Woman with 3 Properties Left Homeless Because Tenants Couldn't Be Evicted(newsweek.com)
newsweek.com
Woman with 3 Properties Left Homeless Because Tenants Couldn't Be Evicted
https://www.newsweek.com/landlord-homeless-new-york-ban-evictions-1623958
42 comments
The article doesn't explain how this woman supposedly became homeless. Was she evicted from a property she was renting to live in? Did her bank foreclose on her residence?
Given the moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, I'm not sure how a lack of money due to her tenants' unpaid rent could cause her to become homeless.
Given the moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, I'm not sure how a lack of money due to her tenants' unpaid rent could cause her to become homeless.
I mean it doesn't really matter all that much, but I think I read elsewhere that she broke up with her long-term boyfriend and had to move out. Normally that wouldn't be a problem for someone who owns 3 houses. But her tenants aren't paying so she's broke and isn't allowed to kick them out and live in her own house.
She is allowed to list the property for sale though. But in any case, I would probably go to the media first too. But also list the property for sale. Not my problem which part of the story they go with. At least I could point to why I sold the properties, to any other sentimental stakeholders.
Good luck selling a home with an existing tenant that's not paying.
> moratorium on foreclosures and evictions
That only applies to some areas of the country, and I believe the supreme court just struck it down.
So as of now, applies no where iirc.
That only applies to some areas of the country, and I believe the supreme court just struck it down.
So as of now, applies no where iirc.
The Supreme Court struck down the federal moritorium [0]; and there wording made it clear the issue was the CDC exceeding it's authority under current law (as opposed to a fundamental constitutional issue).
As such, this ruling has no bearing on state issued eviction moratoriums.
Having said that, the New York moratorium (which was passed as a law by the state legislature) expired today (August 31, 2021), so that is a moot point in this case. For completeness, I will point out that the US Supreme court also evaluated this state law [1], and mostly allowed it to continue. The only change they made was allowing landlords to contest the claim of hardship from the tenants. For further completeness, that was the only part of the New York law the Court was asked to rule on, so conceivably they would still have overturned the entire thing if the proper case was brought before them.
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a8_3fb4.pdf
As such, this ruling has no bearing on state issued eviction moratoriums.
Having said that, the New York moratorium (which was passed as a law by the state legislature) expired today (August 31, 2021), so that is a moot point in this case. For completeness, I will point out that the US Supreme court also evaluated this state law [1], and mostly allowed it to continue. The only change they made was allowing landlords to contest the claim of hardship from the tenants. For further completeness, that was the only part of the New York law the Court was asked to rule on, so conceivably they would still have overturned the entire thing if the proper case was brought before them.
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a8_3fb4.pdf
You've made a business from renting people property. You've staked your ability to pay your bills on that business, and you've found yourself in a situation where your business is no longer viable. This sounds like a poor investment strategy to me. Should all of your tenants be homeless so that your business succeed?
The premise here is also absurd. The market for rental properties is extremely hot right now. Sell one of the properties and don't become homeless. You have options. Your tenants probably do not.
The premise here is also absurd. The market for rental properties is extremely hot right now. Sell one of the properties and don't become homeless. You have options. Your tenants probably do not.
> you've found yourself in a situation where your business is no longer viable
I mean to be fair here the government instituted a policy that basically took her property and allocated it for someone else's use for free, depriving her of its use either for revenue or as a place to live. It's a bit disingenuous to spin this as some sort of speculative investment gone wrong.
I mean to be fair here the government instituted a policy that basically took her property and allocated it for someone else's use for free, depriving her of its use either for revenue or as a place to live. It's a bit disingenuous to spin this as some sort of speculative investment gone wrong.
It's a bit disingenuous to say the government took her property and allocated it to someone else's use. The government, during an emergency, disallowed eviction, but didn't cancel rent. The rent is still owed.
