3 ms·

This is true, but the priority in this case was keeping people housed during an unprecedented national health crisis.

by foota 5y ago

cudgy 5y ago
Then find them or build them housing, or distribute compensation to landlords temporarily. The government tried to distribute money but the poor implementation of that effort killed it before it started. Laying the burden on landlords for more than a few weeks is unconscionable and inequitable. I wonder how many small landlords sold or lost previously profitable properties due to their cash flow being decimated. The long term rental market is damaged; landlords will now be hesitant to rent long term without significant protection like larger deposit requirements or even rent for less time to avoid being susceptible to some of these government actions.
- foota 5y ago
  Will they? I've hardly noticed any changes in my rental market, now that things are normalizing. I agree, government transferring the wealth indirectly would be better, but it's politically infeasible. Barring that, I'd rather help renters and hurt landlords than the other way around, since the latter are generally more stable. Also, I don't think the effort to distribute money was really a failure, I think some states squandered it because they didn't want to give handouts, but it was likely one of the largest disburtions of direct aid in the history of the United States and coupled with other programs avoided an economic disaster that would have dwarfed 2008.
- ViViDboarder 5y ago
  > Then find them They did. The houses they were in. > or build them housing, This takes time and wouldn’t be done in time for the pandemic > or distribute compensation to landlords temporarily. Millions of people lost income during the pandemic. Including the tenants were talking about who are at risk of eviction. Why should landlord income be any more sacred than any other income?

This is true, but the priority in this case was keeping people housed during an unprecedented national health crisis.

by foota 5y ago

This is true, but the priority in this case was keeping people housed during an unprecedented national health crisis.

Then find them or build them housing, or distribute compensation to landlords temporarily. The government tried to distribute money but the poor implementation of that effort killed it before it started. Laying the burden on landlords for more than a few weeks is unconscionable and inequitable. I wonder how many small landlords sold or lost previously profitable properties due to their cash flow being decimated. The long term rental market is damaged; landlords will now be hesitant to rent long term without significant protection like larger deposit requirements or even rent for less time to avoid being susceptible to some of these government actions.

foota 5y ago
Will they? I've hardly noticed any changes in my rental market, now that things are normalizing. I agree, government transferring the wealth indirectly would be better, but it's politically infeasible. Barring that, I'd rather help renters and hurt landlords than the other way around, since the latter are generally more stable. Also, I don't think the effort to distribute money was really a failure, I think some states squandered it because they didn't want to give handouts, but it was likely one of the largest disburtions of direct aid in the history of the United States and coupled with other programs avoided an economic disaster that would have dwarfed 2008.
ViViDboarder 5y ago
> Then find them They did. The houses they were in. > or build them housing, This takes time and wouldn’t be done in time for the pandemic > or distribute compensation to landlords temporarily. Millions of people lost income during the pandemic. Including the tenants were talking about who are at risk of eviction. Why should landlord income be any more sacred than any other income?