5 ms·

Well of course they are months behind on rent, as the eviction moratorium didn't forgive anyone of rent that was due, it merely stopped the eviction process so

by rsj_hn 5y ago

Well of course they are months behind on rent, as the eviction moratorium didn't forgive anyone of rent that was due, it merely stopped the eviction process so that the due rent could continue to accumulate. In this way, the moratorium contributed to people owing more rent than they otherwise would have. This is like saying "Millions of Americans still have credit card debt after law prohibiting cancelling of credit cards due to unpaid debts".

draw_down 5y ago
I don’t think it’s meant to express surprise. Just reality. No need to be snide about it
gkop 5y ago
You have a good point. In fact, it's surprising that (per the article) only 2.2M renters are 4+ months behind, considering how long the moratorium was in place. Separately, there are state and local programs doing rent forgiveness, eg. https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/covidrelief/ https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/covidrelief/
- giantg2 5y ago
  I think the Federal government has allocated about $21B in rent assistance and the states have distributed about $8B of that through their programs so far.
chii 5y ago
> the moratorium contributed to people owing more rent than they otherwise would have the moratorium didn't contribute to owing more, because the alternative was to have those people evicted and in the streets (in the middle of a pandemic no less). unless if they could have gone to a lower-rent shelter had they been evicted, they are going to owe just as much.
- marris 5y ago
  If they were evicted and living on the streets, then they would not have accrued a rent liability for those months. So the total liability now would be less. You could argue that the current state of large accrued rent liabilities is better than the alternative world of smaller liabilities, more homeless, more deaths, etc, but the OP is not making the inverse claim. Further, IIRC the moratorium relied on self-reported hardship. Is it so hard to imagine that people who could have actually afforded their rent decided to game the system a bit and accrue (rather than pay) their liability? Such behavior would also cause the current liabilities to be higher.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure that eviction for non-payment of rent does not relieve the renter of the debt that they owe.
    - gkop 5y ago
      Landlord will settle for less than 100%. Much less than 100%, in California.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        Landlords almost never "settle" with the renter in this way, they keep the deposit and if they are a corporate landlord they sell off the debt to a collection agency and move on to the next tenant. If they are an individual landlord, then it really depends -- California has a lot of accidental landlords holding onto property because of Prop 13, and they can themselves be pretty incompetent in running their business. Negotiating with them is worth a try. Part of the reason it doesn't happen is that if a tenant is not savvy enough to move to a cheaper unit when their income declines, they are unlikely to be savvy enough to try to negotiate with the landlord for a reduced debt obligation in exchange for quickly vacating. The responsible tenants move out promptly to a place they can afford (or move in with family) and the irresponsible ones wait to be evicted. Unfortunately there isn't much middle ground.
        5y ago
- foxpurple 5y ago
  There are absolutely some % of people who are so poor at financial management that they used the last year as a chance to not pay rent and instead buy luxuries. These people have dug themselves a huge hole.
  - scollet 5y ago
    > not pay rent and instead buy luxuries Seems highly unlikely and also fine. If you want to introduce moral arguments, you can dig your own hole.
    - foxpurple 5y ago
      Does it seem unlikely? the rise of buy now pay later services for non essential retail shows the average person is fairly financially illiterate and will put present comforts ahead of future finances.
      - scollet 5y ago
        This does follow. If we assume luxuries to be non-essentials "in general", then yes, it makes sense to me. The income for those renting and not able to make rent regardless of what they save, wouldn't match adjusted price hikes regardless. Maybe we are in two different ball parks.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> In this way, the moratorium contributed to people owing more rent than they otherwise would have. Only if for those who decided to stop paying rent when they otherwise could have continued paying it. But those people were just really misinformed given their credit is wrecked and getting another apartment will be really hard (doubly so now that landlords scared of future moratoriums will shy away from low or even lower middle income tenants). Or maybe you meant that the moratorium allowed the normal eviction rate to accumulate?
sailfast 5y ago
Perhaps fewer would be behind in rent if more of the rental assistance funds were released to those in need? The percentage of obligated funds vs. used funds is pretty lopsided at the moment, and time sensitive: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/09/24/august-emergency-rental-assistance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/09/24/august-e... As the OP article states over 40 Billion has been obligated but states have not been fast enough to create systems to disburse (or were unwilling)
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Evictions are handled in state courts. Bankruptcy is handled in Federal court. It might be interesting to see what the consequence of a moratorium on bankruptcy proceedings in states failing to distribute rental relief funds might be.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    As bankruptcy proceedings primarily help borrowers, it's not clear what punishing them would accomplish.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      Bankruptcy frees stranded assets. If tenants aren't paying rents, and landlords aren't paying mortgages, banks and real estate trusts have illiquid assets of difficult-to-assess (and likely low) value. With evictions, failures to assess risk ripple downwards, to tenants. Without evictions or bankruptcy closure, risk ripples upwards to creditors.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Paying people to spend more than they can afford in order to let them keep paying rent is a bad idea that ultimately helps only landlords. If someone lost their job due to covid, then they need to find a new job, and that often means finding a new job somewhere else and quite possibly for different pay. Similarly landlords in areas where jobs have dissapeared need to know what the true demand is for their units so they can be priced appropriately. Just paying money to pretend nothing has changed in each location is not good for either the rental market, or the job market, or the people who are pretending.
dheera 5y ago
Yes, they really should have removed people of rent obligations if they lost income (in tiers) and bailed those people out instead of big corporations.
- foxpurple 5y ago
  Australia did it better by just providing a regular income to everyone who lost their job. That way everyone keeps paying their bills/rent and things return to normal after.
  - refurb 5y ago
    The US did the same thing through the unemployment system. Back in 2008 you could be on unemployment for 2 years and get bonus payments on top of what’s standard.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Unfortunately that's not something you can do with legislation. Even the Federal moratorium was found unconstitutional. The government can't just step in and void a lease agreement. What you can do is give people money to pay rent. But there is no guarantee they will actually use it to pay rent. My guess is that the combination of a moratorium on evictions and giving people rent money would lead to a lot of rental debt accumulating, when what people need to do (if they lost a job due to covid) is reduce their expenses and move to a place they can afford at their new income level, rather than trying to keep staying in an apartment they can no longer afford to live in, waiting for a job to return that is likely to never return. If everyone did this, rental rates would decline as they would reflect the new levels of income people are actually earning, rather than the levels of income people wish they would still be earning. With the current approach, false price signals are created that make it seem like there is more demand for apartments at a given price point than what people can actually afford, and long term this hurts everyone.
  - antifa 5y ago
    > when what people need to do (if they lost a job due to covid) is reduce their expenses and move to a place they can afford at their new income level That's a lot of words to just say "there should have been mass homelessless".

