4 ms·

There's a small amount of tenants that had the money but just stopped paying for a year. Those landlords are beyond mad.

• j_walter 5y ago
  How small? With the federal benefits above and beyond unemployment...there was no reason that such a large portion of people should have been not paying rent. A friend who runs a property management company laid off 60% of his workforce (mostly maintenance guys) because 74% of his tenants stopped paying completely since last April.
  • homero 5y ago
    Probably a lot, I'd guess half could've paid one way or another, highly depends on the area though
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• jnwatson 5y ago
  Indeed. That's why we have a civil court system though.
• xhkkffbf 5y ago
  Small? A friend who has about 5 houses told me that all 5 were behind or paying only a fraction of the rent. Including the woman who worked for Google as the local rep selling schools on using GSuite. She was making $150k when she filled out the lease paperwork. Google didn't have layoffs but somehow she couldn't write the full check. Go figure. But he still owed money to the bank and the utility company and ...
  • matsemann 5y ago
    It's hard to have too much sympathy for a person owning 5 houses while others are struggling having roof over their heads, though.
    • Chris2048 5y ago
      The person is a landlord, they are providing housing.
      • matsemann 5y ago
        How? By buying a house someone else could have bought and actually lived in, thus increasing the prices for everyone? How does buying and renting a house provide something not already there?
        • sevenf0ur 5y ago
          Not everyone is wealthy enough or wants to move into an area and buy a house. Landlords make this possible. They also keep up with all the maintenance that any homeowner is familiar with. Houses are in a constant state of decay.
          • MereInterest 5y ago
            Except that landlords make a profit. The rent is higher than the mortgage+expenses. The landlord assumes risk of depreciation, but the response to the 2008 financial crisis showed that risk to be minimal. That extra profit is an incentive for landlords to buy more, which pushes up the price of houses overall, whether being bought to live in, or bought to rent out
            • Chris2048 5y ago
              > The landlord assumes risk of depreciation, but the response to the 2008 financial crisis showed that risk to be minimal Then it seems you think risk is overpriced. That fair enough. But if the whole market of landlords disagrees, the burden is on you to demonstrate otherwise. > the response to the 2008 financial crisis showed That's like saying "the fact my house didn't burn down showed that my fire-insurance was worthless". That's not how risk works. If you disagree, buy a house yourself, and offer it at lower-than-market rental rates. If no one with skin in the game is willing to do that, what can be done? It's not like the lower-end rental market is only affordable to the 1% - There are plenty small-time middle-class landlords.