6 ms·

I do find the rush to make landlords whole a little strange. Isn’t the concept here that you’re making a speculative investment and the risk is what justifies t

I do find the rush to make landlords whole a little strange. Isn’t the concept here that you’re making a speculative investment and the risk is what justifies the profit?

dmitrygr 5y ago
Yes but as a landlord I am supposed to be able to remove a non-paying tenant. They took away that ability, so now landlord HAD TO provide free housing to someone while still making mortgage payments.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Or default on the mortgage. You’re not proving housing, you’re preventing people from having housing unless they pay you. When housing wasn’t a speculative investment it was far cheaper and far fewer people were forced to rent to make someone else money for no labour.
  - dmitrygr 5y ago
    So you've never heard of duplexes? Default -> homeless
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    Some landlords rent out a room in their own house they live in. If they stopped renting there would be no additional housing available.
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      Couldn’t those that are currently such landlords have been incentivised to purchase smaller homes, making more large ones available? Or alternatively, some large homes could be subdivided. Why should tenants pay for the greed of landlords? They get paid for doing nothing, the least they could do is bear their own risks.
      - dmitrygr 5y ago
        Ok, but how do we handle this until we completely remake the world in precisely the way that lucian1900 thinks it should be?
        lucian1900 5y ago
        I’m just pointing out that landlords are exploiting tenants and other arrangements are possible and have existed. Building social housing, removing incentives for buy-to-rent, taxing second homes and capping rents to a fraction of minimum wage are all measures that can be introduced gradually on the way to de-commodifying housing.
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        They may not have bought a smaller house. Sometimes people buy a larger house because they have kids. When their kids move out they may rent out the rooms. While moving to a smaller place may make good financial sense in some ways, some people don't like to move. They like their neighborhood and house and all. You just sit on your computer programming or whatever you do. That is just getting paid for typing which is not real work. Maybe you should stop being greedy and just type for free.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        A home that later becomes too big could be exchanged for one that is appropriately sized, so a larger family could have a home available. However you spin it, you can’t get away from the exploitation. And don’t be disingenuous, I get paid for labour while landlords get paid for ownership.
        _-david-_ 5y ago
        What do you mean "exchanged"? Are you suggesting people should just trade a larger (and more expensive) house for a cheaper one? Why on earth would anybody want to do that? They may sell their house and buy a smaller one, but "exchange"? Based on this comment and others of yours it sounds like you don't believe people should own land.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
The government changed the rules of the investment, though. Before the eviction moratorium, landlords could at least predict the maximum amount of rent they would lose due to non-payment before they could evict someone and find new tenants. The moratorium removed that option, changing the risk profile dramatically without warning. That’s the issue.
- scotuswroteus 5y ago
  To others, "the issue" is that the rules of investment include commoditizing homes while militarizing police responses to vagrancy and loitering. IMHO, bailing out all landlords with the budget surplus makes sense for a different reason: to ensure that the next time the government needs to do something like this, given the ever escalating financial and fiscal emergency in which a majority of us find ourselves, they know that the government will figure out a make good on the other end.
- __blockcipher__ 5y ago
  It really scares me that this even needs to be explained to people. The government is outright stealing from landlords. They literally made it illegal (while also not passing an actual law, as far as I know [which is how every COVID restriction worked as well]) to evict somebody. So many people have this juvenile notion of what a landlord is, too. They seem to think the only type of landlord is a mega-tycoon that owns hundreds of properties. Don't get me wrong, I am against all forms of theft so it's still wrong to steal from them, but it makes it a lot more apparent how wrong it is when you're stealing from the old Grandma that has 1 or 2 extra properties that she rents out.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    If a change in the law causes a stock I own to crater in value, is the government “outright stealing from” me?
    - nybble41 5y ago
      That obviously depends on what the change was. If the business of the company in question was predicated on selling services to the government and the law changes such that they no longer require the company's services, then no, that is not stealing from you. If the change in the law is that the company is henceforth required to provide service without payment then yes, absolutely, that is stealing from you. The government doesn't owe you a particular market price, but when they interfere with your perfectly voluntary private business dealings (or just outright take your stuff for public use without just compensation, which is basically what happened here) that is a clear-cut example of theft.
treeman79 5y ago
The state caused the harm to landlords. So it can be argued the state is responsible for the problem. Imagine your neighbor sneezes. So the bank sends thugs to take steak your rent money. Then sending police to take your house for non payment. All the while blaming you as the problem. At some point the absurdity has to be dealt with. Yes this argument is flawed. But so is the whole shutting down the economy thing.
xf1cf 5y ago
Why? Landlords were forced by edict to keep non-paying tenants while simultaneously footing the bill. This is completely unfair to landlords and makes the "speculative investment" argument into a government decree. The risk could not legally be mitigated. Otherwise, landlords would have evicted en masse everyone who couldn't pay after some period of time. I am friends with a few people who own houses. They were happy to help as long as their tenants could provide at least some payment. It's better in the long run to keep good tenants than to evict them even if it costs money in the short term. This isn't true in general however, and several places have toxic tenants who have refused to pay and are taking advantage of the moratorium. This is the literal definition of theft by decree. Making landlords whole should be top priority if their intention is to save the housing market. Imagine if they didn't - what would happen? Landlords would require stellar credit, several months payment up front, and regular financial checks. This all assuming they just don't pack up and sell their property (which has gone up significantly in value) thereby reducing the available places to rent.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  > Imagine if they didn't - what would happen? Landlords would require stellar credit, several months payment up front, and regular financial checks. This all assuming they just don't pack up and sell their property (which has gone up significantly in value) thereby reducing the available places to rent. So the nightmare scenario here is more people own their homes? I’m not sure I see why that’s bad, but it seems just as likely that they’re selling to other landlords more able to handle the vicissitudes of the market.
  - xf1cf 5y ago
    Where I live Californians have absolutely decimated the market. A few realtor buddies of mine say they almost exclusively deal in cash buyers from there and I was almost outbid on my own house several years ago by the same people. The net result is either these homes will go to the wealthy in a state with outsized influence (California), or they will be purchased and lived in by them. This pushes the locals even further out of the market and doesn't really do anything to resolve the current supply shortage we have. For Duplexes though I think you are correct. Likely they will sell to far more stringent mega-corps capable of withstanding 100 year events.
WalterBright 5y ago
It's analogous to the government declaring it is ok to steal from a supermarket. The free market relies on the government protecting property rights. When there is a significant risk that the government is not going to protect property rights, and even legalize outright theft, the end result is commonplace in such countries: Businesses refuse to invest in those countries, and they have poor economies that people try to escape from and move to the US.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  Landlords are welcome to sell their property (at a likely tidy profit from what they bought it at, I might add, given current prices) and go elsewhere, if that’s what they would like to do.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    The price they can get for it will be reduced by the new risk of rent moratoriums. There's a general exodus of landlords from Seattle going on due to a series of punitive laws passed against them by the Seattle City Council. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/stop-new-rental-regulations-to-preserve-housing-supply/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/stop-new-ren... What this means for renters is less places available for rent, at much higher prices.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Maybe it will but the current market shows the exact opposite trend.

