6 ms·

> "Tenant screening? I want to live with good neighbors." And there's the other side. A landlord has an obligation to ensure things are in good working order,

> "Tenant screening? I want to live with good neighbors." And there's the other side. A landlord has an obligation to ensure things are in good working order, pay the mortgage, upkeep common areas, and pay the taxes. Whether your tenant pays or not, those bills are still due. One tenant being late once is irritating but not catastrophic. Tenant(s) not paying for months burns through reserves quickly. It's in everyone's best interest to ensure tenants can pay the rent.

jeffbee 6y ago
> It's in everyone's best interest to ensure tenants can pay the rent. Which is why it's so weird to see landlords advertising "no Section 8" (which is unlawful in California, FYI). Section 8 is an ironclad guarantee that you will get paid in full and on time every month. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=%22no+section+8%22&availabilityMode=0&sale_date=all+dates https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=%22no+section+...
- jakear 6y ago
  But of course it means you’ll have “those people” as tenants, for whatever worst-nightmare definition of “those” the landlord can concoct.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    In my property management experience (~80 units), Section 8 tenants have no assets and limited income, so when they incur thousands of dollars of damage to a unit, there is no recourse. Non section 8 tenants have skin in the game: assets to pursue or income that can be garnished using a judgement if there’s damage beyond what a security deposit covers. This encourages a shared responsibility model where they treat the property with enough respect that the only damage is expected wear and tear (there are outlier events, kids will be kids and whatnot). It’s not about race (in my case, at least). It’s about resources and means.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      This is one of those small-time landlord urban myths. Section 8 tenants stay for a _lot_ longer than average, and because of that they are systematically less likely to trash the place. By comparison someone with a high income and a lot of assets is very, very likely to leave as soon as they can, meaning even if they don't trash the place you still have a higher vacancy cost (which is a landlord's main risk) and because of their wealth you'll never get anything out of them other than the deposit, because they have and can afford lawyers.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Can you provide data to backup your assertion? My data points come from experience of myself and other large scale residential landlords (100s of doors, a mix between Florida and Midwest properties). Personally, I will happily take vacancy risk over damage risk. Vacancy risk is limited by monthly burn (mine is low for each property), damage risk is much greater amount imho.
        jeffbee 6y ago
        HUD provides comprehensive data on length of tenancy for housing voucher program participants. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/LengthofStay.pdf https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Lengt...
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
        This part: > and because of that they are systematically less likely to trash the place. Anecdotally, my data agrees with HUD that Section 8 tenants who don't damage the property stay longer (although Section 8 makes up a small percentage of our total tenant population, primarily in the northwestern Chicago suburbs). Our costs have been high when (intentional) damage is done though (sometimes tens of thousands of dollars), causing the property to be in the red for years after. One of our Section 8 tenants in Aurora was a great tenant; their son moved back in after a stint in a correctional facility, altercations in the front yard occurred, culminating in a drive by shooting attempt (I have the receipts to repair the bullet holes in the siding and replacement of the front door). Per the jurisdiction's rental guidelines and lease addendum requirements, we were required to terminate the lease (the jurisdiction's requirements, not ours). We helped them relocate out of state at our own cost.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- IncRnd 6y ago
  That's not correct. It is illegal to discriminate in CA against renters, based on the type of income. Section 8 in CA is not considered part of the renter's income. Section 8 does not guarantee that the rent will get paid in full and on time every month. There is a determination of rental percentage that is made initially and when the renter's income changes. Section 8 may actually pay up to 4 months late, but once it starts it pays very regularly.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    SB 329 specifically redefined "source of income" to include section 8 and other assistance paid directly to the landlord. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB329 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?... Don't believe my interpretation? Ask the landlords' trade association. https://caanet.org/governor-signs-mandatory-section-8-bill https://caanet.org/governor-signs-mandatory-section-8-bill
    - IncRnd 6y ago
      Thanks! It's been a couple of years since I've rented-out property in that neck of the woods. Looking at the text: (2) “Discrimination” does not include either of the following: (A) Refusal to rent or lease a portion of an owner-occupied single-family house to a person as a roomer or boarder living within the household, provided that no more than one roomer or boarder is to live within the household, and the owner complies with subdivision (c) of Section 12955, which prohibits discriminatory notices, statements, and advertisements. (B) Where the sharing of living areas in a single dwelling unit is involved, the use of words stating or tending to imply that the housing being advertised is available only to persons of one sex.
- shinjitsu 6y ago
  In my state, Section 8 Assistance makes up the difference between a tenant's income and the market rate of the area. So the tenant is responsible for 1/3 of the rent and section 8 money is responsible for the rest, then the landlord is guaranteed to get the 2/3 from Section 8, but if the tenant doesn't pay their 1/3 you are out of luck. Eviction is a slow process here too.