I'm not spinning this as a speculative business gone wrong. I'm saying it's a business, and like all business there's risk. Have you ever done contract work, then had to chase the client down for months for the money? Do you have any idea how bad accounts receivable is in a normal business? Sometimes things unexpectedly go wrong, and businesses go out of business.
If I need to choose between a business going under, and millions of people becoming homeless, it's a pretty obvious choice. It becomes even more obvious when you consider the fact that letting millions of people become homeless also crashes the rental market, as prices would plummet.
I'm not spinning this as a speculative business gone wrong. I'm saying it's a business, and like all business there's risk. Have you ever done contract work, then had to chase the client down for months for the money? Do you have any idea how bad accounts receivable is in a normal business? Sometimes things unexpectedly go wrong, and businesses go out of business.
If I need to choose between a business going under, and millions of people becoming homeless, it's a pretty obvious choice. It becomes even more obvious when you consider the fact that letting millions of people become homeless also crashes the rental market, as prices would plummet.
Government interference in emergencies is a risk of doing business.
I’d claim there’s a good chance that mass evictions would lend themselves to lower property values and rental incomes which would also lead to an unsuccessful business strategy and a similar outcome. Whether or not this is preferable would then be a separate conversation of hypotheticals.
Mass evictions would lead to everything opening back up overnight. It's utterly pointless to have _any_ anti-COVID measures at all when a vaccine is available to anyone who wants it. Moreover, it's strongly counterproductive.
Let me explain this to folks as simply and unambiguously as I can. Have you ever had a cold? Yes? You will have COVID in the near future. No ifs or buts about it. You will have it, several times each year, for the rest of your life, it's endemic and unavoidable. Do you not want to die of COVID? Get the vax. The calculus is _really_ simple here. This should be the messaging from the CDC and everyone else. People (vaxxed and unvaxxed alike) seem to think they'll be able to "avoid" it somehow. That option was off the table as early as in January of 2020.
Why are we subjecting millions of small landlords to this hadship, especially in the cases where tenants _can_ pay?
Let me explain this to folks as simply and unambiguously as I can. Have you ever had a cold? Yes? You will have COVID in the near future. No ifs or buts about it. You will have it, several times each year, for the rest of your life, it's endemic and unavoidable. Do you not want to die of COVID? Get the vax. The calculus is _really_ simple here. This should be the messaging from the CDC and everyone else. People (vaxxed and unvaxxed alike) seem to think they'll be able to "avoid" it somehow. That option was off the table as early as in January of 2020.
Why are we subjecting millions of small landlords to this hadship, especially in the cases where tenants _can_ pay?
[deleted]
If we were being fair one party wouldn't be allowed to buy a shelter and rent it to someone who has less means than them.
It's hard to feel pity for someone who owns and rents three properties, yet wants us to believe they are without recourse, such as renting a temporary domicile herself.
The government also shut down businesses which means people like the tenant lost their jobs and ability to pay.
All this is frighteningly prescient with regards to the first generation to receive no SSI, no retirement, no way to make money, and yet will have to pay rent until the day they die.
It's hard to feel pity for someone who owns and rents three properties, yet wants us to believe they are without recourse, such as renting a temporary domicile herself.
The government also shut down businesses which means people like the tenant lost their jobs and ability to pay.
All this is frighteningly prescient with regards to the first generation to receive no SSI, no retirement, no way to make money, and yet will have to pay rent until the day they die.
The reason the business is no longer viable is because the government basically seized it and gave the products away for free.
> You've staked your ability to pay your bills on that business, and you've found yourself in a situation where your business is no longer viable.
Huh? The government has destroyed her business by preventing her from evicting tenants who are not able to pay their rent. If she was able to enforce her lease agreement and evict the tenants under the "legitimate" law, she would likely have no problem renting out her property to someone able to pay.
> The market for rental properties is extremely hot right now. Sell one of the properties and don't become homeless.
Interesting that in one sentence you talk about the landlord's business not being viable, and in another you mention that the market for rental properties is "extremely hot".
