn't that what a personal liability policy covers? Some apartments I have been in required you to have one.

AFAIK personal liability is something like when someone comes to your house and slips on a puddle you have on the floor and hurts themselves and then sues you. It's not about damage you did yourself, on purpose, to the property you rent from someone else or someone else does on purpose against a property you rent out.

All the insurance policies were about accidental damage on either side.

Then why would an apartment require you to carry it and list them as the interested party? What would they care if it just protects you against drunk partners at your place that get injured?

Your insurance as the property owner can cover vandalism, theft, and other intentional damage if you choose (and you should for all the reasons listed in this thread).

When I tried shopping online for it as a research project, it explicitly excluded intentional damage in the fine print, and there was no extra option to purchase it separately. Could someone show me a policy that has that explicitly, or at the very least does not exclude it explicitly like I found?

I'm not going to share the details of my own policies, but every major insurer offered it to me without asking. Maybe it's state or region dependant.

Or are you talking about intentional damage by the owner?

More intentional damage by the renter for the landlord's policy. Usually the exception is under the wording of 'vandalism'. I think intentional damage by someone who bought the place is an OK thing to have an exception for. Although I wonder if banks have insurance for that case.

That's not correct. It is illegal to discriminate in CA against renters, based on the type of income. Section 8 in CA is not considered part of the renter's income. Section 8 does not guarantee that the rent will get paid in full and on time every month. There is a determination of rental percentage that is made initially and when the renter's income changes. Section 8 may actually pay up to 4 months late, but once it starts it pays very regularly.

SB 329 specifically redefined "source of income" to include section 8 and other assistance paid directly to the landlord.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...

Don't believe my interpretation? Ask the landlords' trade association.

https://caanet.org/governor-signs-mandatory-section-8-bill

Thanks! It's been a couple of years since I've rented-out property in that neck of the woods.

Looking at the text:

  (2) “Discrimination” does not include either of the following:
    (A) Refusal to rent or lease a portion of an owner-occupied single-family house to a person as a roomer or boarder living within the household, provided that no more than one roomer or boarder is to live within the household, and the owner complies with subdivision (c) of Section 12955, which prohibits discriminatory notices, statements, and advertisements.
    (B) Where the sharing of living areas in a single dwelling unit is involved, the use of words stating or tending to imply that the housing being advertised is available only to persons of one sex.