What does eviction prevention accomplish.

Submitted by LongjumpingShot t3_109x09s in baltimore

I know baltimore has some progressive leaders in the city. So I’d like to hear a perspective from those who advocate for these type of programs.

In my case, a tenant was behind a month, knew I couldn’t evict him to get back rent from ARPA funds, so he stopped paying all together. By the time the application processed where I had to submit a ledge he was almost a year behind.

I just don’t understand how these programs help tenants, it seems like it enables a culture of irresponsibility, committing to an unsustainable agreement, etc.

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.

I’m not sure what the answer is maybe opening up section 8. This doesn’t seem to be it. After the program pays or doesn’t pay the tenant will just be eviction because they no longer have the means to rent.

Request to Wes Moore to continue the program.

20

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PuebloEsNoBueno t1_j419f50 wrote

You’re just going to start seeing more landlords with more rigid requirements to apply. Higher income requirements etc. I know a guy who owns rental properties and rents exclusively to grad students.

36

TheSpektrModule t1_j41m1dn wrote

Or who get out of the landlording business entirely because the government has added too much risk to it. This means fewer rental properties and higher prices, which the same people who vilify landlords will then also complain about.

15

Opposite_Selection_3 t1_j41qitj wrote

That is not happening. The tax loopholes and long term value of real estate make this game too appealing even with increased risk. The cost of housing is going to push more and more people into the rental market so tenant quality will remain solid in most areas.

1

Ktktkt84 t1_j42wbem wrote

Mom and Pop landlorded in the city for 10 years and we’re getting out. We rented upscale townhouses in Hampden and even without a single problem tenant it was not worth it. The city taxes, insurance, cost of turn over and maintenance of 100+ year old properties. The 24/7 nature of landlording, the inevitable emergency while you’re on vacation or on Christmas morning. The conflicting interest of someones home as your business. I wouldn’t recommend land lording in Baltimore city to anyone.

Now what’s going to happen? Probably all/most of the mom and pop landlords with a few properties are gonna get out leading to less availability and increased rental prices. Likely more soulless big box slumlords managing the rest.

15

TheSpektrModule t1_j41rjmf wrote

> The tax loopholes and long term value of real estate make this game too appealing even with increased risk.

That's definitely not what I found when I looked into landlording. The realistic returns were not that great relative to the risk and hassle. Maybe for big institutional investors it's a different story but being a small time LL was a high-risk nightmare.

11

markmano33 t1_j41we1l wrote

Being a landlord sounds like a giant PITA to me. I’ll stick to mutual funds with my extra monies lol.

10

TheSpektrModule t1_j421l1e wrote

I did some quick number crunching. Between when we sold our old house (the one we considered turning into a rental property) and today the S&P 500 is up about 33%, and that includes 2022's drop. I am so glad we did not become landlords.

5

Opposite_Selection_3 t1_j42xqdd wrote

I was responding to the idea of getting out the landlord business. Even with a crushed stock market I would not get into it. However, if you currently own real estate that can regularly get a tenant the long term outlook for that asset is looking pretty good.

2

VygotskyCultist t1_j40u37v wrote

The program keeps people off the streets, if only temporarily.

I'd love to know more about your tenant's situation from their view because, frankly, I have no idea what the full story is, here. But even in the worst case scenario (i.e. they're gaming the system to get free housing), the program is still defensible. If 100 families game the system, and one person uses it in a time of genuine financial hardship, it's worth it to me. People are more important to me than your bottom line.

At the risk of sounding snarky, this is the risk you take on when you become a landlord. This is the life you chose.

Also, they're "almost" a year behind and you're already $25k in the hole? That's a lot of money you're charging for a single home/apartment/whatever.

TL;DR: Homelessness is worse than unpaid rent

20

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j40wsf4 wrote

When landlords pause renting out their homes bc it’s too risky, it’s going to make homelessness a lot worse. Landlords aren’t evil… it costs a lot of money to own and maintain a home, especially an old one like most of those in Baltimore. Don’t know anything about the size, location, or status of the home OP is renting but automatically assume $25K per year is overcharging the renter? It could be a 3-4 BR place with a driveway in a very nice part of town where buying the equivalent house would be half million. Don’t forget that with all the taxes and fees and registrations, about $12,000 of that rent is going straight to the government if the house is owned outright… gets to keep even less if the house still has a mortgage

32

j_hess33 t1_j410bju wrote

Don't forget no one is forcing landlords to be landlords.

23

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j4185ih wrote

Yes and that is a two way street

−3

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j419dpd wrote

Having shelter is a human need and many people are forced to rent property rather than buy.

So in many cases, no, it’s not a two way street.