Huh? The government has destroyed her business by preventing her from evicting tenants who are not able to pay their rent. If she was able to enforce her lease agreement and evict the tenants under the "legitimate" law, she would likely have no problem renting out her property to someone able to pay.
> The market for rental properties is extremely hot right now. Sell one of the properties and don't become homeless.
Interesting that in one sentence you talk about the landlord's business not being viable, and in another you mention that the market for rental properties is "extremely hot".
If this line of business is by government intervention made to fail, fewer people will get into this line of business and then there will be fewer properties in the market ensuring there is even tighter supply of rental properties.
> This sounds like a poor investment strategy to me. Should all of your tenants be homeless so that your business succeed?
I mean, it’s not the fault of the landlord that tenants are to be homeless if tenants cannot find a place to live when the lease rightfully terminates.
The business model didn’t take into consideration such a pandemic. I’d argue that this is a reasonable negligence since the whole society-which includes organizations with much more risk evaluation capability, like banks and governments-didn’t prepare for such a pandemic.
I mean, it’s not the fault of the landlord that tenants are to be homeless if tenants cannot find a place to live when the lease rightfully terminates.
The business model didn’t take into consideration such a pandemic. I’d argue that this is a reasonable negligence since the whole society-which includes organizations with much more risk evaluation capability, like banks and governments-didn’t prepare for such a pandemic.
What is your address? After all, having people come to your house and steal all your property is a risk that you accepted when you purchased said property.
Should the poorer folk in your city be without flat-screen TVs, just so you can continue to play your PS5? Should they be forced to ride the bus, just so you can have an air-conditioned commute?
That's really how those arguments sound, and they both deserve to be dismissed equally.
Should the poorer folk in your city be without flat-screen TVs, just so you can continue to play your PS5? Should they be forced to ride the bus, just so you can have an air-conditioned commute?
That's really how those arguments sound, and they both deserve to be dismissed equally.
No one stole the property. She still owns it. She can still sell them.
You're saying these people are going to be without creature comforts if they're evicted, where most of these people are going to be living on the street. Should they do this, so that this landlord can avoid selling a building?
You're saying these people are going to be without creature comforts if they're evicted, where most of these people are going to be living on the street. Should they do this, so that this landlord can avoid selling a building?
Absolutely. Without private property rights, society would fall apart. And though it's doubtful most people would be homeless - most people have friends and family, after all (unless they have alienated then by suggesting their property be confiscated or subject to some form of squatting)
It would be better for those tenants to direct their ire towards the government that made such blatantly unconstitutional laws, rather than attempt to steal goods or services from innocent parties. And this includes essentially forcing one to sell one's possessions as a result of the (very predictable) side effects of said unconstitutional edicts.
It would be better for those tenants to direct their ire towards the government that made such blatantly unconstitutional laws, rather than attempt to steal goods or services from innocent parties. And this includes essentially forcing one to sell one's possessions as a result of the (very predictable) side effects of said unconstitutional edicts.
> And though it's doubtful most people would be homeless - most people have friends and family, after all
The landlord in this story doesn't have anyone who's willing to home her. What makes you think her tenants are in a different position than she is?
Are rent moratoriums a good idea? I don't know, they certainly are a dangerous area for the government to get into, but we do as a society have a compelling interest in preventing mass evictions during a pandemic, and eminent domain and forced sales are something we regularly use when we have compelling interests in people's property. People can reasonably debate whether or not that compelling interest outweighs other private property concerns that we have; to me, moratoriums are a large step beyond traditional eminent domain laws and eviction regulations, so I get why they make people nervous.
But what I do know is that papering over the problem and casting doubt on whether or not families really would be homeless isn't helpful, it's dismissive. Particularly on an article where someone is actually homeless living out of a van. Obviously the existing social and community support structures for homeless families aren't sufficient, or else the landlord in this story wouldn't be living in a van.
The landlord in this story doesn't have anyone who's willing to home her. What makes you think her tenants are in a different position than she is?
