Housing/Rent/Mortgage/Land Ownership Discussion Thread

everyone, please feel free to use this thread

Thread will be moderated carefully, so be wary of what you post...

...a license to abuse your landlord as a renter.

On March 31 2020 04:08 ChristianS wrote:

A lot of this sounds a lot like some version of “you knew the risks and agreed to them, so you can’t really complain.” That makes more sense on the stock market than it does in home ownership. Somebody with a significant portion of their portfolio in stocks (especially if they’re retired or close to retiring!) knew or should have known that was a high-risk, high-reward strategy. But home ownership is supposed to be low risk with low-to-moderate returns.

Admittedly buying a house and renting it out is riskier. Anybody doing that should know that repair costs, a couple months of vacancies in between tenants, or drops in the rental value are risks they’re taking. So far this year I had 1.5 months w/o rent as old tenants moved out and we found new ones, and a couple thousand to repair the heating and A/C system. That’s okay, I know that’ll happen and I try not to count on more than 10 months rent per year. When possible I keep some savings in case of some expensive roof repair or something.

But if the government were to announce “no more rent payments for 6 months, tough shit landlords” that’s not a risk I could have reasonably expected to anticipate. If I was expected to plan for something like that, I couldn’t have afforded the place at all, the house would still be a dilapidated wreck with no one living in it, and I’d be taking up one of the already-scarce apartments enjoying the free rent.

If I’m understanding GH’s prescriptions correctly, the highly leveraged people would actually be just fine. Rent payments are cancelled, but they’ll get mortgage assistance. It’s the guy who bought a lot with his own money and built a house with his own hands, then rented it out, that will really be screwed. If he’d sold the house to some unscrupulous property management company, he’d be fine; he would have gotten to a chair before the music stopped.

Again, any big transition creates unfair winners and losers; you can try to mitigate that, but if the change is good overall, you should go ahead with it and accept a few unjust outcomes. But I don’t think these specific outcomes are just, and I don’t think “they knew the risks, if you play the game sometimes you lose” is a good way to handwave that away.

On March 31 2020 21:24 Acrofales wrote:
I just wanted to respond to this, and figured here was a better place than continuing the discussion in USPol:


In particular: somebody with a significant portion of their portfolio in stocks (especially if they’re retired or close to retiring!) knew or should have known that was a high-risk, high-reward strategy. But home ownership is supposed to be low risk with low-to-moderate returns.


That is true for someone who bought the real estate with his own money, and probably still is right now. If the house is already paid off, then the rent he is extracting from the property is almost entirely profit (as you said, there are maintenance costs and property taxes that have to be kept up, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking the rent people charge isn't far far higher than the costs). Missing out on a few months of profit due to the coronavirus crisis isn't going to cause him or her any long-term issues, and the house will mostly maintain its value, and so can still be sold after the crisis is over.

What is definitely NOT low-risk is taking out a mortgage to buy a house as an investment. Whoever thinks that is an idiot. Borrowing money to amplify your gains is ALWAYS high-risk. And that's what mortgaging a house to rent it out is. You are borrowing money to amplify your gains. It's basically a type of future: you promise to pay the bank in full at a future date (lets say, 30 years from now) and keep up interest payments in the meantime (or whatever other type of mortgage you want to have), and they will transfer ownership of that house to you then. It's different from a financial instrument in that you get free use of the house immediately rather than 30 years from now. Futures are *NOT* low-risk financial products. Even if they're futures in the most stable, boring and low-risk underlying product.

On March 31 2020 00:43 IgnE wrote:
such people are casualties of the current system. this is a great deleveraging event. the reason i have little sympathy for the “small time landlords” that will go bust is because they treat leveraged returns in boom times as their right. oh you wanted to become a real estate mogul and own a bunch of properties? you leveraged yourself multiple times and took out 4 or 5 mortgages? welcome to capitalism.

i feel some sympathy for the san diego resident trying to buy a home by renting it out. but is it that different from all the retirees who just lost 30% of their investment portfolio? if you play the game you might lose. the perverse thing is that if you dont play the game you usually lose by default.

people who leverage themselves take advantage of rules and regulations during the boom times. complaining about tenants who avail themselves of pandemic policies is just the obverse of people in boom times complaining they cant get a bank loan. dont worry though, on a long enough time horizon capital lifts all boats.

On April 01 2020 23:43 KwarK wrote:
The way I see it there are two aspects of rentals.

The first is somewhat exploitative. If I’m deemed more credit worthy than you then I can use my higher status to own your home and extract unearned wealth from you, in turn preventing you from accumulating your own wealth. This ties in to redlining, historical inequality, and how the wealth of the white middle class in America is largely built on access to credit that was denied to others. This is bullshit and should rightly be criticized.

