10 ms·

I don't really see the point of this article, it's well known bankruptcies stay on your credit report for 10 years. With the recent rent moratoriums, I expect

I don't really see the point of this article, it's well known bankruptcies stay on your credit report for 10 years. With the recent rent moratoriums, I expect landlords to get even harsher. A tenant can easily pay rent two or three times, and then stretch out the eviction proceedings for 6 to 18 months depending on the state . If this person went and filed for a second bankruptcy, they could then delay the eviction by years. The bigger issue of course is we haven't built up enough new housing over the last 40 years, you want there to be so much available housing landlords can't be selective. They have to take the risk of losing a bit of money, because they're going to lose an absolute ton if they let their units remain vacant.

notch656a 5y ago
Yep, easy come easy go. The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective would be to let them toss freeloaders on their ass on day one of delinquency.
- kylehotchkiss 5y ago
  That would very quickly escalate the already very bad homelessness crisis in many parts of the country. Some levels of tenant protection are a way society can help their citizens get back on feet after a difficult time, which almost every person will encounter. Freeloaders will eventually get kicked out.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    I'd argue the effect may be the opposite. Tenant protections lead to homelessness by forcing landlords to be selective against vulnerable peoples, making it harder to get back on their feet after difficult times. Risk in renting to these people is greatly reduced if you can toss them out as soon as they stop paying.
    - otterley 5y ago
      Either way, you’re making someone homeless, which is an intractable problem as long as the housing demand exceeds supply. The only change being made is the criteria for who gets to suffer.
      - erik_seaberg 5y ago
        Penalizing every innocent potential renter who’s more likely to default on a lease is worse than only penalizing renters who actually do.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    It’s a complicated issue - my anecdote is that any risk will ultimately be manifested in the form of more selectivity on the landlords end.
- LorenPechtel 5y ago
  Which would result in more improper evictions. As it is we have already seen multiple examples of landlords losing checks so they can evict and rent to someone else at a higher rate. I've wondered about taking a different approach: The landlord is free to evict on the day of delinquency, but must move the possessions to a storage facility (paying a month's rent at that time) and they must post a substantial bond. If the tenant shows the eviction was improper they get the bond + costs. (And I would apply the same thing to foreclosures.) Instead of a long process of showing that they are acting properly they are putting up a substantial financial promise that they are acting properly. Make improper actions a costly mistake and there will be few of them.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    How would that process help in the "lost check" scenario you mention?
    - jfk13 5y ago
      Somewhat of an aside, but as a non-American, I find it quite weird that it seems to be common to pay rent with a monthly check. Every place I've rented, I've paid automatically by standing order. (Oh, except in a couple of third-world countries, where cash was the norm.)
      - MaysonL 5y ago
        The building I live in has an online payment option, but the only payment option that the organization doing the collection takes is PayPal. Fuck PayPal, I can go to the bank and get a check (I haven't personally written a check for decades).
    - LorenPechtel 5y ago
      It wouldn't, but it would help with other bad evictions.
- vkou 5y ago
  If you're looking to increase the number of temporarily homeless people, this sounds like a great approach. Unfortunately, temporarily homeless people have a habit of turning into chronic homeless people. And living in a city that's full of chronic homeless people, I don't think we need more. Your comfort and convenience as a landlord does not rank higher than my desire to not step over human shit on my way to work.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Raising regulatory barriers increases cost of housing. Increased cost of housing disproportionately effects those who have less money. Eviction protections are incredibly harmful to homeless as it makes it can make it risky (costly) to rent to homeless, taking housing even further out of reach. Homeless become even less competitive renters. Your comfort and convenience to have the option not to pay a landlord does not rank higher than the desire of homeless to have better access to housing. Places with homeless problems badly need to remove these protections from renters.
    - vkou 5y ago
      Except it doesn't work the way you describe, because all it does is determine the quality of tenant that gets to stay in a housing unit in a shortage. Eviction protections are incredibly helpful at preventing people on the margin from ending up homeless, by increasing the friction of evictions for landlords. This is absolutely necessary, because the cost to the tenant of getting kicked out of where they live is enormous - doubly and triply so if you are the kind of marginal person that gets kicked out of their home. It is incredibly disruptive to their life - much moreso than for someone in a stable situation not being able to find a different place to live. Remove friction from evictions, and everyone on the margins is constantly at risk of losing their home - and once you do so, your ability to stay afloat becomes incredibly precarious. If, on one extreme, tenancies were for life, and you had no way to kick someone out of a unit, you'd have an 'unfair' but stable distribution of housing. There would be very few life disruptions to people's lives, at the cost of housing being stuck in a local optimum. If, on the other extreme, tenancies were day to day, and you constantly had to outbid other contenders for your apartment, you'd have a 'fair' but incredibly unstable distribution of housing. Between the incredibly high pain of moving/looking for a new place to live, anyone on the margins would suffer incredibly from this. Economists rage against a stable but 'suboptimal' distribution of goods. But people whose lives constantly get upended from the instabilities of an 'optimal' distribution of goods are the ones who will suffer. Harm minimization is exactly why there is more friction to throwing someone out of their house than 'the landlord feels like it'.