23

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41mcba wrote

Plenty of folks buy properties and let them sit vacant 50-90% of the time. How is that not even worse than renting a property out to be lived in? Just like choosing to be a landlord is an option… choosing to not rent out a secondary property is also an option

1

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41n7so wrote

Choosing to not buy it is also an option and a better one.

Just because there are worse options doesn’t mean it’s a good one.

7

SpareCartographer402 t1_j41b2je wrote

No its not. Plenty of us are forced to be renters because assholes keep buying everything up to rent out, causing scarcity and higher market prices. So yes, fewer people can afford a house now. There's more to it then that but its a big issue, but I don't feel bad for the people who afford the property upset about losing 22k of passive income. That's part of owning a business. Vet tenets better. In this situation, renegotiate costs until there lease is up based on whichever hardship their on, maybe you could have made Atleast 10k and the less pressure and stress could have helped the family to fix their situation easier. Did he communicate with these tenants and figure out what's going on or just evict after 1 month? (Now the tenants won't work with you because you evicted them before trying anything else, Of course, they won't move out or pay up... theres no incentive, evections make it difficult to find a new place making leaving more difficult.)

11

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41i6ys wrote

Well yes it is, what I meant was that a landlord can choose NOT to rent their property and just let it sit there vacant. I know some older ppl with multiple properties who don’t need the money anymore and are tired of the hassle of dealing with overly entitled renters, so they let their secondary properties sit vacant. Which hurts both renters AND buyers

7

TheSpektrModule t1_j41ls4v wrote

We looked into becoming landlords a few years ago when moving. Did some informal risk/benefit calculations and nope, not worth it. Sold the old house, threw the money into an S&P 500 index fund. A house that could have been a very reasonably priced rental property stayed off the rental market. Turns out there are consequences to having a system that's unfriendly to landlords.

7

superdreamcast64 t1_j41ubs6 wrote

> A house that could have been a very reasonably priced rental property stayed off the rental market.

i don’t really see why this is a bad thing? rather than becoming a landlord’s 3rd property and sucking up tons of tenant money, the house went to someone who actually wants to own the home and live in it. we need more houses that people can buy on the market rather than forcing everyone to rent.

8

TheSpektrModule t1_j4217hc wrote

Re: why it's a bad thing, buying a home in Baltimore is already relatively affordable compared to renting. That suggests that we need more rental homes, not more houses available for sale.

There are many reasons you want a robust rental market. Buying a house is not always better. The general rule of thumb is that you need to live in a house for seven years in order for the transactional costs to be worth it. Lots of people are not staying here for that long. Baltimore has a lot of grad students, medical residents, nurses working at big hospitals for the first few years of their careers and just people who don't want to stay in the city after having kids. People have become more mobile in general. If you want those mobile people to be part of your tax base for at least a few years then they need to have decent rental options.

4

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41ufca wrote

It’s certainly not as lucrative here in Baltimore as some other places. It’s pretty standard especially in the pricier areas to only get 0.8%-1% of the purchase price as monthly rent, which is at the very bottom of the 0.8%-2% range that makes rental economics work. And if u can’t handle property management and at least 80% of the maintenance then it really becomes unprofitable quick. It’s not passive income I’ve discovered 😊 hopefully u feel good about the choice u made (which sounds very responsible)

2

TheSpektrModule t1_j421bh2 wrote

> hopefully u feel good about the choice u made

I wake up every morning thankful that I did not become a landlord.

9

dopkick t1_j41gh3m wrote

> Plenty of us are forced to be renters because assholes keep buying everything up to rent out, causing scarcity and higher market prices.

Yeah, that's not the case in Baltimore city. That is true in some cities but the whole "evil Texans are coming in and buying up all the property and driving prices higher!" narrative that some people love isn't actually happening here. There's still PLENTY of affordable housing here, check your favorite realty website. There's even affordable housing outside of the city if you want a more suburban lifestyle.

1

StarkyPants555 t1_j42hqyg wrote

That's not true at all. Homeowner here. I get multiple calls per week asking if I want to sell my house. There are signs all over the city offering to buy homes cash, as is. Plenty of out of state property owners as well, just sitting on vacants and waiting for the neighborhoods to gentrify.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/investigations/bs-bz-baltimore-landlords-investor-homes-20221028-v5mmhm7aubbrbdw2zngmnjiuri-story.html

4

dopkick t1_j42kj51 wrote

There are always a number of homes for sale under $250K in desirable neighborhoods. This is objective fact that can be checked by realty websites. If you cast a wider net you can find plenty under $200K, although it won't be in Fed Hill and the like (but still not bad - think Pigtown). For a vast, vast majority of cities such a price point is absolutely unheard of. Baltimore has plenty of affordable housing. If your idea of affordable is in-line with prices of run down homes in meth addict-ridden cities that have been declining for 50 years, then yeah I guess Baltimore isn't affordable. But good luck in those places.