The second is that rentals meet an actual need for a lot of people that ownership would not. The premium that a renter pays in excess of a mortgage comes with a host of benefits. A renter is not tied to any one area which gives much greater career mobility, has predictable monthly costs (no one off need to replace roofs), is not exposed to fluctuations in the real estate market or macroeconomic factors, can upsize or downsize their home easily based on changing circumstances, and has the ability to walk away without liability for the property. If you were to bundle all of these into an options/insurance package on a home purchase (oblige bank to buy house back from you for what you paid at any time etc., $0 deductible home maintenance insurance) the market value of these benefits would actually be pretty high.

Personally I’m a fan of renting, I’d have liked to rent a 2 bedroom until the baby was older, then get a 3 bedroom when baby two arrived, then maybe buy a 4 bedroom house in a few years if I got a settled career forever job. Owning a home limits my career growth potential (can only take opportunities in a small geographic area) and I had to buy a bigger house than needed because kids were on the way. Plus I had to drop $30k into it 6 months after buying it because it needed a roof and you can’t really budget for that stuff. There’s a lot of common wisdom on the lines of “renting is throwing money away every month, did you know a mortgage is actually less than you’d pay in rent” from Boomers who don’t know why someone wouldn’t get a $80k/year job at the factory like they did (inflation adjusted) in 1960 and then work there all their life.

Having no option to own a home when it fits your circumstances sucks but landlords meet a social need where people with a greater tolerance for volatility and more stability meet people with a need for flexibility and low volatility.

On April 01 2020 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't think anyone opposes the type of short-medium term housing you're talking about. It is the landlords we don't need. Property management is valid work though imo.

On April 01 2020 23:56 KwarK wrote:

Can you explain the distinction you’re making between the two? Is it corporate property management vs individual? What makes someone a rent seeking landlord as opposed to an individual engaging in a mutually beneficial transaction?

On April 01 2020 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't think anyone opposes the type of short-medium term housing you're talking about. It is the landlords we don't need. Property management is valid work though imo.

On April 02 2020 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


Property management as I meant it there is stuff like repairs/maintenance, landscaping, mediation between tenants, stuff like that. Management may do those jobs themselves or the work may be in coordinating and handling other administrative roles for larger developments.

Housing should be collectively owned by and large imo. I'm not personally opposed to private homes filling a role, particularly for that last phase you describe with a forever job and family. But the point of private home ownership would be more customization and more settled communities (as opposed to the more spartan/transient nature of housing like dorms for instance).

On April 02 2020 00:29 KwarK wrote:

Is the state sufficiently competent to meet the housing needs of the public and can it be trusted not to abuse that power (bureaucrats selling favourable home assignments, malcontents losing their housing)? How do we calculate who would get the greatest economic output from a specific location if not by who would rationally surrender the most capital to obtain it? And how do we treat the emergence of a black market?

On April 02 2020 02:30 LegalLord wrote:

It's not so much that they "must" be paid as much as it is that standard market rules are being suspended in this context. If evictions are still allowed, and landlords can take the standard actions in response to tenants refusing to pay - some money will be paid only later, some will never be paid, and that's just a cost of doing business. But when bad-faith tenants are essentially allowed to squat on the landlord's dime because the law says they can't be evicted for X months, that's much more exploitative on the tenant's part than a mere inability to pay.

Tenants who have genuine hardship should be protected; ones who abuse the system not so much.

On April 02 2020 03:07 LegalLord wrote:

If the market forces (not government-sanctioned squatting modifications to said forces) say they can't afford to keep their property? Sure, it's reasonable to just let them eat the cost of bad business. Ditto with banks.

Outside of that? If it's in the public interest to collectivize any property beyond primary residence, it wouldn't be unwarranted to compensate them fairly for lost property. "Fairly" doesn't necessarily have to mean "market value" in this context, though the tie-in to the concept of eminent domain is definitely intended.

On April 02 2020 03:48 LegalLord wrote:

As long as the option of eviction is still open - yes, very much so.

On April 02 2020 04:09 LegalLord wrote:

The standard legal process is appropriate. Landlord follows the standard process to get an eviction order, and let the court enforce that order the way they normally would.

You're clearly trying to build up towards a bigger point; might as well make that point instead of doing it piecemeal.

On April 02 2020 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm taking care not to assume anything about your argument and make sure I understand it correctly.

So when the police come to evict and the tenants refuse, what extent of force would you condone the police using to remove them. Lethal?

Would you have the police kill tenants that refuse to be left to live on the streets?

On April 02 2020 04:45 KwarK wrote:

All state force is ultimately backed by lethal force but it would be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for property rights to be enforced as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance to the state did ultimately result in death.

On April 02 2020 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:


If it's good for the state it's good for the tenant, no? It would also be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for human rights (Art. 25) as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance by the state did ultimately result in death.

