Evictionland
curbed.com
curbed.com
1. The job market, especially in media jobs, has changed into one where you can be fired at any time. Similarly, forty years ago, someone who had a good media job would not have felt safe making such inflammatory (right or wrong) statements.
2. American housing markets have adjusted higher to essentially consume all of the practical discretionary income of renters and buyers. A lot of this has to do with the securitization of these obligations, and the corresponding loosening of credit requirements. If the rope that the bank or the landlord is willing to give you increase, it's not just a personal decision about how much risk you're willing to take, because it affects the loans and leases everyone else in the market gets. Just because your neighbor is taking out a crazy loan he can't afford if anything goes wrong doesn't mean he isn't pushing up the housing prices just as much as if he could do it comfortably.
3. The financial markets have become much more sophisticated on one hand, but also much less local and much shorter term focused. If 10% of borrowers default, that's not necessarily a problem as long as the cost they cause covers the profit from the others. If the 10% cause major social problems, the holder of the CDO in Qatar has no idea, and wouldn't care if he did.
4. The increased availability of credit, and the increased willingness of markets to give credit to risky borrowers has forced people to extend themselves to the max in order to compete for social status. If your friend has a BMW and a big house even though he's practically bankrupt, you are pushed into doing the same thing. The girls at the next table at the bar have no idea that he's is being fiscally irresponsible, they just know that he has a cool car and a nice house.
This is optional, though. If you opt in to it, that's somewhat on you. Granted that our social systems could be improved so that natural human tendencies push people toward right actions. However, I think the injustice is far more severe in cases where there's no out that's within a person's power to reasonably grasp.
And "the girls at the next table in the bar," don't know about your friend's car or house, unless your friend is an insufferable jerk who carries pictures of his ride in his wallet. And they likely don't care that much either way.
Sort of. Until you get into asset price inflation - I sure am not looking for anything fancy or social-signaling for my housing, but due to everyone taking out absurd 30yr mortgages and financing to the hilt I'm likely paying 2-3x what they would be if such financial instruments did not exist.
So you get to play at least some ball whether or not any of those things matter to you.
Recently I have been doing a better job of saving so I don't cut it close like that.
There is no severance or anything for most contracting jobs and if you are like me and have trouble saving much then the point is that it could be as little as a few weeks to become homeless. Like I said now I am saving at least to give myself a 30 day cushion but if I had any significant expense that would evaporate.
BTW, please no lectures about personal finance or other advice. The point of this comment is not to solicit that. The point is that it is even easier to become homeless than is depicted in that article.
And honestly, the route you’re taking now where you have a small cushion to cover you in case you need it is what you should have been doing. I don’t mean to be an asshole, but just pointing out that it’s not fair for you to just assume that if you’re late, your landlord can just cover you for a few days. That’s not the agreement you made, right?
And yeah, you said no lectures. But I chose to ignore that because I genuinely want to know: why is it fair for you to break your agreement and just assume that the other party will cover you?
And more to the point: this is actually part of why you serve demand notices (what you received) immediately. One reason is to kick off the process so that eviction can move forward if needed. But more importantly, it’s to send the clear message that you intend to hold the other party to the terms of the agreement. After all, you’re making changes to avoid paying late in the future, so it seems like they made the right call, doesn’t it?
You bring up a fair point that I’m assuming you’re laying some amount of blame or culpability for the situation at your landlord’s feet, and that isn’t exactly what you said. I may have read that unfairly, and you only meant that this was a situation you found yourself in, with no criticism aimed at the property management. I apologize for assuming otherwise.
I do appreciate that you've responded respectfully to some replies to your comments (elsewhere in the thread) which haven't been particularly respectful either.
The expectation to appear perfect and not share what happen when we are not perfect pushes us all into sort of shared delusion.
Leaving aside the particulars of your own situation, I do want to comment on your assertion about the price of rent. $1,200 is maybe higher than we'd like, but it's still pretty low. It's manageable as long as you're making $30k per year or more. It doesn't seem crazy to me.
There's also the more option of getting roommates. In all of NYC there are just three units on Streeteasy going for less than $1,250. However, there are more than seven hundred two-bedroom units going for less than $2,500.
(This kind of assistance is one of the most efficient ways they can intervene, because the costs of accessing stable housing for someone increase massively at each step).
In this case the savings is mandated, but then there are no intense situations where a notice to evict is on the door the day after being late.
