I suppose anyone getting evicted is a problem, but I'm not sure if pre-pandemic levels of eviction were concerning or not. The housing market overall is certainly a problem for those that aren't already property owners.

Everyone evicted is a property freed up for putting back on the rental market. Some evicted people will look for another property, but many will move in with relatives or move to a cheaper state. An influx of new properties on the market pushes down prices.

This will likely be a good thing for most renters.

Maybe the theory is the rate will approach and then PASS the pre-pandemic levels. Creating some type of panic and surge.

Can't wait for a bunch of apartments to suddenly become "second chance" properties where they require first and last month's rent up front along with an additional unrefundable deposit of another month's rent.

It’s always been a problem

Unless you're suggesting that tenants should be able to live in someone else's property for free (at which point it effectively ceases to be the original owner's property) or you're referring to some wider societal problems that lead to rents being too high/tenants being too poor then I'm not really sure what problem you're referring to.

This is the old fantasy that 'landlords' (one of the most inaccurate words in the English language) lounge around extracting money from the peasants living in their properties. This mom and pop rentier idea is specious, but that is exactly what the big global corporations who are hoovering up North American properties are doing this year, under a Democrat controlled administration.

Small landlords are losing not only their rental properties and their homes and are up to their eyeballs in debts in many cases.

> This mom and pop rentier idea is specious

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. >40% of all rentals are owned by individuals, and if you take large multi-unit apartments out of the equation that rises to >72% - that's your "mom and pop" rentals, which by most judgements would take it from the realm of specious and put it smack dab in the realm of the common.

It's quite common for retirees to own outright or invest in rental property - evenly grandfather, who never made more than $10/hr working at a lumberyard for his entire life owned some rentals in his retirement.

Those are the people who are actually hurt by eviction moratoriums.

That was the point I as attempting to make - mom and pops are not rentier layabouts and work hard to provide rental accommodation and keep it up to spec.

What does the current administration have to do with any of this?

Greedy corporations are the problem and they’ve been doing since before the current Pres.

A Democrat controlled administration should be looking out for renters, not big global corps

Not if you’re a landlord.

Landlords don't like to evict. They prefer to receive rent.

If you’re a big enough landlord you want to have a certain percentage of evictions as a low eviction rate is a signal you should hike rent. When housing supply near jobs is as constrained as it is, evicting people causes more people to cram into a tiny apartment, which means you can charge more rent for that tiny apartment.

That's true, though the "big enough landlord" isn't as common as many think. About 40% of rental properties in the US are owned by individuals[1], with most owning less than $400k in properties[2].

1. https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economists-outlook/landlord-st...

2. https://getflex.com/blog/landlord-statistics/#:~:text=The%20....

I was a landlord. I preferred to receive the rent late from someone that didn't want to be evicted.

The maximum profit is renting to someone that can barely afford to pay, but also desperately doesn't want to leave. In total, I probably made a 13th months rent each year in fees. You are leaving money on the table renting to people that can afford to pay on time.

You're proud of the fact that you exploited your tenant's desperation to extract an extra month's rent when they can barely afford 12?

For everyone wondering why landlords get a bad reputation, this right here is the reason. It's also what people mean when they say "It's expensive to be poor".

Yes, I am fine with it.

There are a lot of nuanced variables that are hard to enumerate, but maximizing revenue is not evil.

My tenants voluntarily chose to sign a rental agreement, were aware of the terms of that agreement, I was always in compliance with all applicable laws on rent and fee collection, and when my tenants lease was terminated, it was always voluntarily and with all parties leaving on good terms.

I agree it is expensive to be poor, but I disagree that maximizing fee collection is why people hate landlords - lying about terms in the lease, violating local laws, denying applicants based on protected status, refusing repairs, trespassing, unlawful evictions, etc.

You can hate me for what I did though, I can't change that. I wish you luck.

I can only assume that my complex made a profit from evictions as they were always evicting someone. I am positive they would steal their deposit, add a bunch of fees/fines/back rent and then take them to court and usually winning. Well they sold the building a few months ago and new owners are raising rent by 20 percent.

Maybe you shouldn't assume so much.

While a landlord might find a way to make some money from an eviction, the main way they make their money is by getting the rent paid. That's what they evict for, so that they can get someone else who will pay them occupying that unit.

And, if they evict for non-payment of rent, I think they get to keep the deposit, and I don't think that's "stealing". That's part of what the deposit is for. What's stealing might be occupying their place without paying the rent, if you think about it.

And, winning in court doesn't mean you get paid. If they didn't have the money to pay the rent, they usually don't have a huge wad of cash sitting around to pay the back rent + court costs. So, you won in court, enjoy your nice victory that you can't collect.