NY Bill Would CANCEL Rent for 90 Days, Not Postpone.
Most Popular Reply
Investor · Youngstown, OH · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
6yI wouldn't touch NY with a ten-foot pole.
172 Replies
@Steve Kontos: Even if we had NO expenses, the state would be forcing us to give up our income directly to another citizen - that never happens without reimbursement. They haven't done that to any other business owners, large or small; I don't see how that's lawful or moral/ethical. No business has to give their product directly to another citizen freely ...except a property owner?
- Real Estate Broker · Watertown, NY · Member since 2016 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes6y
@William Coet Thanks for the link! I submitted my vote. I don't know if they realize that sometimes too much action is worse than no action at all..... This would crush the chain from tenant to bank and make business so much harder to resume when we finally begin to normalize.
I just have to keep telling myself that these insane laws are keeping the competition away from my deals......but that logic is growing harder to swallow day by day
The one thing that was said that makes a lot of sense...
Every other time the gov feels a class needs relief, there have been subsidies. Not sure why that isnt the case now.
Ive been thinking about this a lot, if gov can just intervene into personal business like this, ppl will not invest in rentals...eventually the pendulum will swing back into landlords favor, Im just not sure how that will look.
- 6yChris De CellePro MemberRental Property Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2016 · 41 posts · 28 votes
What also is not being said here, is if they make the owners take a financial hit, then make the banks take a haircut as well, it would make for a terrible chain of events. The banks will turn it around on their customers, Ie. Owners, us, and charge us higher fees to mitigate their losses. So once again, I implore all owners of NY State properties, to call their state representatives on Monday. Flood their offices with no votes and they'll get the picture. Just commenting on their websites, will not be effective. Please call your representative as the vocal will be heard.
- Lititz, PA · Member since 2013 · 595 posts · 272 votes6y
Anyone who has a loan should contact their lender and inform them of the
proposed bill. The bank may be inclined to get an attorney involved to
help stop this, or at the very least send some emails and/or make some
phone calls to representatives. Call your bank or lender!
- Lititz, PA · Member since 2013 · 595 posts · 272 votes6y
@Michael Ablan Great that you did that. You should absolutely send emails to, and call: your Senators office, the bill sponsors office, and the bill-co-sponsors office too! They respond to reasonable input.
- Investor · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2015 · 81 posts · 210 votes6y
For those people saying to call the sponsoring senator's office, I believe that guy is one of the loudest opponents of Amazon HQ2 in NYC last year -> very much an anti-development/landlord socialist type of politician, hence not useful. That's why I don't invest there and left the NY metro area last year to moe to NC.
- Lititz, PA · Member since 2013 · 595 posts · 272 votes6y
Originally posted by @Lokesh W.:
In Wisconsin, there is similar bill for 60 days. My lender says pay mortgage using reserves. In WI, there will be no eviction or foreclosure for 60 days. Any suggestions?
You have to get the word out that loss of income caused by any legislation needs to be replaced in a way that doesn't force you into more debt. The government needs to reimburse for whatever income they are denying.
Contact all landlord associations and find out what they are doing, and what can be done.
Contact all representatives involved. Call and email.
- Rental Property Investor · Ithaca, NY · Member since 2015 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes6y
@Tony T.
Have you talked to your lender about a 90 day forbearance? My lender offered it to me and I paused my mortgages on both my houses.
- 6yMatthew Irish-JonesBusiness MemberReal Estate Agent · Buffalo, NY · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
@Tony T. I don’t see this passing
Irish Jones Realty4.947 Reviews - Rental Property Investor · Boston, Massachusetts (MA) · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes6y
@Tony T. I did hit reply to you but several comments as you said were made by others.
Bringing up historical tax rates and circumstances was an attempt to show that other periods in history have demanded far more of us as citizens. There are thousands of posts here about monetary loss and injustice, little about what we can do given our jobs as real estate owners and less about what others have had to endure.
Income tax is taking of property, draft to military is taking of property, right now national defense act telling go to make ventilators is taking of property...I could go on. This so called tyranny u speak of is simply the way the country responds in a crises. You are being hurt by it, but that’s not very important in the grand scheme of things.
