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?
@JR C. If this is true it is rather ridiculous. The government wants to control our business? I see. Well keep this in mind when it is time to vote. I’ll leave it at that.
Don't be naive. Government has always controlled our business.
So before this thread gets too political, I just have to say I really wish there was such thing as the Center in politics......
Eventually the Center will win out. The HEROES Act won't pass as it currently stands but eventually the Senate is going to want to get more money for more business loans (socialism for that purpose is apparently okay.) At that point negotiations will occur between the Senate and House and each will get some of what they want. If something is not done 45% of the country is predicted to become homeless and that certainly won't help us as landlords.
@Jason Cacioppo that’s how I feel exactly.
I agree. If it becomes a law, then it has bad effect for the landlords.
@JR C. - Hypothetically speaking, day 🤦♂️today I file for bankruptcy and next day go to the bank asking for a new loan.
Truth. At least 4 times.
Great to see you again, Susan!
Just wanted to point out about the homeless estimation if effective economic stimuli stops. The 45% is an estimated increase to the existing homeless population, not the population of the whole country.
Still horrible at an increase as high as 250,000 to 800,000 total homeless, but not in the tens or hundreds of millions 45% of the country would be. Keep keeping it real👍
Does anyone know how this affects the situation when a lease is up? Is it equally as hard to evict the tenant for non-payment if the lease is expired? If it is easier to do that, why not just do shorter term leases like 3 or 6 months?
short list of major industries now nationalized:
1. Steel
2. Agriculture (today, many Venezuelans grow their own food to avoid starvation)
3. Banking
4. Gold Mining
5. Telecomms (“Let it be nationalized,” Chávez said of CANTV. “All that was privatized, let it be nationalized.”)
6. Electricity
7. Tourism
8. Transportation and Shipping
Reuters.com:
In 14 years in office, Chavez has nationalized major swaths of the OPEC nation’s economy as part of a socialist agenda
Venezuelans expect more takeovers to come, possibly in the banking, health and food sectors.
MiamiHerald.com, headline: "Venezuelan government controls more than 500 businesses -- and most are losing money"
Fee.org (Foundation for Economic Education):
"Many refuse to blame socialism, instead citing the collapse of oil prices, corruption, its abandonment of democracy, and other factors. If socialism did play a role, it was a small one, says Venezuelan writer Francisco Toro in the Washington Post, citing “a unique mix of circumstances, in which socialism is just one ingredient.”
Others deny Venezuela was ever even socialist. Noam Chomsky, who praised Venezuela’s previous president, Hugo Chávez, for reducing poverty, is one."
"People can continue to say that Venezuela’s tragic plight is unrelated to its socialist policies. Yet it cannot be denied that Venezuela suffered one of the sharpest economic declines in history immediately after it began one of the largest nationalization campaigns ever, one that went far beyond its state-run oil operations.
By nationalizing everything from steel and shipping to agriculture, mining, banking, electricity, telecommunications, and more, Hugo Chávez set his people on a path to serfdom from which there was no turning back.
Gotta say - as it's this is lame FOR SURE. But there's a lotta belly-aching and dooms-dayin' here. Are you all writing (and calling) your state Senators or just complaining and hoping for the best (for you) on an echo-chamber thread? Maybe one of you can get a template together - something short and sweet as to why you think this is a bad idea and we can all copy and paste and share with our Senators?
In our area the Wa State LL Association is well organized; we sent letters and attended meetings at the Capitol in Olympia, we have active lobbyists and we have won on issues as a result of participating, raising awareness and pressure. It is an uphill battle in a Blue state. We all have REI organizations in our areas; get out and support them.
Here in Los Angeles, the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles sued the city of Los Angeles about the moratorium on evictions based upon Fifth Amendment protections, specifically the provision that prevents private property being "taken for public use without just compensation." This may be a good case to track as it may provide the necessary precedent for lawsuits throughout the nation.
L.A. sued by landlord group over coronavirus anti-eviction protections
I am not a lawyer and I'm not interpreting this lawsuit as being justified in any professional manner. I'm just expressing my personal opinion here.
It's not all residential properties, but only those that receive federal assistance: "The HEROES Act would replace the current 120-day moratorium enacted in the CARES Act for renters in federally assisted properties with a new 12-month moratorium on non-payment evictions from substantially all rental housing."
And, of course, that assumes it passes the Senate.