I also get calls. They're cold calling in hopes of finding someone who wants cash now and they can score a deal. It's not unique to Baltimore.

1

StarkyPants555 t1_j46qonc wrote

Yeah most homes in Baltimore were constructed pre 1950. There may be several homes under the $200K price point in "desirable" neighborhoods, but will need significant renovations or upkeep in the coming years. Your point still does not address the fact that equity firms are buying up properties at a rapid pace in this city and it is getting worse. This objective fact can also be verified.

1

dopkick t1_j46tbey wrote

$250K is the price point for more desirable neighborhoods. Here's a short list of some homes in one zip code that are basically turnkey, are not blasts from the past, and don't appear to have anything excessively bizarre in the interior.

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1421-Race-St_Baltimore_MD_21230_M65021-79295

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1301-Clarkson-St_Baltimore_MD_21230_M68202-65940

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1433-Patapsco-St_Baltimore_MD_21230_M68696-80580

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1614-Elkins-Ln_Baltimore_MD_21230_M53295-58754

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1227-Durst-St_Baltimore_MD_21230_M51082-61512

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/424-Sanders-St_Baltimore_MD_21230_M50255-26777

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1628-Jackson-St_Baltimore_MD_21230_M69552-05918

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1405-Jackson-St_Baltimore_MD_21230_M61305-34550

This kind of stuff is always listed, although the properties do vary.

1

Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_j41703u wrote

Respectfully, I think you're missing a step here. Landlords likely won't "pause" renting if it is too risky.

They will either divest themselves of an asset that is not returning, increase rental requirements narrowing their pool of renters(because no renters), or not invest in a rental property in the first place.

Rather placing their capital into markets with more favorable returns. People aren't taking on second mortgages to hold empty property. Like this person said they are losing money because they do not have a renter.

This decrease in demand from capital holding people will have an equivalent effect on housing prices.

This is not to say the land lording class does not provide an essential service to the economy.

Just what we are seeing here is a natural process in economics. This person is experiencing risk they opened themselves up to when engaging with this asset. Same way someone in the stock market may see decreases and downturns.

16

Animanialmanac t1_j424neg wrote

I live in Southwest Baltimore. Multiple houses are now vacant because landlords paused renting, it’s the main reason for vacants. Many landlords in my area inherited the house, started renting because they couldn’t sell, or rent out part of the house they live in. When the city doesn’t honor their commitments for rental assistance these landlords stop renting. They don’t sell, new families don’t want to buy here now. The houses sit empty, on my block ten of the twenty four houses are empty, almost half. All empty because the current owner either inherited and rented it out for a while before giving up, or moved away, couldn’t sell and gave up renting after bad experiences. Almost half the houses on both sides of the block.

This is recent in my area, but I believe this is how areas of west Baltimore because blighted. The assumptions that all landlords will divest their property and a new landlord will maintain it as a rental is false.

6

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j417qgg wrote

I know landlords that have already done what u are saying they won’t do but alrighty. Ppl don’t sell all their stocks bc the market is bad today and they’re retiring in 25 years from today. It isn’t infeasible to wait out bad policy decisions for a temporary problem vs selling at inopportune moment or losing a bunch of money in hand to realtor fees

0

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j419mpu wrote

That’s a poor analogy. Stocks don’t cost money. There’s no loss or gain until you sell.

Real estate costs money. Many of these places have a mortgage and even if they don’t you need property tax and maintenance etc.

3

Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_j41bvfs wrote

It’s close but no cigar. Would have to view the relative lack of success of an individual’s stock choice relative to overall market success as a loss for stock to work

Maybe a leveraged position that actively costs money is closer

1

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41m27c wrote

Or maybe u are both missing the point that wasting $10,000 on a realtor before making back renovation costs vs waiting 1-2 years for bad policy to be fixed isn’t as cut and dry as these ppl who clearly have zero landlord experience seem to think

3

Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_j41nbek wrote

Yes, on the individual level people will make that choice.. When you look at the market at large, which is either growing or shrinking, there is no pause.

The entire market doesn't go on hold because the people you know are on pause. The larger market influences people at decision points of where to deploy capital.

Your friends have deployed capital and are willing to take a short term loss for a long term gain. (Likely forgoing gains already incurred). Some individuals are choosing different areas of the market to invest in. Some individuals are getting out of the market entirely.

Again you are having trouble separating personal experience from market forces.

