Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is this a surprise, given that in so many cities incomes have not kept up with rents?
You also have the end of "white flight" and urban areas once again becoming attractive for upper income persons/families to live.
New York City, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc... American cities were places people were fleeing from post WWII and certainly by the 1970's for a host of reasons. You saw the same thing really elsewhere around the world in places like London, Paris, etc...
Fast forward to now and places have been scrubbed up, made safer and more importantly a change in attitudes have seen people flocking to live in urban cities once again. This in turn is driving up rents and property values causing all sorts of pain on those unable to pay.
Here in NYC the only reason rents were low in many parts of Manhattan and beyond was quite frankly because no one wanted to live in places like Harlem, Lower Eastside, East Village, etc.. That is no longer true and the resulting gentrification is pushing low to moderate income persons out. Who would have thought Brooklyn, NY would become the most unaffordable place in the USA?
From what one has read of the book and interviews with author these evictions had nothing to do with "homes persons couldn't afford" per se; but the lack of housing options for persons relative to their income.
Many of those interviewed did have jobs and or received public support towards their rent. However as in the case of one man his rent ate up almost three-quarters of his monthly take home pay. These are *NOT* persons living in posh areas or even lower middle class, but a low budget trailer park home in Milwaukee.
Federal and many local governments have or are walking away from the great housing schemes that grew out of the 1960's and 1970's. Instead allowing the private market to largely take over. That is all well and good but as we know from hundreds of years of nasty living conditions (tenements, slums, etc....) landlords are often driven by profit and there is great money to be made off the desperate for housing.
As the book makes clear those lower down in the housing pecking order put up with intolerable conditions out of fear complaints will prompt a LL to throw them out. Unless someone lives in an area such as NYC that has strong rent control laws (and in such an apartment) tenants have little to no protection.
If a person's housing eats up almost 75% of their income, it is a home they cannot afford. It's not about about being mean. It's simple math. The style or caliber of the area make no difference.
As a landlord (and I really hate that term, we'll say property manager), there are a lot of things at play. We obviously want the best, most qualified tenant we can get for a particular property. Our criteria do not change from address to address, but our willingness to overlook certain things may come into play in some areas. Most companies in my area require documented income of 300% of rent. When you're in the $100/mo rent range, that doesn't help people who are the subject of the article and book. It prices them out. But, this is with good reason. We don't want people to overextend themselves financially. I'll use one of my apartments as an example.
To qualify for a $500/month apartment, we require a minimum income (combined) of $1500 (3 x rent). Someone making $1500 per month spends the $500 for rent right off the top, so we're at $1000 for the month. Subtract power, cable, water and, groceries and you find yourself with $500 remaining. Got a car payment? Knock off another $200/month at miniumum. You've got $300 per month left. You've got to insure the car and fuel it. There's another $200/month. All of a sudden you've got $100 per month left for your other expenses. We haven't addressed cell phones, car repairs (let's face it; lower-income people don't really buy the most reliable cars, whether you want to believe it or not), child support, enetertainment, etc.
Just meeting the minimum income requirement to rent from me, you've got a tight financial situation. You really need a roommate.
To address the claim of intolerable conditions and an angry landlord, the author might do well to research "retaliatory evictions". I won't pretend to know the laws of any jurisdiction other than my own, and I'm no expert, but there is/are minimum housing standards in most areas. Silence, even out of perceived fear, is acceptance. I don't advocate, by any measure, becoming a "problem tenant", the one who complains about everything, but if it ain't right, demand it be fixed. Your own sloppy living is not something a landlord or property manager can, or will fix, should it apply. Broken heat or AC; demand it be repaired. Screwed up plumbing? Make the call even if you have to eat the repair bill because of grease or feminine hygiene products. A lot of this stuff is common sense. A lot of the unwillingness to ask for repairs is based on the "mean landlord boogeyman" myth. I'm sure most have heard about how landlords are just sitting on the beach smoking Cohibas, lighting them with $100 bills, enjoying Mimosas. That **** just ain't the case. Most of us bust our tails day in and day out. A particular tenant may not see the work we put in, but there are others who do. The midnight calls for busted water heaters, the noise complaints, dealings with code enforcement officers, calls about stupid stuff, and that's just the crap I deal with after 6pm. I'm busting tail all day trying to get a house ready or meet someone to sign a lease, chasing people to collect rent, all of the other fun stuff that goes along with being a property manager.