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective would be to let them toss freeloaders on their ass on day one of delinquency. The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective is to say "any vacant apartment/home not occupied by at least one fulltime resident can be claimed by someone homeless as of [date]." You'd have landlords begging people to sign leases (and people would because then they would get a sure nice apartment as opposed to a lottery for one of the few ones left). Now, that produces bad other results, but so does allowing people's homes to be ripped away from them at a moments notice.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >Now, that produces bad other results, but so does allowing people's homes to be ripped away from them at a moments notice. What an entitled viewpoint. It's not their home; an entirely different person owns it and they failed to hold up to their end of the contract for the terms under which the owner agreed to let them occupy it. The person having their home ripped away at a moment's notice is the landlord.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      > It's not their home; an entirely different person owns it It's not their house. It certainly is their home. I would prefer those be the same person as often as possible to align incentives. > they failed to hold up to their end of the contract for the terms under which the owner agreed to let them occupy it Tenants, like many contract participants, have legal rights that cannot be waived (see also minimum wage.) They also have contractual rights due to the contract. It's not uncommon for landlords to be the first party to breach the contract either intentionally (e.g. losing checks to move a tenant at below market rates out), neglectfully (e.g. ignoring upkeep or repairs) or unintentionally (e.g. entering at will). Certainly, withholding rent from a breaching landlord is appropriate while the breach is resolved. > The person having their home ripped away at a moment's notice is the landlord. Unless the landlord lives there, the landlord's home is unrelated to the property.
      - notch656a 5y ago
danso 5y ago
The article isn't just about bankruptcies. It's about a tenant scoring system that has as much power over your life as the credit scoring system, albeit with far less regulation and consumer protections: > Tenant screening companies compile information beyond what’s in renters’ credit reports, including criminal and eviction filings. They say this data helps give landlords a better idea of who will pay on time and who will be a good tenant. The firms typically assign applicants scores or provide landlords a yes-or-no recommendation. > A ProPublica review found that such ratings have come to serve as shadow credit scores for renters. But compared to credit reporting, tenant screening is less regulated and offers fewer consumer protections — which can have dire consequences for applicants trying to secure housing.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Selecting tenants is a legal minefield. As a result, many landlords find it safer to offload that decision to a third party. It sounds like these third-party rating services, including their "rent, don't rent" decisions, are filling a need but are ahead of legislation to curb some of their excesses.
- ilikehurdles 5y ago
  If eviction for nonpayment, property destruction, and major lease violations could be filed and processed in days rather than months, the landlords wouldn't have to delve so thoroughly into tenants' backgrounds to screen them. Heck, if that were the case, I'd be renting out my place now, but the legislative hoops make landlording above my risk tolerance so I'll let my condo go for sale and it will probably end up in some big corporate entity that has a much higher appetite for that sort of risk. More than happy to let them deal with that.
  - 7sidedmarble 5y ago
    From a strictly utilitarian point of view (the favorite view of this website), since there's more tenants than landlords out there, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting tenants from abuse rather than the other way around? You can't have it both ways, so you have to do something.
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
There are 1.5 million housing units under construction, which is an all-time record. It'll be interesting to see how quickly that get absorbed in a market with rising interest rates and questionable valuations. There appears to be lots of demand but what I'm seeing in my corner of the world is most of the demand is at the lower end of the market, which I'm guessing isn't what is primarily being developed. People moving up does free up properties at lower ends of the market, so in effect, a trickledown effect, but that takes a while to happen. Maybe we're going to see more and more house sharing and renting of individual rooms (legal or not).
- notch656a 5y ago
  I think a lot of the supply at the low end is irreplaceable, because building codes and regulations have changed significantly over the years. It's effectively illegal to build some of the more affordable buildings in certain jurisdictions.