And your knowledge of history around the issue of property rights is minimal. The railroads were nationalized during World War One, steel coal iron and gas industries in World War Two, banks were seized in the savings and loan crises in the 80s there are a lot of examples of legislation running over investors and owners for the greater good.
My point isn’t to applaud the bill, it is to remind us that in a historical context and given the scale of the crises we are facing, its an understandable (if perhaps wrongheaded) response and your damages need to be weighed against a much larger good.
- Rental Property Investor · Boston, Massachusetts (MA) · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes6y
@Tony T. By the way there is a mechanism for being compensated. There is tax relief in various forms—some quite powerful
The economic injury application for an SBA loan would allow for recapture of some lost rent through a loan/grant program. We are disagreeing but we aren’t fighting: check out the SBA, the ability to spread out tax hits, some of the depreciation changes. There are some pretty good large and small scale relief that can help
- Rental Property Investor · Sioux Falls, SD · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 18k+ votes6y
Originally posted by @Tony T.:
@Steve Kontos: Even if we had NO expenses, the state would be forcing us to give up our income directly to another citizen - that never happens without reimbursement. They haven't done that to any other business owners, large or small; I don't see how that's lawful or moral/ethical. No business has to give their product directly to another citizen freely ...except a property owner?
Not correct. The government already mandated businesses to close, directly taking away income from MANY businesses. Is it lawful to force a restaurant to close, yet force them to pay rent to their landlord? Should a landlord be owed back-rent, when a business wasn't even legally allowed to operate? I am just putting the question out there. I think it sucks for all businesses, but you are acting as if you are the only one that this impacts. That comes off as either selfish or you are completely uniformed about what has been happening the last month.
Many people argue that rent control and eviction laws already take away landlords rights and income. You could argue taxes take away a businesses rights and income. Although a free rent bill would be radically worse, the point is income is already being taken. Many industries are regulated and controlled at the financial impact of the businesses. These controls impact income of the business in the name of what is good of society. Without society, you don't have customers, so many argue it is good for the businesses.
My best advice is work with your state landlord / multifamily association on fighting this. They will have a fund for lobbying and legal challenges. Support them with your money and band together. If you need money to sustain you, there are loan options available to impacted businesses.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the proposed bill. I think forbearance only for those affected would be more reasonable. It seems strange to offer free rent to everyone, including someone who has not lost income, as we know many people in NY are still fully employed. I doubt they will pass this law to cancel rent, because I believe there are legal ramifications. Even forcing other businesses to close will likely result in litigation in the coming months and years.
Whether it is this or other future anti-landlord legislation, you are choosing to bear massive risk by investing in a tenant friendly state. That is just something to consider as you move forward. I wish you the best and above all, I hope your family and friends stay safe. Wealth can be replaced, but our loved ones cannot.
- Lititz, PA · Member since 2013 · 595 posts · 272 votes6y
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:
Originally posted by @Tony T.:
@Steve Kontos: Even if we had NO expenses, the state would be forcing us to give up our income directly to another citizen - that never happens without reimbursement. They haven't done that to any other business owners, large or small; I don't see how that's lawful or moral/ethical. No business has to give their product directly to another citizen freely ...except a property owner?
Not correct. The government already mandated businesses to close, directly taking away income from MANY businesses. Is it lawful to force a restaurant to close, yet force them to pay rent to their landlord? Should a landlord be owed back-rent, when a business wasn't even legally allowed to operate? I am just putting the question out there. I think it sucks for all businesses, but you are acting as if you are the only one that this impacts. That comes off as either selfish or you are completely uniformed about what has been happening the last month.
Many people argue that rent control and eviction laws already take away landlords rights and income. You could argue taxes take away a businesses rights and income. Although a free rent bill would be radically worse, the point is income is already being taken. Many industries are regulated and controlled at the financial impact of the businesses. These controls impact income of the business in the name of what is good of society. Without society, you don't have customers, so many argue it is good for the businesses.