1

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41tn6l wrote

A larger entity would have even greater tolerance for such circumstances. U continue to fail to understand that there are more options than just selling secondary properties when times get tough

1

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41lth4 wrote

TIL owning stocks is free!!!

1

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41m7fh wrote

Yes it is.

Buying them costs money. Owning them is free.

2

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41twsj wrote

>Stocks don’t cost money

No I read that they don’t cost money

−1

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41uiq7 wrote

To maintain.

Did you read the context or no?

1

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41uygs wrote

U are acting like individual stock picking skill is the ultimate bell weather of stock market success when the fact is that the federal reserve’s interest rates policies move the market more than any other factor by indisputably huge margin. So no I didn’t “read the context” bc what u are saying is wrong and doesn’t make sense, and u very obviously don’t know hardly anything about real estate rental property investments while trying to sound like the foremost expert

−2

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41vwpt wrote

Who are you talking to because I literally said none of that

Which you’d known if you read it.

It’s ok to be wrong dude. You don’t have to resort to making shit up.

1

Animanialmanac t1_j4256p3 wrote

What maintenance? Have you seen some of the empty rentals in Baltimore? Some are so poorly maintained they collapse, killing people. Holding on to property until better city leaders are in place and the property increase in value is called real estate speculation, people do it all over Baltimore.

−2

EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j4292ff wrote

Ahhh yes I forgot that every vacant property isn’t receiving any maintenance at all city-wide

2

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j425z3w wrote

The solution is repossession not writing that off.

−1

Animanialmanac t1_j427x8u wrote

Do you mean receivership?

The city can’t repossess a house, a bank could file foreclosure proceedings and then file for possession if the property is mortgaged, most of these are not mortgaged.

Receivership is a long expensive process in the city. At the end of the process the city will own the property. The city also fails at maintaining the city owned vacant properties.

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/baltimore-city-continues-to-grapple-with-vacant-house-problem/

2

Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_j419djn wrote

"I know people"- the mantra of the anecdotal evidence.

I am describing a natural economic process and didn't say you don't know people. I am saying there are larger market forces beyond an individual decision and that your original comment didn't speak to that.

If you multiply your known landlords by a million do you think there hasn't been a decrease in willingness to expand rental operations.

It is hard to think conceptually so take your time if you need to.

Edit: Hell even in your response you almost get it. "They don't sell ALL their stocks". Exactly. All landlords aren't gonna sell all houses

2

anne_hollydaye t1_j40vuj7 wrote

You were far more polite about this than I would have been, so I'm just going to agree with you.

10

[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

Affectionate-Cook-11 t1_j41da40 wrote

Im not sure how it works in baltimore county because i have retal properties in the county but as soon as that tenant is late and you are able to do so, file your paperwork for eviction. There is a pattern where once they are behind they usually don't get ahead.

THe program should pay the landlord directly. This was my case when a tenant i had was months behind and we couldn't do anything about during the eviction moratorium time.

each situation is different. some loose their jobs and there is nothing they can do till they get back on there feet. Some are honorable get help and get back on track to paying on time

some see it as a year or more of free housing then they are on to the next house.

14

AttisofAssyria t1_j41hzxc wrote

>some see it as a year or more of free housing then they are on to the next house.

apparently, many of the Baltimore Redditors think this gross kind of thievery is a good thing.

14

dopkick t1_j41ps51 wrote

Reddit definitely has a fair share of people who make poor financial decisions and then feel like everyone should bend over backwards to accommodate them. And if you're not personally benefiting them in the way they feel they deserve you are an evil landlord/capitalist/whatever. Entitled babies.

12

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j4134rn wrote

The eviction process in this country is broken. It’s in general super easy to evict and the consequences of an eviction are incredibly damning, even going beyond the immediate homelessness.

I’d rather put safe guards in to protect the vulnerable than the opposite. Thanks.

https://youtu.be/L4qmDnYli2E

Even in Baltimore City I worry about asking the landlord to enforce the lease because of pissing her off and starting a bullshit claim. Landlords have way too much power.

13

[deleted] t1_j41dc24 wrote

Hard disagree.

It's not super easy to evict. Super easy would be an eviction is done in a week after filing. It takes 6 18-19yr weeks to get on the docket then another 1 month at least to even schedule the sheriff to come out.

If it's inclement weather, it's cancelled.

Evictions can be put on hold or rejected at the court hearing.

A lot of evictions can be avoided if tenants talked to the landlords. And do what they said they'll do.

5

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41dq85 wrote

I think your criteria for super easy is absurd.

I think the fact that some ridiculous evictions are thrown out isn’t evidence of a broken system. But the fact that even a thrown out eviction attempt can black mark you is.