We don't prey on the desperate. We offer housing to people who need it. We try to avoid entering an agreement with someone who can't afford one of our places. It's not because they're poor or anything like that. We don't want to see good people wind up with bad problems. We could be the "move 'em in, kick 'em out" kind of people. That does no one any good. That's more of a large corporate stance because they have the capital, and the units, to take those gambles.
TL;DR Don't blame the landlords for all of the ills of people who find themselves in a bad place.
You also have the end of "white flight" and urban areas once again becoming attractive for upper income persons/families to live.
New York City, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc... American cities were places people were fleeing from post WWII and certainly by the 1970's for a host of reasons. You saw the same thing really elsewhere around the world in places like London, Paris, etc...
Fast forward to now and places have been scrubbed up, made safer and more importantly a change in attitudes have seen people flocking to live in urban cities once again. This in turn is driving up rents and property values causing all sorts of pain on those unable to pay.
Here in NYC the only reason rents were low in many parts of Manhattan and beyond was quite frankly because no one wanted to live in places like Harlem, Lower Eastside, East Village, etc.. That is no longer true and the resulting gentrification is pushing low to moderate income persons out. Who would have thought Brooklyn, NY would become the most unaffordable place in the USA?
Gentrification is an issue. I'll certain;y give you that. I won't pretend to know all of the reasons, but it is an issue. I can, however, identify a few of the types who make this happen.
- Inheritors
You've got a handful of people who have inherited property and have been marketed to by small, almost boutique real estate companies (there is one in my area who immediately comes to mind). These heirs are sometimes coaxed into making a "dump property" (sell it) into a rental. RE comapny says "spend X dollars and rent will go up". Use your imagination. It's pretty straightforwards from here. Ends up with RE company selling to developer because heir can't afford it anymore. Those who keep their properties, we'll call them Level 1.
- Small-time owners
This is my family. My family started with rentals in 1977. We didn't try to get greedy or influence property values or trends. We just rented houses for fair prices. Enough heirs and corps came around and prettied everything up, brought in more demanding tenants (displacing older tenants) and using the force of local government to make us upgrade properties. This obviously made us have to recoup costs. We never booted someone but the next time a place came up, we had to try to make out money back. This is the 2nd level of forcing low-income people out.
- Large corporations (Berkshire-Hathaway, et al)
Then you have B-H, Invitation Homes and others. They won't even waste time haggling with you on a sale price. You'll damn near get what you ask. But, a BIG BUT, they'll ask for 50% higher rent than anything else around. How do you know the difference. You get a regular old house, but the rent is higher. It must be super nice compared to the others around you, right? Maybe it's the location? Perhaps. Maybe not. Your 1st and 2nd level people see the big boys charging so much more and they say, "Hey, we're missing out on income here!".
It's cyclical. 3 brings up 1 and 2. 1 and 2 catch up, and 3 goes up again. Then they dump the property before there is a local bubble to pop.
I must say this is my opinion. However, I have seen this in action in a desirable area for the last 5 years. What I am proposing is accurate in my "test area". I have no doubt it wouldn't carry over to other areas as well. All in all, it isn't good for the people referenced in the article and book.
There were certainly a lot of reluctant Landlords just a couple of years ago... they had a choice... walk away or try to hang on with a renter...
Down to a last one, each I know has sold... and they swore off the rental business forever.
Gentrification all depends on where you stand.
When I started out... at least 80% of the property I managed was Section 8.
I seldom put people out... it had to be for non-payment or illegal activity... I still have a few legacy Section 8 tenants.
That said, the Section 8 tenants voluntarily moved... they gave me notice and left the city entirely... citing older housing stock, crime, schools... etc.
The strange thing is they were replaced by a flood of younger couples... white, asian, straight and LGBT couples moving in.
The Section 8 holders bailed out for the far away suburbs with newer homes and schools and exactly the opposite happened to replace them... many younger people were raised in the suburbia and wanted the city...
As a Landlord and Property Manager it is important to realize Eviction is the end of a long and costly legal process... it doesn't happen overnight or even in a couple of weeks in my SF Bay Area city.
Tenants have many avenues for help... free legal being at the top to city and church groups with rent assistance... plus thousands of families here live in subsidized housing and some still get evicted for breaking the rules.
For the record I have never been allowed to put someone's belongings on the street...
For a very little dollar amount a tenant can use/occupy a very valuable property which is typical in the SF Bay Area.
