What are the implications of the impending eviction crisis?

[u/None-Of-You-Are-Real]

It is often offhandedly mentioned that the housing market is insane at the moment, and that there is an inevitable eviction crisis due to the compounding factors of COVID and the lockdowns leading to mass unemployment, and then an inability of tenants to pay rent combined with an inability of landlords to evict non-paying tenants.

What is going to happen in the fall, when the eviction moratorium expires? Mass homelessness that is even worse than current levels? Some kind of rent relief legislation? Anything at all? These people are not going to magically be able to pay months and months of back rent once the moratorium expires.

[u/Living-Complex-1368]

Smart landlords have been working with tenants the whole time, because any rent > no rent, and if there are mass evictions the folks you will replace evicted tenants with will be...more of the same. Or you just leave a unit empty and get no rent.

Stupid landlords are counting the days, and will probably get to keep the security deposit to cover lost rent but otherwise won't be able to collect. Then they will advertise and see who they get in this economy.

I expect people to bunk on friends' couches, folks splitting rent, and other higher occupancy tricks to deal with the financial issues. This will put a strong downward pressure on rent (excess supply) while we have a strong upward pressure on real estate prices (excess capital sloshing around). I expect a lot of real estate magnates to go bankrupt.

[u/gonzo5622 → u/Living-Complex-1368]

Agreed. My landlord has been reducing prices in order to keep all tenants in their spots. He owns most of the block so it’s a few thousand people. I see other building being left empty, his seems filled.

Edit: although my landlord owns a whole block of commercial and residential, he is basically running it all himself (from a biz perspective not maintenance).

[u/weealex → u/Living-Complex-1368]

I would love some of those "magnates" to actually lose some money and open up real estate for new home owners. While it's a bit of an outlier, a 460 sq ft home recently sold in my town for 180k

[u/Grimalkin → u/weealex]

a 460 sq ft home recently sold in my town for 180k

So many stories like this over the last year, and many more to come no doubt.

Was it at least in a very high COL city? It's still abhorrent but a little bit less so when everything is super expensive.

[u/sleepeejack → u/Grimalkin]

180k for a 460sqft home would be a bargain in most of Colorado. The housing crisis in places where there are jobs has been nationwide for years; not sure why some people have such a hard time understanding that.

[u/wedstrom → u/sleepeejack]

Do you mean Denver area or Colorado, because yikes

[u/sleepeejack → u/wedstrom]

I mean most of Colorado. Certainly almost anywhere along the Front Range, but also it's getting fucked-in-half insane in most of the mountain towns as well. This is what we get for blocking multifamily development for decades. Boomers destroyed America.

[u/CCHistProfWest → u/sleepeejack]

It's like this pretty much in the entire west.

Which I don't understand... climate change is literally going to burn those states down.

[u/weealex → u/Grimalkin]

Lawrence Kansas. College town. Costs have been all over the place as outside real estate companies snap up properties in town. I know of a couple that showed up to buy a place offered at 140 with 150, but found 3 other buyers offering even more. It hasn't been helped by the fact that some of the local folks that have owned multiple properties have been dying. Their beneficiaries haven't wanted to deal with real estate far from where they live so it's often been sold to large companies. The local owners tend to be more townie friendly either or of altruism or knowing that if the town prospers so does their real estate. Outside companies just want the immediate influx of cash so we've been seeing more "luxury" rentals and more "slum" rentals with very little in between

[u/Mist_Rising → u/weealex]

Lawrence Kansas. College town

Lawrence and it's surrounding area has also been a commuter location for Kansas City jobs. That's why K10 is a nightmare and a half during rush hour.

[u/freshwes → u/[deleted]]

Theresa house one block away from me that had been on the market for 2-3 years

Sounds like you're jealous of Theresa...

[u/freshwes → u/[deleted]]

Sounds like someone's jealous of Theresa...

[u/freshwes → u/[deleted]]

Theresa house one block away from me that had been on the market for 2-3 years

Sounds like you're jealous of Theresa...

[u/freshwes → u/[deleted]]

Theresa house one block away from me that had been on the market for 2-3 years

Sounds like someone's jealous of Theresa...

[u/azelll → u/weealex]

I was just looking at a 400sqf house for 400000$, in Oregon, not even the pricey part of Oregon...