A lot of evictions could be avoided if land lords were decent people.

You may want to watch the video I linked for more information about the incredibly one sided system that exists in this country.

6

[deleted] t1_j41fe0q wrote

I think your use of superlatives is absurd.

You are using assumptions. Instead of me watching a video. Why not go down to 501 E Fayette Court at either 830am or 1pm and watch the proceedings.

It's free. You can even bring your phone in.

Generally when a case us thrown, it's cuz the landlord forgot to bring a piece if paper.

2

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41fqoo wrote

Yeah that’s free (aside from taking off work) unlike YouTube videos which famously cost money. It’s journalism friend. It’s more valuable than anecdotal accounts.

So a case is thrown because the landlord was negligent? I’m ok with that. If you’re kicking someone out of their house the least you can do is be prepared.

But thanks for admitting cases generally aren’t thrown because they lack merit. Those cases go through.

5

[deleted] t1_j41gdz3 wrote

Money? Ah yea the cost if a phone.

I admit nothing. I did not admit to anything. If you think I did, that is your incorrect assumptions.

>aside from taking off work

Not sure what the point of this is.

A video can be manipulated to any direction. A in person viewing of a real docket cannot be.

So for the average person who really wants an unvarnished view, go to the district court.

And really. Talk to the tenants and talk to the landlords. Ask them what brought them there.

But you won't cuz it's easier not too.

0

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41hbhv wrote

Yeah fuck journalism. People can’t manipulate you (apparently) but journalists? That’s all they do. It’s not some random YouTuber.

You won’t watch the video. It conflicts with your narrative. But no I’m not going to lose money taking off of work to get anecdotal data. Thanks.

3

[deleted] t1_j41i39d wrote

>Yeah fuck journalism.

Ah. You be reaching a lot dude. Like. A lot.

>It’s not some random YouTuber.

All of them are. All youtubers are random was people except the celebs.

>You won’t watch the video

I didn't say that. I probably will later today. I watched a lot of videos anti eviction, and about homelessness. I expect you won't believe me bit I'm versed in the homelessness problem. Not personally thank God but I'm more than aware of it.

>But no I’m not going to lose money taking off of work to get anecdotal data

Right.

Lol. The irony is so fucking funny. More so that it probably escapes you.

You want to throw some random video as proof and I'm telling you to go see it live but.....yea

Lol.

Oooh Reddit, how I love you.

3

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41jop6 wrote

Some random video? Ok. You could watch it on HBOMax if the platform is what’s bothering you. But it’s legit news. Not some rando.

Have you not been on YouTube?

4

[deleted] t1_j41kkr0 wrote

Dude. Is this your video? If that why you are fixated?

Liiiike. Who hasn't been on YouTube? Like what kind of question is that?

YouTube is the 2nd largest database in the world. Proceeded by what? Google. Who owns who? YouTube.

What you're asking me to do is watch Emily D. Baker talk about the Depp trial when I could have gone to see it in person.

Not sure at this point why you aren't seeing the correlation.

If you can't afford to take the time off work, ok.

Fair enough.

But don't harangue me about evictions when I've been in District Courts.

It's weird and shows your lack of insight or avarice if you just want clicks on your video.

Aight. I'll watch it some time today. With an open mind too.

5

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41lybj wrote

Yes it’s my video. I’m John Oliver. You got me.

No what I’m asking you to do is watch something by people who actually researched it and have more than an anecdotal view.

0

YesIDoBlowCops t1_j45sufq wrote

You not having any experience landlording in Baltimore city sure doesn't stop you from having an opinion on how easy or difficult it is. Strange.

0

Tim_Y t1_j40uyqk wrote

I've never heard of a program where the rental assistance funds go directly to the tenant rather than the landlord.

Was your tenant on section 8 or some other voucher program already?

It's probably too late but you should look into rent default insurance which covers you in cases like yours where your tenant stops paying rent.

12

Animanialmanac t1_j421jvk wrote

The city program pays directly to the landlord but they are very behind on payments. An older woman on my block rented the downstairs apartment to a family who were approved for rental assistance over a year ago and a half ago. She still hasn’t received any payment from the city.

5

ThebesSacredBand t1_j40znd1 wrote

It prevents crybaby landlords from making homeless people.

8

pk10534 t1_j413a02 wrote

Landlords are crybabies for expecting tenants to honor their contractually agreed upon promise to pay rent to live in an apartment/house?

13

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j414a2z wrote

A human right shouldn't be a profit seeking endeavor and the main driver for wealth accumulation is property ownership for some idiotic reason. There really shouldn't be landlords outside high occupancy housing.