by rsj_hn 5y ago

draw_down 5y ago

I don’t think it’s meant to express surprise. Just reality. No need to be snide about it

gkop 5y ago

You have a good point. In fact, it's surprising that (per the article) only 2.2M renters are 4+ months behind, considering how long the moratorium was in place. Separately, there are state and local programs doing rent forgiveness, eg. https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/covidrelief/ https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/covidrelief/

giantg2 5y ago
I think the Federal government has allocated about $21B in rent assistance and the states have distributed about $8B of that through their programs so far.

chii 5y ago

> the moratorium contributed to people owing more rent than they otherwise would have the moratorium didn't contribute to owing more, because the alternative was to have those people evicted and in the streets (in the middle of a pandemic no less). unless if they could have gone to a lower-rent shelter had they been evicted, they are going to owe just as much.

marris 5y ago
If they were evicted and living on the streets, then they would not have accrued a rent liability for those months. So the total liability now would be less. You could argue that the current state of large accrued rent liabilities is better than the alternative world of smaller liabilities, more homeless, more deaths, etc, but the OP is not making the inverse claim. Further, IIRC the moratorium relied on self-reported hardship. Is it so hard to imagine that people who could have actually afforded their rent decided to game the system a bit and accrue (rather than pay) their liability? Such behavior would also cause the current liabilities to be higher.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure that eviction for non-payment of rent does not relieve the renter of the debt that they owe.
  - gkop 5y ago
    Landlord will settle for less than 100%. Much less than 100%, in California.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      Landlords almost never "settle" with the renter in this way, they keep the deposit and if they are a corporate landlord they sell off the debt to a collection agency and move on to the next tenant. If they are an individual landlord, then it really depends -- California has a lot of accidental landlords holding onto property because of Prop 13, and they can themselves be pretty incompetent in running their business. Negotiating with them is worth a try. Part of the reason it doesn't happen is that if a tenant is not savvy enough to move to a cheaper unit when their income declines, they are unlikely to be savvy enough to try to negotiate with the landlord for a reduced debt obligation in exchange for quickly vacating. The responsible tenants move out promptly to a place they can afford (or move in with family) and the irresponsible ones wait to be evicted. Unfortunately there isn't much middle ground.
      - 5y ago
foxpurple 5y ago
There are absolutely some % of people who are so poor at financial management that they used the last year as a chance to not pay rent and instead buy luxuries. These people have dug themselves a huge hole.
- scollet 5y ago
  > not pay rent and instead buy luxuries Seems highly unlikely and also fine. If you want to introduce moral arguments, you can dig your own hole.
  - foxpurple 5y ago
    Does it seem unlikely? the rise of buy now pay later services for non essential retail shows the average person is fairly financially illiterate and will put present comforts ahead of future finances.
    - scollet 5y ago
      This does follow. If we assume luxuries to be non-essentials "in general", then yes, it makes sense to me. The income for those renting and not able to make rent regardless of what they save, wouldn't match adjusted price hikes regardless. Maybe we are in two different ball parks.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