My best advice is work with your state landlord / multifamily association on fighting this. They will have a fund for lobbying and legal challenges. Support them with your money and band together. If you need money to sustain you, there are loan options available to impacted businesses.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the proposed bill. I think forbearance only for those affected would be more reasonable. It seems strange to offer free rent to everyone, including someone who has not lost income, as we know many people in NY are still fully employed. I doubt they will pass this law to cancel rent, because I believe there are legal ramifications. Even forcing other businesses to close will likely result in litigation in the coming months and years.
Whether it is this or other future anti-landlord legislation, you are choosing to bear massive risk by investing in a tenant friendly state. That is just something to consider as you move forward. I wish you the best and above all, I hope your family and friends stay safe. Wealth can be replaced, but our loved ones cannot.
If you carefully consider the implications and some of the recklessness of the proposed bill you may feel differently. For example:
-Not only are people who become unemployed eligible for standard unemployment, they are also eligible for enhanced stimulus unemployment, and the one time stimulus check. Many of these people will be earning more than they were before. For example, I know of a plant manager who is losing workers because they know they will be earning more with the enhanced stimulus benefits. These enhanced benefits are being provided by the government so that people can pay their expenses, not so that they can stiff their housing provider. Unfortunately, this bill will allow them to do exactly that.-This bill allows anybody who has lost any amount of income to not pay rent for three months. It does not consider people's ability to pay or the amount of income lost. Many renters have savings (sometimes more than their housing provider). Many people who are financially stable are working part time (retired people, students whose parents are funding them, etc) and this will allow them to withhold payments to their housing provider, but this bill does that.
-This bill places a massive burden only housing providers shoulders. It does not require any other provider of a service or product that people use to be provided for free for three months with no reimbursement. It does not require grocery stores or restaurants to serve people for three months without reimbursement.
-Self-employed housing providers are not eligible for unemployment benefits, and for many of them the small percentage of revenue that is left after expenses is their only income. An SBA loan is not a benefit, it is more debt that must be repaid. Unemployment benefits that unemployed people will be receiving are not repayable.
-The government should be subsidizing the rent if they are going to deny it to people, and ensuring that people who are receiving unemployment benefits use them responsibly.
-This is a reckless and poorly drafted bill that will do more harm than good.
-
- Rental Property Investor · Sioux Falls, SD · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 18k+ votes6y
Originally posted by @William Coet:
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:
Originally posted by @Tony T.:
@Steve Kontos: Even if we had NO expenses, the state would be forcing us to give up our income directly to another citizen - that never happens without reimbursement. They haven't done that to any other business owners, large or small; I don't see how that's lawful or moral/ethical. No business has to give their product directly to another citizen freely ...except a property owner?
Not correct. The government already mandated businesses to close, directly taking away income from MANY businesses. Is it lawful to force a restaurant to close, yet force them to pay rent to their landlord? Should a landlord be owed back-rent, when a business wasn't even legally allowed to operate? I am just putting the question out there. I think it sucks for all businesses, but you are acting as if you are the only one that this impacts. That comes off as either selfish or you are completely uniformed about what has been happening the last month.
Many people argue that rent control and eviction laws already take away landlords rights and income. You could argue taxes take away a businesses rights and income. Although a free rent bill would be radically worse, the point is income is already being taken. Many industries are regulated and controlled at the financial impact of the businesses. These controls impact income of the business in the name of what is good of society. Without society, you don't have customers, so many argue it is good for the businesses.
My best advice is work with your state landlord / multifamily association on fighting this. They will have a fund for lobbying and legal challenges. Support them with your money and band together. If you need money to sustain you, there are loan options available to impacted businesses.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the proposed bill. I think forbearance only for those affected would be more reasonable. It seems strange to offer free rent to everyone, including someone who has not lost income, as we know many people in NY are still fully employed. I doubt they will pass this law to cancel rent, because I believe there are legal ramifications. Even forcing other businesses to close will likely result in litigation in the coming months and years.
Whether it is this or other future anti-landlord legislation, you are choosing to bear massive risk by investing in a tenant friendly state. That is just something to consider as you move forward. I wish you the best and above all, I hope your family and friends stay safe. Wealth can be replaced, but our loved ones cannot.
