Knoxville, TN · Member since 2013 · 62 posts · 216 votes
Forgive me if this has been posted before. A search didn't find anything. As you probably know, the Democrats in the House passed the Hereos Act, A part of this bill calls for a Federal Ban on evictions of any residential property for non payment of rent. This is extended for 12 month after the pandemic is over. No recourse for landlords. I rely on my properties (which are paid for) for my living expenses. Also in there is a provision stating the back rent will be forgivable. If the Senate passes this bill, I may be without income for a loooong time. Does anyone know any more about this?
Forgive me if this has been posted before. A search didn't find anything. As you probably know, the Democrats in the House passed the Hereos Act, A part of this bill calls for a Federal Ban on evictions of any residential property for non payment of rent. This is extended for 12 month after the pandemic is over. No recourse for landlords. I rely on my properties (which are paid for) for my living expenses. Also in there is a provision stating the back rent will be forgivable. If the Senate passes this bill, I may be without income for a loooong time. Does anyone know any more about this?
You ever notice how so many bad laws, acts, groups and movements are titled in such a way that it is considered shameful to oppose them?
That is a lot of assistance that will go directly into landlords pockets.
And what do have to agree to for accepting this money? Under the current reading, it sounds like you have to cede what's left of your property rights to the government.
Investor · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2019 · 185 posts · 205 votes
6y
Hey, @JR C., can you paste the text of the section of the proposed law that you referenced in your initial post? If any attorneys are reading this thread, would love to get their POV on strategies, protections, and loopholes. Thanks!
I did find this:
What Properties Does the CARES Act Protect?
The CARES Act’s eviction protections only apply to “covered dwellings,” which are rental units in properties: (1) that participate in federal assistance programs, (2) are subject to a “federally backed mortgage loan,” or (3) are subject to a “federally backed multifamily mortgage loan.”
I interpret this to mean that if you own your rental property free and clear, your property is not covered by CARES Act. Not sure if I am reading that correctly, though.
Knoxville, TN · Member since 2013 · 62 posts · 216 votes
6y
The CARES Act is the law that has already passed. You need to be looking at the proposed HEROES Act that the House has already passed and the Senate is deliberating.
Rental Property Investor · Portland OR · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
6y
Suggest all of you join your local and the national rental owners, multi fam orgs that work to protect our rights
also, how many of you actually have unpaid rent right now ? (we did this i think on another threas and if I remember most folks were getting paid) The point is if you think that such a bill could become law then do something about it! Write letters, make phone calls..... there are many many many bills that never make it out of committee, that get voted on but never become law. Many of these bills are just marketing pieces used to let the base know “we hear you” .... i am fairly sure the most basic idea of property rights wont be erased without a fight. Also again, most people pay their rent. Most people are not seeking a freebie, most people are decent. If this is something you worry about, be sure to screen, buy in good areas, etc etc. then save a years worth of expenses just in case we have another black swan event.
@JR C. Just curious, how could one be forced to do section 8 if a property has not passed inspection for it?
In Oregon we are not allowed to discriminate based on source of income. In effect this means we need to accept housing vouchers. I own new B multi fam and have only ever had one inquiry re vouchers. If you read many of the threads on vouchers most folks that take them appreciate the ontime rent no matter what. So..... maybe it has its drawbacks but seems that in a time like this guaranteed rent maybe makes up for that ?
Rental Property Investor · Henrico, VA · Member since 2019 · 265 posts · 155 votes
6y
Brian, I believe that might be in reference to the original CARE act, the doc is dated April 7th. I did find this below though from the HEROES Act
Page 962 of HR 6800.
6 ‘‘(b) MORATORIUM.—During the period beginning on 17 the date of the enactment of this Act and ending 12 18 months after such date of enactment, the lessor of a cov- 19 ered dwelling located in such State may not make, or 20 cause to be made, any filing with the court of jurisdiction 21 to initiate a legal action to recover possession of the cov- 22 ered dwelling from the tenant for nonpayment of rent or 23 other fees or charges. 24 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the 25 following definitions shall apply:
1 ‘‘(1) COVERED DWELLING.—The term ‘covered 2 dwelling’ means a dwelling that is occupied by a ten- 3 ant— 4 ‘‘(A) pursuant to a residential lease; or 5 ‘‘(B) without a lease or with a lease ter- 6 minable at will under State law. 7 ‘‘(2) DWELLING.—The term ‘dwelling’ has the 8 meaning given such term in section 802 of the Fair 9 Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3602) and includes houses 10 and dwellings described in section 803(b) of such 11 Act (42 U.S.C. 3603(b)).
Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 349 posts · 418 votes
6y
We have a real estate investor in the white house. If it gets to him, it will be vetoed and need a successful 2/3 congressional vote. Not likely, but not impossible in this charged day & age I suppose.
LakeWood , CA · Member since 2018 · 268 posts · 331 votes
6y
There’s alot of republican landlords in the White House including the president Himself. If it passes them I think it will be time to sell out in Cali and invest only in red powered states. Seems as if alot of landlords are pretty well off investing in those places.
Realtor · Cleveland, OH · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 857 votes
6y
I can see self evictions increasing. Landlords will become desperate IF they don't collect rent after 3-6months and have to continue paying utilities in a property that tenants are living rent free.
Philadelphia, PA · Member since 2017 · 824 posts · 1k+ votes
6y
The most important aspect of any electorate is the education and knowledge of said body. The fact that we are here freaking out about an act that won't pass the Senate and won't be signed by the President is astounding.
We have two key bases in this country -- liberal and conservative. There isn't anything inherently wrong with either of these bases and what they believe in, its just belief. The liberal establishment in this case is saying "we need to take care of everyone" in pushing forth the HEROES act.
Ultimately, the Republican-controlled Senate will have their own ideas about how to approach this. That will be forthcoming if and when the conservative-led Senate determines we have reached critical mass and there is more aid needed. They will then, likely hilariously to their chagrin, work with the Liberal house to reach an appropriate bill that will be a good solution for all, not a great solution.
There is a cost to society of people being out on the street, evicted or foreclosed upon, without the ability for recourse. These people go somewhere, whether its the street, care houses, emergency assistance setups, hospitals, family members, et al. The government is seeking to avoid mass-scale loss of shelter for citizens as every percentage point of unemployed and/or not-housed individual has an inherent cost elsewhere. It is a massive system that we have procured and built over time, and I do believe both bases want to protect it.
Liberals wish to do so via covering non-payment of rent with rental assistance; the way I interpret the language is voucher programs and non-eviction for 12 months -- e.g., if you can't pay, you get a voucher to cover, and you can't be evicted for 12 months. As a landlord, that's guaranteed federal money like section 8. You may not agree with the approach, but the liberal side of the government is trying to protect citizens from losing their home; more specifically, low-income residents. Which, makes sense, as there is a big difference from a medium-to-high income individual being evicted and losing their home, versus a low-income individual. Where I am concerned is that the act itself says it can be used to cover rent OR other expenses.
The HEROES act has low-cost loan assistance to cover landlords as needed -- personally, I'd like to see the system temporarily changed to have the following steps:
Proof of hardship - apply for assistance with the new program
Landlord/owner contacted, agrees to federal assistance program for X time
Those payments are made direct to landlord to cover rent
(I should caveat that my understanding of the language -- WHICH WILL CHANGE ANYWAY -- is non-legal, uneducated, and my opinion only. Someone who has knowledge and experience should be providing their legal take on the document as constructed. Many law firms do this and publish for the sake of informing the public aaaaannndddd advertising their services those potentially impacted and in need of consultation.)
I have no problem taking care of people in times of need; in fact, I think the hallmark of any good government is to care for the masses when it is called upon. We are part of the masses. We are part of the same boat as our renters. I believe the verbiage used by the Liberal House is a means to be talked down on; I expect no difference in a Republican House in the same situation, perhaps achieving a similar goal with different methods.
There’s alot of republican landlords in the White House including the president Himself. If it passes them I think it will be time to sell out in Cali and invest only in red powered states. Seems as if alot of landlords are pretty well off investing in those places.
