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?
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.
I believe tenants should have reserves, but the reality is that tenants do not have the means to easily build up reserves. A tenant who has dual earners that have both been laid off likely never envisioned a San Diego unemployment rate of 38% to 42% (last estimate that I am aware of). San Diego unemployment is at an all time high. Significantly higher than the Great Recession and significantly higher than the Great Depression. The tenants likely always believed that one wage earner would be able to find/keep their employment. They may have suspected a long unemployment would be a couple of months. They likely have never had issues finding work previously. They failed to plan for the all time worst employment situation in San Diego.
A family impacted like this possibly could have handled any other economic down turn in San Diego history but not this one. You would have no issues evicting this family? If you have no issues evicting this family, I hope you are in a minority.
Mass eviction and high homeless rates does not benefit anyone including LLs. Rents would fall as units could not be rented. Housing prices would fall as eventually rental properties owners would not have the reserves to carry the properties. The economy would take longer to right itself.
So my issue is not that the government is doing something to prevent evictions. My issue is the government is placing this burden primarily on the LLs rather than placing the burden on the government. So while you advocate less government intervention, I am advocating more government ownership (not sure if I would call it more intervention).
I do not want to see those truly impacted from the Virus get evicted! We have a large enough homeless population already.
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.
I believe tenants should have reserves, but the reality is that tenants do not have the means to easily build up reserves. A tenant who has dual earners that have both been laid off likely never envisioned a San Diego unemployment rate of 38% to 42% (last estimate that I am aware of). San Diego unemployment is at an all time high. Significantly higher than the Great Recession and significantly higher than the Great Depression. The tenants likely always believed that one wage earner would be able to find/keep their employment. They may have suspected a long unemployment would be a couple of months. They likely have never had issues finding work previously. They failed to plan for the all time worst employment situation in San Diego.
A family impacted like this possibly could have handled any other economic down turn in San Diego history but not this one. You would have no issues evicting this family? If you have no issues evicting this family, I hope you are in a minority.
Mass eviction and high homeless rates does not benefit anyone including LLs. Rents would fall as units could not be rented. Housing prices would fall as eventually rental properties owners would not have the reserves to carry the properties. The economy would take longer to right itself.
So my issue is not that the government is doing something to prevent evictions. My issue is the government is placing this burden primarily on the LLs rather than placing the burden on the government. So while you advocate less government intervention, I am advocating more government ownership (not sure if I would call it more intervention).
I do not want to see those truly impacted from the Virus get evicted! We have a large enough homeless population already.
____
To answer your question right off, I think anyone would have a hard time evicting a tenant(s). However, that's part of the gig as you already know. Thankfully, I haven't had to deal with any evictions during this "global pandemic", but if needed I would be willing to work with my tenants since we are in uncertain times.
My whole point is more focused on the future and the forward thinking of our business. It sounds like we have different few points on government involvement, which is obviously normal and I respect your perspective. But you're making my point as to why I think the Federal government shouldn't pass blanket laws (and remember this is a proposal still lol) that dictate how we manage our assets for the future. Not one municipality or geographic area is the same. Sounds like San Diego is in a bad spot and I'm really sorry to hear that. On the other hand, Port Huron, MI (my market) is fairing well and we have moved passed this virus. We've had lay-offs and furloughs, but life has returned back to normal now and real estate is booming again.
Bottom line, the federal government's involvement in the eviction process and how we collect rent (or what I do with my property for that matter) should be minimal. The reality is the ownership is on us and that's why we need to take pride in being Landlords and home providers. We provide the best home for someone to live in, but if they do not follow the basic guidelines, we would be doing a disservice to them if we just allow them to deliberately disobey the rules. When I was younger, I was served not one but two eviction notices from the apartment complex I was staying at. Instead of trying to place the blame on someone else, I decided I never wanted that to happen again, so I worked very hard to get to where I am today. Sometimes eviction notices serve as a catalyst for a better life.....
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.
You're right, I misread that. I highly doubt it passes though. But the radicalism on the left is getting quite concerning indeed.
@JR C. Sooo.... did you actually read HR6800 at all?
I have not read it. Have you? Do you actually have a point to make, or are you just being disrespectful to someone with an actual concern?
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.
1) Most people who have that much cash on hand would just buy. Especially now, with interest rates so low. 2) Giving a 10% discount? There goes your cash flow. Why be a landlord?
Perhaps having a large percentage of foreign-owned industries is not a good thing, but the "serfs" weren't starving until the government took over.
@JR C. Hello 1 please let me say I’m sorry for this. Coming for a new investor that’s looking for her first multi family house. 3/4 units maybe 5. Myself and the hubby will be living there 3yrs top. What can I do about this? I live in Durham NC. I’m not reading much about the land lords are have issues collecting rent. It’s really seems Like Durham, Raleigh North Carolina is doing ok. I can be wrong,it’s just what I’ve been reading. Someone with more experienced may see different. I thought they was adding the mortgage company can’t collect nor penalize the owner? Sending my support to everyone, because this isn’t good at all.
@Boots Bonner wow! Thanks.. I say thanks because I’m new and looking for my new multi family in Durham nc. I’m renting right now we are far from rich we do live paycheck to paycheck. This C19 hasn’t effected us. We paid rent few days late only cause how my husband check fell but we stay in touch with our landlord. I understand the tenant side because I’m one and the owner side because I am becoming one. This isn’t going to effect everyone and many ways. Are there going to be people that take advantage of this ,yes it is. I pray we all be ok. Thank you
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?