If you carefully consider the implications and some of the recklessness of the proposed bill you may feel differently. For example:
-Not only are people who become unemployed eligible for standard unemployment, they are also eligible for enhanced stimulus unemployment, and the one time stimulus check. Many of these people will be earning more than they were before. For example, I know of a plant manager who is losing workers because they know they will be earning more with the enhanced stimulus benefits. These enhanced benefits are being provided by the government so that people can pay their expenses, not so that they can stiff their housing provider. Unfortunately, this bill will allow them to do exactly that.-This bill allows anybody who has lost any amount of income to not pay rent for three months. It does not consider people's ability to pay or the amount of income lost. Many renters have savings (sometimes more than their housing provider). Many people who are financially stable are working part time (retired people, students whose parents are funding them, etc) and this will allow them to withhold payments to their housing provider, but this bill does that.
-This bill places a massive burden only housing providers shoulders. It does not require any other provider of a service or product that people use to be provided for free for three months with no reimbursement. It does not require grocery stores or restaurants to serve people for three months without reimbursement.
-Self-employed housing providers are not eligible for unemployment benefits, and for many of them the small percentage of revenue that is left after expenses is their only income. An SBA loan is not a benefit, it is more debt that must be repaid. Unemployment benefits that unemployed people will be receiving are not repayable.
-The government should be subsidizing the rent if they are going to deny it to people, and ensuring that people who are receiving unemployment benefits use them responsibly.
-This is a reckless and poorly drafted bill that will do more harm than good.
-
As I said, "Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the proposed bill." My point was simply that businesses like bars, nail shops, massage therapists and similar have been forced to close. In other words the government removed 100% of their income and offered them loans as the only way to stay in business. They have to pay landlords, even though they legally cannot operate a business. Like I said, the common sense approach here is give tenants rent forbearance (they still have to pay it later) and only if the tenant has hardship.
- Member since 2017 · 66 posts · 91 votes6y
No what should happen is unemployment offices should have to pay the landlord directly if the person receives unemployment. See as a landlord you should have savings, however as a tenant you should have savings. So the unemployed should be forced to give up their cell phones, cars, internet, and cable tv first if rent is waived. PERIOD. This is the problem with a certain political party that runs the north and most states where this is being considered. Savers are being punished and spenders rewarded. This will result in bad consequences for all.
@Joe Splitrock: It's a true statement that the state would be causing losses to both normal business and landlords under this proposal, but one is truly unethical. It's like saying that there were two men that were killed, but one may have been murdered, and the other was killed in self defense; one was justified and one wasn't. The state would indeed be causing losses but two VERY different kinds of losses. The big difference is:
================================================================================
Existing losses of income cause by the state is not allowing the FAIR exchange of certain goods and services, but the proposed NY bill would order/force one citizen to give their goods/services away directly to another citizen for free with no reimbursement.
================================================================================
I feel like you're not seeing my point. Asking people to refrain from making fair trades is TOTALLY different than ordering a trade where one party must receive $0 for their product/labor.
Do you think it would be fair, currently, for the state to force a grocery store owner to give away his product? You'd have to say "yes" to be consistent, but I'm guessing you'd say "No" because the state simply subsidizes each individual to buy food instead of incurring harm on store owners.
Do you think it would be fair, currently, for the state to order all employers to pay their employees full wages if they have no work? No, it would be immoral. The state subsidizes these loss of wages with an unemployment program instead of ordering a citizen to give away their labor or treasure directly to other citizens with no reimbursement.
Why do you think this is OK; do you have other examples of the state ordering the awarding of private property to another citizen directly with no reimbursement?
- Member since 2017 · 66 posts · 91 votes6y
What Landlords should be asking for is this. Tenants should be allowed to cancel their lease without penalty if they claim they "can't pay rent". The landlord business is different then restaurants because we are signing over our property rights in the lease to someone else. So if the state wants to let these people cancel their lease without payment then these same people can now become wards of the state and move into FEMA camps or whatever it would be called up north. That way the property owner can look for another tenant and not be forced to take a loss and recover their property rights. Again this is unconstitutional. Housing is not a "right" in the constitution. At the same time landlords should ask for the elimination of rent control and let the free market work this out. What is getting ready to happen when this is over is it will result in more of a mass migration unfortunately with these people moving to the South where they will try to come with their ideas about rent control. I will be a beneficiary of this migration, but will suffer from these same individuals ignorance of how the US Constitution works.
