Originally posted by @Franky Aikens:
I've been reading through the comments of the livid landlords about this new bill. Totally understand why they'd be up in arms. The originator of this post called it "theft" by the government. It was also assumed and stated that there wouldn't be any relief for the landlords, only the tenants.
But then I read through the proposed bill on the NY State Senate Bill site I found the language below. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the language below, landlords WILL get relief and the form of suspended mortgage payments for the same length of time rents will be suspended. Am I missing something here?
(b) (i) Any person or entity who faces a financial hardship as a
result of being deprived rent payments for property pursuant to this
section shall receive forgiveness on any mortgage payments for such
property for ninety days, in an amount determined by the following frac-
tion multiplied by such mortgage payment, up to the total dollar amount
of lost rent:
(A) The numerator shall be the total amount of rent payments suspended
for his or her tenants over the ninety day period laid out in this
section
There is a long list of costs to own and operate housing and after all the expenses are paid many housing providers use what is left over for their own living expenses. These expenses include property taxes (school, village/city, town and county) property insurance, regular maintenance contracts for things like lawn care and snow removal, maintenance reserves for unexpected repairs to plumbing, heating, etc and for large expense items like roofs, painting, and updates). A mortgage payment is only a portion of the overall payments. In NY State the property taxes are often higher than the mortgage. This bill only covers certain mortgages, and of those, it is not a full waiver all of the time. This bill falls terribly short of reimbursing the providers of housing.
In this case housing providers are being required to provide a
service without compensation. This is like requiring a restaurant or grocery store to
stay open for the next three months and serve all of its customers for free, with never being repaid.
If you carefully consider some of 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 are working part time to keep busy and are financially stable (retired
people,
students gaining work experience for a resume and whose parents are
funding them, etc) and this will allow them to withhold payments to
their housing provider regardless of their financial situation and
ability to pay.
-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. They can set up a section 8 style program so that this bill doesn't cause more economic problems for housing providers and the taxing entities, employees, insurers,and contractors that rely on them for payments.
-This is a reckless and poorly drafted bill that will do more harm than good.