  - KevinGlass 5y ago
    This is true. I'd estimate at least 70% of all rental unit currently under construction will not be "affordable" for two people working full time for minimum wage. In northern New England it's easily 100% of units. That said all rental projects that I know of in Maine and New Hampshire are all rented before they even finish construction. EDIT: I'd also like to make a point about current regulation and zoning. It's not unusual for a developer to pay around $500,000 or more in state fees, environmental review, and layer time to get a new apartment complex approved. This requires insider connections and specialized knowledge of the municipality if you want it completed in a reasonable time frame. Partially this is because national building codes are more complicated then ever but more often building anything at all requires a zoning exception or amendment. If you pull of the zoning maps for your town or city you'll likely find it riddled with parcels that have been cut out or otherwise exempted from the rest of the zone. This process can be expensive and take years to complete.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
throwawayboise 5y ago
Most leases are written for 12 months. There is AFAIK no evicition protection once the lease expires, or am I wrong? It seems to me that 12 months is the limit of the landlord's risk.
- gizmo686 5y ago
  Landlord/tenet law is highly location dependent. Around here (Maryland), landlords are required to offer leases up to 2 years (this might be a county law), although I suspect 12 month leases are still common. At the end of a lease, MD law requires the lease to default into a month-to-month lease. To kick a tenent out without cause, a landlord need only provide 30 days notice. However, if the tenent refuses to vacate, the landlord still needs to go through the eviction process.
causality0 5y ago
A tenant can easily pay rent two or three times, and then stretch out the eviction proceedings for 6 to 18 months depending on the state . Wow that's insane. If I was renting out a property I owned I'd expect to be able to throw someone out within a day after an active refusal to pay rent.
akhmatova 5y ago
I don't really see the point of this article, Because you lack empathy and perspective? People can be forced into bankruptcy for all sorts of reasons that are largely beyond their control (such as the example you are implicitly referring to in the article). Doesn't mean they should be homeless (or limited to the most marginal of housing conditions) for the rest of their life. Especially if they have nursed their score back to a reasonable state of health. A tenant can easily pay rent two or three times, and then stretch out the eviction proceedings for 6 to 18 months depending on the state. This seems overdrawn (i.e. out of synch with reality). In the one state for which I am intimately familiar with these proceedings (and another certain very large blue state that I did a fair amount of research on at one point), a properly executed eviction proceeding should take no more than 120 days or so, even assuming delays in the court calendar (except in weird outlier cases like the city can't determine the zoning or protection status of the property, etc). I can imagine there a few states with as grossly dysfunctional (general case) eviction proceeding standards like you describe, but not ... all that many states.
- 999900000999 5y ago
  Oh, I've been through two evictions, but I can also see landlords aren't charities. If you have a bankruptcy on your credit report, no landlord in their right mind is going to want to rent to you. It's very easy to stretch out an eviction for a very long time, it's not fun, but it's doable. Here's the rub, a mom and pop landlord can't have half their tenants not pay rent for 6 months, but Greystone can. And big corporate landlords are more likely to be strict when it comes to renters.
  - akhmatova 5y ago
    It's very easy to stretch out an eviction for a very long time, it's not fun, but it's doable. In other words, that "6 to 18 months" number was just basically made up.
    - 999900000999 5y ago
      Let's just say I've some personal experience in this... What's their to debate, COVID had 2 year long eviction moratoriums in some parts
jlmorton 5y ago
> it's well known bankruptcies stay on your credit report for 10 years. But it's less well-known that Chapter 13 bankruptcies stay on your credit report for 7 years, which had already passed. Chapter 13 represents about one-third of all bankruptcies. Chapter 13 is less common, because it's more difficult to go through, and takes longer, but it has substantial benefits. The article doesn't say what chapter she filed under, but it's easily plausible that it was Chapter 13, and the bankruptcy had already fallen off her credit report.
IncRnd 5y ago
> it's well known bankruptcies stay on your credit report for 10 years. That isn't exactly true! Chapter 7 bankruptcy remains on your report for up to 10 years, and Chapter 13 stays there for up to seven years. [1] Chapter 7, which is known as liquidation bankruptcy, involves selling some or all of your property to pay off your debts. This is often the choice if you don't own a home and have a limited income. Chapter 13, also known as a reorganization bankruptcy, gives you the chance to keep your property (including secured assets like your home and car) if you successfully complete a court-mandated repayment plan that lasts between three and five years. [1] https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/bankruptcy-chapter-7-vs-chapter-13/ https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/bankruptcy-chapt...
dd82 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System the US is doing a much shadowier version of china's social credit system. At least with china, its up front and in your face, with this it is much more background and insidious.