@Jonathan R McLaughlin: I appreciate your response and your estimate of my limited knowledge of history, concerning your examples, is a fair one; thank you for those examples.
I do recognize the state in the past has taken property in crucial times (e.g. taxes, military drafts, nationalizing railroads and steel foundries, etc), however:
(1) I consider these examples tyranny as well, so giving examples of past tyrannical acts will not convince me that a new one would be justified.
(2) Even when these past tyrannical acts were committed, some sense of fairness was always applied. With the draft, there was a lottery. With nationalizing railroads or steel, I assume laborers and the management continued to receive wages in exchange for their labor for the state. This NY bill would order citizens to give their labor to other citizens directly with no reimbursement.
Do you have examples in history where certain citizens were ordered by the state to give away their labor/property/goods directly to other citizens with no reimbursement?
Do you think it's OK for the state to order grocery stores to give away their product for free and to force shop owners to continue to stock their shelves with food? This is a time of crisis, right? You yourself say in this historical context and scale of the crisis damages need to be weighed against the greater good. That's what you're promoting but I see it CLEARLY as immoral, unethical and tyrannical.
The state can do a LOT of different things "for the greater good" as you say, but some of these things are unethical and immoral. We did not institute a government to award one citizen's labor/product to another citizens with no reimbursement even in troubling times. We instituted this government to protect our rights.
If you reply, I request that you explain why you wouldn't expect the state to order grocery stores to give away their food and labor directly to other citizens with no reimbursement please.
@Jonathan R McLaughlin: Also, when the state orders our labor/product to other citizens with no reimbursement, an SBA loan wouldn't correct that. If A grocery store owner was ordered to give all stocked food away for free with no reimbursement, an SBA loan doesn't correct that massive loss. I do appreciate you pointing the program out for those facing real cash flow problems, but I say this because so many people's responses assume this is relief, when it is not.
If I am robbed, by a needy person, the state doesn't allow that person to keep my property (if they are caught) just because they are needy. Getting a loan to repurchase those lost/stolen items doesn't make me whole.
- Member since 2017 · 66 posts · 91 votes6y
Where are the NY bills stopping banks from repossessing cars and telling mobile phone and cable companies (monopoly) and utilities (public monopoly's) that they have to provide service for free? Landlording is Mom & Pop industry and as such Landlords mean nothing to Politicians. This kind of thinking is a cancer and this cancer has been growing for so long that it is to late to cut or burn it out. This time it is going to kill the patient.
- 6yJoe SeegersPro MemberInvestor · Appleton, WI · Member since 2011 · 29 posts · 29 votes
this is why everbody on bigger pockets should join their apt association.us in wisconsin local association charges 99 per year .and half that money go to 2 lobbyist at the state level.we in my area have only about 10% of the landlords.if we would all join together ,we would have alot more power with the polititions.that is were the tenants kick are ***.having politition thinks by giving them something free ,he will get their vote
- Member since 2019 · 2 posts · 0 votes6y
Originally posted by @Tony T.:
https://reason.com/2020/03/25/...
The state of New York has a bill to CANCEL rent for 90 days for workers affected by the virus! This isn't deferring rent payment; it is waiving it.
Those landlords who have mortgages may not be affected by this if their lenders also waive/delay mortgage payments, but those of us whose only income is from a couple of properties that have no mortgages, it will be catastrophic. I am in that category.
I see this as theft of my private property sponsored by the state. Man has instituted governments to protect our rights (see: Declaration of Independence), not take my private property and give it to someone else. The state is guilty of that which it was commissioned to prevent - theft. Once again those of us who who made great sacrifices to do the best thing would be greatly penalized. The one who works hard would be forced to pay for those who make foolish decisions and live care free.
We're getting closer to mob rule and these LAWMAKERS in NY creating the hashtag: #cancelrent (found in the article) to whip everyone up in a frenzy, is as close to it as I've ever seen.
I saw an example of emails on this forum that you could send to your tenants who have been hurt by the virus. It had some tips that may apply to your situation to make mortgage payments. Perhaps you could ask your family to help you, and cut recurring monthly expenses like cable.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.