4 ms·

I suspect these situations are exceptions and the vast majority of landlords can afford even an extended period of deadbeat tenants. Perhaps someone here knows

by arpyzo 6y ago

I suspect these situations are exceptions and the vast majority of landlords can afford even an extended period of deadbeat tenants. Perhaps someone here knows where to find evidence on this. I'd also like to point out that the landlords mentioned here have an option that keeps them financially solvent, namely to sell the property. The tenants, on the other hand, have no options.

toast0 6y ago
I suspect selling the property is a lot harder when there's a tenant who is not paying rent and can't be evicted.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  And yet it is still possible.
nyczomg 6y ago
"I'd also like to point out that the landlords mentioned here have an option that keeps them financially solvent, namely to sell the property." LOL. No prospective buyer will be allowed to see the inside of the property. Anyone buying it knows it might be months or years before they can even take possession of the property and inspect whatever state it is in. IF landlords are even able to offload properties occupied by tenants, for sure they are doing that at a huge loss.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Yes, they would do it at a huge loss. That's the risk of having no savings and no stable employement beyond operating a business which has entered a liquidity crisis.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    > That's the risk of having no savings and no stable employement beyond operating a business which has entered a liquidity crisis. A real estate owner shouldn’t be forced to liquidate at below market rates due to unfunded federal mandates.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      That's a "should" statement. Another "should" statement is that no one should rely on the rent from their properties to pay their mortgage. As it stands, it was known to landlords that the CDC has the power, during pandemics, to engage in action such as this one or even more severe. Yet they chose to take on risk, which provides essentially no service to society.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - xyzzyz 6y ago
        > As it stands, it was known to landlords that the CDC has the power, during pandemics, to engage in action such as this one or even more severe. This is simply false. They couldn’t have known that, because CDC never had constitutional authority to issue this order in the first place. There is no way this order could survive strict scrutiny test: it is not nearly enough narrowly tailored.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The CDC, and the federal government writ large, has exceptional authority in times of pandemics, including the implementation of actual lockdowns. It is almost certainly legal, and precedent has shown much worse.
Shivetya 6y ago
Actually they cannot sell it, even the bank cannot foreclose on it in many cities. This is the crux of the problem. The government has effectively taken one persons property and assigned it to another for the duration of the pandemic or whatever the next issue they want to latch on to - that is what makes the situation even worse is now that they have found one justification to block evictions and more its a short step to finding another. The government should have been forced to cover the costs or percentage of the lost rental costs. Just like the government should be the entity covering hero pay requirements. Instead they abuse a class which garners little sympathy to score political points at no cost to them (that group is landlords and in some cases businesses with out of state ownership). Or you could find similar examples like using a local BBQ joint near me which was not allowed to sell alcohol during parts of the pandemic yet was not refunded any of the licensing fees paid to the city, county, or state.

by arpyzo 6y ago

toast0 6y ago

I suspect selling the property is a lot harder when there's a tenant who is not paying rent and can't be evicted.

sudosysgen 6y ago
And yet it is still possible.

nyczomg 6y ago

"I'd also like to point out that the landlords mentioned here have an option that keeps them financially solvent, namely to sell the property." LOL. No prospective buyer will be allowed to see the inside of the property. Anyone buying it knows it might be months or years before they can even take possession of the property and inspect whatever state it is in. IF landlords are even able to offload properties occupied by tenants, for sure they are doing that at a huge loss.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Yes, they would do it at a huge loss. That's the risk of having no savings and no stable employement beyond operating a business which has entered a liquidity crisis.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  > That's the risk of having no savings and no stable employement beyond operating a business which has entered a liquidity crisis. A real estate owner shouldn’t be forced to liquidate at below market rates due to unfunded federal mandates.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    That's a "should" statement. Another "should" statement is that no one should rely on the rent from their properties to pay their mortgage. As it stands, it was known to landlords that the CDC has the power, during pandemics, to engage in action such as this one or even more severe. Yet they chose to take on risk, which provides essentially no service to society.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      > As it stands, it was known to landlords that the CDC has the power, during pandemics, to engage in action such as this one or even more severe. This is simply false. They couldn’t have known that, because CDC never had constitutional authority to issue this order in the first place. There is no way this order could survive strict scrutiny test: it is not nearly enough narrowly tailored.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The CDC, and the federal government writ large, has exceptional authority in times of pandemics, including the implementation of actual lockdowns. It is almost certainly legal, and precedent has shown much worse.

Shivetya 6y ago

Actually they cannot sell it, even the bank cannot foreclose on it in many cities. This is the crux of the problem. The government has effectively taken one persons property and assigned it to another for the duration of the pandemic or whatever the next issue they want to latch on to - that is what makes the situation even worse is now that they have found one justification to block evictions and more its a short step to finding another. The government should have been forced to cover the costs or percentage of the lost rental costs. Just like the government should be the entity covering hero pay requirements. Instead they abuse a class which garners little sympathy to score political points at no cost to them (that group is landlords and in some cases businesses with out of state ownership). Or you could find similar examples like using a local BBQ joint near me which was not allowed to sell alcohol during parts of the pandemic yet was not refunded any of the licensing fees paid to the city, county, or state.