I don't know how to feel about the above one way or the other. Do you propose a solution?
I honestly think it should be written to state 10 days or until the next paycheck. Most employers won't correct a paycheck immediately and instead, correct with the following paycheck. Minimally, this would allow folks to survive until that sort of thing is fixed. I'd also require a cap on late fees. Additionally, I'd also require a letter listing aid agencies the tenant can try to get some help (easily a form letter provided by the city/county government on the internet), provided earlier than the eviction notice.
Poverty and housing insecurity are definite societal problems, but does that make it the fault or responsibility of each individual landlord?
The author of this article basically stole tens of thousands of dollars in free housing from some private party and then wrote an article blaming them for the end result.
There was apparently no attempt to work something out, no attempt to move out without being forced out, no recognition of their own responsibility in this situation, and I suspect no ultimate attempt to pay back what they owe.
I have owned several small rental properties for almost 15 years. I’ve had to evict two tenants, never getting quite to the point of having the Sheriff show up while we pile their stuff on the curb, but I have that scheduled right now for Feb 22. This tenant has not paid their rent since Oct. The eviction has been grinding through the process since Nov. Every week, it’s a different sob story about the bad luck that is preventing this tenant from paying their rent.
I’m not a monster. I don’t want to force anyone out. But seriously, what am I supposed to do? I can’t afford to just let my tenants not pay rent, and without the threat of eviction, some wouldn’t. So seriously, what am I supposed to do?
I’ve been at this long enough that I know the answer: give one second chance, then evict. But it still infuriates me to see people who are happy to steal from me write articles implying that I’m a racist heartless monster because I dare provide market-rate housing and hold them to their word when they sign a lease.
EDIT: think of it like this: someone hires you to work on their website idea. You work for months, fully fulfilling your end, then they refuse to pay. You take them to court and “win” (though you still never collect), then they write an article about how web developers are too greedy and expensive and they actually have the audacity to demand payment for their work!
More seriously, what you're supposed to do is undermine yourself. Support efforts to substantially decrease the market rate of housing.
As a very, VERY purposeful non-landlord who has never missed a rent check or mortgage payment, I don't have any sympathy for land lords. I understand your financial and moral viewpoint, but I don't find it redeemable.
So. That's the analog of your viewpoint. Not deadbeats, but your financial equals who don't see anything redeemable about lordship.
Sometimes I do that, actually. I have a tenant who has lived in my building since I bought it and I’ve never raised his rent. It’s substantially below market rate but he’s older and a model tenant so I just leave him be.
But your approach doesn’t make sense at a broad level. The cost of tech labor is too high for many startups. Do you negotiate a lower salary to try and do your part to lower the market rate?
But again, I’m irredeemable so not sure why I’m bothering to respond :)
People who don't empathize with you aren't always misinformed. Sometimes there are fundamental moral incongruities.
There are apt analogies of "the system is fucked and I'm just working in it" throughout US history.
Edit: for example, if you’ve rented or bought, you’ve contributed to the demand that makes the market price go up. If you were a landlord, at least you’d be helping provide supply that keeps the price in check :)
Distinguishing between rental markets and less pathological applications of market mechanisms is not exactly novel economic doctrine. And in fact, you'll have a hard time finding a tradition of economics without its own giant calling out landlords.
Landlords don't provide supply. Homebuilders do. It's pretty rare that those are one in the same in a market like SF.
I'm not saying landlords don't fulfill a valuable part in the housing puzzle, but saying landlords "supply" housing is absurd.
Arguably, no. With a salary you are negotiating the value of your productivity against the profit margin of the business.
The stake of the business owner is closer to that of the landlord, who is involved in arbitrage in a system where 'liquidity' (in this case finding another job or home) is difficult, expensive and rare. Prime conditions for rent-seeking behaviour (which is bad).
Now, you as a person may be redeemable ;) but in general, the actions of landlords as a whole use the actual roof over people's heads as bargaining chips to further their un-productive wealth. Which is not to say that landlords cannot be productive in their provision of housing. Just that in general in places like the US, or AU (where I am), this is not the case.
And the thing is, I would surely do the same thing if I had the opportunity to buy up a few rental properties and squeeze the tenants for a few bucks. I would like to think I would at least have the decency to feel a little bad about it.