Are rent moratoriums a good idea? I don't know, they certainly are a dangerous area for the government to get into, but we do as a society have a compelling interest in preventing mass evictions during a pandemic, and eminent domain and forced sales are something we regularly use when we have compelling interests in people's property. People can reasonably debate whether or not that compelling interest outweighs other private property concerns that we have; to me, moratoriums are a large step beyond traditional eminent domain laws and eviction regulations, so I get why they make people nervous.
But what I do know is that papering over the problem and casting doubt on whether or not families really would be homeless isn't helpful, it's dismissive. Particularly on an article where someone is actually homeless living out of a van. Obviously the existing social and community support structures for homeless families aren't sufficient, or else the landlord in this story wouldn't be living in a van.
Society doesn't fall apart without private property rights. Lots of countries have socialized ownership, at least for some percentage of the housing stock, and they do perfectly fine. I'm not advocating for socialist ownership of all property, though. I'm a fan of private ownership (though would prefer that some amount of the housing stock was publicly owned for rental stock).
You're mixing up the rights of people and businesses here. I'm OK with the government prioritizing the ability for people to live over the ability of a business to make money.
You're mixing up the rights of people and businesses here. I'm OK with the government prioritizing the ability for people to live over the ability of a business to make money.
The standard advice is to have enough cash reserves to cover all your mortgages for 6-12 months. It's been more than 12 months but most conforming loans have been able to get forbearance, and yeah, not sure why selling one wasn't an option in this scenario.
Probably wouldn't have gotten top dollar if there's a nonpaying tenant in there but better than involuntary homelessness.
Of course this article is light on details.
Probably wouldn't have gotten top dollar if there's a nonpaying tenant in there but better than involuntary homelessness.
Of course this article is light on details.
> You've made a business from renting people property.
Right. And this business allows for the removal or tenants if they stop paying their rent. And the Supreme Court has ruled that President Biden has acted illegally in stopping evictions.
Right. And this business allows for the removal or tenants if they stop paying their rent. And the Supreme Court has ruled that President Biden has acted illegally in stopping evictions.
They ruled that the executive branch doesn't have this power, and that congress should pass legislation. They didn't say the government doesn't have this power, just that the wrong branch used it.
Exactly. They ruled that President Biden acted against the law, because he doesn't have the power to do this. If congress were to pass legislation, they'd have to take in account the "takings" clause of the constitution.
Sell a property, get an equity loan, etc. Clearly I don't know the full story, but it doesn't sound plausible that someone who owns three properties doesn't have enough knowledge of real estate to find a way to monetize them other than rental income.
> get an equity loan
You are assuming she has good credit.
You are assuming she has good credit.
I'm not from NY, or the US for that mater - but has there been a freeze on the banks from pursuing action? When there are moratoriums, it would only be fair to also bar the banks from taking action against the landlords - even more so when there's an emergency fund.
jonahbenton(1)
> Only $1.7 billion of the $46.5 billion Emergency Rental Assistance Program has been distributed by state and local governments
Both the landlord and her tenants interviewed in this article do not have the money to rectify this situation, the landlord is stuck without income because of Covid, the tenant is stuck without income because of Covid trying to care for an entire family.
Without government assistance, one of those two parties is going to be homeless, period. You will either have landlords suffering a loss of income (sometimes catastrophically) or you will have mass evictions of low-income renters who have no way to afford housing during the pandemic.
So the entire point of rent moratoriums was that the government was going to step in and provide resources to people affected, to try and prevent these kinds of no-win situations. That money hasn't appeared, despite being approved by Congress. So now we're having a debate about whether it's more moral to force a landlord with 3 properties to live in her van, or whether it's more moral to force a renter caring for her daughter and autistic son to be homeless. Both of those outcomes are bad.
The real story here is, after the government approved $46.5 billion to help prevent situations like this, why only around a tenth of that assistance has actually been distributed to the people who desperately need it.