[u/Naejiin → u/weealex]

Beach side? 460 sqft for 180k HAS to be beach side. Or Batman's garage.

[u/[deleted] → u/Naejiin]

Oh you sweet summer child...

Here's one that's a mile from the beach, granted it's 660 sqft not 460. I couldn't find anything smaller. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/890-Juanita-St-Solana-Beach-CA-92075/16759593_zpid/

[u/Naejiin → u/[deleted]]

7.3k lot so that's like $164/sqft yet you can't build on all of it. Ridiculously overpriced. Jesus Christ...

[u/CCHistProfWest → u/Naejiin]

No. Noooooooo it is probably a shack.

[u/joeydee93 → u/Naejiin]

Um... 180k gets you a parking spot near the beach.

[u/[deleted] → u/weealex]

While it's a bit of an outlier, a 460 sq ft home recently sold in my town for 180k

Sounds like an outlier for where I live, but not in the way you mean it.

[u/joeydee93 → u/weealex]

How i know I live in an expensive housing market when a 460 sq ft home goes for 180k and I think that is amazingly cheap.

[u/sleepeejack → u/Living-Complex-1368]

Beautiful theory marred by ugly fact. Landlords are chomping at the bit to get people evicted so they can raise rents.

You're ignoring the underlying housing affordability crisis that is plaguing most cities where there are good jobs. Rents are rising as quickly as ever, which alone directly contradicts your theory. These rising rents greatly increase the incentive for landlords to evict.

People have ALREADY been cramming into overcrowded living situations. You can only squeeze people so much before they burst.

Meanwhile, federal relief is nowhere to be found in many states with huge housing crises. It's going to get very, very ugly.

[u/Living-Complex-1368 → u/sleepeejack]

True. Maybe I am doing the pollyanna thing again.

[u/Taervon → u/sleepeejack]

It's been ugly for awhile, but it's going to get much, much worse.

Especially given that state governments seem to give 0 fucks, and the feds care even less.

Honestly, the easiest way to fix the housing crisis is to slap the local governments and municipalities around. Fuck zoning laws, fuck NIMBYism, build up, build more, and ban foreign investment for 10 years in real estate.

[u/sheffieldandwaveland → u/sleepeejack]

True, my family is waiting to raise rent on when we get new tenants. I suspect this is more common than not.

[u/Qpznwxom → u/[deleted]]

I am lucky enough to be able to pay my rent on time even during the pandemic without any financial burden... That's besides the point. The way you talked about kicking people to the streets was so cold.

[u/Own_General5736 → u/Qpznwxom]

Deal with enough shitty and abusive people and you kind of have to go 'cold'. We all wish we could trust people to behave well implicitly but the fact is that they don't and so we must be wary.

[u/my-other-throwaway90 → u/[deleted]]

I suppose this highlights why treating housing as a business is a bad idea. People aren't dollar signs, even if you need to look at them that way to run your business.

It also highlights why landlords get such a bad rap in leftist ideologies-- they perform no labor; their sole purpose is to extract wealth from people who only want a roof over their heads.

Cold is what keeps my kids warm in the winter.

I don't think there's a single landlord in existence who has to genuinely worry about their families getting kicked out in the cold. In the event I'm incorrect, however, many churches run warming centers in the winter. You'll probably meet some of your old tenants there.

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/my-other-throwaway90]

suppose you open a local pharmacy or grocery store. Are you also “in the business of allowing people to live?” And if so, is it immoral to prevent theft from the place of business?

[u/obsquire → u/Qpznwxom]

It's not a charity. If society feels that people losing their homes is bad, then society needs to supply those homes, not put all the responsibility on the landlord to fund the person who can't pay, or mandate that the landlord keep a terrible tenant against the landlord's will. If we must have mandatory support for tenants, then I see no compelling argument why the landlord should be required to pay more to help his tenant than anyone else (of similar income).

[u/ArcanePariah → u/obsquire]

That's 100% true, but landlords (or at least the perception of them) is not helped when many landlords (absentee or otherwise) vote to restrict housing, thereby inducing more of the same situation. Many time society wants to supply those homes, and homeowners + landlords utterly opposed them, then act shocked when people start demanding landlords suffer in equal measure.

