You can’t rent it out without evicting the present tenant, and you can’t evict the present tenant.
Basically, lawmakers made a policy choice. There’s huge unemployment. You could let people be evicted, and have a huge surge in homelessness during a pandemic, plus probably a messed up rental market due to a sudden, big oversupply of rentals and too few paying tenants. Lawmakers had a decision about who to let the burden fall on, unemployed or underemployed tenants, vs landlords.
Generally speaking, landlords are wealthier than tenants, and a lot of them will still have rental and other income because they have multiple properties. The eviction moratorium I read most recently (can’t remember if it was the NJ one or a different one) requires tenants to repay any accrued rent when the moratorium ends (in installments).
It sounds like rental payment assistance is available to tenants, but the tenant here isn’t taking advantage of that. Maybe that should have been something that landlords could apply for instead of tenants.
It is unfair in the sense that nobody should have to bear the burden, but since someone does, having landlords and the government take the brunt of it rather than people who lost their jobs during the pandemic makes a sense to me.
@Saint_Cad , @kitap is correct certainly for Ontario, although it may vary by jurisdiction.
In Ontario, the laws dramatically favour renters. It’s essentially impossible to get someone out of your property if they don’t want to leave as long as they are paying rent. Even if they stop paying rent, the eviction process takes months and as long as they clear any arrears prior to the actual notice of eviction they can stay.
The only viable legal way is for the “owner” to serve the tenant notice that they (the owner) is moving into the property when the tenant’s lease expires (30 days if they are month to month or after whatever the full lease contract is for.)
I put owner in quotes because one of the things that is happening now is that to expedite evictions owners are selling a 1% share in their properties to someone (who becomes a co-owner) they then serve notice of eviction to the tenant. At the end of the lease period this 1% owner moves in and must occupy the unit for 1 year. After a year, they they sell their 1% share back to the owner and leave and the owner is free to do what they want with the property.
The big plus is this allows for rental increases. During a lease period (or annualized if month to month), it’s only possible to increase rent by a government determined amount. Between tenants, landlords can take the rent to whatever the market will bear. There’s a huge incentive for landlords to use this strategy to evict long-term tenants so they can get big rental increases.
In my Toronto rental I’ve just signed new tenants (the previous ones purchased a new house). The government allows a 1.?% increase, but the market has gone up since my last renewal, so I actually got a +20% increase with new new tenants.
Good for you and your parents. My parents came from poverty and also practiced the rhythm method.
Putting aside your disdain for adoption it’s a wonderful option for people who don 't want children. It also provides a way out of generational poverty for the child.
Except that putting up a child for adoption is not the same as that child being adopted by a loving family…or even being adopted at all. Would you have the child stay at home until someone suitable comes by?
this is what I said: “If she doesn’t want to have a child she can give it up for adoption or abort it. It’s her choice. She is under no obligation to be a parent”.
Is there something you disagree with? Does she have to want a child because she’s pregnant? Is she obligated to be a parent? The answer is no to both questions.
The only thing she is obligated for is payment of debt.
Would a judge take into account the discretionary spending of a non-paying tenant during the eviction moratorium? I would think that the tenant should be making a best effort to pay the rent rather than treating this time as rent-free. I could see tenants who otherwise could pay the rent just putting it into savings or spending it. It doesn’t seem like those tenants who are partying with the rent money should be spared from eviction.
And then after the moratorium, what means does the landlord have to collect delinquent rent? Will it be an actual debt that stays with the tenant even after they leave the property?
If you think the government should bear the brunt of it I’m O.K. with that but why the landlords? The government is really just society as a whole. Like welfare or something. What other business is expected to continue providing goods or services for free or even for deferred payment? Utilities? Restaurants were closed for dine-in but they are are not serving takeout to people with a promise that they will be paid back later. Supermarkets are open but they aren’t giving groceries away.
I understand that there is a landlord assistance program of some sort but you have to own at least five but not more than ten units. I’m not sure what the logic is there. The income from my one unit is as important to me as the income to the guy who owns seven. I’ve contacted a lawyer and am waiting for response.
Also, I emailed the tenant and asked her to screenshot and send me the page where you can check on the status of your assistance application. According to the instructions, its a basic yes, you qualify or no, you don’t. As a landlord, I don’t have access to the status page. She replied to a different aspect of the email but didn’t address the rental assistance. I think that she may have missed the application deadline or been denied but doesn’t want to tell me. I’ll just wait and see. I don’t really have any choice, for now. I’ll report back with what the lawyer says.
Well, I said I thought the assistance possibly should be available directly to landlords, too. But my point was, as between the tenant and the landlord, if someone has to take a hit, it should be landlords. I’m not sure the relevant governments can bear the brunt of everything. States definitely can’t. State budgets are taking huge hits at a time when tons of people need state assistance.
Sure. But “generally speaking” even moderately wealthy people aren’t in a position to eat multiple mortgages for 6-12 months at a time unexpectedly either. And while they may be on the hook for the rent after the moratorium ends, we also know that compelling payment from people that owe you money can be an expensive, time consuming, and often ultimately fruitless process in its own right.
I mean, I understand landlords make a more convenient bagholders here, but this isn’t a small burden to be putting on regular people who have done literally nothing wrong.
As you’ve said, the problem here is the government should be paying landlords directly. Absent that, we don’t know why OP’s tenant isn’t applying for, or qualifying for it. If they don’t qualify, they should. If they just haven’t applied, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be the one bearing the burden then.
I have sympathy for tenant. I do. By all means they could be pounding the pavement 10 hours a day. But the fact is that OP is literally the only one NOT at fault here. As MikeF said, you need food to survive too, but I doubt grocery stores would be required to allow people to forage even if they couldn’t afford it.