1. Family members aren't "rich" by conventional standards, they worked for the government in mid-level jobs their whole lives and are retired.
2. They bought a house they planned to retire to, but then moved when they had issues with it. They planned to sell the house but due to timing issues (construction in the neighborhood) they wanted to wait, so temporarily rented it out.
3. They had bad timing: rented in early 2020, the renter paid 1 month of rent, and never after that. And I looked this guy up, he is a total freeloader, part of the blame is on my family for not better vetting him.
4. But the takeaway for small landlords is the government can basically appropriate your property whenever they want. So we're just left with giant landlords who can manage this risk, and which again leads to less available affordable housing and a further concentration of wealth.
The Supreme Court refused to weigh in because “it was soon to expire”
Feel the pain of 2A advocates. Or 14A (P&I) advocates. Or 10A advocates. Or..
The nature of government/authority is they will always creatively push the boundaries of what they can permissibly do. There are amendments that are considered "second-class" and even worse. If nobody defends it, it will not enforce itself.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/23/thoughts-on-the-sixth-c...
I never considered the 3rd amendment to be a protection against that but I can see how soldiers randomly living in your home could be seen as government appropriation
What happened here is that the government changed the rules (i.e. risk / reward profile) of a well-established market overnight with very little recourse for the players involved. It would be like the government removing FDIC insurance on savings accounts during a bank crisis.
Maybe necessary, but hard to argue it was fair.
My whole point is the government changed the rules in the middle of the game. Certainly bad tenants are always a risk, but not bad tenants that the government forces you to house for over a year.
What you're doing is like telling businesses that get nationalized by corrupt regimes "hey, business comes with risk". But my whole point is, eventually, nobody can accept those risks, so people choose not do to business, which actually makes things worse for everyone.
For the above reasons. I struggle to be sympathetic to landlords. They were taken care of. And quite frankly, I think they are the least deserving of the assistance. Rent seekers and speculators should be last in line for help. When you buy an expensive house or a hot stock, things like pandemics, wars, and financial shocks are part of the risk profile.
After 6 months she agreed she was going to start paying (September 2020). She had a job, she had stimulus and she was buying nice TVs and stuff.
She never started paying again. The “government said she didn’t need to”.
My friends parents owe taxes, had to make repairs, have to pay insurance. They are out at least ten thousand dollars. At the same time, they are out of work.
What are they supposed to do? Sell to black rock, who are getting free funds from the FED (ie their taxes)?
https://strangesounds.org/2021/07/blackrock-is-buying-up-us-...
Landowners are typically nice, small time people who are renting out an old home. They take care of everything the renter doesn’t want to and in return receive a fee. The landlord takes all the risk.
You’re basically saying “bankrupt the grandma and grandpa, because young people would rather buy meme stocks or TVs than pay rent” that’s not all cases, but the government did give out thousands in free money for the unemployed. The dominos by me in a rural community is offering $25/hr + tips and can’t find people to work. There are job openings everywhere and I think people can make it work.
There’s not a great solution, but saying the landlord is on the hook when the government is supposed to represent everyone is not reasonable.
I thought there was federal relief coming for landlords.
1. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/15/many-states-have-given-out-u...
Source? The clause in NY's ERAP says you can't evict them without a good reason, which is really no change to a normal eviction. What's protected against is a landlord collecting the money and then evicting the tenant anyway. Going forward, if the tenant fails to pay, comply with the lease, or anything else that would normally incur an eviction, the landlord is free to start the eviction process.
I don't think 'most landlords' would refuse that deal. Additionally, again, based off of NY's program, this isn't really something the landlords sign up for. It's tenant initiated. A landlord can fill out the application on behalf of the tenant, but the tenant still needs to make attestations and provide information the landlord most likely doesn't have.
And the eviction moratorium does not remove the financial responsibility for past due rent. They can use threat of eviction after the the moratorium expires to force the tenant to pay past due rent. And if that doesn't work they can take the tenant to court. And as mentioned in my original comment, there will likely be financial assistance.
And to reiterate, I have zero sympathy for landlords who are essentially engaging in rent seeking and speculation (whether they realize it or not). If grandma and grandpa loose all of their money speculating on bitcoin, I will have zero sympathy for them. It is no different if they loose it all speculating on real estate. If they can't handle they downsides they should have put their money in a safer investment.
If you feel that way, you should also be opposed to the moratorium. Those people were speculating they’d still have jobs (according to the fed, people’s greatest single asset). And they lost it. There should be no sympathy?
I’m in agreement there. Let’s just let individuals figure it out and I think all would be better off. At least better than the law not being applied evenly.
So, why aren't these people investing in such an obvious gold rush as you are making it to be.
The devil is in details. There is a some underlying theme in your comments that people just wake up one day and realize they're magically owning home, which they can rent. Wisdom is in understanding that this is just another business, you pay for what you use. The provider takes a profit.