Hi Andrew, I read that reference to federal assistance as referring to the original CARES act:
"The HEROES Act would replace the current 120-day moratorium enacted in the CARES Act for renters in federally assisted properties
with
a new 12-month moratorium on non-payment evictions from substantially all rental housing."
With first part going away to be replaced with the second, which expands it beyond federally assisted. That is my interpretation anyway. Agreed though it would still have to pass Senate and pres. Here is the direct text from the actual HERO bill:
Page 962 of HR 6800.
‘‘(b) MORATORIUM.—During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending 12 months after such date of enactment, the lessor of a covered dwelling located in such State may not make, or cause to be made, any filing with the court of jurisdiction to initiate a legal action to recover possession of the covered dwelling from the tenant for nonpayment of rent or other fees or charges.
‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
‘‘(1) COVERED DWELLING.—The term ‘covered dwelling’ means a dwelling that is occupied by a ten ant—
‘‘(A) pursuant to a residential lease; or
5‘(B) without a lease or with a lease ter minable at will under State law.
‘‘(2) DWELLING.—The term ‘dwelling’ has the meaning given such term in section 802 of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3602) and includes houses
and dwellings described in section 803(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3603(b)).
I assume dwelling is a basic definition of housing and the code reference is not specific to federal only, but not sure.
@Ben Clark
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I rely heavily on credit/background checks and past evictions. How do you screen and make a good decision without having this criteria/information. I call previous employers and landlords. Is there something else I’m missing?
President Trump did also say it was DOA🤟🏽🇺🇸
Thank goodness!
he is the only thing stopping the rest of us from becoming seattle and ny.
Yeah it'd suck to become NY and have some of the most valuable RE in America/World
I'll leave this here for you bud:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/11/manhattans-empty-apartments-new-leases-plunge-62percent-in-may.html
It's not all residential properties, but only those that receive federal assistance: "The HEROES Act would replace the current 120-day moratorium enacted in the CARES Act for renters in federally assisted properties with a new 12-month moratorium on non-payment evictions from substantially all rental housing."
And, of course, that assumes it passes the Senate.
Incorrect. The CARES Act if for federal financed properties only. The HEROES Act puts all leases under the affected umbrella.
President Trump did also say it was DOA🤟🏽🇺🇸
Thank goodness!
he is the only thing stopping the rest of us from becoming seattle and ny.
Yeah it'd suck to become NY and have some of the most valuable RE in America/World
I'll leave this here for you bud:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/11/manhattans-empty-apartments-new-leases-plunge-62percent-in-may.html
You really are a genius bud.
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.
Great suggestion. Most people will pay. What is wrong about this entire proposal is the involvement of Federal government and their idea of being able to mandate how we manage our properties. It's an infringement of property rights IMO, and they don't need to be involved. Where I live most evictions are executed in 30 to 60 days for non-payers. It's fair and simple. If you don't pay - you lose your privilege to occupy.
These are just proposals thank God, but I don't like the future thinking Democrats at all. The federal government should have very little involvement in how I manage my income producing asset.
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.
Great suggestion. Most people will pay. What is wrong about this entire proposal is the involvement of Federal government and their idea of being able to mandate how we manage our properties. It's an infringement of property rights IMO, and they don't need to be involved. Where I live most evictions are executed in 30 to 60 days for non-payers. It's fair and simple. If you don't pay - you lose your privilege to occupy.
These are just proposals thank God, but I don't like the future thinking Democrats at all. The federal government should have very little involvement in how I manage my income producing asset.
My view is that it is not that the government has gotten involved but how they are going about it. It would be a disservice for maximum evictions due to impacts from Corona virus. The issue is that so far, the regulations have placed this burden on the landlords instead of on the government.
We have received all of our LTR rents, so I do not yet have an impact. However, it does not mean next month will be the same. I also am on record having indicated that I would not be evicting anyone that was missing their rent for a legitimate Corona impact. It does not mean that I feel the government should force me to pick up this risk/expense (doing it voluntarily is different than it being forced on LLs).
There are LLs who have not received rent from many tenants. Some of these tenants may be taking advantage of the situation.
The government does not have infinite funds. However, this burden should fall on the government and not LLs. Would you have the same complaints if the proposal was that the tenants had to show the government that they have been financially impacted by the virus after which the government paid the rent? I suspect most LLs would not have any issue with this government involvement.