On April 02 2020 05:46 KwarK wrote:

Those ideals create a burden on the state to achieve them, they do not give license for individuals to occupy the houses of other individuals. We’re also moving past the point which is that the thing where person A says “I think there should be a law against something relatively minor” and then person B, here played by you, says “so you think the police should kill anyone who does that minor thing! You’re a monster!” and then person A says they never said that but person B argues that because all laws are backed by state force and that violent resistance of state force results in death then really that is what they argued for is a stupid argument.

It’s a stupid argument and you shouldn’t be trying it. Yes, all laws are ultimately enforced at gun point. No, that doesn’t mean that people should be shot if they don’t leave any more than it means jaywalkers should be shot.

On April 02 2020 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:


Which is my point. Rent strikers have the leverage and unless the people doing the evicting/supporting it think people should get shot for not leaving, then they don't get evicted.

On April 02 2020 06:05 KwarK wrote:

No they don’t. It’s not the trespass that gets them shot, it’s the violent resistance to the police attempting to remove them when they’re trespassing. While people are generally not okay with police shooting people for trespass they become much warmer when police shoot people for resisting, regardless of the original cause.
Furthermore the police seem to like shooting people quite a lot and so the proposed leverage (people don’t want the homeless to be shot) doesn’t work as well as you’d hope. While the public may eventually demand reform as the police flood the streets with blood that doesn’t help the dead very much.
For them to have leverage they would need to be more willing to die for the cause than the police are to shoot them. Most people generally don’t want to die that badly.

On April 02 2020 03:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
Here's a letter I just got from my complex. I can afford the rent so it's whatever to me. But it comes across as they are going to force your hand to pay or wait for eviction. That there hasn't been any direction from the government yet tells me they are going to be trying to do something.

On April 02 2020 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well that's where a global pandemic and collapsing economy comes in. It shifts the perception of everything. The reason the Governors are the ones stopping evictions right now is that they know despite the "rules" saying the landlords should be able to evict, they would lose control of the situation rapidly if they allowed landlords and police the discretion to enforce evictions at their will.

Also why Republican governors are less likely to do it because they implicitly trust those parties and, like the virus, aren't going to realize the storm they're brewing till it kicks them in the metaphorical face.

The key for tenants is organizing so they can keep the leverage when the pandemic abates and if/when the economy recovers. Ensuring that after months of rent freezes and whatever they are collectively represented in the solution instead of getting shafted by pitting us against each other like usual.

EDIT: I'd add that at least notionally (ymmv) most all states are still allowing eviction procedures for things that aren't paying rent.

On April 02 2020 17:10 Velr wrote:
Reads like a pretty standard letter to me, I would even put it on the nicer side? I don't see how it is especially outrageous or anything of the sort.
If you want a general change due to extraordinary events/corona it has to come from the goverment, not from each individual landlord.

On April 02 2020 21:20 Sr18 wrote:


You might be overthinking this. Evictions are very disruptive to the lifes of those evicted, often disabling them for some time from being productive members of society. As a society, you therefore create rules to only allow evictions in special cases. Not paying rent normally qualifies. If not being able to pay rent is a temporary condition caused by a temporary global crisis, it only makes sense to temporarily stop evictions that are based on this condition. This is politically neutral and just good governence.

On April 02 2020 21:52 Sbrubbles wrote:


Yeah, besides the "still due" being in caps and maybe the "this is very important" at the end, I don't find it strange either. I would assume that this letter came about after a few resident contacted them asking if april would be different because of corona.

On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."

Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying.

On April 02 2020 23:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Scabs huh. Glad you think so highly of people.

On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective.

On April 03 2020 00:20 KwarK wrote:

People have signed a contract giving them a legal obligation to pay rent in exchange for receiving an obligation from the property owner to provide access to the property. It’s one thing to not sell your labour during a strike in order to avoid undermining the union, it’s quite another to unilaterally break the contract that provides you somewhere to live without cause.

People should fulfill their contractual commitments. People who cannot due to macroeconomic circumstances outside of their control have a pretty great excuse and have my support. They’re not choosing to steal housing from the people who own the houses, they’re literally unable to pay, their hands are tied. But if you can pay and choose not to then you’re essentially no different from the dipshit looting designer shoes during a bread riot.

On April 03 2020 04:15 Velr wrote:
If you would replace "capitalism" with "the world we life in" your post would make just as much sense. But it would make it clearer as to how big the "change" your proposing is.

On April 03 2020 00:20 KwarK wrote:

People have signed a contract giving them a legal obligation to pay rent in exchange for receiving an obligation from the property owner to provide access to the property. It’s one thing to not sell your labour during a strike in order to avoid undermining the union, it’s quite another to unilaterally break the contract that provides you somewhere to live without cause.

