The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium • Hacker News Board

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#21

Post by mjfl » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 11:01 PM UTC

testfoobar wrote: post #11

daniel-thompson wrote: post #7

Clearly some landlords are getting hurt due to some tenants taking unethical advantage of the situation. But I think we need to wait to draw broad conclusions until this can be systematically analyzed at the macro level, rather than doing so from the one-off anecdotes in the article.

Landlords are part of the financial system. Deciding landlords must take the loss on rent so that their tenants can be safe is sensible health and social policy during the acute uncertain phase of the pandemic last year. That uncertainty is now gone. If the government wants to house people in rental properties indefinitely, then the government can pay to do so at the prevailing market rates.

Why should landlords take the loss on rent and not who they pay mortgage to?

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#22

Post by watsocd » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 11:02 PM UTC

tomg wrote: post #14

I don’t understand how a waiter and a home-care provider can afford to buy a rental property that is apparently worth charging $80,000/yr in rent. I’m in the wrong business! [edit: to be clear, this is tongue in cheek, though the circumstances where a bank made this loan seem unusual to me]

By being extremely frugal. Did you read the part of the article where the owner does not live in the house. The owner lives in a "cheap studio apartment nearby with their two young daughters". That is how!

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#23

Post by testfoobar » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 11:02 PM UTC

techsupporter wrote: post #15

testfoobar wrote: post #3

Sad story. It is time for eviction moratoriums to be lifted. The second peak of the pandemic is behind us in nearly all datasets in the United States.

But is the second-wave of the economy coming roaring back so that people have jobs to go to in order to pay rent behind us in nearly all datasets in the United States? Or would those people still be thrown out onto the street with no housing? Because if there's anything we need to be doing in the United States, particularly on the West Coast, it's bringing more people to homelessness.

No we shouldn't increase homelessness due to job losses from the pandemic. We also shouldn't force landlords to supply free housing.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#24

Post by weswpg » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 11:03 PM UTC

heavyset_go wrote: post #4

I find it hard to be sympathetic with people who chose to overleverage themselves with their investments.

As Hasan Minhaj pointed out, the result of thousands of minor landlords going bankrupt will be the further consolidation of the industry into large commercial landlords (which are worse).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1030&v=MPFPBzr7FgY&feature=y...

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#25

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 11:03 PM UTC

reanimus wrote: post #19

heavyset_go wrote: post #4

I find it hard to be sympathetic with people who chose to overleverage themselves with their investments.

I really don't understand why we insulate landlords from investment risk so much. At the end of the day they can sell the place to mitigate their losses. What recourse could renters have?

[deleted]

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#26

Post by tryptophan » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 11:04 PM UTC

daniel-thompson wrote: post #7

Clearly some landlords are getting hurt due to some tenants taking unethical advantage of the situation. But I think we need to wait to draw broad conclusions until this can be systematically analyzed at the macro level, rather than doing so from the one-off anecdotes in the article.

Rights are rights.

I don't want to be "systematically analyzed" to determine if wrongs done to me are "acceptable".

That sort of thought is a path that leads straight to tyranny.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#27

Post by omginternets » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, isn't it?

I feel like the stimulus cheques should have been made out exclusively to people who:

1. lost a job

2. suffered a wage cut

3. suffered a significant loss of revenue

Number 3 would include landlords and freelancers. I'm one of the lucky people for whom the pandemic increased savings (by decreasing spending), so I don't think it's appropriate that I received two (!) stimulus cheques. I've donated one to Wikipedia and the other to a couple of local charities, but I'm sure there's a smarter way to redistribute that money...

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#28

Post by dh5 » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

reanimus wrote: post #19

heavyset_go wrote: post #4

I find it hard to be sympathetic with people who chose to overleverage themselves with their investments.

I really don't understand why we insulate landlords from investment risk so much. At the end of the day they can sell the place to mitigate their losses. What recourse could renters have?

Who's going to buy an apartment with a squatter in it? There's no easy way out for these individual landlords.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#29

Post by samspenc » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

tomg wrote: post #14

I don’t understand how a waiter and a home-care provider can afford to buy a rental property that is apparently worth charging $80,000/yr in rent. I’m in the wrong business! [edit: to be clear, this is tongue in cheek, though the circumstances where a bank made this loan seem unusual to me]

FOMO? Leverage? I have a couple of anecdotal stories I know personally: a friend of a friend working in a jewelry store recently purchased a Manhattan condo as an investment that brings in around $3,000 in monthly rent.

A few years ago I was visiting Vancouver and living in an AirBnB (private room in a house) when prices were dropping, and the owner (a school teacher) was crying about how over-leveraged she was with her million-dollar-plus house, and how she was trying to get sell it, even at a loss.

Re: The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium

#30

Post by tablespoon » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 11:06 PM UTC

testfoobar wrote: post #11

daniel-thompson wrote: post #7

Clearly some landlords are getting hurt due to some tenants taking unethical advantage of the situation. But I think we need to wait to draw broad conclusions until this can be systematically analyzed at the macro level, rather than doing so from the one-off anecdotes in the article.

Landlords are part of the financial system. Deciding landlords must take the loss on rent so that their tenants can be safe is sensible health and social policy during the acute uncertain phase of the pandemic last year. That uncertainty is now gone. If the government wants to house people in rental properties indefinitely, then the government can pay to do so at the prevailing market rates.

> Landlords are part of the financial system. Deciding landlords must take the loss on rent so that their tenants can be safe is sensible health and social policy during the acute uncertain phase of the pandemic last year. That uncertainty is now gone.

I thought the eviction moratoriums were more to avoid adding a giant homelessness crisis on top of the already-existing pandemic crisis. It was a secondary benefit that they would also help those people socially distance to help control the pandemic.

Ideally the government would have stepped in with effective programs to support existing financial relationships to avoid disruption (e.g. paying employers to keep employees on the payroll, which I think Germany did), but some people strongly believe we shouldn't have nice things like that.