3 ms·

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 "spec

by 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.

by xf1cf 5y ago

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.