Senate leader Mitch McConnell has called this bill "dead on arrival" to the Senate and the White House has broadly condemned this bill as focusing on a partisan wish list rather than focusing on the needs of the current crises. I have never been more grateful for the checks and balances in our constitutional system!
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?
"Who cares about landlords. What are you, some far right white nationalists?" - Most liberals
I hope they don’t. It looks like the senate will take it under consideration in July. It does look like a vote will happen but on a scaled down version. What worries me is the things they mentioned wanting to “scale down” did not include taking out the eviction ban. I have a property ready to rent out but I will hold off until I see where this goes. If it passes, I think it is time to sell out.
I've already put a pause to all new purchases and stopped pursing the ones I was after. Even dropped my first contract. I'm a very "risk on" type buyer but the only fear I have is an all powerful state that can crush me. Normally that's not a fear but with all these current nutbags gaining steam, I don't think freedom (which is the same as a free market as if you're not free to trade your goods and services with others as you see fit, you're not free) has a guaranteed spot in the US anymore.
They're already knocking down all our status. It's like a far left authoritarian coup.
In many European countries evictions can take years and they continue to have landlords there. Very few tenants are freeloaders. We will learn to adjust our screening criteria and pricing. I'd be more worried about being a LL in some inner big city markets.
Exactly though. We are a "second chance" property meaning if someone has an eviction or broken lease, we still give them a chance. Why? Because if they don't pay we know we can evict them. But if you can't evict someone for non payment, why the HELL would you ever take a risk on a 'iffy' tenant.
This will hurt the very people it's meaning to help. Literally the only ones that this will help is people who don't pay rent. And it'll help them at the expense of every other tenant and property owner.
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?
Like "BLM"
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?
I'm politically agnostic. In my view: everyone is contributing to the deterioratin of the USD and feeding the monster that is the Federal Reserve.
With that being said, I don't see such an act (based on your description) passing during Trump's presidency.
@Mary Mitchell
I was asking how can a president stop a state from initiating legislation other states have? There is states rights (remember those being a conservative value??) and a president has no power over a lot of what states do.
So i am asking you: how can Trump disallow a state from legislating tenants rights?
Some of our rights are constitutionally protected. Do you think a state should be able to take away your free speech? What about if a state decides to outlaw gay marriage (that moved from a state issue to a federal issue -- are you okay with that?)
Property rights and the rights to your own agency can't be left up to ANY politician. They're god given, not state (as in government) given.
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.
I don't pay my tenants utilities? Do you?
In some of my properties, I pay utilties. In ALL my properties (save a few of the homes), I pay water.
Due to the pause in evictions, my managers have started to shut off water to the building for 1 hour a day, and install shut off valves between the main, and each unit. If someone isn't paying for months, and is basically saying "F you, you can't get rid of me", we're turning off their water, pulling their meters/breakers, shutting off gas, etc.
My managers don't get paid much hourly as they're paid mostly on property performance. Meaning they might make $10/hr base but on a property that should bring in, let's say, $30k a month, they might get 50% of all money after $25k. So if they collect $30k in a month they make an extra $2,500. That will take their $10/hr to $24/hr (most managers average $25-30/hr after bonus)
BUT, if they have a bunch of deadbeats not paying, that $30k/month property might only bring in $25k. So that's $2,500/month out of THEIR pocket. Being taken from THEIR family. So I'm not telling them to do anything about it but they're doing what they need to do to deal with freeloaders since the court refuses to step in.
They were already serfs? Venezuela was one of the richest countries in the world. Decimated by socialism.
Hey y'all, potential real estate investor here (not there yet but working on it). But I did work for a mortgage company for a number of years so I am familiar with certain concepts. One thing I think of when it comes to being a landlord, just to maybe offer a potential helpful tip for landlords should this legislation pass, is that there is at least one if not multiple companies whereby, if you register your lease with them, they'll report rental payments (on time or late) to a tenant's credit report. This can incentivize tenants to pay on time because it can boost their credit if they pay on time, and ding their credit if they're late. I saw this on several credit reports when I was working in mortgages, and it always stood out to me as an amazing capability for a landlord to set up, and it rewards timely rental payments as well as penalizing late or missed payments. Maybe additional innovations like this will be necessary to ensure rent is still paid by tenants? And that way if they pay on time then you're helping them further, but if they're late then eviction isn't the only negative consequence.
Hope this helps guys! Let me know what you think.
I think some folks are forgetting that, if something like this ever passed, the landlord's greatest ally is the BANKING industry--a pretty powerful set of folks. After all, if rents couldn't be collected and evictions couldn't be processed (so as to replace nonpaying with paying tenants), mortgaged properties would go back to the banks. 2009 on STEROIDS. Banks don't want to own our rental properties--and be subject to the same eviction restrictions.
So relax and rest easy in the arms of BIG BANKING interests who won't allow this to happen. Kinda like knowing Tony Soprano has your back. (Yippee! *Gulp*)
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.
Well, like I mentioned earlier if you've got enough assets to pay a full years worth of rent why wouldn't you buy instead of rent?
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?
I have month-to-month rentals but I wouldn't be able to evict during the moratorium anyhow. I only have one property where I can't evict under the CARES Act, but I'm not evicting anyone right now. I'm not even charging late fees. But people are paying, if slowly. My worry is in August and later when the enhancement runs out.
@Susan Maneck That's what I was thinking. But you can bet deposits will go up unless there's legislation to stop that. Deposits would serve as de facto insurance against nonpayment, at least to some extent. You have to think, if the govt just upped my risk level, how do I protect myself? LLs will find any number of ways to do it, possibly including upping the deposits as a form of protection.