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.
In a landlord group meeting a few months ago, this general subject came up. In CA, landlords do not have to accept Section 8 but if that right were taken away from us, what are our options? A few did say they would get out of the business but most said they would just raise the security deposit from the customary one month's rent to two month's rent figuring that would weed out most section 8 candidates. Everyone agreed that middle class renters get screwed once again but most felt they had no choice.
As of now, my rents are higher than Sec8 reimbursement limits. Of course there are no guarantees that will stay forever. I imagine I will consider using two times the rent for a security deposit too.
I will point out, if it comes to this, it will mean $3000/month units will have a $3,000 security deposit because they are outside Section 8 limits but $2,000/month units will have a $4,000 security deposit to keep out Section 8 applicants. Sucks, huh?
Housing requires window screens and there are none.
Housing where I operate requires a stove and refrigerator at the time of inspection and utilities on... I no longer furnish free standing applicances or with single family the water might very well be off... especially if vacant in winter.
I've had units fail for tenant modifications... a big one is key lock interior doors.
Just adds more to the mix... I still have legacy Section 8... have not had a new one since the security guarantee was eliminated.
Most recent ludicracy.... was I had a new roof installed and some of the roof lumber was also replaced at the time...
Housing insisted I paint in December in freezing temperatures... crazy. I was told paint or rent will be abated...
30 years ago I was a big proponent of Section 8... no longer.
....The summary doesn't give a clear context of the requirement; the actual Bill does.
I've read the actual bill and above ( the OP) is what it says. No matter what the proposer of the bill thinks she meant, or what she intended it to mean, the bill says what it says and that is what the courts will go on.
It also says that if a tenant destroys a unit so it doesn't pass and the landlord refuses to fix the damage, the tenant can sue the landlord for $50,000 and the cost of relocating.
It is absurd to think that landlords are allowing their buildings to deteriorate into slums solely to get rid of Section 8 tenants, which is what the bill's proposer is claiming. It is much more logical to give the tenant notice of non-renewal or to vacate than it is to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in value.
Section 8 rentals deteriorate because many of the welfare recipients live like destructive pigs and don't care what they break because they don't have to fix it and they don't make their children and boyfriends behave. It's not the landlords destroying their own property.
Instead of trying to force private property owners to provide welfare, the government should build their own massive Section 8 housing developments and administer those in a very fair manner so that the Section 8 tenants can have a lovely place to live.
Oh wait.... the government tried that and the tenants tore up the buildings, and they were cesspools of crime so the government got back out of the housing business and now expects private property owners to take over the job.
I've read the actual bill and above ( the OP) is what it says. No matter what the proposer of the bill thinks she meant, or what she intended it to mean, the bill says what it says and that is what the courts will go on.
It also says that if a tenant destroys a unit so it doesn't pass and the landlord refuses to fix the damage, the tenant can sue the landlord for $50,000 and the cost of relocating.
It is absurd to think that landlords are allowing their buildings to deteriorate into slums solely to get rid of Section 8 tenants, which is what the bill's proposer is claiming. It is much more logical to give the tenant notice of non-renewal or to vacate than it is to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in value.
Section 8 rentals deteriorate because many of the welfare recipients live like destructive pigs and don't care what they break because they don't have to fix it and they don't make their children and boyfriends behave. It's not the landlords destroying their own property.
Instead of trying to force private property owners to provide welfare, the government should build their own massive Section 8 housing developments and administer those in a very fair manner so that the Section 8 tenants can have a lovely place to live.
Oh wait.... the government tried that and the tenants tore up the buildings, and they were cesspools of crime so the government got back out of the housing business and now expects private property owners to take over the job.
Of course, there is not a peep in that bill about tenant responsibility. I'm sure her intent is to put a stop to landlords and property managers saying "I'll let you live here, as the regulations say, but if it doesn't pass the inspection I won't do anything to make it pass." That almost always means they won't able to rent the place.