However, instead the government wants the LLs to not be able to evict the tenants and the LL to be responsible for later collecting the past rents. Most tenants do not have the resources to pay current rent and make up for past missed rent payments. The government figures we can lend money to address this problem. However, if they lend money to the tenants they are in the same position that they are putting the LLs in. A position that is unlikely to end up in full collection and therefore would cost the government more. Therefore, the government thinks how can we reduce the odds of not getting paid on the loans? Let's loan the money to the LLs. It may prevent the LL from losing the property, but the expense will still fall on the LL if they are unable to collect back rent from the tenants. LLs get screwed.
I do not believe this will make it through the senate being this LL unfriendly. However, I expect the hero Act that does get passed will be LL unfriendly (less unfriendly than the current version, but LL unfriendly). The government does not want to be stuck with all of the unpaid rent expense. The tenants likely will not ever be able to make the delinquent rent payments. The LL is bound to get screwed.
I am glad my LTR tenants are all paying rent and, if some did not, that we are in the position to be able to handle many months of missed payments. I was willing to lend rent for tenants with real impacts (realizing it is not highly likely that I will collect all missed rent) without it being forced on me. I do not like that it is being forced on me.
Why not offer renters incentives to pay a year of rent upfront? 10%-15% off? Just an idea that popped up in my head reading this.
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.
Great suggestion. Most people will pay. What is wrong about this entire proposal is the involvement of Federal government and their idea of being able to mandate how we manage our properties. It's an infringement of property rights IMO, and they don't need to be involved. Where I live most evictions are executed in 30 to 60 days for non-payers. It's fair and simple. If you don't pay - you lose your privilege to occupy.
These are just proposals thank God, but I don't like the future thinking Democrats at all. The federal government should have very little involvement in how I manage my income producing asset.
My view is that it is not that the government has gotten involved but how they are going about it. It would be a disservice for maximum evictions due to impacts from Corona virus. The issue is that so far, the regulations have placed this burden on the landlords instead of on the government.
We have received all of our LTR rents, so I do not yet have an impact. However, it does not mean next month will be the same. I also am on record having indicated that I would not be evicting anyone that was missing their rent for a legitimate Corona impact. It does not mean that I feel the government should force me to pick up this risk/expense (doing it voluntarily is different than it being forced on LLs).
There are LLs who have not received rent from many tenants. Some of these tenants may be taking advantage of the situation.
The government does not have infinite funds. However, this burden should fall on the government and not LLs. Would you have the same complaints if the proposal was that the tenants had to show the government that they have been financially impacted by the virus after which the government paid the rent? I suspect most LLs would not have any issue with this government involvement.
However, instead the government wants the LLs to not be able to evict the tenants and the LL to be responsible for later collecting the past rents. Most tenants do not have the resources to pay current rent and make up for past missed rent payments. The government figures we can lend money to address this problem. However, if they lend money to the tenants they are in the same position that they are putting the LLs in. A position that is unlikely to end up in full collection and therefore would cost the government more. Therefore, the government thinks how can we reduce the odds of not getting paid on the loans? Let's loan the money to the LLs. It may prevent the LL from losing the property, but the expense will still fall on the LL if they are unable to collect back rent from the tenants. LLs get screwed.
I do not believe this will make it through the senate being this LL unfriendly. However, I expect the hero Act that does get passed will be LL unfriendly (less unfriendly than the current version, but LL unfriendly). The government does not want to be stuck with all of the unpaid rent expense. The tenants likely will not ever be able to make the delinquent rent payments. The LL is bound to get screwed.
I am glad my LTR tenants are all paying rent and, if some did not, that we are in the position to be able to handle many months of missed payments. I was willing to lend rent for tenants with real impacts (realizing it is not highly likely that I will collect all missed rent) without it being forced on me. I do not like that it is being forced on me.
_______
My complaints would be similar in the sense that I think any involvement from the federal government in how I manage my property evictions and how I collect rent is unnecessary. There are people running into the harsh reality that they cannot pay rent or they cannot afford the place they are currently living. There is also the harsh reality that not everyone is entitled to a 1000 sqft home, so unfortunately they will have to make alternative living arrangements and/or lifestyle adjustments in order to cover the cost of living. We don't need more people relying on the Federal government to find a home, but the Feds seem to want to control that. I think Equal Housing Laws are great from a macro standpoint of "treating everyone equally" and the HUD rights surrounding people with mental or physical disabilities, but it's unnecessary for the federal government to micromanage landlords in the SFR and multifamily space.