> In this way, the moratorium contributed to people owing more rent than they otherwise would have. Only if for those who decided to stop paying rent when they otherwise could have continued paying it. But those people were just really misinformed given their credit is wrecked and getting another apartment will be really hard (doubly so now that landlords scared of future moratoriums will shy away from low or even lower middle income tenants). Or maybe you meant that the moratorium allowed the normal eviction rate to accumulate?

sailfast 5y ago

Perhaps fewer would be behind in rent if more of the rental assistance funds were released to those in need? The percentage of obligated funds vs. used funds is pretty lopsided at the moment, and time sensitive: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/09/24/august-emergency-rental-assistance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/09/24/august-e... As the OP article states over 40 Billion has been obligated but states have not been fast enough to create systems to disburse (or were unwilling)

dredmorbius 5y ago
Evictions are handled in state courts. Bankruptcy is handled in Federal court. It might be interesting to see what the consequence of a moratorium on bankruptcy proceedings in states failing to distribute rental relief funds might be.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  As bankruptcy proceedings primarily help borrowers, it's not clear what punishing them would accomplish.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Bankruptcy frees stranded assets. If tenants aren't paying rents, and landlords aren't paying mortgages, banks and real estate trusts have illiquid assets of difficult-to-assess (and likely low) value. With evictions, failures to assess risk ripple downwards, to tenants. Without evictions or bankruptcy closure, risk ripples upwards to creditors.
rsj_hn 5y ago
Paying people to spend more than they can afford in order to let them keep paying rent is a bad idea that ultimately helps only landlords. If someone lost their job due to covid, then they need to find a new job, and that often means finding a new job somewhere else and quite possibly for different pay. Similarly landlords in areas where jobs have dissapeared need to know what the true demand is for their units so they can be priced appropriately. Just paying money to pretend nothing has changed in each location is not good for either the rental market, or the job market, or the people who are pretending.

dheera 5y ago

Yes, they really should have removed people of rent obligations if they lost income (in tiers) and bailed those people out instead of big corporations.

foxpurple 5y ago
Australia did it better by just providing a regular income to everyone who lost their job. That way everyone keeps paying their bills/rent and things return to normal after.
- refurb 5y ago
  The US did the same thing through the unemployment system. Back in 2008 you could be on unemployment for 2 years and get bonus payments on top of what’s standard.
rsj_hn 5y ago
Unfortunately that's not something you can do with legislation. Even the Federal moratorium was found unconstitutional. The government can't just step in and void a lease agreement. What you can do is give people money to pay rent. But there is no guarantee they will actually use it to pay rent. My guess is that the combination of a moratorium on evictions and giving people rent money would lead to a lot of rental debt accumulating, when what people need to do (if they lost a job due to covid) is reduce their expenses and move to a place they can afford at their new income level, rather than trying to keep staying in an apartment they can no longer afford to live in, waiting for a job to return that is likely to never return. If everyone did this, rental rates would decline as they would reflect the new levels of income people are actually earning, rather than the levels of income people wish they would still be earning. With the current approach, false price signals are created that make it seem like there is more demand for apartments at a given price point than what people can actually afford, and long term this hurts everyone.
- antifa 5y ago
  > when what people need to do (if they lost a job due to covid) is reduce their expenses and move to a place they can afford at their new income level That's a lot of words to just say "there should have been mass homelessless".