notch656a 5y ago

Yep, easy come easy go. The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective would be to let them toss freeloaders on their ass on day one of delinquency.

kylehotchkiss 5y ago
That would very quickly escalate the already very bad homelessness crisis in many parts of the country. Some levels of tenant protection are a way society can help their citizens get back on feet after a difficult time, which almost every person will encounter. Freeloaders will eventually get kicked out.
- notch656a 5y ago
  I'd argue the effect may be the opposite. Tenant protections lead to homelessness by forcing landlords to be selective against vulnerable peoples, making it harder to get back on their feet after difficult times. Risk in renting to these people is greatly reduced if you can toss them out as soon as they stop paying.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Either way, you’re making someone homeless, which is an intractable problem as long as the housing demand exceeds supply. The only change being made is the criteria for who gets to suffer.
    - erik_seaberg 5y ago
      Penalizing every innocent potential renter who’s more likely to default on a lease is worse than only penalizing renters who actually do.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  It’s a complicated issue - my anecdote is that any risk will ultimately be manifested in the form of more selectivity on the landlords end.
LorenPechtel 5y ago
Which would result in more improper evictions. As it is we have already seen multiple examples of landlords losing checks so they can evict and rent to someone else at a higher rate. I've wondered about taking a different approach: The landlord is free to evict on the day of delinquency, but must move the possessions to a storage facility (paying a month's rent at that time) and they must post a substantial bond. If the tenant shows the eviction was improper they get the bond + costs. (And I would apply the same thing to foreclosures.) Instead of a long process of showing that they are acting properly they are putting up a substantial financial promise that they are acting properly. Make improper actions a costly mistake and there will be few of them.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  How would that process help in the "lost check" scenario you mention?
  - jfk13 5y ago
    Somewhat of an aside, but as a non-American, I find it quite weird that it seems to be common to pay rent with a monthly check. Every place I've rented, I've paid automatically by standing order. (Oh, except in a couple of third-world countries, where cash was the norm.)
    - MaysonL 5y ago
      The building I live in has an online payment option, but the only payment option that the organization doing the collection takes is PayPal. Fuck PayPal, I can go to the bank and get a check (I haven't personally written a check for decades).
  - LorenPechtel 5y ago
    It wouldn't, but it would help with other bad evictions.
vkou 5y ago
If you're looking to increase the number of temporarily homeless people, this sounds like a great approach. Unfortunately, temporarily homeless people have a habit of turning into chronic homeless people. And living in a city that's full of chronic homeless people, I don't think we need more. Your comfort and convenience as a landlord does not rank higher than my desire to not step over human shit on my way to work.
- notch656a 5y ago
  Raising regulatory barriers increases cost of housing. Increased cost of housing disproportionately effects those who have less money. Eviction protections are incredibly harmful to homeless as it makes it can make it risky (costly) to rent to homeless, taking housing even further out of reach. Homeless become even less competitive renters. Your comfort and convenience to have the option not to pay a landlord does not rank higher than the desire of homeless to have better access to housing. Places with homeless problems badly need to remove these protections from renters.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Except it doesn't work the way you describe, because all it does is determine the quality of tenant that gets to stay in a housing unit in a shortage. Eviction protections are incredibly helpful at preventing people on the margin from ending up homeless, by increasing the friction of evictions for landlords. This is absolutely necessary, because the cost to the tenant of getting kicked out of where they live is enormous - doubly and triply so if you are the kind of marginal person that gets kicked out of their home. It is incredibly disruptive to their life - much moreso than for someone in a stable situation not being able to find a different place to live. Remove friction from evictions, and everyone on the margins is constantly at risk of losing their home - and once you do so, your ability to stay afloat becomes incredibly precarious. If, on one extreme, tenancies were for life, and you had no way to kick someone out of a unit, you'd have an 'unfair' but stable distribution of housing. There would be very few life disruptions to people's lives, at the cost of housing being stuck in a local optimum. If, on the other extreme, tenancies were day to day, and you constantly had to outbid other contenders for your apartment, you'd have a 'fair' but incredibly unstable distribution of housing. Between the incredibly high pain of moving/looking for a new place to live, anyone on the margins would suffer incredibly from this. Economists rage against a stable but 'suboptimal' distribution of goods. But people whose lives constantly get upended from the instabilities of an 'optimal' distribution of goods are the ones who will suffer. Harm minimization is exactly why there is more friction to throwing someone out of their house than 'the landlord feels like it'.
HWR_14 5y ago
> The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective would be to let them toss freeloaders on their ass on day one of delinquency. The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective is to say "any vacant apartment/home not occupied by at least one fulltime resident can be claimed by someone homeless as of [date]." You'd have landlords begging people to sign leases (and people would because then they would get a sure nice apartment as opposed to a lottery for one of the few ones left). Now, that produces bad other results, but so does allowing people's homes to be ripped away from them at a moments notice.
- notch656a 5y ago
  >Now, that produces bad other results, but so does allowing people's homes to be ripped away from them at a moments notice. What an entitled viewpoint. It's not their home; an entirely different person owns it and they failed to hold up to their end of the contract for the terms under which the owner agreed to let them occupy it. The person having their home ripped away at a moment's notice is the landlord.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > It's not their home; an entirely different person owns it It's not their house. It certainly is their home. I would prefer those be the same person as often as possible to align incentives. > they failed to hold up to their end of the contract for the terms under which the owner agreed to let them occupy it Tenants, like many contract participants, have legal rights that cannot be waived (see also minimum wage.) They also have contractual rights due to the contract. It's not uncommon for landlords to be the first party to breach the contract either intentionally (e.g. losing checks to move a tenant at below market rates out), neglectfully (e.g. ignoring upkeep or repairs) or unintentionally (e.g. entering at will). Certainly, withholding rent from a breaching landlord is appropriate while the breach is resolved. > The person having their home ripped away at a moment's notice is the landlord. Unless the landlord lives there, the landlord's home is unrelated to the property.
    - notch656a 5y ago