1

pk10534 t1_j414t8m wrote

So you’d be comfortable if they charged the tenant the exact amount of money they had to pay for the mortgage?

5

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j4158nu wrote

No I didn't say that.

−1

pk10534 t1_j41706o wrote

Okay…so if somebody no longer uses a house or room in an apartment, they should rent it out for free?

5

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j417tp2 wrote

If you don't live in the house then you shouldn't own the house or be taxed heavily. Family home landlords do not provide a service worth keeping in my opinion. Apartments are clearly different as they are high occupancy housing. Clearly there could be more regulation around them but OP isn't that or he wouldn't be asking reddit.

1

81632371 t1_j41bgqx wrote

I'm currently renting a home. I used to own my own home before I moved here. I could 100% buy if I wanted to. I don't want to. I'm not committed to living where I am for the next 5+ years. I'm very happy to have the ability to rent a home and not be forced into a small, overpriced apartment. I used to own a rental property myself and my tenants were also not looking to own and were very happy to rent my property (as they told me many times). Not everyone who rents wants to own.

10

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j41e704 wrote

Not anti renting just anti landlord. Like I said my position is that housing should not be a profit seeking endeavor.

−2

81632371 t1_j4244hq wrote

So who am I renting from if there's no landlord? Is the government supposed to own all of the housing stock?

8

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j425ezd wrote

Community owned, non profits and PPPs. Here's a good read for housing done probably as about as good as you can get it. 78% of Vienna's housing is rentals but only 7.4% of all housing stock is for profit without any rent controls. https://housing4.us/how-vienna-ensures-affordable-housing-for-all-with-an-extremely-complicated-housing-system/

1

YesIDoBlowCops t1_j45t4wm wrote

You reach halfway across the world and cherry pick an example while ignoring the disasterous public housing examples in our own city.

3

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j4609y6 wrote

Lol yeah let's never look at things that work extremely successfully to emulate. What a stupid take.

1

CallMeHelicase t1_j41nudf wrote

Let me give you a situation here:

Brenda and Lisa buy their first house. It is tiny and they really have to scrimp and save to afford it, but it is theirs and they love it. Within the first few years of owning the house, Brenda loses her job in her niche field due to a recession. After months of unemployment she finally finds a job, but it is several hours away from their home. They end up moving away for Brenda's job.

At this point if they were to sell the house they would lose $20,000 due to the current market and real estate agent fees. They are not in a position to take on a loss like this -- especially with the debt they accumulated when Brenda was unemployed.

You are telling me that Brenda and Lisa should be forced to take on a $20,000 loss or be taxed heavily? That they shouldn't rent out their house to cover their mortgage while they try to recoup their losses? That they are bad people for being landlords?

I have never owned property but would one day like to own my own home. For now, my husband and I rent a wonderful rowhome at an amazing price with a back yard for our dog. For the same price we could rent a 1 to 2 bedroom apartment with no outdoor area. We would not be living in Baltimore if we could not rent a single family home.

5

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j41rqio wrote

What you're describing is exactly what I'm saying is stupid - wealth accumulation and profit seeking being tied to a life necessity, housing. No one should have to scrimp and save to put a roof over their head and then immediately be incredibly fucked when they experience hardship.

2

pk10534 t1_j4181fq wrote

So if I have a 2 bedroom apartment and my roommate leaves, what happens to other room?

3

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j418in1 wrote

Youre not a landlord?

2

pk10534 t1_j418npq wrote

Jesus Christ ok it’s a condo, and my roommate leaves. Would I be obliged to just give somebody the room for free?

8

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j41aa06 wrote

It wouldn't be your roommate, it would be your tenant. I think there is work that needs to be done with live in tenants. If you look at NYC it's a bit absurd that a 200ft basement can cost thousands for a hazardous shit box. But ultimately I don't have an issue increasing the occupancy of a single family home when the owner is living there. I'm not anti-renting. I still don't think you should be making a profit off housing someone because as I said I think it's a human right. If you have the chance look up the system Austria has for their public housing.

2

pk10534 t1_j41ajsz wrote

Ok but I asked if they just paid their share of the mortgage or whatever and you said you weren’t comfortable with that either, so I’m confused what we’re supposed to do.

4

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j41b4ib wrote

What is their fair share of the mortgage. 50/50 isn't their share cause ultimately you are the capital owner in that situation and are benefiting from their occupancy.

2

pk10534 t1_j41bpm0 wrote

So I’m asking you what should I do in that situation then? Cover their living expenses for them solely because they aren’t building equity?

5

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j41crir wrote

I've been pretty clear with my position. I don't think landlords should engage in profit seeking. Obviously people are going to rent out rooms to their family or friends and you cant really stop that. But if you're buying a 2 bedroom apartment to charge some guy out the ass just so you can afford a 2 bedroom that you don't need or to use that person to build your own personal wealth then yeah sure I got a problem.