There are lots of Dems that own RE too.... also of note : some of the highest appreciation areas are in “blue” states. So someone is making money there.... but feel free to flee to other locales, just means more for those of us that are happy to “deal with” the tenant friendly areas.
There’s alot of republican landlords in the White House including the president Himself. If it passes them I think it will be time to sell out in Cali and invest only in red powered states. Seems as if alot of landlords are pretty well off investing in those places.
There are lots of Dems that own RE too.... also of note : some of the highest appreciation areas are in “blue” states. So someone is making money there.... but feel free to flee to other locales, just means more for those of us that are happy to “deal with” the tenant friendly areas.
It's hilarious that most of the expensive RE in America is all located in "blue" cities/states.
LakeWood , CA · Member since 2018 · 268 posts · 331 votes
6y
@Syed H. it’s not necessarily about whom owns the most expensive real estate. Specially when you look into the maintenance cost of up keep when it comes down to “expensive “ real estate. I believe real estate is for those whom prefer the long term profit/income. I’d rather own 10 units in Texas that I’m profiting $300 a pop. Than 10units in Cali that I’m just bearly breaking even with. Specially when dealing with all these tenant protections. I’d rather make a dollar than not make anything at all. But to each his/her own.
@Syed H. it’s not necessarily about whom owns the most expensive real estate. Specially when you look into the maintenance cost of up keep when it comes down to “expensive “ real estate. I believe real estate is for those whom prefer the long term profit/income. I’d rather own 10 units in Texas that I’m profiting $300 a pop. Than 10units in Cali that I’m just bearly breaking even with. Specially when dealing with all these tenant protections. I’d rather make a dollar than not make anything at all. But to each his/her own.
Maintenance cost as a percentage basis is similar (actually class C/D is a bit higher). I own both "cheap" RE and "expensive" RE (Class A through D). In general, long term profit is higher in the Class A, Cash flow is better in the Class D. 10 unit's in parts of Cali cost $10m+. Someone who has that level of net worth probably isn't worrying about 3,000/month in income.
Rental Property Investor · Portland OR · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
6y
Also, to add that the more risk, the lower the price, in general..... this means that the consensus is that high cost MF areas are seen to have less risk.... hence the higher price. Also to note: other costs may be lower too- insurance (they would prefer insuring new class A/B than C/D .... lenders are more likely to lend from higher cost areas and the interest rate may be lower, etc etc.
Luckily RE owners are diverse which means that we like /can afford differing classes and costs which means there is more ability for folks to invest. However, remember that price (cap rate) and risk go hand in hand.
I don’t have anything against Tenant friendly states Nor politically run blue states. But what’s right is right. I can’t go into a grocery store and get free food nor drinks can I? So why must I give up my investments for free?? I’m human too. Don’t I Matter? Don’t I pay taxes? Don’t I work hard? Don’t they think maybe I’ve taken a hit too? Aren’t we all created equal??
@Mary M. if interest rates are lower in nice areas would that violate redlining laws?
As for the bill in the current world, it's DOA and is going nowhere with that wording. It would be devastating to landlords which means in the long term it would be devastating to renters unless the government takes over landlording (which would be a nightmare as with almost everything they take over).
However, come November it's hard to guess what might pass next January. I'm hoping there's enough landlords in Congress to keep this from killing the rental industry.
You mean looted and burned to the ground? I used to think like you. Try walking off the plantation a while and you’ll find a whole other side of the country where things are run with logic.
You obviously have your own agenda. I don't care about red or blue. I care about green. I own in red and blue states from Class A to Class D. Long term holds and Cash flow. Anyone that tells you one is better than the other, doesn't understand the pros and cons of different business models. Good luck with your "red state only-cash flow" investing. I'll continue doing what I do and make more & more money.
I don’t have anything against Tenant friendly states Nor politically run blue states. But what’s right is right. I can’t go into a grocery store and get free food nor drinks can I? So why must I give up my investments for free?? I’m human too. Don’t I Matter? Don’t I pay taxes? Don’t I work hard? Don’t they think maybe I’ve taken a hit too? Aren’t we all created equal??
If you feel so strongly: Sell your RE, Move out of your State, and enjoy. That's the beauty of America. You can do that anytime you want.