It can be a minefield for owners...
I had one eviction where the family promised to come and get their things... they didn't... so the next day I loaded it all up inside a enclosed trailer I had... about 6 months later I get a contacted by a lawyer that said I had illegally disposed of tenant property and they wanted to be reimbursed.
Told the lawyer I had no idea what he was talking about and I certainly did not dispose of property... told him I had stored it and would deliver anywhere in the city as long as all of it went... I think he just about fell out of his chair.
Anyway... I show up and the tenants start cherry picking... said NO... everything goes... they said most was garbage... soiled recliners and such...
They were not to happy as everything single thing they had left behind was placed on the lawn of their new section 8 home... even wastebaskets just as they had left them... took plenty of pictures and that was the end of that.
Good way to handle it. Did you charge them storage fees for their crap?
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,950,661 times
Reputation: 16466
It is unfair to evict poor people who can't pay their rent. The government should just take the landlords property and give it to the tenants. They paid for it so it should be theirs. The landlords are all filthy rich anyway and just steal money from poor people, then they complain about drugs and stuff. Property should be allocated equally. Like during the Russian revolution when the Czars mansions were given to the people.
Don't forget that once you have informed them of the eviction they feel like it is their duty to trash the place and believe me most do. I have done extensive credit checks, as well as background checks but some people just think it is their right to get something for free. Once that is taken away they have no morals.
This is just terrible! Reminds me if the movie, "Pacific Heights"
It is unfair to evict poor people who can't pay their rent. The government should just take the landlords property and give it to the tenants. They paid for it so it should be theirs. The landlords are all filthy rich anyway and just steal money from poor people, then they complain about drugs and stuff. Property should be allocated equally. Like during the Russian revolution when the Czars mansions were given to the people.
I hope like hell you're being sarcastic.
If it wasn't for people like my family, and other owners, who take the risk on people who couldn't afford to own a house, many would be homeless. Notice I said own, not buy.
Based on the tone and content of your post, you seem to be an unhappy tenant. Maybe unhappy with your landlord or just unhappy you don't own a home.
If you really think we're all filthy rich, I invite you to come walk a mile in my shoes. Come see the Home Depot bills that wipe out one, two, even three years of rental income, just to get a house livable after it has been trashed.
In my case, if you think someone paying $650/month for rent is making me filthy rich, you're sadly mistaken. It provides me with an income under $50,000/yr. That's spread over 40 doors (houses and apartments). I'm not doing this to get rich. I do it because I love it.
These tenants who have paid rent for 3 months, should the property be theirs? To whom should I give it? And to whom should I send the property tax bills, repair bills and fines paid? If I could recoup 40 years of property tax bills in the $65,000 range, a couple million dollars in repairs and maintenance (no kidding), you might have a deal. Who should receive the bill for the 2.1 million dollars ($2,100,000) in owed rent I can't collect on (we keep pretty good records)?
If we had 100% collections since 1977, we'd be in great shape. Of course, you have to think about all of the new roofs ($3000 minimum x 30), new HVAC units ($3500 per x 50 (YES, 50)), the possibly 20,000 gallons of paint ($17/gal) we've bought, locks ($50/door), doors, windows, sheetrock, nails and screws, etc. I've spent $2,000 on light fixtures in the last 2 years. I shouldn't forget the $9000 I've spent on bedbug eradication in the past 6 months. I almost forgot about paying $50 for a background check when we only charge $25 for it.
All this talk of my riches makes me want to go grab a Cohiba and light it with a wad of hundred dollar bills whilst sitting on my yacht.
Sticking with a theme, bless your heart. It must hurt.
I always thought it was appalling to see someone's possessions strewn on the curb after an eviction. Appalling to regular citizens living in the neighborhood as well. A vulgar act.
Perhaps landlords should be required to put the items in storage, subject to reimbursement from the former tenants of course. But there's got to be a better way.
Oh wow.
Speaking as a former landlord, I can tell you it's enough of a hassle to HIRE MOVERS to put someone else's garbage and junk out on the curb. Putting it in storage?
Wow.
As to getting reimbursed, odds are you're never going to see your rent money anyway, and adding more financial burdens (and the burden of collection) to the landlord is unrealistic.
Most tenants don't get this: When you pay your rent, I pay my mortgage on the place. When you do not pay your rent, it places a financial hardship on me to find money eslewhere to pay my mortgage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