People should fulfill their contractual commitments. People who cannot due to macroeconomic circumstances outside of their control have a pretty great excuse and have my support. They’re not choosing to steal housing from the people who own the houses, they’re literally unable to pay, their hands are tied. But if you can pay and choose not to then you’re essentially no different from the dipshit looting designer shoes during a bread riot.

On April 03 2020 23:00 Trainrunnef wrote:



Now that you're bringing up the lease contract i wonder what the force majeur clause has to say about a pandemic. (rushes off to read lease)

On April 03 2020 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:


A fair disagreement. I'd argue capitalism serves as duress invalidating them, though I doubt a court would (but evicted people might) agree.

Just not paying I might agree resembles the luxury looter, but I'm advocating they use their resources to aid in the organizing of the crude equivalent of a tenants union to protect themselves and those less fortunate from being exploited by a landlord and system that will in all likelihood protect and aid the landlord.

If nothing else I'd feel like a sucker paying rent when others aren't AND the landlord is going to be bailed out anyway. Paying in this example is like buying the luxury shoes during the riot and then donating them back to the store to make up for the stolen ones that are covered by their insurance anyway.

On April 04 2020 01:02 IgnE wrote:


Ok well, I guess you can not pay if you want to find a new place to live when this is all over.

On April 04 2020 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote:


Housing recognized as a human right would be a sizable victory indeed.

On April 04 2020 01:20 Acrofales wrote:


It is. Of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is non-binding, so even if you *recognize* it as a human right doesn't mean you have to do anything about it...

On April 07 2020 11:25 Dark_Chill wrote:
If people can't afford their current rent, they definitely won't be able to afford their next month's rent. If eviction isn't legally enforceable, isn't it wiser to collectively not pay rent, and have money to actually buy food and stuff? Paying rent is useless if you're gonna die.

On April 08 2020 20:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Suprised no-one called this out as an obviously made up internet story. Who is going to listen to some random person on their doorstep who is too young to vote, to not pay their rent?

Either that or GH is preying on the mentally and financially vulnerable.

User was warned for this post

On April 07 2020 12:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

And what are those potential cons? Violence against those that can?

On April 09 2020 01:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Then why gamble?

On April 09 2020 01:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Snappy one liner you got there.

On April 09 2020 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Y'all acting like you've got no idea what a revolutionary social organizer does and are completely unfamiliar with the concept. Not even disagreeing with his revolution, instead insisting that the entire idea is alien to you.

Imagine someone encouraging workers to join a union and engage in collective bargaining. This is that, but instead of exchanging their labour for money they're exchanging their money for somewhere to live.

On April 09 2020 01:55 Vivax wrote:
Best of luck in your endeavour. Bunch of anarchs, alternatives punks etc. occupied a building in Vienna a few years back and made their own pizza in there. 19 occupants and a dozen another visitors. They sent 1700 cops to evict them.

On April 09 2020 02:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

When you respond to my posts, I'd appreciate it if you include and respond to the entire thing, instead of picking out the parts that are easiest for you to answer.

Everything is a choice. And liberation is no different. Where we differ and will continue to differ is the end game. You seem to want everything to burn today without a thought about tomorrow. You get these renters their "union" and then the next day (because it wasn't codified in law and probably won't be), they get evicted. Now these people, who put their trust in you, are screwed not only by the status quo, but also by the "liberator'.

The landlords and prop management companies are coming out ahead of this, I will agree. But that still doesn't make it the best solution. You can't opt out of a legally binding contract because "pandemic." Most cases will either be a negative mark on rental history, a small claims court brought by the landlord/prop management company, and a heavy hit on their credit rating. This all accumulates into more problems than they had if they hadn't "liberated" themselves from paying rent.

And you should take into account, that not every state has a law saying rents are frozen for the foreseeable future. Only evictions and mortgage payments. So you can choose to not pay rent. You're also choosing to be evicted when the company/person isn't at risk or lawsuits.

The point of the matter that I'm trying to make, is that you are offering these suggestions and rallying these people, but if your little "unionizing of the proles" don't work, and they lose their place to live, where are you? Is your place open to the people?

On April 09 2020 02:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

But this is living. Not labor. You're exchanging money for a roof over your head. Not a place to work. You can point to the similarities all you want, but the difference is, it's easier to find a different job than it is to find a different place to live. If I am misunderstanding this entire thing, fine. But what I'm not understanding is how this is going to change anything in the long term. You're fucking with families over a month or two of rent. If you're not getting "landlords, property management companies, and leasers cannot evict residents due to unforeseen pandemics or other calamities (word it however)" into the legal framework of contracts STATE/NATION wide, then you're just setting these people to be out on the streets come July/August.

Dismiss my posts however you want. Stay healthy.