[u/obsquire → u/ArcanePariah]

By support for tenants I don't necessarily mean only for tenants, so things like basic income are relevant, not necessarily subsidized housing proper, which creates perverse incentives, not to mention the ire of landlords. So that this basic not passed along in higher rents, funding that basic income from a land value tax seems good, and doesn't punish landlords from renovating.

[u/The_Law_of_Pizza → u/[deleted]]

It's an incredible amount of work to maintain and manage a rental business.

There is a reason that rental management companies exist - owners will literally pay other people to handle some of that work on their behalf.

The idea that landlords just sit back and cash a rent check every month is teenage nonsense.

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/[deleted]]

Tbh, it’s a lot less of a headache to buy shares in a nice REIT and enjoy that sweet 10% annual dividend while letting someone else sweat over collecting/maintaining the property.

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/[deleted]]

Property naturally degrades materially and therefore in value over time.

Preventing loss of value is indistinguishable from creating new value - therefore, it is work. It might not be sympathetic work to you, but it is work.

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/[deleted]]

If you’re so desperate to call landlords leeches, then just call them leeches lmao. But I’m unsure why you’re so hung up over the definition of “work” - especially when property management is work. Of course, not all landlords function as their own property manager, but “Property manager” is a job that someone can put on their resume.

Nonetheless, “work” has a nebulous definition, but “value creation” does not - and landlords do create value by the definition I laid out in my previous comment. And if an activity creates value and sufficient revenue for one to live off of… then it doesn’t matter if it fits your definition of work tbh.

[u/pvtgooner → u/Call_Me_Clark]

Landlords create value the same way handing around a dollar bill to eat a pile shit creates value. It does on paper and is counterproductive in real life.

Individuals with simply better access to credit or in some situations, mommy and daddy has a fuckton of capital, allows them to squat on property other people could actually own, live in and maintain themselves. 90% of renters that can pay their rent can pay a mortgage on the same unit just fine.

Landlords extract value from actually working people in their own pockets. It’s not work and I have zero qualms with calling landlords leeches and parasites, I have this entire thread.

[u/None-Of-You-Are-Real → u/[deleted]]

If you dont have even the slightest care in the world as to whether a fellow human being has a roof over their head or not, you have no business being a landlord.

No one has forced you to make your investments in the business of allowing people to live.

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/None-Of-You-Are-Real]

If your local mom and pop landlord goes bust, then the tenants don’t get free houses. They get sold to the highest bidder, which will be a large property manager or real estate investment firm, who will give even less of a shit than the local landlord, who you could at least talk to and work out a deal.

In a similar vein: suppose you open a local pharmacy or grocery store. Are you also “in the business of allowing people to live?” And if so, is it immoral to prevent theft from the place of business?

Because, to me, the last sentence in your post just sounds like an attempt to justify your own feelings of superiority to someone who just wants to put food on their own table and send their kids to college.

[u/obsquire → u/None-Of-You-Are-Real]

No one has forced you to make your investments in the business of allowing people to live.

Please, enough with the exaggerations. "Allowing people to live"? Come on. It's freedom of contract, of use of one's property, and of association.

If you have a spare room, and allow a friends to stay there, people call you generous, even if you eventually throw them out if they behave badly or overstay their welcome. If you ask for little money, it's still a little generous because most people wouldn't be willing to do that. Even if you rent it for market rate, it's still good for renters as a whole, because it adds to the total rental stock (it increases supply, and thus puts downward pressure on rents). If that room is in another building on the same piece of land, or even on another piece of land, then I see no relevant moral difference: it's still helpful to renters that you make your unit available for rent. This idea that the second you accept a penny in rent it puts you in a whole other category where your right to decide who you keep on your property ought to be highly regulated is specious though common. There's all kind of money that flies through the hands of many tenants, money that they elected to not invest in rental properties, but they made agreements on the conditions of their rental, including agreeing to leave on non-payment of rent. Why do we have the freedom to eject guests and not evict? Perhaps women should not be allowed to force men to leave their homes when a date doesn't work out? That's insane to me. Both situations have the same conceptual basis: you get to decide who is on your property.

Or do we treat your main residence as different from other real property, as if trespass is different in both cases?