Well, I think a key issue here is that people’s circumstances—both renters and landlords—are wildly varied.
Our landlord is a retired couple with two or three rental units that they are using to help fund their retirement. They’re a very nice couple. My wife and I still have both of our incomes, although my wife was forced to take a 20% pay cut (probably short-term) to avoid being laid off. We can afford to pay our rent, and we will continue to do so with no complaint.
But I also think that, in a crisis like this, it’s worth asking that everyone share the burden. People are losing their jobs over this crisis, or are losing income like my wife did, and if a landlord’s income is from rental units rather than a 9-to-5 job, why shouldn’t the landlord share in the pain a little bit too? If the average tenant in a given apartment block has lost 20 percent of their income due to a global pandemic, why isn’t it reasonable to ask that landlords help out to a similar level? I’m not arguing that they need to cancel rent altogether, but maybe make some of the same sacrifices that everyone else is being asked to make. Why should landlords be one of the few groups who gets to march through this crisis with absolutely no downside whatsoever? Especially since there is also mortgage relief on the table, but not much relief for renters.
Moving to the practical level, what happens if a landlord evicts someone now? During normal times, the idea of evicting someone who hasn’t paid their rent is that you can put someone in the unit who will pay the rent. But in a national economic downturn, with millions of people filing for unemployment, where are all the new renters going to come from if landlords refuse to bend and then end up evicting people who don’t pay? Sure, in housing-starved cities like San Francisco or San Jose, with high numbers of well-paid tech workers who are sailing through this crisis on their six-figure incomes, you can probably find a new renter to fill your recently-vacated property. But for much of the country, mass evictions is going to lead to little more than a massive and morbid game of musical chairs, where thousands or tens of thousands of evicted tenants simply start applying to new landlords for places to live. And landlords won’t be able to reject all of the tenants with evictions on their records, because then their properties will continue to sit vacant.
If I were a landlord right now, especially in a city without a massively strained housing market, I’d think about how much of a hardass on my renters I’d want to be, because if I don’t bend a little and they end up vacating (either by choice, or through my evicting them) it might be hard in the current economic circumstances to find someone else to fill the place anyway.
The rental company that owns my apartment complex has issued a statement saying April rent IS due, but that they are willing to work with you regarding when you can pay if you file a form with them. You also have to prove that you’ve exhausted all other options. They’re a smaller fairly local company, so they don’t have the ability to just waive rent for everyone like those on strike believe they should be able to do (they did offer free toilet paper and paper towels to anyone here who was in desperate need, which was nice). Yeah, it’d be cool if they could give everyone free rent, but that is in no way practical or possible for most landlords.
Most landlords will require a charge for breaking a rental agreement early, or that the tenant moving out still pay rent until either their lease is up, or a new tenant is found. That is extreme common. But even if it wasn’t, there is a massive difference between working with a single tenant, and doing that for virtually all your tenants all at once.
My brother moved to Nashville before getting a better job offer back at home less than a full year later. He talked to his landlord about breaking his lease early. The landlord said they were alright with him breaking his lease so long as he waived getting his deposit back. It worked out pretty good for everyone. I wouldn’t expect that same landlord to be able to extend that to all or even half their tenants all at once, however.
I’m confused- there seems to be a lot of talk about mortgage waivers for the payments upcoming for the next few months. But if you rent, fuck you who cares?
This is why people are wanting to strike. It seems pretty simple to me. I feel for landlords, and I am really close friends with one that owns 9 houses. I’m also mad at him right now, because we discussed how he is getting a few months off of his mortgage payments on the 3 homes he is still pays on, but he is of the mind “fuck em if they didn’t save up for an emergency” and is offering no help. He rents almost exclusively to single mothers.
I told him he was being a piece of shit over it. He told me “that’s what they get for renting”
If you guys want a class war, this is how you get one.
My landlords sent an email around saying that “rent is still expected,” rather than “due,” and anyone who is in a difficult spot should contact them. The rumor going around is that they will carry a balance of up to half what you owe, and are waiving late fees. I don’t know, because we paid, but that sounds like them. Reasonable, but not pushovers.
Good to know you’re lumping all landlords into a single steaming pile of shit. Now tell me what you think of all retail companies and all restaurant owners.
That said, if there is a generalized mortgage holiday, no one told me. I own the house I live in and the condo I used to live in, and the latter is rented out. Both of my mortgage companies have indicated that they would work with me if I need help (I don’t), but in general, payments are still due. I feel the same about my tenants: if they got laid off and have no income, I will figure out an accommodation. If they are tech workers still drawing their full checks, I expect them to pay rent.
Under the CARES Act (i.e., the recent stimulus package), there are certain benefits to homeowners with federally-backed loans (at least half of all US mortgages). First, there’s a 60-day moratorium on starting any foreclosure proceedings, and second, those facing hardship can request up to a 180-day pause on their mortgage. It doesn’t change how much you owe, but allows you to stop payments for six months and then resume later on. You can also request a second 180-day pause if you’re still having trouble.
Some states are also reaching arrangements with the big banks and mortgage providers to allow grace periods on mortgage payments, even for loans that are not federally backed. I know California has done this, and here in Connecticut they’ve instituted a similar procedure. This CT government page has information about both the federal measures and the state measures.
Good info. I was roughly aware of much of this, but it’s definitely not a generalized mortgage holiday. It’s help if you need it, which is what I’d support for renters as well, and what a lot of states and localities are starting to enact, even if the feds have been silent.
I don’t know, but I assume that interest will continue to accrue even if there is a holiday on mortgage payments. They would continue to owe the principal and more. Maybe with a little education we can avoid that class war you are threatening.
We own and rent a duplex, so two units. Last year, after expenses, that duplex made $700. If one of our tenants misses one rent payment, we’re losing money on the place. We’re certainly not a big shot real estate management company.
That said, we’re definitely going to work with our tenants if they can’t pay rent for any reason. We’re lucky. One of them is a delivery driver who already worked an ungodly amount of hours to send money home to Greece every month and now that delivery is the only option, he works even more. The other tenant is a hairdresser who lost her job in the shutdown, but luckily we allowed her to move her mother in and her mom’s dog just a month or two before this virus hit. I think the mom gets disability or social security, and that’s why they’re still able to pay rent. Being nice to your tenants pays dividends.
But being nice to our tenants and being flexible in this time of crisis doesn’t mean we’d appreciate or deserve a spiteful rent strike.
Your proposal is that all companies should be employee owned?
In what manner should these employees seize control? Violent overthrow? Make a premium offer to the shareholders?
What happens if there is turnover in the employee base and new employees can’t afford to “buy in” to the ownership of the company? Are they prohibited from working at the company, or are they the new slaves to the existing employee/owner vultures?
In the company I work for, it happened when the management staff unanimously signed a letter to the owners saying they’d resign en masse at the end of the fiscal year unless they sold the company to the employee association.
For as long as you work for the company, you earn an increasingly larger stake. When you leave, you sell that stake back to the company so it can be distributed to the people who take your place. Hhave you never heard of an ESOP before?