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.
Because he'll get way more $$ from an insurance settlement, no doubt, than from tenants who may be unable to make rent payments due to COVID.
I'm not condoning arson in any way - but renters behind on rent nationally is a big problem that has to be solved at some point.
Many (most?) will not be able to pay that back rent. The moratorium is a temporary fix for the tenants but the landlords didn't receive much if any relief.
What concerns me is that if there is more money in burning down the property than there is in continuing to try to rent it to somebody that will remain behind on rent for years... we are going to do see this. And I worry that these places might be burned down with people inside them.
Is this the same example as the person who rented out space in their garage?
No.
Quote:
The landlord should pay for their own real-estate with their income, rent goes to renters home.
I'm talking about expenses incurred to maintain the rental property, not the landlord's own home. Who steps in and pays those incurred expenses when tenants aren't paying rent?
Quote:
If your model means every time a renter misses out on a monthly payment they should be kicked out into the cold, then neighbors might as well turn against each other.
Because guess what, the tenants are neighbors to the land lord.
Try telling that to the government tax collector. They have no problem evicting anyone from their homes in a forced tax sale when real estate taxes go unpaid, even the real estate taxes on rental properties.
So on the one hand, the government dictates a rent/eviction moratorium. Tenants don't pay their rent. And at the same time, the government forces tax sales to collect unpaid real estate tax.
What this does, over time, is wipes out all the small business, neighborhood landlords and concentrates the ownership of rental properties among big corporations as they snap up tax sale rental properties for dirt cheap because they have the financial resources to be able to go a year or two without collecting rent. What the Dem governors and mayors who issued the rent/eviction moratoriums are doing is setting up a clean sweep for Big Business to monopolize the rental market. Are you sure that's what you want? Do you want a neighbor and community member as a landlord? Or would you prefer multi-billion dollar ACME Corp as a landlord, price-fixing rent, and doing whatever they please by, ahem... "donating" to local and state government officials to rig the laws in their favor?
Why is it the landlord's responsibility to provide them free housing? What we should be doing is scouring the voting lists, finding those registered as Democrats, and dropping the deadbeats off at their homes and forcing them to provide free housing in their places.
Oh-it isn't "Wall Street" that's to blame-it's governors and mayors that are forcing businesses to shut down, destroying jobs and people's life's savings. I don't know where these morons making the decisions think people are going to go when they bankrupt the property owners by forcing them to provide housing without compensation.
Every state, blue, red or purple requires a court order to evict a tenant.
There is no question many who received the now expired $600/ week unemployment topper and $1200 Stimulus did not apply these funds towards back rent. The moratorium on evictions protected their status as squatters.
Nothing was learned. The second stimulus includes an extended moratorium on evictions.
Trump has made clear he wants $2000 per adult Stimulus payments. Nothing compels these payments to be applied towards back rent.
I have no idea how the extended federal/ state/ county/ local moratoriums on evictions is going to resolve.
I am politically agnostic and don’t see much difference between D’S and R’s.
Yes when a renter moves there will a vacancy. That is expected and rolled into the costs this business. How long a unit will be vacant depends on the location, if it needs work, etc. A decent location and fair rent and they will be lined up.
Take an example of a three family, with three monthly rental payments coming in. If one of them is vacant (or doesn't pay) for a while you should be fine, but if none of the three is paying because they "don't have to" for months and months, of course it is going to be disastrous for the owner of this rental Business.
The lender takes the rent into consideration as income when qualifying an applicant for a mortgage. It is a business and the government is interfering with this business just as it is with other small businesses.
Yes exactly. Bad business model. Literally any month there is a chance that the tenant will not pay rent. Every month is theoretically a guessing game as to if you will get paid or not.
And that un-guaranteed income is what you're counting on to pay your own mortgage? Bad business like I said.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Yes exactly. Bad business model. Literally any month there is a chance that the tenant will not pay rent. Every month is theoretically a guessing game as to if you will get paid or not.
And that un-guaranteed income is what you're counting on to pay your own mortgage? Bad business like I said.
Normally you can evict so you can get an actual paying tenant.
I'm not sure what part you don't understand. Landlords are not being allowed to conduct regular business.
What about the landlord, who needs the income not only to pay the mortgage on his rental property, but to pay his own living expenses as well? Why do you have no concern for landlords who may be thrown out into the cold because they can’t pay their own mortgage?
Seems some people assume landlords are faceless corporations rolling in the $ and use this to rationalize not making paying rent a priority.
What this does, over time, is wipes out all the small business, neighborhood landlords and concentrates the ownership of rental properties among big corporations as they snap up tax sale rental properties for dirt cheap because they have the financial resources to be able to go a year or two without collecting rent.
Back in the early 90s when Walmart was shutting down your mom and pops left and right on main street, your capital apologists were out in full force defending them. I was against Walmart and have not stepped foot in one in years. It did zero good.
They said your mom and pops cant compete and they charge to high prices anyhow. Then they finished it off with saying buy stocks in Walmart and the companies they buy from.
So, do I care if the rental properties are bought up by the corporations. Nope, that ship sailed a long time ago and some of the apologists for these corporations back then will get a taste of their own medicine.
My grandparents owned a small apartment building in NYC during the Depression - seven units. They lived in one, and their parents lived in another. The other five units paid $35 a month. With that s175 a month, they paid the mortgage, the electricity and water for the whole building, and with what was left, bought food for their own young family. If those five families stopped paying their rent, my grandparents would have lost the building (couldn’t pay the mortgage) AND their income for basics like food.
Why do Democrats only see things from the renter’s view, and not the landlord’s? Is it because they are so anti-business?
Why portray this as a partisan issue?
May I suggest you take a road trip through deep Appalachia, greater Miami, Tulsa etc.
What made no sense, continues to not make sense is Stimulus payments and unemployment toppers while putting a moratorium on evictions.
Is the thought process such that the burden of mass homelessness will be greater than whatever it is going to take, down the road, to resolve this?
I voted for Trump twice. Anyone who reads me knows I am the furthest thing from Trump’s base. I voted for the guy again because he alone deserves to be held responsible for recovery. Instead, Biden will be blamed for not snapping his fingers and making it all better.
Back in the early 90s when Walmart was shutting down your mom and pops left and right on main street, your capital apologists were out in full force defending them. I was against Walmart and have not stepped foot in one in years. It did zero good.
What makes you think I'm a capital apologist? Did I not just warn of the impending Big Business monopoly on rental properties as a result of the rent/eviction moratoriums?
Quote:
So, do I care if the rental properties are bought up by the corporations. Nope, that ship sailed a long time ago and some of the apologists for these corporations back then will get a taste of their own medicine.
Might be more interesting to you to recognize who's driving the change from neighbor, community member landlords to a Big Business monopoly: the Dem mayors and governors who issued the rent/eviction moratoriums.
The new owners are the ones that apparently did it. Some say it was obvious that the new owners weren't interested in business as usual. Building was a foreclosure purchased for 1.2 million dollars.
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.
