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.
So why not tell the property management that you're not paying rent? You are most likely in one of the many counties with an eviction moratorium going on. Lock arms with your fellow renters and refuse to pay.
I can tell you what is going to happen to those that refuse to pay even 1 cent. They are going to be the first on the chopping block once the moratoriums are lifted. Tenants who refuse to discuss a payment plan or reject discounted rent and pay zero are donezo as far as private landlords go. If you're in a rent controlled apartment in the major metros, you are playing with fire by even entertaining a rent strike.
You can keep whining about landlords being in a better financial situation. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Giving a rent jubilee will damage REIT ROIs though. Lots of government pensions are invested in those products. The system requires people to pay what their agreed contracts are. You are tugging at a string that is going to unwind an entire financial investment system.
I favor the eviction moratoriums.
Since I will have paid through the moratoriums, I will not be on the chopping block.
As for unwinding the entire financial investment system, that's an interesting point. Although I have turned more socialistic for the time being as a result of Coronavirus, I have historically been more conservative than liberal. I prefer pure capitalism over crony capitalism. The United States has not been purely capitalistic for around 100 years. I'm not sure the current system is worth preserving because it has failed twice in 12-13 years.
The entire financial system was on the verge of collapse in 2008, and it is debatable if it should have been bailed out in 2008. At the time in 2008, I was against bailouts.
My generation (Millennials) took the worst of the 2008-2012 recession, and we're among the most affected now. There's not much love lost between Millennials and "capitalism" but Millennials are confusing pure capitalism with crony capitalism. Pure capitalism should work. United States style crony capitalism does not work.
I voted for Sanders in my primary. Even though he wanted to implement national rent control and do away with 1031 exchanges(which he never advertised and I had to do a fair bit of researching to find his position on).
I still voted for him, because that was a sacrifice that seemed reasonable to me.
But an indefinite rent jubilee is cray cray, especially since we have no idea how long the viral outbreaks will continue. That's why I suggested discounted rent at cost till the pandemic is over. The government can't keep writing people 1200/month checks, that's just going to make things worse.
I voted for Sanders in my primary. Even though he wanted to implement national rent control and do away with 1031 exchanges(which he never advertised and I had to do a fair bit of researching to find his position on).
I still voted for him, because that was a sacrifice that seemed reasonable to me.
But an indefinite rent jubilee is cray cray, especially since we have no idea how long the viral outbreaks will continue. That's why I suggested discounted rent at cost till the pandemic is over. The government can't keep writing people 1200/month checks, that's just going to make things worse.
Impressed that you took the time to research a candidate's position on 1031 exchanges.
Does discounted rent at cost means that a tenant would pay enough rent to cover costs of landlord, no more or no less? Landlord makes zero profit? I just want to make sure I understand. On the surface, that seems okay but I'll hold off on saying something more declarative until I fully understand.
The corporate entity which I rent from is not negotiating with tenants at all. They have made it clear that they will not do so.
No profit on rent means the tenant's payment would only cover maintenance+insurance+taxes+association fees. It's difficult to give what percentage of the rent on average that is for a specific property, but I imagine 50% is pretty close to operating costs aggregated across the country.
That would hopefully allow the government to pay the rents for the "indefinite" time frame of the quarantine. As it is now, 1200/month/person is not something that can be maintained(and isn't really a solution for the most expensive metros in USA).
I figure that is something landlords could accept and should accept seeing as how there have been several tax loopholes that they've utilized over the last few decades.
The post above seems like a reasonable solution for landlords and all tenants, regardless of whether or not the tenant has had a COVID induced job loss. A 50% reduction in rent is a palatable solution for all parties.
I'm not the awful person I seem.
The hard line stance taken by my corporate landlord has engendered greater dislike towards them from numerous tenants. My guess is that the hard line stance taken will result in more evictions for them in the near future.
Tenant has the right to work scrimp and save and buy a tiny place to live in just like I did
Til then if you live in mine and I pay the HOA, tax, mortgage and Insurance- you are responsible for rent payments
The notion that I should pay and you ride for free is worse than communism it’s slavery
I'm not as much of a hard ass as the above comment, but seeing as how he's in Southern California, perhaps his margins are thinner than mine so makes sense that he'd be flustered. I think that demonstrates that if you ask 1000 landlords what their opinion on a solution should be, you will get 1000 different answers.
Either way, this pandemic is pointing out the precariousness of our economic system. We demand tenants to have a savings to weather this quarantine but then the rents don't allow them to save up to do so.
All I can say is, people had easier lives back then. Buying a house was doable for even the most humble professions. Now it's an ever increasing ponzi scheme where you get NIMBYs in SF/LA that fight any project over 3 stories.
Even though I have rentals, I reject the notion that people who have lived in a neighborhood in the past get to decide how that neighborhood evolves. These individuals benefited off an economy that actually made sense and are now afraid that their future net worth might come down 20% if an apartment complex goes up next door for them.