danso 5y ago

The article isn't just about bankruptcies. It's about a tenant scoring system that has as much power over your life as the credit scoring system, albeit with far less regulation and consumer protections: > Tenant screening companies compile information beyond what’s in renters’ credit reports, including criminal and eviction filings. They say this data helps give landlords a better idea of who will pay on time and who will be a good tenant. The firms typically assign applicants scores or provide landlords a yes-or-no recommendation. > A ProPublica review found that such ratings have come to serve as shadow credit scores for renters. But compared to credit reporting, tenant screening is less regulated and offers fewer consumer protections — which can have dire consequences for applicants trying to secure housing.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Selecting tenants is a legal minefield. As a result, many landlords find it safer to offload that decision to a third party. It sounds like these third-party rating services, including their "rent, don't rent" decisions, are filling a need but are ahead of legislation to curb some of their excesses.
ilikehurdles 5y ago
If eviction for nonpayment, property destruction, and major lease violations could be filed and processed in days rather than months, the landlords wouldn't have to delve so thoroughly into tenants' backgrounds to screen them. Heck, if that were the case, I'd be renting out my place now, but the legislative hoops make landlording above my risk tolerance so I'll let my condo go for sale and it will probably end up in some big corporate entity that has a much higher appetite for that sort of risk. More than happy to let them deal with that.
- 7sidedmarble 5y ago
  From a strictly utilitarian point of view (the favorite view of this website), since there's more tenants than landlords out there, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting tenants from abuse rather than the other way around? You can't have it both ways, so you have to do something.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

There are 1.5 million housing units under construction, which is an all-time record. It'll be interesting to see how quickly that get absorbed in a market with rising interest rates and questionable valuations. There appears to be lots of demand but what I'm seeing in my corner of the world is most of the demand is at the lower end of the market, which I'm guessing isn't what is primarily being developed. People moving up does free up properties at lower ends of the market, so in effect, a trickledown effect, but that takes a while to happen. Maybe we're going to see more and more house sharing and renting of individual rooms (legal or not).