If you don't want things this way there are other systems to try(communism), your country doesn't seem to like them. In fact you guys have fought wars over the last century against it.
You got what you asked for. What are you complaining about now?
If the rent being charged is in excess of market value, there is indisputably a surplus profit being pocketed by the owner, which thereby cancels any contribution back to society (quite the opposite, in fact, since the profit is directly off of the backs of tenants, who are typically not land / property owners).
However - even if the landlord is charging market rate, rent-seeking is still going on when the value of the property has appreciated (say, the whole neighborhood’s property values have gone up) and the owner is charging tenants in excess of what the owner is actually paying (which was negotiated at the time of purchase, when the value was lower) in order to make a profit where the owner has not contributed at least the same amount of value.
Since both of these tend to be the typical case in the landlord-tenant relationship - property value goes up, landlord accordingly raises rent in order to profit off of unearned income (which it is, at least according to US tax law), landlords are absolutely rent-seeking rent-seekers.
And while I sympathize with the plight of the retired granny and grampa landlords whose fatal flaw was trusting their no good, criminal-minded tenants too much - that does not hold a candle to the plight of the millions of working class Americans who will be sleeping in their cars because they didn’t have the foresight to become homeowners.
(sincerely curious)
That said, I don’t think that’s typically allowed on a second home.
When it's harder to evict people start making judgement calls based on their perceptions. Some of those will be will be good judgment calls, but most won't be based on real data and good tenants will get passed up for bad reasons.
# of properties for sale went way up, # of properties for rent is way down, and to get approved for a rent you more or less have to agree to give out your first born son.
Laying the burden on landlords for more than a few weeks is unconscionable and inequitable. I wonder how many small landlords sold or lost previously profitable properties due to their cash flow being decimated.
The long term rental market is damaged; landlords will now be hesitant to rent long term without significant protection like larger deposit requirements or even rent for less time to avoid being susceptible to some of these government actions.
I agree, government transferring the wealth indirectly would be better, but it's politically infeasible. Barring that, I'd rather help renters and hurt landlords than the other way around, since the latter are generally more stable.
Also, I don't think the effort to distribute money was really a failure, I think some states squandered it because they didn't want to give handouts, but it was likely one of the largest disburtions of direct aid in the history of the United States and coupled with other programs avoided an economic disaster that would have dwarfed 2008.
They did. The houses they were in.
> or build them housing,
This takes time and wouldn’t be done in time for the pandemic
> or distribute compensation to landlords temporarily.
Millions of people lost income during the pandemic. Including the tenants were talking about who are at risk of eviction. Why should landlord income be any more sacred than any other income?
Restrictive zoning and bespoke, political hurdles against development do far more to restrict supply. I'm not understanding how housing that is in use can be considered supply available for others. Say we make it easier to evict and change nothing else: one family is evicted so another can take the unit. I don't see how that improves anything if the goal is to get both families housed. All it seems to do is enable landlords to play arbitrage and charge the highest possible price.
Well, look at what's happening in Vancouver (and a few other places, but Vancouver is just the most obvious example), and it will easily explain your confusion.
When it becomes too costly and problematic to deal with renting out your property to someone else, people who bought it as an investment will just hold onto it and let it sit empty[0]. It got bad enough, Vancouver ended up introducing a vacant property tax.
0. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/number-of-em...
Strangely enough, the locals are voting for the same parties that enabled the situation in the first place.
> Vancouver ended up introducing a vacant property tax.
So you end up with a "tenant" that's a family member but not living there.
Exactly. We are starting to recognize that, as a society, buying a house as an investment and letting it sit empty is anti-social, violent behavior that should be shunned, discouraged and punished to the fullest extent.
Have you been to the US?
From the amount of homeless and people living in tents and cars, AFAICT the expectation from this society is that people that can't afford rent for whatever reason should just live on the street.
The poor do not deserve a roof.
---
Kind of sarcasm, but kind of true.
>From the amount of homeless and people living in tents and cars, AFAICT the expectation from this society is that people that can't afford rent for whatever reason should just live on the street.
Have you ever been to the US other than the west coast?
There's the occasional tent in a discreet spot in a vacant lot or under a bridge and the occasional car being lived out of at a truck stop. Maybe if you got every person living on the streets (vs a shelter) in a city to pick the same spot you'd have enough to be described as a "camp". It's nothing like you see on the west coast where the homeless are practically everywhere.
https://wjla.com/news/local/shelter-dc-homelessness-pandemic
https://wamu.org/story/20/01/16/dozens-displaced-after-d-c-p...
Been to Florida, Boston, NYC, Washington DC, etc.
Homeless people everywhere.