On April 09 2020 02:21 Dark_Chill wrote:
Still doesn't answer the question of what people are supposed to do. I'm in Canada, so at the very least there is a plan in place to make sure people can continue to pay rent and buy groceries.
For people in places where they aren't getting anything, and can't work, what do they do? This feels like a huge wake-up call, where too many people are living paycheck to paycheck. You're telling these people to die. Pay your rent and forego food. If you can't afford both, find a way to do it (which is extremely difficult right now, since finding work might be impossible, and trying to gain new marketable skills is almost impossible with no money or resources).

I will say that there's no good solution here. Organizing people to not pay rent can fuck over the landlord, cause extreme trouble down the road for the renters, and even have police intervention. Right now, though, people need to live. I'd absolutely suggest organizing to not pay rent, especially because a spike in homeless people on the street would make it harder to deal with the pandemic.

On April 09 2020 03:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

We don't do the last paragraph because we don't want 281 pages in website feedback. But since you suggested it:

GH, you're idea is stupid and you are too.

On April 09 2020 03:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
GH, you're idea is stupid and you are too.

On April 09 2020 03:10 KwarK wrote:

Artfully put.

If you wanted to get keen you could elaborate upon why it's stupid (Americans think they control their economic circumstances and therefore conclude that anyone struggling is lacking a key virtue while they themselves, not currently struggling (lack of retirement savings and maxed out credit cards excepted), must be extremely virtuous). You could talk about all the times in the past when the state has crushed socialist movements. You could talk about the lack of political representation for any kind of collectivist movement in the US. All of these would be fine approaches to take.

Just as long as we're all past "but GH, have you considered that the owners might retaliate against the strikers?"

On April 09 2020 02:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

But this is living. Not labor. You're exchanging money for a roof over your head. Not a place to work. You can point to the similarities all you want, but the difference is, it's easier to find a different job than it is to find a different place to live. If I am misunderstanding this entire thing, fine. But what I'm not understanding is how this is going to change anything in the long term. You're fucking with families over a month or two of rent. If you're not getting "landlords, property management companies, and leasers cannot evict residents due to unforeseen pandemics or other calamities (word it however)" into the legal framework of contracts STATE/NATION wide, then you're just setting these people to be out on the streets come July/August.

Dismiss my posts however you want. Stay healthy.


And my issue is that you want to do it now, when the people you need out there, can't afford to take that calculated liberation risk. Why not wait until they have money in their pockets and some kind of security they can fall back on? Instead, you're picking at hollowed humans who hardly have enough as it is, to further your fantasy of being the great liberator.

And, for the last damn time, I agree that the people hoarding "power" over others are getting by. And I agree that things need to change in regards to that. But I don't see how your method of doing it at their almost absolute worst time, is the best option here. I paid my rent. Next month, we'll see. Maybe I can, maybe I won't. But I have peace of mind knowing I have a roof for another month at the very least.

On April 09 2020 12:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Recently. Historically, it is easier to find another job. Might not be as good as the last, but you can find one.

On April 09 2020 12:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Recently. Historically, it is easier to find another job. Might not be as good as the last, but you can find one.

According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, a quarter of the nation’s 44 million renter households paid more than half their income in rent in 2018. Separate research from the Federal Reserve showed four in 10 Americans would have difficulty covering a sudden $400 expense, suggesting that tens of millions of tenants are just a week of missed work away from falling behind on their housing bills.

For the past four years, rent increases have helped stir a nationwide tenant uprising that led to the biggest expansion of tenants’ rights in decades. Rent control laws were enacted in New York, Oregon and California, and tenants organized mass actions, like a group of mothers in Oakland who occupied an empty house for two months to protest house flipping.

Now, after years of coordination, organizers see the coronavirus pandemic as a galvanizing force. Last week, the Right to the City Alliance, a national coalition of tenant and racial-justice organizations, held a digital #CancelRent rally to call for rents to be eliminated as long as people can’t work. Homes Guarantee, a national tenants’ campaign, has been holding weekly strategy calls. On Wednesday, a caravan outside US Bank Plaza in Minneapolis honked horns and waved signs to demand rent and mortgage relief.

“This is a moment of clarity about a broken system in which 11 million people were already paying over 50 percent of their income on rent,” said Tara Raghuveer, a tenant organizer in Kansas City and director of Homes Guarantee.

Ms. Thomas, the renter refusing to pay in Oakland, is a member of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, an activist group associated with the house-occupying mothers. For weeks she has been trying to organize her building in a rent strike, and has gotten tenants in three other units to join her.

One is her upstairs neighbor Andrew Yen, a data scientist at an agriculture company who still has a job and isn’t worried about making his $2,500 monthly rent. He and Ms. Thomas had been discussing some sort of coordinated action, but after weeks of job losses, and walking around his neighborhood seeing “rent strike” posted on telephone poles or spray-painted on utility boxes, he decided the time was now, so he is striking in solidarity.

“I feel like rent striking is the least somebody like me can do,” he said. “I’m the tenant the landlord wants to keep, so the worst-case scenario is eviction, but I probably have a lot more wiggle room than that.”

