Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j4146vf wrote

I don't understand why you let almost a year go by without collecting rent? After 1 month you should have started and continued the process.

You are not obligated to take any program. There was social pressure to take it but maybe 50% didn't because the state couldn't tell landlords when they'd get the money.

>knew I couldn’t evict him to get back rent from ARPA funds

I say this as a landlord: your greed and/or desperation got in the way of your long term interest. Instead of missing 1-3 months, now you're still in the same situation a year later.

>I just don’t understand how these programs help tenants

They dangle money in front of you. You took the hope/promise of getting paid after jumping thru hoops. The tenant and state got time. The state, time where someone isn't homeless. Tenant, a free place. And time to find a new place without an official eviction.

>So now I, like probably a lot of landlords, are $25,000 in the hole on a commitment the city also may not be able to keep if it runs out of money

Well, landlords who didn't see the trap or who were desperate and let that emotion run them.

>I’m not sure what the answer is maybe opening up section 8

Not enough landlords take section 8 now. The waiting list is 5 years deep last time I looked 3 years ago. Not enough people who'll take vouchers.

>After the program pays or doesn’t pay the tenant will just be eviction because they no longer have the means to rent.

This is what you should have done concurrently to the tenant applying. Whichever comes first. The eviction or the money.

There were hundreds of thousands of this situation facing the state. They were not concerned about any individual one. They can't be.

14

danhalka t1_j41b764 wrote

This sub (and reddit in general) isn't a place you usually find practical conversation about how programs can impact single-property private landlords trying to comply or 'do the right thing.' I like this comment because it places the onus where it belongs instead of just reflexively making fangs at OP for being a LL.

17

Archtoowell t1_j41cja0 wrote

When you say “not enough people who will take vouchers,” what do you mean? In Maryland it is illegal to discriminate based on source of income (i.e., whether someone’s rent payments come from vouchers, disability, etc.).

1

[deleted] t1_j41ejkf wrote

It is illegal. However you still see landlords say "no section 8".

Or " the unit won't pass inspection"

Or " income must be 3x rent regardless of voucher"

Or " rent is X. I will not negotiate"

Or " credit must be 700+"

Or " your app was denied. We went with someone else"

Its couched in a lot of ways. When I had LL, I always asked them to be open to section 8. 90% said no.

There's enough ppl looking for rentals who are not using section 8. Unless that's their business model, no landlord needs to headache and red tape of dealing with any voucher.

18

dopkick t1_j41h4o1 wrote

My understanding of Section 8 vouchers is that they are a bit a headache in the beginning. There are inspections, paperwork, etc. that can take a few months to complete before the cash starts to flow. I'm sure the timeline is even worse for someone not familiar with the process.

7

Archtoowell t1_j41opwz wrote

Thanks for this clarification about what you meant. Sounds like we agree that in practice, discrimination based on voucher status occurs. My point was to be clear that landlords can’t simply “not take vouchers” in Maryland. Several of those methods you listed are simply ways to circumvent the law (some more sneaky/hard to prove than others) and in the right circumstances you could have a valid case of housing discrimination.

2

dopkick t1_j41qaub wrote

> discrimination

I've seen discrimination on protected categories in the workplace several times. I saw someone get fired because he was black (long story but that's the tl;dr). But it was framed as his position was made redundant. I've seen women be dismissed in the hiring process because "someone else was more qualified." And nobody knew who that someone else was. Discrimination is very much alive and well, even when it's illegal.

7

Archtoowell t1_j41rp44 wrote

I agree and said in my comment “in practice discrimination … occurs.”

1

[deleted] t1_j41p9gj wrote

I've had property managers and owners say, no section 8.

I've also educated them on it. This however was about 4 years ago. I don't know how it is here in MD.

I do know in Howard and Montgomery County, ppl are still blatant about it. I guess until HUD cracks down it'll stay like that. Plus NIMBY and all that.

1

Archtoowell t1_j41qfkd wrote

Ok. Well then sounds like those property managers and owners are engaging in illegal housing discrimination. Good luck and have a good day.

3

TheSpektrModule t1_j41msi1 wrote

There are still requirements to participate in the Section 8 program though and a landlord could easily make sure they don't pass the government's inspection.

Section 8 is a mixed bag. For "professional" landlords who have a bunch of properties and understand the system well it can actually be great. Guaranteed payment, often highly stable tenants who rarely move, there are pros to it. OTOH for small-time landlord it forces you into a three-way business arrangement with the government and your tenant that can be a huge hassle. When we considered landlording there was no way I would've dealt with Section 8 tenants.

6