People living on the streets are not apparently more numerous in NYC, Boston, DC and the litany of other east coast and Midwest cities I have lived in or gone to for business than they are in London, Belfast and Antwerp (my limited first hand experience with western europe). You'll get the occasional tent somewhere, a car being lived out of in a parking lot, but it is by no means rampant. Heck, places that are known for being dumps, Chicago, Gary, Baltimore, Newark, etc. have far, far less homeless people on the streets than Seattle does.
Now, if you has said "Seattle, LA, San Fransisco" I would agree with you. Other than a few wealthy suburbs that actively kick out the homeless you'd have a hard time finding a park without a tent in it. But to frame rampant homelessness as a US problem or a liberal cities problem when it is almost purely a west coast problem is pure falsehood.
Just stop lying!
A group of 5 homeless people in each of the cities i've lived there would have been a huge group.
I've continuously encountered groups of 20-50 homeless people living in Boston, NYC, Miami, etc.
That's an order of magnitude more than what I consider "normal".
The west coast is another order of magnitude higher, with groups of 100s of homeless people around seattle, san francisco, san diego, LA, etc.
But that not makes the situation in the east coast cities i've visited "good". I consider the situation in the east coast "horrible", and in the west coast "war-zone like", when compared with the cities where I've lived in europe (madrid, barcelona, milan, munich, stuttgart, etc.).
>I've continuously encountered groups of 20-50 homeless people living in Boston, NYC, Miami, etc.
This just just not true.
About the only way to get 5+ homeless people in one spot in any of those cities is to do something that specifically encourages them to show up, like a church giving out free lunches on a Sunday.
I can't speak to Miami but I've commuted into (like train and walking, not just the highway) NYC and Boston, the latter more recently, and the most I've ever encountered with any regularity is groups of two (usually a pair of dudes who seem to look after each other's stuff). There are some panhandling points on the subways but any one point won't be occupied every day. The density of homeless is low enough that doesn't happen.
Your description of Germany fits with my observation of NYC, Boston, Newark, New Haven, Baltimore, basically the Boston-DC corridor.
Is exactly the implication of market-based housing.
I was hoping that my explanation would help to illustrate how facilitating eviction won't help with rising homelessness. How it alone can actually foster the growth of homelessness. "Supply" created by evicting tenants is only supply for the people that can afford the new price.
The government won't build you a home, at least not the kind you'd want to live in.
The government needs to get out of the way of people trying to build homes, and it needs to protect the people that are currently housed.
Eviction enforcement is orthogonal to these concerns.
My understanding is that many do not consider homless shelters a dignifying place to live in: no private space, no private room, etc.
They'd rather live in their care or their tent where they have some "me" space, than in a shelter.
In Germany, for example, the government would pay for your rent before letting you sleep on the street, car, or tent. They don't consider shelters a dignifying place to live either, and having a sane place to live is pretty much a pre-requisite for being able to turn your life around.
Berlin models homelessness efforts on US program: https://www.german-times.com/with-the-us-as-a-role-model-ber...
Berlin opens hostel for homeless (NOT "me" space): https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/berlin-hostel-help...
Half a decade ago, at least where I was there wasn't many homeless there, but the rents in Berlin have exploded since, so the situation might have changed there.
But well over half of homeless people are addicts, and a lot of these folks will bail out of much nicer arrangements simply because they're not allowed to drink or do drugs.
Does that mean addicts should live in misery?
Addiction is a disease, it requires resources to treat.
I know there are folks who say out loud that addicts "deserve" their fate, and by that they mean society has a prerogative to ignore or punish them.
I'm certainly not one of those, and I appreciate that you're not either, but I also wouldn't say that society is obligated to expend unlimited resources to accommodate people that refuse to take care of themselves.
1. https://phys.org/news/2017-03-housing-homeless-cheaper-socie...
I've seen a lot of this first hand. I can see you have strong opinions, but I would encourage you to actually learn a bit about it, maybe volunteer at a shelter or with a treatment and placement organization.
1. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/09/418546/study-finds-permane...
In your apparent lack of experience, you're strawmanning any argument that doesn't align with your opinions.
And you also apparently forgot to read the study you cited, because it supports exactly what I've been saying: fourteen percent of their participants could not be kept in their intensive housing+treatment program. Fourteen percent is a hell of a lot better than the usual two-thirds, but that's still a whole lot of people that we don't know how to help, no matter how many resources we throw at them. I know people just like that, even if you refuse to acknowledge their existence, and I don't pretend to have the answers. It's a hard, hard problem.
How about this: since you seem to have this figured out, write up your proposal for a permanent, humane solution for that fourteen percent. I'm sure the folks who've spent careers trying to figure it out would love to know what you think they're doing wrong. Go get em tiger!
You can and should avoid personal attacks and assumptions about my experience. You have failed to provide evidence to support your ancedotes.