4

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j419pov wrote

Do you think these are honest arguments you’re making?

0

pk10534 t1_j41ag1j wrote

Im genuinely trying to understand where this is going, because it doesn’t reflect our current economy or society at all. Sure free housing for all would be great but we do not live in a country that forbids private housing and that will never happen here given property rights are sacrosanct.

3

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41brzr wrote

As far as I can tell you’re the only one arguing for universal free housing. It seems like you got confused by them saying housing is a human right.

Some people will need free housing. We already do that, so that’s not really a stretch tbh.

What they’re arguing for is getting rid of the rental system for houses and low occupancy buildings. It’s not a hard concept to grasp imo.

4

pk10534 t1_j41cma7 wrote

We’re discussing what to do with apartments and condos right now, but we’ll see if I’m smart enough to grasp the concept this time

1

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41d0co wrote

Well they started the conversation by saying

> There really shouldn’t be landlords outside high occupancy housing.

Is the phrase high occupancy housing confusing?

2

bitesizeboy t1_j42e1fm wrote

I think people would be comfortable if they either paid the mortgage themselves or not take on mortgages they cannot afford. Personal responsibility.

−1

TheSpektrModule t1_j41mi1t wrote

OP, this is the wrong place to have a rational discussion about landlording. All of the wannabe Maoists on here will act like you're evil for gasp wanting your property rights protected and trying to make a profit on an investment.

8

VirginBarryGaming t1_j412ckh wrote

Some people in the comments want all property owned by the government it seems

5

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j4147uk wrote

Or owned by the people who reside in it.

26

dopkick t1_j41husy wrote

I suspect many of the same people will cry when they do own a place and shortly after moving in the HVAC system needs to be replaced and the roof starts to leak. Suddenly that stable, risk-free rent payment looks mighty attractive compared to the impending $15,000+ bill to fix those issues. That's the other side of the coin that people either do not understand or want to selectively ignore. Renting absolves yourself of significant risk. I know several people who have ZERO desire to ever own a home because they enjoy not having to worry about anything home-related. Renting isn't always bad. Owning isn't always good.

8

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41lr41 wrote

I think the risk just changes tbh. As a renter I can see the appeal of it. But with rates what they are the risk is so minimal.

7

dopkick t1_j41n74d wrote

Have you seen recent mortgage interest rates? A cheap house's monthly payment is now easily an additional $300-500+ per month solely due to increased interest rates. And you're still on the hook for for repairs. The value proposition of new home ownership is currently fairly low.

4

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41rmao wrote

I have. I’ve also seen the rent prices spike.

Cheap houses would be significantly cheaper if there weren’t people buying them as money making opportunities. If you cut a large amount of demand out of the market prices go down.

8

dopkick t1_j41t4v8 wrote

> Cheap houses would be significantly cheaper if there weren’t people buying them as money making opportunities. If you cut a large amount of demand out of the market prices go down.

This doesn't happen in Baltimore the same as cities like Seattle, Austin, etc. The housing inventory in Baltimore greatly exceeds the demand. Having talked to people who flip houses, the profit margins are muuuuuuch smaller than you are imagining. It's not necessarily restaurant industry levels but the small time home flippers aren't living lavish lives.

There's also a floor in the cost of housing if you want to pay people a living wage. If you want laborers to make more than minimum wage there is going to be a significant cost increase in homes. Everyone's all about increased wages, right up until they're on the hook for paying the cost of those wages.

Also, if you want REALLY cheap housing that does exist too. You can score some dirt cheap places in meth-ridden Appalachia. But I suspect you want more than just cheap housing. You want cheap housing in a nice area that is convenient to things you enjoy and job opportunities. Just like everyone else. That increases the cost of things, even before any notion of profit.

0

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41tgr4 wrote

The good housing absolutely does not exceed demand. That’s why prices are so ridiculous right now. And a large part of that is people who rent.

2

dopkick t1_j41ts23 wrote

You do realize that not that long ago much of the now "good housing" was often "shit housing," right? Also, without those much maligned flippers there wouldn't be "good housing." There would still be "shit housing" that nobody wants to live in.

2

Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41upx2 wrote

And that shit housing was purchased at an inflated rate…. There are also issues with supply that effect prices right now. I’m speaking more generally.

3

dopkick t1_j41veg3 wrote

Do you think there is some sort of mass conspiracy to buy gut job homes at an inflated rate and sit on them for decades or something like that? Seems like the homes are purchased on the open market, often at auction, and quickly rehabbed and put back on the market. There's no shortage of newly renovated homes available.