I think landlords in the future have to be realistic about what the future holds. No more 1031 exchanges, no more tax breaks on depreciating the property. All these loopholes will eventually be phased out so that the government can actually fund a security net for the next emergency(and I believe coronavirus is just a taste of what is to come).
I'm not as much of a hard ass as the above comment, but seeing as how he's in Southern California, perhaps his margins are thinner than mine so makes sense that he'd be flustered. I think that demonstrates that if you ask 1000 landlords what their opinion on a solution should be, you will get 1000 different answers.
Either way, this pandemic is pointing out the precariousness of our economic system. We demand tenants to have a savings to weather this quarantine but then the rents don't allow them to save up to do so.
All I can say is, people had easier lives back then. Buying a house was doable for even the most humble professions. Now it's an ever increasing ponzi scheme where you get NIMBYs in SF/LA that fight any project over 3 stories.
Even though I have rentals, I reject the notion that people who have lived in a neighborhood in the past get to decide how that neighborhood evolves. These individuals benefited off an economy that actually made sense and are now afraid that their future net worth might come down 20% if an apartment complex goes up next door for them.
I think landlords in the future have to be realistic about what the future holds. No more 1031 exchanges, no more tax breaks on depreciating the property. All these loopholes will eventually be phased out so that the government can actually fund a security net for the next emergency(and I believe coronavirus is just a taste of what is to come).
The most important point that you made above was about the precariousness of the economic system. The precariousness of the economic system is precisely why renting makes more sense than buying and putting down roots.
The problems that we are seeing in housing, whether renting or owning, are just mere symptoms of a larger disease of a malfunctioning culture.
The key word forthcoming is transience. With jobs and romantic relationships extremely transient in the current era, it does not make sense to own a home. Home ownership is based upon stability for an extended period of time. When home ownership makes less sense, renting is a more viable option.
One of the lessons of Coronavirus should be how jobs can disappear in an instant. I work in a field that is very layoff prone, even in good times. Why should anyone commit to a mortgage and all the other pitfalls of ownership with a transient job market? Let's say someone buys a home, gets laid off, and the next job that they get is not within commutable distance of that home. Now someone has to sell a home, which is somewhat challenging even in a good market.
Romantic relationships are about as unstable as jobs. Marriages break up at the drop of a hat. Many romantic relationships don't last long enough to get to the point where marriage is a feasible option. Given the probability of divorce in one's lifetime, it doesn't make a lot of sense to marry in this era. Also, Coronavirus will up the incidence of divorce in the short to medium term.
Stable romantic relationships and stable jobs are prerequisites for home ownership. They don't exist anymore.
Stable relationships and jobs enable wealth building and savings to weather economic recessions, either as a renter or a homeowner. This is part of why there are problems with renters now and there were problems with homeowners in the 2008 downturn.
I'm not as much of a hard ass as the above comment, but seeing as how he's in Southern California, perhaps his margins are thinner than mine so makes sense that he'd be flustered. I think that demonstrates that if you ask 1000 landlords what their opinion on a solution should be, you will get 1000 different answers.
Either way, this pandemic is pointing out the precariousness of our economic system. We demand tenants to have a savings to weather this quarantine but then the rents don't allow them to save up to do so.
All I can say is, people had easier lives back then. Buying a house was doable for even the most humble professions. Now it's an ever increasing ponzi scheme where you get NIMBYs in SF/LA that fight any project over 3 stories.
Even though I have rentals, I reject the notion that people who have lived in a neighborhood in the past get to decide how that neighborhood evolves. These individuals benefited off an economy that actually made sense and are now afraid that their future net worth might come down 20% if an apartment complex goes up next door for them.
I think landlords in the future have to be realistic about what the future holds. No more 1031 exchanges, no more tax breaks on depreciating the property. All these loopholes will eventually be phased out so that the government can actually fund a security net for the next emergency(and I believe coronavirus is just a taste of what is to come).
“It was easy when you were young”
Like you know me right?
You know where I Came from what country and what it was like - the. poverty?
I Mean you know all this yes?
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 05-03-2020 at 06:59 PM..
“It was easy when you were young”
Like you know me right?
You know where I Came from what country and what it was like - the. poverty?
I Mean you know all this yes?
I don't know you personally but I know that the economy of USA before the 80s allowed people to have a one income household and live a good life. Now we have two income households and it is still a rat race.
It's not one person's fault. But ignoring the fact that wages hasn't kept up with inflation, especially house prices isn't fair to me.
Average age for a woman to have a child now is 27 years. Do we really want that number to creep up to 30? Child rearing is already hard, you need to be young yourself so that you can keep up with your kids. What sort of society do you want to live in? One where everyone is an old person and there's no kids around? That sounds terrible honestly. Sacrificing the younger generation so that housing prices remain high for the previous old generation seems selfish to me.
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.