Landlords in at least four states have violated the eviction ban passed by Congress last month, a review of records shows, moving to throw more than a hundred people out of their homes.

In an effort to help renters amid the coronavirus pandemic and skyrocketing unemployment, the March 27 CARES Act banned eviction filings for all federally backed rental units nationwide, more than a quarter of the total.

But ProPublica found building owners who are simply not following the law, with no apparent consequence, filing to evict tenants from properties in Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas and Florida. The scores of cases ProPublica found represent only a small slice of the true total because there’s no nationwide — or, in many cases, even statewide — database of eviction filings.

Four landlords said they were reversing eviction filings after being contacted by ProPublica and informed the filings were illegal. National real estate trade groups, however, are already lobbying to limit the scope of the ban.

On April 17 2020 03:20 LegalLord wrote:
So, something kind of interesting. I asked some landlord friends how they're doing with April's rent so far. Anecdotally, that 30 percent non-payment seems to be right about in line with their own personal experiences, and that seems to be bad for business but for the moment quite survivable. For ones with a larger pool of properties, tenants seem to largely be split into three groups by payment:

1. Around 10 percent pay as normal with no questions asked.
2. Around 60 percent are looking not to pay, but will pay if prodded in the same way that ZeroCool was.
3. Around 30 percent are in the can't pay / won't pay crowd. Some were about to be evicted before this all started, but just got a freebie for several months.

Some are worse off, some are better off. Most are worried that May will be worse.

Hardly a "plight of the landlords" story at the moment, but with those numbers business is marginal at best. I'm sure some will fail.

On May 23 2020 14:38 LegalLord wrote:
Highly dependent on state, but generally speaking:
1. Seems like that 70% number is relatively steady for May as well for payment. Stimulus probably helped, along with the fact that paying for housing is a high priority for a lot of folks.
2. Evictions seem to be... slowly turning back on. It's very logistically difficult to evict someone when the courts are under lockdown, even when it can be legally done. The simple overarching threat of evictions existing does have the effect of pushing people to pay if they otherwise would try not to.

I also am a little unsure what to think about all the talk of "don't worry about your next few mortgage payments - it'll just get rolled up on the end of the loan!" For one, the creditor of the loan loses more than half of the value of those payments by just deferring it like that, so it's hardly something they're going to do willingly. And the legal mechanism seems extremely unclear there. Is it a legally mandated subsidy for mortgage holders? Something that is just floated as if it's that easy, but that has to be done through a mortgage modification or refinance agreement? Dependent on your situation? I get highly conflicting answers wherever I look on this one.

On May 23 2020 19:34 Kokujin wrote:
let you all in on a secret: majority of the newly unemployed people are making more money from handouts then when they were employed

On May 23 2020 23:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It's blatantly misinformation.

In particular, maximum
unemployment benefits would exceed:
 130% of average wages in 6 states,
 120% of average wages in 21 states, and
 110% of average wages in 34 states

On May 24 2020 00:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
My math isn't the greatest. Is that 61 states? Are they including states in multiple categories? Also, the CARES act isn't forever. It will end and the people who were receiving those benefits will need a job. With a lot of the country slowly reopening and still with a lot of places at 25% max capacity, those people receiving UI won't get the same money they are receiving now.

On May 24 2020 00:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I guess to tie this back into the housing topic of the thread, there will be some tense moments as people are underemployed and just not able to make payments. As with some interviews and reports, people are choosing between food and shelter and the landlords/prop management companies are going to be looking to evict them and get new tenants in. The problem is, a lot of people still won't be able to fill those vacancies. So what are both parties to do? The government is going to need to figure something out. Not optimistic that it ends in the favor of those most impacted by this entire thing.

On May 24 2020 02:21 KwarK wrote:
My employer negotiated a payment deferral. We’re paying our share of utilities and communal costs because the landlord has to pay those but we’re not paying rent for a year (after which we’ll pay the back rent, it’s deferred, not forgiven).

On May 24 2020 03:06 LegalLord wrote:
That’s a hell of a deal. The landlord must be truly desperate to agree to something like that.

The impending and/or current commercial real estate crisis would help fuel said desperation, of course.

On May 24 2020 05:52 Chocolate wrote:
Interestingly in my area (SF Bay peninsula) nonpayment doesn't appear to be too much of a problem, but vacancies are. Many people are able to work from home due to software dominating the local economy, but since rents are so high here, people are moving out once their leases expire to save money. Since a lot of people expect to be primarily working from home for the rest of the year, this will probably have a huge effect on the rental market, and squeeze out overleveraged property investors who can't keep up with the lowered/zero cash flow.

