Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Biden Signs Executive Order to Extend Eviction Moratorium. Is More Rent Relief Next?

DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 59,711
First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
Founders Club
edited May 2022 in Tug Tavern
This is almost a Tug-worthy post, and if it turns into a flame war I will move it over.

But Dori Monson was reading emails from landlords who had contacted Jay Inslee. One single mom had spent much of her savings for a down payment on a small home, to use as a rental. The people living there both have jobs but refuse to pay rent and refuse to move out, even though their lease is up at the end of January. She hasn't received rent in 9 months.

What will be the widespread impact nationwide of people taking advantage of this? What are landlords supposed to do? They still have to pay property taxes but with no revenue coming in.

Many people make most of their wealth from real estate. What will this do to that marketplace? What will this do to "regular people" trying to accumulate wealth?


https://forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/biden-plan-eviction-moratorium-rent-relief/

Comments

  • 1to392831weretaken1to392831weretaken Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 7,280
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes First Comment 5 Awesomes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    "Regular people" also live in those houses but have been laid off or whatever due to COVID. The reverse premise--that landlords would have no restrictions and could evict whomever they want if their tenants lost their jobs due to no fault of their own--would be similarly disastrous.

    Bear with me here:

    It's hard to argue with the results of the 2009 stimulus. The U.S. economy outpaced that of every single country that took the austerity path, thanks to many trillions of dollars (officially slightly less than two-trillion, but SO much more was dumped in depending on accounting practices) pretty much thrown out there in almost the shittiest way possible.

    My main criticism of that bailout was that it was so top-down as to be almost cruel. The banks, automakers (even foreign, if you paid enough attention), random rich socialites, Wall Street, etc. were tossed a nearly no-strings $5 trillion (depending on how you account), and the homeowners in foreclosure and those kneecapped by the economic downturn got nothing and were fucked. Few jobs were created in the immediate term with that massive infusion of cash (like infrastructure projects would have done), yet the economy rebounded in a major way, eventually even job creation. I hated bailing out bankers (as opposed to throwing them in jail) at the time, yet I'm having a hard time arguing that it didn't work. It wasn't fair, buttfuck if it didn't work (at least in the short to medium term).

    To me, the "stimulus checks" that are being bandied about are a mistake in the exact opposite direction. If Biden/Congress get their way, I'll be getting a $5600 free check to add to the $1600 free check that I've already gotten thanks to COVID. Thing is, I didn't lose my job, lose hours, lose pay, lose spending potential, so I absolutely don't need it. Who DOES need it are the very landlords and tenants that you mention, along with everyone else seriously impacted by loss of available work or weird COVID market forces. I still don't understand why COVID relief isn't taking the form of way more robust unemployment benefits vs. just giving money away to those who need it and also those who don't.

    If I were king, I'd figure out a way to dump the trillions of dollars that we're paying into COVID economic relief into A.) getting kids back into school, which is a huge component of why people are unable to work, and B.) making people who lost their employment whole so they can continue to pay their bills, thus not screwing over landlords and other creditors/businesses.

    I definitely wouldn't be giving several thousand dollars to six-figure earners.

    Anyway, it's weird to me that a landlord getting screwed by a tenant being unable to pay is worse to you than, say, a bartender whose employer was forced to close down no longer being able to pay that rent and ending up with her whole family on the street and/or living off the dole. It sucks either way. Why is only the landlord the sympathetic party here?
  • BleachedAnusDawgBleachedAnusDawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 10,397
    First Comment First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Founders Club
    Nobody is saying the landlord is the only sympathetic party. Government has enabled renters to skip on paying rent, regardless of whether or not they have lost income, and has placed that economic burden entirely upon landlords rather than spreading it that cost/risk across society. Are grocery stores being required to give away free food? Why are landlords the only ones taking it in the shorts?

    If it's a social need to keep people housed who have lost income due to the pandemic then:
    1. There should be a requirement that any renter not paying be able to prove they have lost their income. If you can pay rent and you refuse you should be evicted.
    2. Government should be putting rental assistance money directly in to the landlord's pockets.

    Putting landlords out of business is going to be a huge harm to the housing market. What do you think happens to the renter when the property is foreclosed? I personally know dozens of small landlords who are exiting the market due to the current restrictions in place and the lack of assistance available to them. These are mostly single-family rental homes. Guess who is buying those homes? Not investors...people are buying them to owner-occupy and those renters are going to have to move out. The rental supply is going to tighten and rents are going to increase as a result of all of this if assistance dollars don't start getting handed out.

    Also, renters have basically zero risk right now. They can refuse to pay, their tenancy cannot be ended except in extreme, criminal activity situations, and when this is all over the debt owed is never going to get paid back because it will be like trying to squeeze blood from a rock.
  • doogiedoogie Member Posts: 15,072
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes First Comment 5 Up Votes
    Yes. Let’s set up a “Can he Really afford the Rent”? Commission and adjudicate all 20,000,000 cases.
  • BleachedAnusDawgBleachedAnusDawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 10,397
    First Comment First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Founders Club
    doogie said:

    Yes. Let’s set up a “Can he Really afford the Rent”? Commission and adjudicate all 20,000,000 cases.