I do find the rush to make landlords whole a little strange. Isn’t the concept here that you’re making a speculative investment and the risk is what justifies the profit?

dmitrygr 5y ago

Yes but as a landlord I am supposed to be able to remove a non-paying tenant. They took away that ability, so now landlord HAD TO provide free housing to someone while still making mortgage payments.

lucian1900 5y ago
Or default on the mortgage. You’re not proving housing, you’re preventing people from having housing unless they pay you. When housing wasn’t a speculative investment it was far cheaper and far fewer people were forced to rent to make someone else money for no labour.
- dmitrygr 5y ago
  So you've never heard of duplexes? Default -> homeless
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Some landlords rent out a room in their own house they live in. If they stopped renting there would be no additional housing available.
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    Couldn’t those that are currently such landlords have been incentivised to purchase smaller homes, making more large ones available? Or alternatively, some large homes could be subdivided. Why should tenants pay for the greed of landlords? They get paid for doing nothing, the least they could do is bear their own risks.
    - dmitrygr 5y ago
      Ok, but how do we handle this until we completely remake the world in precisely the way that lucian1900 thinks it should be?
      - lucian1900 5y ago
        I’m just pointing out that landlords are exploiting tenants and other arrangements are possible and have existed. Building social housing, removing incentives for buy-to-rent, taxing second homes and capping rents to a fraction of minimum wage are all measures that can be introduced gradually on the way to de-commodifying housing.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      They may not have bought a smaller house. Sometimes people buy a larger house because they have kids. When their kids move out they may rent out the rooms. While moving to a smaller place may make good financial sense in some ways, some people don't like to move. They like their neighborhood and house and all. You just sit on your computer programming or whatever you do. That is just getting paid for typing which is not real work. Maybe you should stop being greedy and just type for free.
      - lucian1900 5y ago
        A home that later becomes too big could be exchanged for one that is appropriately sized, so a larger family could have a home available. However you spin it, you can’t get away from the exploitation. And don’t be disingenuous, I get paid for labour while landlords get paid for ownership.
        _-david-_ 5y ago
        What do you mean "exchanged"? Are you suggesting people should just trade a larger (and more expensive) house for a cheaper one? Why on earth would anybody want to do that? They may sell their house and buy a smaller one, but "exchange"? Based on this comment and others of yours it sounds like you don't believe people should own land.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