This is going to be especially interesting to see in SF proper because of the rent control policies. Eventually I'm sure some of the lower income rent control people will get evicted, which is actually good for landlords because they can rent out the unit for more money, but a lot of the higher end of demand will also vanish. So market rate rents go down, vacancies go up, but landlord profits may not get effected as much since they can dump their tenants which are paying significantly below market rate.

I'm torn on what to make of this. I'm thinking of moving out myself when my lease expires in September, but I want to avoid a situation where all the businesses start mandating going back to the office at once, as rents will probably get squeezed as everybody rushes back. Renting in SF somewhere that is rent controlled will probably be the safest move because it lets me lock in a (relatively) low monthly payment indefinitely, which is basically something I can hold on to until I need a larger place or leave the area. Buying a condo or multi-unit rental property (like a duplex) during the dip is potentially the most lucrative but also the most risky and relies on lucky timing and a decent recovery.

On May 24 2020 06:17 Sbrubbles wrote:


How are these landlords able to rent the units for more money when the lower income people get evicted? Loopholes in the rent control legislation, off-the-book payments/bribes or something else? Or are rent controlled prices proportional to income?

On May 23 2020 21:12 Acrofales wrote:

[citation needed]

(not that I know anything about the US situation, but that's a strong statement and needs some more than a throw away one-liner post to support it)

On May 25 2020 13:55 LegalLord wrote:

Definitely in the US, and in too many other countries around the world, mortgages are too big to fail. They've been traded around and leveraged so many times over within the financial system that if any appreciable number of people start defaulting on them, the whole system will melt down.

What I see in the articles you saw is some bad investment decisions mixed with poor timing. In a normal world - shit happens, but the landlords should eat a loss on a bad investment. But they'd take down so many other bad investments in failing to pay that loan that they'll probably get some free money to stay afloat with the hope that the bad economic times pass quickly.

On May 25 2020 15:22 IgnE wrote:
So we need a foreclosure sale on these schmucks only open to people who don't already own a house?

On December 13 2020 02:13 Sermokala wrote:
This is a bizarre take LL even for you. If the difference is between squatters vs straight homelessness I think the whole economy would prefer squatters especially in an economy that sees rent demand on a cliff. Keeping people in houses and ready to go back to work if best for everyone and landowners would be worst served by having people to rent to some day rather then a mad max hellscape.

Its like you don't see the tenants as people and the landowners are the only people that matter. Rent forgiveness is around a ton in corporate bankruptcies in order to keep the business that's renting the space afloat until the economy recovers. Shoving people onto the street isn't something that will help the economy.

On December 13 2020 04:19 LegalLord wrote:

I have little sympathy for people who don't pay not because they can't, but because they are looking to abuse a government program to save themselves a few thousand bucks at the expense of other private individuals. If they truly could not afford to pay, there's plenty of government housing assistance programs they could try to work with, or they could negotiate with landlords who can often be generous enough to work with good-faith tenants with an income interruption.

"Good faith actor" is not a term I would ascribe to squatters, and so yes, I don't really have much sympathy for them relative to the property owners they're screwing over. In a sane time they would be evicted and/or straight kicked out; evidently the government decided that under coronavirus conditions it's more expedient to toss out executive orders screwing over good-faith landowners rather than spend part of the stimulus money helping the genuinely downtrodden while leaving the good-faith actors whole.

You miss the point that there is no such thing as a "rent forgiveness program." Merely the reality that it's nigh-impossible to collect owed rent from poor people, so you write off bad debt because collections aren't worth the hassle.

On December 13 2020 09:14 LegalLord wrote:
It's laughable to romanticize squatters as some sort of oppressed underclass.

Pay rent, or move out. Private homeowners aren't in the business of free housing. If you can't afford it - the homeless shelters and subsidized government housing are always at your service.

If the rental properties are now worthless post-pandemic, it's fair game for the landlords to lose money. After the rent-free squatters get kicked out of course.

On December 13 2020 14:57 LegalLord wrote:

Some people are victims; more are not and just looking for free money. There's a big difference between "down on their luck due to unfortunate external circumstances, need a little assistance to avoid being left on the streets" and "see government aid, act in bad faith in hopes that the government will rain some money in their direction even though they are as able to pay the bills as they were pre-pandemic were they to prioritize that."

Most of the people in here so far are defending the latter as if they were the former. I suspect fewer people will defend the latter on the merits of the latter approach in and of itself.


So who do you think should be paying for this additional need for housing? Current status quo seems to be “all debts are still owed, landlords might just have trouble collecting and/or evicting when the debt is unpaid.” Is that the right approach?

On December 13 2020 15:30 LegalLord wrote:

Well, I appreciate a good bit of sarcasm as much as the next person, but as a matter of policy that's exactly what's going to happen with the status quo as soon as the current remaining restrictions on evictions & foreclosures expire. As a tenant, you get kicked out and you owe a shitload of back rent, whether you're abusing the system or genuinely out of a job. As a landlord, you have a lot of bad debt to clean up.