>I know people just like that, even if you refuse to acknowledge their existence, and I don't pretend to have the answers.
I am not refusing to acknowledge the existence of that cohort. You are moving the goalposts: saying that if we can not find a solution for those people specifically, then we can not address the structural deficiencies that lead to the movement of more people into homelessness. The data shows "the streets (or prison)" is not "the endgame" for the 86% that actually benefit from supportive housing.
There is also a shortage, in some areas, of low income housing. I am not sure what it is like in Germany but developers don't want to create low income housing since it tends to be treated poorly and increases crime in the area. How does Germany deal with that or are the German homeless better stewards of the place they live?
It does not have to be an special "low income housing".
Also, in the US it is my understanding you don't have to go to low income housing, but non low income housing can reject you. Since people receiving money for housing do not tend to treat the housing well most landlords reject them. Why rent to somebody who is at an increased likelihood of damaging your place and won't have enough money to cover the damage?
In Germany the government gives you the money, and you to the landlord. The landlord doesn't need to know where you got the money.
Having said that, many landlords will reject based on looks, which can be tough.
> Wait so I could go to Germany, find an apartment that costs €10000 a month and the government would pay for it? Surely there is some kind of limit?
The government collects the rent prices of the last 4 years on each area, and uses them to create tables per region / city, of the upper limits.
Depending on the city, that might allow you to live downtown, or force you into the suburbs.
You can see one of these tables, e.g., for Munich, here: https://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/Stadtverwaltung/Sozialrefera...
There are single rooms < 50m2 for less than 680 EUR/month in munich. Not downtown, but not too far in the suburbs either. The prices there look ok for somebody without any assets nor income. Its not going to be luxurious, but it won't be crappy either. A university student might be living in worse conditions, which isn't bad for someone without income nor assets.
Refugees were initially moved into refugee camps, so you didn't see them in cities, and then they were and still are being slowly integrated.
Refugee camps are no place to for people to live, but if you are escaping from a war zone, they are better than staying in the war zone.
Germany does provide (1) housing and (2) a living way to unemployed inhabitants without unemployment benefits, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept#Hartz_IV
Requesting it isn't hard. I know many highly educated people that suddenly had no income or were evicted, e.g., due to loosing all "student benefits" right the same day they finished university, including housing, being evicted a couple of days later. They got Hartz IV benefits in a matter of hours, which paid for an apartment and gave them 400 EUR or so per month for food and basic stuff (you can live an ok-ish life with that if housing is covered).
But most homeless I saw in the streets in Germany, which you can actually just go and talk to, didn't want to receive any help from the state, had psychological problems, didn't want to receive medical attention, etc.
Due to how the German system for this works, it is actually super hard to help these people. Still, in a sense, the people that are homeless in Germany, is because at least in some way, they want to. Since not being homeless - with the exception of refugees - is as easy as going by an office, signing a sheet of paper, and the government pays for your rent, heating, water, electricity, internet, clothes, work training, healthcare and on top gives you 400 EUR that you can spend however you want (food, or just booze, etc.).
For the refugees... Germany is tight on housing, and new developments are slow, so being 1 million houses short (for 1% of the population), and then taking 1 million refugees on top, their access to housing is improving very slowly. I'd say they are free to apply for asylum somewhere else, but pretty much everywhere else the conditions are much worse for them.
---
For context, relative to Germany's population, the 1 million of refugees Germany took per capita would be similar to the US taking 4-5 million refugees, in a very short period of time. IIRC, the US took less than 20k refugees from a war-zone they are very responsible for. At least they are consistent: they don't care about their homeless, and they don't care about the homeless they create everywhere else in the world. Then they are surprised when the homeless that end up growing up in ISIS camps end up flying planes into their skyscrapers.
Homeless people don't "live" in shelters, they temporarily occupy them. Every morning the shelter kicks out the people that slept there and every evening people must queue to re-enter the shelter. Night-to-night, no one is guaranteed a bed.
This is not an "option" that enables meaningful participation in our economy and society nor does it facilitate the health and growth that is necessary for escaping poverty.
For example, it appears California is maintaining around 20% capacity utilization in shelters statewide on average.
Talk to the workers, and they'll tell you the main struggle is not running out of space, but getting homeless people in the door, because as you point out, shelter life sucks. You're absolutely right, one doesn't "live" in a shelter in any meaningful sense. They're not a permanent solution, and hardly even a temporary one.
To be slightly more specific in my criticism, there are plenty of economies with far more protections for tenants, even non-paying ones, and they tend to have similar or lower rates of homelessness.
The effect on tenant selection would also not manifest in the current situation, where it’s a measure used once for a rather rare situation. And even if landlords were to try to avoid such risks, it isn’t clear how that would differ from the status quo? Presumably, they have always chosen the more financially secure tenant when given a choice.