    All they need to do is require proof of unemployment. Pretty easy.
  • 1to392831weretaken1to392831weretaken Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 7,280
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes First Comment 5 Awesomes
    Swaye's Wigwam

    doogie said:

    Yes. Let’s set up a “Can he Really afford the Rent”? Commission and adjudicate all 20,000,000 cases.

    All they need to do is require proof of unemployment. Pretty easy.
    They already have that system. It's called unemployment insurance. My whole point is that why isn't the stimulus money not going to WAY more robust unemployment protection? Make the unemployed whole, and you could do away with eviction/foreclosure moratoriums.

    Maybe it came across like I'm not sympathetic to landlords, but I totally am. It's just that they're only one of the many parties being screwed by a senseless distribution of stimulus money. It's pretty simple: People should pay their bills. Those who are unable to through no fault of their own should be bolstered until things get back to normal, and no other weird rules would need to happen. If you can't pay your rent, it's because you fucked around with your unemployment check, no different than if you couldn't pay rent due to fucking around with your normal paycheck.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 22,706
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes Photogenic

    doogie said:

    Yes. Let’s set up a “Can he Really afford the Rent”? Commission and adjudicate all 20,000,000 cases.

    All they need to do is require proof of unemployment. Pretty easy.
    They already have that system. It's called unemployment insurance. My whole point is that why isn't the stimulus money not going to WAY more robust unemployment protection? Make the unemployed whole, and you could do away with eviction/foreclosure moratoriums.

    Maybe it came across like I'm not sympathetic to landlords, but I totally am. It's just that they're only one of the many parties being screwed by a senseless distribution of stimulus money. It's pretty simple: People should pay their bills. Those who are unable to through no fault of their own should be bolstered until things get back to normal, and no other weird rules would need to happen. If you can't pay your rent, it's because you fucked around with your unemployment check, no different than if you couldn't pay rent due to fucking around with your normal paycheck.
    This is a reasonable take. Send the money to the verified (as much as practicable) unemployed. Then cancel the moratorium on evictions and let landlords collect rent or boot the fuck out.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 22,706
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes Photogenic

    "Regular people" also live in those houses but have been laid off or whatever due to COVID. The reverse premise--that landlords would have no restrictions and could evict whomever they want if their tenants lost their jobs due to no fault of their own--would be similarly disastrous.

    Bear with me here:

    It's hard to argue with the results of the 2009 stimulus. The U.S. economy outpaced that of every single country that took the austerity path, thanks to many trillions of dollars (officially slightly less than two-trillion, but SO much more was dumped in depending on accounting practices) pretty much thrown out there in almost the shittiest way possible.

    My main criticism of that bailout was that it was so top-down as to be almost cruel. The banks, automakers (even foreign, if you paid enough attention), random rich socialites, Wall Street, etc. were tossed a nearly no-strings $5 trillion (depending on how you account), and the homeowners in foreclosure and those kneecapped by the economic downturn got nothing and were fucked. Few jobs were created in the immediate term with that massive infusion of cash (like infrastructure projects would have done), yet the economy rebounded in a major way, eventually even job creation. I hated bailing out bankers (as opposed to throwing them in jail) at the time, yet I'm having a hard time arguing that it didn't work. It wasn't fair, buttfuck if it didn't work (at least in the short to medium term).

    To me, the "stimulus checks" that are being bandied about are a mistake in the exact opposite direction. If Biden/Congress get their way, I'll be getting a $5600 free check to add to the $1600 free check that I've already gotten thanks to COVID. Thing is, I didn't lose my job, lose hours, lose pay, lose spending potential, so I absolutely don't need it. Who DOES need it are the very landlords and tenants that you mention, along with everyone else seriously impacted by loss of available work or weird COVID market forces. I still don't understand why COVID relief isn't taking the form of way more robust unemployment benefits vs. just giving money away to those who need it and also those who don't.

    If I were king, I'd figure out a way to dump the trillions of dollars that we're paying into COVID economic relief into A.) getting kids back into school, which is a huge component of why people are unable to work, and B.) making people who lost their employment whole so they can continue to pay their bills, thus not screwing over landlords and other creditors/businesses.

    I definitely wouldn't be giving several thousand dollars to six-figure earners.

    Anyway, it's weird to me that a landlord getting screwed by a tenant being unable to pay is worse to you than, say, a bartender whose employer was forced to close down no longer being able to pay that rent and ending up with her whole family on the street and/or living off the dole. It sucks either way. Why is only the landlord the sympathetic party here?

    I'm wondering why this post got the 4 fuck-off special. There are various takes on how to deal with this mess; what's so offensive about this one?
Sign In or Register to comment.