There are certainly public safety merits to evictions moratoriums to prevent homelessness, in the same way as there's good reason landlords aren't allowed to simply shut off the utilities, but "private parties foot the bill" isn't real policy as much as a short-term stopgap. Eventually, that ends badly for all involved, including tenants. If the status quo is the only plan you have, well it certainly isn't a good one.

On December 13 2020 08:26 Sermokala wrote:
The pandemic made most of their property worthless beacuse the value it holds in the pandemic is nothing. The only way people can pay rent is if they have an economy to function with. Andrew Jackson ignored the constitution centuries ago and no one gave a shit.

Business might be mediocre for a year? The economy would collapse and their property wouldn't be worth paying the taxes on beacuse no one would live there.

I dont think you really grasp what we've been dealing with in 2020. There is this virus called covid 19 that's shut down or mostly slowed down swaths of the economy. That you think business as usual should occur when a once in a hundred year plague is out and out silly. There isnt just a year of mediocre business it's s year of catastrophic business that you want to make worse beacuse you seem to get off on the suffering of others.

What you've said is that you accept that class warfare is good but the 99% are the real villains.

If you cannot maintain your workforce because your operations have been affected by coronavirus (COVID-19), you can furlough employees and apply for a grant to cover a portion of their usual monthly wage costs where you record them as being on furlough.

The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme has been extended until 31 March 2021. You can claim 80% of an employee’s usual salary for hours not worked, up to a maximum of £2,500 per month.
[...]
You will need to pay for employer National Insurance contributions and pension costs. Find out more information on employer contributions to the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

On December 14 2020 01:29 LegalLord wrote:

What makes you think that the end of a lease will make squatters leave? If you're already living at the property owner's expense and the government is still shielding you from the consequences, might as well keep doing that.

On December 14 2020 10:05 LegalLord wrote:

There’s usually this legal means called “eviction” which is currently suspended. Nonpayment before lease end, nonpayment after lease end, it’s all the same really. Many people have been not paying their rent for nine months now, not because they can’t pay but because they can’t be kicked out for failing to do so.

The government should do more, on that we agree.

On December 15 2020 09:50 LegalLord wrote:

As an even simpler take than that, housing is just another place to store accumulated wealth. Stocks are a common place to keep such wealth, but real estate is another. And providing housing to others at a market price is certainly a respectable enough line of business - there are many reasons people would rather rent than buy, and providing rentals is a service that people definitely need. Sure, you expect to make a profit and to accumulate value from such an investment, but it's not like having a house for rent somehow makes it impossible for someone else to get their own house. It really does come off as hypocritical to have large holdings in stocks in order to make money off such investments, while at the same time decrying someone for having the same kind of investment in providing people with housing for profit.

You'll of course have your GH types that think that all forms of wealth accumulation are theft, and there might be some truth to that, but until we transition to the post-revolutionary communist utopia we live in a world where using money to make more money is just the way things work, for better and worse.

On December 29 2020 00:28 LegalLord wrote:

Whenever the revolution comes, you can feel free to start seizing wealth-generating private property to your heart’s content. Doing all that is straight out of Marx’s writings, after all. Though if I may, I recommend seizing corporate assets (and incidentally stocks) before ever touching commercial real estate, before someone can flee abroad with those. It’s a bit more relevant to our modern world, after all.


Hopefully rent assistance will actually help.

Do whatever works for you for tenants. I’d personally make sure that only people with good credit scores and proof of gainful employment are even considered as tenants - they have an incentive beyond just eviction to pay, after all. In normal times you can get away with renting to some of the spottier prospects because usually people will pay to have a roof over their heads, but sadly we live in a time where freeloading at the landlord’s expense is encouraged and treated as a good thing. You could also raise the rent price and require a very large (2x monthly rent) security deposit to take a chance on the non-spotless credit scores. Ultimately it’s a matter of price more than anything else (that’s your only meaningful “selling point” for a property of any given type, size, and location), so you either find a risk profile and price at which you can feel comfortable renting, or you leave it vacant. And while vacancies are rough, the only thing worse is a squatter you can’t get rid of.

You probably want to let people tour the property. Virtual is insufficient and even in these times people do look at housing. Letting them in alone is fine; you have their ID if they choose to start trashing the place, after all.

On August 02 2021 07:38 Zambrah wrote:


I was kind of hoping the story ended with getting your roof redone, 'cause insurance companies will usually give you a lower rate for a new roof.

Yeah though, a fuck up cascade of house maintenance sucks, doubly so when termites are involved. On the bright side, cleaning up the rough opening to fit sane people windows (trapezoidal windows??? I've seen some weird stuff with houses but I have no seen that) is going to make future window replacement significantly easier.

20K though, lordy, did you get all this done during the huge wood price inflation?