Is the government planning on picking up the repair tab when these people can't pay it? Ah, yes, another one of those "oh wait..." moments. Cost too much.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
In a landlord group meeting a few months ago, this general subject came up. In CA, landlords do not have to accept Section 8 but if that right were taken away from us, what are our options? A few did say they would get out of the business but most said they would just raise the security deposit from the customary one month's rent to two month's rent figuring that would weed out most section 8 candidates. Everyone agreed that middle class renters get screwed once again but most felt they had no choice.
As of now, my rents are higher than Sec8 reimbursement limits. Of course there are no guarantees that will stay forever. I imagine I will consider using two times the rent for a security deposit too.
I will point out, if it comes to this, it will mean $3000/month units will have a $3,000 security deposit because they are outside Section 8 limits but $2,000/month units will have a $4,000 security deposit to keep out Section 8 applicants. Sucks, huh?
I have 30 plus years experience with HUD/Section 8
When the program started HUD leased the property, screened the tenants, maintained the units, collected rents and processed evictions.
My how things have changed.
The straw that broke the camel's back is the total 100% shift to the owner for tenant caused damages which left me with $1200 a month units and holding $50 security deposits... my non-HUD tenants had 1.5 times the rent at $1800. Huge difference between $50 and $1800
It made perfect sense for HUD is an expedient way to get out of the security deposit side of things... and the many tenancies that would end up with a hearing resulting in a HUD payout leaving HUD to collect from the tenant for loss incurred.
I had the last HUD payout in my jurisdiction... a good tenant went bad and it was a December lease and I was still under the old rules when it went bad while 95% had already been converted at renewal.
She got mixed up with a shady/violent boyfriend and 6 years as a good tenant out the window.
$2300 in proven damage of which she lost her $50 and HUD paid $2250.
No. I take it you have never been through a section 8 inspection. The ridiculous things they fail a person for can be unbelievably nit picky.
I own a 4 unit apartment that is rented out to all Section 8 tenants.
Things they have failed so far were minor stuff like ripped window screens and the tenants changing the locks in the bedroom door. For some reason, they aren't allowed to have locks.
I replaced the screens and the tenants replaced the door lock. The unit then passed inspection.
Never had any war stories you people claim of. Also, my tenants are very clean and take care of the units like they own it.
They have all been very good tenants. Very nice people. I'm sure there are horror stories but you have to screen your tenants.
I'm sure you can also find the same amount of horror stories from landlords who rented to non-section 8 tenants.
As mentioned... I was a huge supporter of Section 8
It was not the families as much as the ever changing HUD bureaucracy...
For decades each family had a case worker that made annual visits... now ALL annual inspections are contracted out... no continuity.
For decades I never missed a single inspection... Housing set a time and date and I made it point to be there... now they give a window of when to expect them.
Housing would provide references for families in the program... owners were encouraged to ask... now this is forbidden.
Broken windows at least 10 to 1 over non Section 8... your experience may very well be different.
I have had some real success stories with families on assistance that no longer are through hard work...
Every door that has been kicked in during my tenure has been Section 8... this is why the prohibition of key lock bedroom doors... many head of household feel they need a key lock bedroom door for fear someone in the family will steal from them.
I have never had a door kicked in that did not have a key lock...
My oldest Section 8 family goes back to the 1980's...
When you think about the how and why for HUD's continual shift of responsibility to property owners it isn't hard to draw your own conclusion.
I own a 4 unit apartment that is rented out to all Section 8 tenants.
Things they have failed so far were minor stuff like ripped window screens and the tenants changing the locks in the bedroom door. For some reason, they aren't allowed to have locks.
I replaced the screens and the tenants replaced the door lock. The unit then passed inspection.
Never had any war stories you people claim of. Also, my tenants are very clean and take care of the units like they own it.
They have all been very good tenants. Very nice people. I'm sure there are horror stories but you have to screen your tenants.
I'm sure you can also find the same amount of horror stories from landlords who rented to non-section 8 tenants.
I'm guessing HUD's thinking is that banning bedroom door locks would make S8 tenants less willing to violate rules by taking in non-family, as the legitimate residents would not be able to secure the contents of their bedrooms.
privacy locks are ok... no keyed locks is how it is enforced here.
It really has stopped destroyed interior doors and door jambs...
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.