The government changed the rules of the investment, though. Before the eviction moratorium, landlords could at least predict the maximum amount of rent they would lose due to non-payment before they could evict someone and find new tenants. The moratorium removed that option, changing the risk profile dramatically without warning. That’s the issue.

scotuswroteus 5y ago
To others, "the issue" is that the rules of investment include commoditizing homes while militarizing police responses to vagrancy and loitering. IMHO, bailing out all landlords with the budget surplus makes sense for a different reason: to ensure that the next time the government needs to do something like this, given the ever escalating financial and fiscal emergency in which a majority of us find ourselves, they know that the government will figure out a make good on the other end.
__blockcipher__ 5y ago
It really scares me that this even needs to be explained to people. The government is outright stealing from landlords. They literally made it illegal (while also not passing an actual law, as far as I know [which is how every COVID restriction worked as well]) to evict somebody. So many people have this juvenile notion of what a landlord is, too. They seem to think the only type of landlord is a mega-tycoon that owns hundreds of properties. Don't get me wrong, I am against all forms of theft so it's still wrong to steal from them, but it makes it a lot more apparent how wrong it is when you're stealing from the old Grandma that has 1 or 2 extra properties that she rents out.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  If a change in the law causes a stock I own to crater in value, is the government “outright stealing from” me?
  - nybble41 5y ago
    That obviously depends on what the change was. If the business of the company in question was predicated on selling services to the government and the law changes such that they no longer require the company's services, then no, that is not stealing from you. If the change in the law is that the company is henceforth required to provide service without payment then yes, absolutely, that is stealing from you. The government doesn't owe you a particular market price, but when they interfere with your perfectly voluntary private business dealings (or just outright take your stuff for public use without just compensation, which is basically what happened here) that is a clear-cut example of theft.

treeman79 5y ago

The state caused the harm to landlords. So it can be argued the state is responsible for the problem. Imagine your neighbor sneezes. So the bank sends thugs to take steak your rent money. Then sending police to take your house for non payment. All the while blaming you as the problem. At some point the absurdity has to be dealt with. Yes this argument is flawed. But so is the whole shutting down the economy thing.

xf1cf 5y ago

Why? Landlords were forced by edict to keep non-paying tenants while simultaneously footing the bill. This is completely unfair to landlords and makes the "speculative investment" argument into a government decree. The risk could not legally be mitigated. Otherwise, landlords would have evicted en masse everyone who couldn't pay after some period of time. I am friends with a few people who own houses. They were happy to help as long as their tenants could provide at least some payment. It's better in the long run to keep good tenants than to evict them even if it costs money in the short term. This isn't true in general however, and several places have toxic tenants who have refused to pay and are taking advantage of the moratorium. This is the literal definition of theft by decree. Making landlords whole should be top priority if their intention is to save the housing market. Imagine if they didn't - what would happen? Landlords would require stellar credit, several months payment up front, and regular financial checks. This all assuming they just don't pack up and sell their property (which has gone up significantly in value) thereby reducing the available places to rent.

emodendroket 5y ago
> Imagine if they didn't - what would happen? Landlords would require stellar credit, several months payment up front, and regular financial checks. This all assuming they just don't pack up and sell their property (which has gone up significantly in value) thereby reducing the available places to rent. So the nightmare scenario here is more people own their homes? I’m not sure I see why that’s bad, but it seems just as likely that they’re selling to other landlords more able to handle the vicissitudes of the market.
- xf1cf 5y ago
  Where I live Californians have absolutely decimated the market. A few realtor buddies of mine say they almost exclusively deal in cash buyers from there and I was almost outbid on my own house several years ago by the same people. The net result is either these homes will go to the wealthy in a state with outsized influence (California), or they will be purchased and lived in by them. This pushes the locals even further out of the market and doesn't really do anything to resolve the current supply shortage we have. For Duplexes though I think you are correct. Likely they will sell to far more stringent mega-corps capable of withstanding 100 year events.

WalterBright 5y ago

It's analogous to the government declaring it is ok to steal from a supermarket. The free market relies on the government protecting property rights. When there is a significant risk that the government is not going to protect property rights, and even legalize outright theft, the end result is commonplace in such countries: Businesses refuse to invest in those countries, and they have poor economies that people try to escape from and move to the US.

emodendroket 5y ago
Landlords are welcome to sell their property (at a likely tidy profit from what they bought it at, I might add, given current prices) and go elsewhere, if that’s what they would like to do.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  The price they can get for it will be reduced by the new risk of rent moratoriums. There's a general exodus of landlords from Seattle going on due to a series of punitive laws passed against them by the Seattle City Council. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/stop-new-rental-regulations-to-preserve-housing-supply/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/stop-new-ren... What this means for renters is less places available for rent, at much higher prices.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    Maybe it will but the current market shows the exact opposite trend.