notch656a 5y ago
I think a lot of the supply at the low end is irreplaceable, because building codes and regulations have changed significantly over the years. It's effectively illegal to build some of the more affordable buildings in certain jurisdictions.
- KevinGlass 5y ago
  This is true. I'd estimate at least 70% of all rental unit currently under construction will not be "affordable" for two people working full time for minimum wage. In northern New England it's easily 100% of units. That said all rental projects that I know of in Maine and New Hampshire are all rented before they even finish construction. EDIT: I'd also like to make a point about current regulation and zoning. It's not unusual for a developer to pay around $500,000 or more in state fees, environmental review, and layer time to get a new apartment complex approved. This requires insider connections and specialized knowledge of the municipality if you want it completed in a reasonable time frame. Partially this is because national building codes are more complicated then ever but more often building anything at all requires a zoning exception or amendment. If you pull of the zoning maps for your town or city you'll likely find it riddled with parcels that have been cut out or otherwise exempted from the rest of the zone. This process can be expensive and take years to complete.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

throwawayboise 5y ago

Most leases are written for 12 months. There is AFAIK no evicition protection once the lease expires, or am I wrong? It seems to me that 12 months is the limit of the landlord's risk.

gizmo686 5y ago
Landlord/tenet law is highly location dependent. Around here (Maryland), landlords are required to offer leases up to 2 years (this might be a county law), although I suspect 12 month leases are still common. At the end of a lease, MD law requires the lease to default into a month-to-month lease. To kick a tenent out without cause, a landlord need only provide 30 days notice. However, if the tenent refuses to vacate, the landlord still needs to go through the eviction process.

causality0 5y ago

A tenant can easily pay rent two or three times, and then stretch out the eviction proceedings for 6 to 18 months depending on the state . Wow that's insane. If I was renting out a property I owned I'd expect to be able to throw someone out within a day after an active refusal to pay rent.

akhmatova 5y ago

I don't really see the point of this article, Because you lack empathy and perspective? People can be forced into bankruptcy for all sorts of reasons that are largely beyond their control (such as the example you are implicitly referring to in the article). Doesn't mean they should be homeless (or limited to the most marginal of housing conditions) for the rest of their life. Especially if they have nursed their score back to a reasonable state of health. A tenant can easily pay rent two or three times, and then stretch out the eviction proceedings for 6 to 18 months depending on the state. This seems overdrawn (i.e. out of synch with reality). In the one state for which I am intimately familiar with these proceedings (and another certain very large blue state that I did a fair amount of research on at one point), a properly executed eviction proceeding should take no more than 120 days or so, even assuming delays in the court calendar (except in weird outlier cases like the city can't determine the zoning or protection status of the property, etc). I can imagine there a few states with as grossly dysfunctional (general case) eviction proceeding standards like you describe, but not ... all that many states.

999900000999 5y ago
Oh, I've been through two evictions, but I can also see landlords aren't charities. If you have a bankruptcy on your credit report, no landlord in their right mind is going to want to rent to you. It's very easy to stretch out an eviction for a very long time, it's not fun, but it's doable. Here's the rub, a mom and pop landlord can't have half their tenants not pay rent for 6 months, but Greystone can. And big corporate landlords are more likely to be strict when it comes to renters.
- akhmatova 5y ago
  It's very easy to stretch out an eviction for a very long time, it's not fun, but it's doable. In other words, that "6 to 18 months" number was just basically made up.
  - 999900000999 5y ago
    Let's just say I've some personal experience in this... What's their to debate, COVID had 2 year long eviction moratoriums in some parts

jlmorton 5y ago

> it's well known bankruptcies stay on your credit report for 10 years. But it's less well-known that Chapter 13 bankruptcies stay on your credit report for 7 years, which had already passed. Chapter 13 represents about one-third of all bankruptcies. Chapter 13 is less common, because it's more difficult to go through, and takes longer, but it has substantial benefits. The article doesn't say what chapter she filed under, but it's easily plausible that it was Chapter 13, and the bankruptcy had already fallen off her credit report.

IncRnd 5y ago

> it's well known bankruptcies stay on your credit report for 10 years. That isn't exactly true! Chapter 7 bankruptcy remains on your report for up to 10 years, and Chapter 13 stays there for up to seven years. [1] Chapter 7, which is known as liquidation bankruptcy, involves selling some or all of your property to pay off your debts. This is often the choice if you don't own a home and have a limited income. Chapter 13, also known as a reorganization bankruptcy, gives you the chance to keep your property (including secured assets like your home and car) if you successfully complete a court-mandated repayment plan that lasts between three and five years. [1] https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/bankruptcy-chapter-7-vs-chapter-13/ https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/bankruptcy-chapt...

dd82 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System the US is doing a much shadowier version of china's social credit system. At least with china, its up front and in your face, with this it is much more background and insidious.