jeffbee 6y ago

> It's in everyone's best interest to ensure tenants can pay the rent. Which is why it's so weird to see landlords advertising "no Section 8" (which is unlawful in California, FYI). Section 8 is an ironclad guarantee that you will get paid in full and on time every month. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=%22no+section+8%22&availabilityMode=0&sale_date=all+dates https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=%22no+section+...

jakear 6y ago
But of course it means you’ll have “those people” as tenants, for whatever worst-nightmare definition of “those” the landlord can concoct.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  In my property management experience (~80 units), Section 8 tenants have no assets and limited income, so when they incur thousands of dollars of damage to a unit, there is no recourse. Non section 8 tenants have skin in the game: assets to pursue or income that can be garnished using a judgement if there’s damage beyond what a security deposit covers. This encourages a shared responsibility model where they treat the property with enough respect that the only damage is expected wear and tear (there are outlier events, kids will be kids and whatnot). It’s not about race (in my case, at least). It’s about resources and means.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    This is one of those small-time landlord urban myths. Section 8 tenants stay for a _lot_ longer than average, and because of that they are systematically less likely to trash the place. By comparison someone with a high income and a lot of assets is very, very likely to leave as soon as they can, meaning even if they don't trash the place you still have a higher vacancy cost (which is a landlord's main risk) and because of their wealth you'll never get anything out of them other than the deposit, because they have and can afford lawyers.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Can you provide data to backup your assertion? My data points come from experience of myself and other large scale residential landlords (100s of doors, a mix between Florida and Midwest properties). Personally, I will happily take vacancy risk over damage risk. Vacancy risk is limited by monthly burn (mine is low for each property), damage risk is much greater amount imho.
      - jeffbee 6y ago
        HUD provides comprehensive data on length of tenancy for housing voucher program participants. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/LengthofStay.pdf https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Lengt...
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
        This part: > and because of that they are systematically less likely to trash the place. Anecdotally, my data agrees with HUD that Section 8 tenants who don't damage the property stay longer (although Section 8 makes up a small percentage of our total tenant population, primarily in the northwestern Chicago suburbs). Our costs have been high when (intentional) damage is done though (sometimes tens of thousands of dollars), causing the property to be in the red for years after. One of our Section 8 tenants in Aurora was a great tenant; their son moved back in after a stint in a correctional facility, altercations in the front yard occurred, culminating in a drive by shooting attempt (I have the receipts to repair the bullet holes in the siding and replacement of the front door). Per the jurisdiction's rental guidelines and lease addendum requirements, we were required to terminate the lease (the jurisdiction's requirements, not ours). We helped them relocate out of state at our own cost.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
IncRnd 6y ago
That's not correct. It is illegal to discriminate in CA against renters, based on the type of income. Section 8 in CA is not considered part of the renter's income. Section 8 does not guarantee that the rent will get paid in full and on time every month. There is a determination of rental percentage that is made initially and when the renter's income changes. Section 8 may actually pay up to 4 months late, but once it starts it pays very regularly.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  SB 329 specifically redefined "source of income" to include section 8 and other assistance paid directly to the landlord. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB329 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?... Don't believe my interpretation? Ask the landlords' trade association. https://caanet.org/governor-signs-mandatory-section-8-bill https://caanet.org/governor-signs-mandatory-section-8-bill
  - IncRnd 6y ago
    Thanks! It's been a couple of years since I've rented-out property in that neck of the woods. Looking at the text: (2) “Discrimination” does not include either of the following: (A) Refusal to rent or lease a portion of an owner-occupied single-family house to a person as a roomer or boarder living within the household, provided that no more than one roomer or boarder is to live within the household, and the owner complies with subdivision (c) of Section 12955, which prohibits discriminatory notices, statements, and advertisements. (B) Where the sharing of living areas in a single dwelling unit is involved, the use of words stating or tending to imply that the housing being advertised is available only to persons of one sex.
shinjitsu 6y ago
In my state, Section 8 Assistance makes up the difference between a tenant's income and the market rate of the area. So the tenant is responsible for 1/3 of the rent and section 8 money is responsible for the rest, then the landlord is guaranteed to get the 2/3 from Section 8, but if the tenant doesn't pay their 1/3 you are out of luck. Eviction is a slow process here too.