Imagine a scenario where, on payday, your boss says that due to COVID related losses he is unable to pay you, BUT, the government says that you are NOT allowed to quit and must continue working, that your boss does not have to pay you at this time, but will owe you. That is kind of what the scenario is for landlords in the face of the "eviction moratorium". The moratorium started out as a fair concept, implemented when the country was on lockdown and people were being asked to stay in their homes. The government/CDC determined that evictions would displace people from their homes and encourage more virus spread. The CONCEPT of the moratorium was that no evictions would occur, but that the tenants would continue to owe the landlord rents due.
The quarantines have all but ended, but the moratoriums continued, specifying that the tenants needed to show COVID related cause, which is a very broad brush to paint with. The moratoriums expired, but were re-implemented in areas where COVID infections are highly prevalent...IE, the entire state of FL. Yet, society is wide open, there is no quarantine or distancing mandate in place, but the tenants need to be protected from being put out of their homes. Got it.
What anyone who is not a landlord does not understand is this: Even though the tenant is not paying, the landlord still has financial obligations (paying mortgage/taxes/insurance on property), and is still responsible for repairs and upkeep to property. A landlord who relies on the rent proceeds for income also finds themselves cash strapped and possibly unable to meet THEIR financial obligations or needs.
There is an argument that the tenants will STILL have to pay the landlord, so the loss is temporary, that they will get paid eventually. Anyone who has been a landlord knows this is not true, and almost laughable. A renter who is month to month and living check to check with no disposable income will not have the cash to repay a landlord in arrears. If a tenant is paying $1000 a month rent, and falls behind and is facing eviction, the landlord at the time of a timely eviction may be owed several months rent plus eviction fees, and will have to file a judgment against the tenant, and the tenant will likely default or declare bankruptcy or just not pay. In the moratorium scenario, the tenant is legally permitted to stay months longer, running up a larger tab with the landlord. When THAT bill comes, and their lease runs out and they decide to vacate, or if the landlord ultimately has to evict them, the landlords loss out of pocket and out of rent has gone up exponentially, with no remedy from the government to remunerate those losses. It is as easy for a debtor to walk away from a $10,000 debt as it is from a $1000 debt. The difference to the landlord is whether they got screwed out of $1000 or $10,000. The difference is life changing to the screw-ee, not so much to the screw-er.
Some local governments have stepped forward with "rent assistance programs" for tenants who are behind on rent and facing eviction due to COVID related issues. These all have been reported to be very bureaucratic in efforts to file a claim, and very limited in the availability of funding, so there is no guarantee these funds will reach landlords.
I am not heartless or unsympathetic to the plight of those facing evictions. If the government feels the need to step in, it should be a program that filters the needs of the tenants and works with the landlords directly to provide payment, even discounted guaranteed payment while the tenant is eligible, rather than placing the burden of welfare into the landlords pocket. Keeping tenants housed is a noble idea, but doing it and using COVID as an excuse and letting landlords take the hit is the misguided concept. Another broken cog in the wheel of society that needs attention.
Perhaps stimulus funds could have been/be used to target such cases and fund this situation, rather than just sending cash to people who do not even need it, and did not spend it. Having the funds doled out at a federal level also gives more power to the government to recoup it if it is considered a loan or a credit to the tenant.
Try to see the situation from the viewpoint of a landlord, and understand their position. See where the concept itself is flawed and misguided.
No comments:
Post a Comment