Can you expand upon this? What would that look like, and what are the indications that US and AU landlords aren’t productive?
I think this is easier to understand with commercial rents. In my local street a half-dozen or so shops have been closed in the past two months, and sit empty due to excessive rent increases. The landlords have forced an un-productive arrangement due to their rent-seeking.
You can apply this same idea to housing, but instead of a business closing, a tenant is strained to the point they make un-productive life decisions, or to the point they cannot pay rent (or cannot see the point of paying rent).
But in this case there is a much greater supply of new tenants than new businesses to fill the void, so you never see the issue illustrated as graphically.
This is "unproductive" in the sense that it causes negative economic activity. A person becoming homeless usually ends up not contributing to the economy. A person who has to move to a smaller home in a more remote area has less money to spend, and likely has a longer commute, which wastes money.
That's super great, and I absolutely agree with and love that sort of behavior on the part of landlords.
> Do you negotiate a lower salary to try and do your part to lower the market rate?
This doesn't make much sense from a power imbalance perspective. Both a landlord and an employer have an outsized portion of the power here: the landlord gets to decide whether or not a tenant has a home or is homeless, and the employer gets to decide whether or not an employee has a job. The renter & employee in these situations are the ones who stand to lose the most, and don't have much power or recourse to fix the situation.
It doesn't make sense to me to ask a potential employee to negotiate a lower salary; they're hurting themselves pretty heavily by doing so (and, hilariously, making it so they can't afford their rent and can't pay you, the landlord, what you feel you're due), and asking for a modestly higher salary does not hurt the company that much. On the other hand, a landlord deciding not to raise rent doesn't hurt the landlord much at all[0], and it means a ton to the tenant.
> It kind of sounds like you’re just upset about rent being too high (me too!) and think individual market sellers should charge well below market rates to “do something”.
At the end of the day I will always vote for tenants not being homeless over landlords being able to increase their (already positive) profit margins. Property ownership is not some no-strings-attached right that lets you do whatever you want; it's ownership of a scarce public resource, and it's in the public interest to keep people in homes and not out on the streets, and to have a healthy, functioning economy that everyone has the spare cash to participate in.
[0] This is assuming a market where the costs of being a landlord aren't going up much (at least nowhere near at the same rate as rents are/had been), which is the case we're talking about here. The potential rent increase is driven solely by demand, not by any increase in intrinsic value that the landlord or property is providing.
I've been living in the SF bay area for nearly 15 years, and in SF itself for half of that. I've watched rent prices go up. The only reason those prices went up was because of higher demand. The higher prices didn't get anyone anything extra: the properties weren't maintained any better, or renovated or upgraded faster or better. On the landlord's side, there were no magical new costs coming into the equation to justify the higher rents.
If a landlord could rent out a place in 2005 for $1500/mo (and cover all costs and make some profit), there's no need for them to rent it out for $4000/mo in 2018. They're doing that because they want to and because they know someone will pay it. I'll absolutely agree that's capitalism in action right there, and in general that's not a bad thing. But we get gentrification and displacement as part of that bargain.
So yes, landlords should accept some of the burden of fault and responsibility. I'm not saying there isn't plenty to spread around, between existing homeowners, the city government, and incoming renters/homebuyers themselves, but... nope, sorry, landlords don't get to pretend they're innocent in all this.
(As an aside: I see you posting a lot on this article, and I want to say that I don't think you're "irredeemable" or greedy or whatever. I'm happy you've chosen to engage and have a productive discussion, at the very least. I just think you might be getting a little caught up in... something... and are missing the point that we're talking about housing and homelessness here, and that's a terrible thing for someone to have to fall into, regardless of reason or fault. Assuming you've been financially responsible on your end, missing rent payments from a tenant for a few months shouldn't put you out on the street, but... you as a landlord do have the power to put someone out on the street, and it'd be nice if you'd be cognizant of the extra power you have.)
I being Deaf know many people who struggle in Switzerland. For example they don't understand the letters social welfare sends them. Hell, even a hearing woman whose son attends kindergarten with my son, openly admitted that she had an episode where she stopped opening letters because she was just overwhelmed.
Here at Hacker News there seem to be people who are successful and simply don't understand that they were lucky. They learnt to navigate and overcome hurdles. But what about people who grew up under not so ideal circumstances and will be always somewhat limited in their resiliency?
It's not completely their fault if they stumble.
I hate paying rent so much that I'd rather be homeless than pay someone else rent. I slept in my car, and on the side of the road and thought a lot about this problem. Rent and homelessness are big issues, and I discovered that the real problem is a major stigma in our society against truly affordable or alternate housing.
Housing doesn't need to cost $2k per month. Most people don't need huge houses. Many people could do just fine in MUCH cheaper housing, shared housing, or even non-housing such as sleeping in a car.
Super cheap housing can be a legal problem. In my town, it's illegal to rent a house to more than 3 unrelated people. That's totally insane. If people want to shack up 5 to a room to save money that should be their right. Reducing the stigma against this would essentially reduce housing demand and lower prices across the board.
I'm also working on a project to turn the entire real estate market on it's head... This will also help to solve this housing catastrophy.
I'm confident this housing problem will be seen as one of the most preventable inhumane practices we currently engage in.
Again, this is just what I hear, not what I know, but it is possible that this is at least part of the explanation.
My wife worked for a utility at the time and noticed this when things started picking up. About 100 different LLCs bought 600 properties in one area all with 3 billing addresses.
One of the other posters described it best. Capital is both more sophisticated and dumb. We’re in an era very different than anything that has happened before.
Stagnant cities and (especially) their outlying freeway sprawl are cheaper than ever.
1. lower income neighborhood becomes trendy because poor artists (read: cool people) live there because it's cheap.
2. Rich people who want to be cool start to also move there for more access to culture.
3. This is the "sauce": Wealthy developers buy up 3 story homes and convert them into 3 apartments. (I live in one.)
4. They then rent these apartments out at rates that are "affordable" to a person willing to live with 4 other roommates.
5. The poor lower income people (read: families) that used to live there are getting priced out due to the wealthy developers and "single" people who are banding together.
Now, your point about comparing to my parents: they purchased a house when they were 2 years younger than I am now. (mid late 20's) I work in tech, so I make close to 2-3x more than most of my non-tech friends. I'm still about ~4 years away from comfortably being able to put a downpayment on a home in anywhere I want to live and I live debt free and am an aggressive saver.
For most of my non-tech friends, home ownership is literally a dream.
That said, I'm glad I finished the article, because it seems to clearly describe the state of the overall affordable housing market in the country, which is pretty awful, and there were some eye-openers in there for me, such as one in five renters facing eviction. That's a ridiculous number.
I don't know the answer to this problem, because telling rich people they just can't buy in certain neighborhoods doesn't seem like a viable option to me, but we have to at least acknowledge it is a problem.
> ...the article...seems to clearly describe the state of the overall affordable housing market in the country
I'm not sure it does, because it leaves out a key piece of information: what percentage of the people facing eviction are facing it for the same kind of reason the author did? If most people facing eviction are facing it for that kind of reason, I don't think the problem is lack of "affordable housing"; I think it's some people's lack of ability to properly judge what they can afford.
The positioning of new supply within the basic<->luxury spectrum is vastly overblown. The entire range of market rates needs to come down by thousands of dollars.
There was an article posted on HN (sorry, I can't even remember the name of it, let alone the URL) that detailed a study that showed that, while building luxury or high-end housing is helpful in reducing overall prices, building mid-range and affordable housing is more helpful. I'm not saying that means that we should only be building mid-range and affordable housing, but focusing on high-end housing will solve the problem much slower than it could be solved otherwise.
Edit: my crazy fantasy is to replace a huge portion of the avenues in SF with a massive arcology. That would solve the problem for Sf and set a great example for elsewhere. But of course that isn't going to happen.
I'm very skeptical of this number, especially since it actually said this was within the last three months. My guess is that the survey respondents were not a representative sample of renters.
No it didn't. The article presents high rents as something that landlords create by fiat, or with construction equipment. It didn't begin to engage with the actual sources of high and rising demand in urban neighborhoods, i.e. concentration of economic growth into a few headquarters cities, migration to those cities, shifting preferences among the affluent away from McMansions and towards urban condos, etc.
Regardless, I think the article was a bit unfair in pointing the entire problem at "greedy" landlords, but they certainly can't escape some amount of blame.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/politi...
I know it's not related to the eviction process immediately, but I think given that we (I) are learning from this as a narrative and a data point, I think for some the context can be interesting at the very least.
To me it seems like a badly-thought-through comment on his side but not worth being fired over.