1

muchadoaboutme t1_j414bqp wrote

People in the comments want property to be owned by the people living on it.

12

Honeyblade t1_j41yc0t wrote

No, people in the comments think that rent is extortion and people should be able to afford homes, especially since the average mortgage is around 20-30% cheaper than rent. But since landlords keep buying second and third properties for over asking price they can't.

−2

MTLupy t1_j456ub5 wrote

As a low income person, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, there was a tenant who lived above me who on multiple occasions threatened to kill me specifically and also threatened to burn down the building. We eventually got them removed from the building for public safety. On the other hand, if someone can't afford rent for a month or so due to economic reasons, why should they be evicted?

5

SEARCHFORWHATISGOOD t1_j4uz008 wrote

You could never evict someone in the city for falling behind one month. I'd be curious to know if that is true anywhere.

1

MTLupy t1_j4v9f0e wrote

Yes, I was being hyperbolic there.

1

sensualist t1_j415133 wrote

Eviction prevention… prevents eviction. Prevents homelessness.

You took a risk being a landlord. This is your problem to attend to.

4

TheSpektrModule t1_j41m4uf wrote

Except here the government suddenly added to his risk by arbitrarily preventing him from protecting his property rights.

5

queen_icyday t1_j49rqgk wrote

Eviction prevention and rental assistance (it was also COVID relief) definitely helped me out when I owed my landlord about $10k.

I filled out the application with all the requested information and my landlord received a check for all $10k of my back rent.

Btw I never fully stopped paying rent, I made weekly payments of whatever I could afford.

I got fully caught up and I'm still living in my apartment and my landlord is still awesome 👍

1

LongjumpingShot OP t1_j4a15v9 wrote

It’s good to hear a success story. I guess there’s some disasters and other that use the program as designed.

2

SuperSourPickleMan t1_j4mf8ai wrote

I help people that have evictions and bad credit I help them move into homes,apartments get new cars etc if anyone needs help I’m here give me a DM

1

Honeyblade t1_j41xvp6 wrote

Man, it sounds like maybe you shouldn't be buying properties you can't afford.

0

LongjumpingShot OP t1_j42nx6y wrote

The mortgage and taxes are paid by me even though I haven’t received payment.

2

Interesting_Loan_425 t1_j44c5w6 wrote

Maybe you should live there then? Or, I don't know, get a real job instead of trying to live off other people's work.

1

LongjumpingShot OP t1_j488gxj wrote

I already signed a lease because my job moves. I lived there before though. I’m not a property manager, I have a real job if that’s what you call what I do for a living lol.

1

TMB190 t1_j44h440 wrote

Fuck landlords. You fucking leech.

−1

drunklepockets t1_j45pa8t wrote

Landlords contribute nothing

−1

[deleted] t1_j45tide wrote

[deleted]

2

drunklepockets t1_j46mp2w wrote

Societally, landlords provide a negative function and as a class impede home ownership for millions of people in the U.S. alone. It is generally passive income. I’m not saying that you don’t have to replace a sink or paint or maintain a roof. Yes, of course, these are all things that need to be done to keep a home livable. What I’m saying is that overall, the world would be much better off if we lived in a world where people could afford a 1200 mortgage instead of being told that they don’t qualify and are forced to rent for 2k. Landlords are so low in this broken system, but nonetheless they leech off of people the same way bankers at jp Morgan or BOA do, just less successfully. All landlords are parasites that take advantage of a system that exploits lower classes. Just like all cops participate in a racist judicial system. It doesn’t matter if you’re “one of the good ones.” You’re complicit. So your crocodile tears about putting up dry wall or caulking a tub don’t really inspire my sympathies.

−1

[deleted] t1_j46yaxr wrote

[deleted]

4

drunklepockets t1_j471rvl wrote

I worked construction for several years, you’re obviously missing the point that as an a real concept, you shouldn’t exist as a class. The homes you “bring to market” should be owned by the people living in them.

1

[deleted] t1_j48gd75 wrote

[deleted]

2

drunklepockets t1_j48o9rk wrote

You can try to justify yourself all you want, but at the end of the day you’re just living paycheck to paycheck like a lot of us. The only difference is that it’s your tenant’s checks 😂😂

1

drunklepockets t1_j48nrw5 wrote

What I’m saying is that these people SHOULD be able to afford to own. How are you missing that I’m talking about systemic failure. Get over yourself. Your username is perfect btw. I wouldn’t expect any sort of actual awareness. Also, there isn’t a whole lot that is voluntary about poverty you bloated blowhard

1

YesIDoBlowCops t1_j4a7vst wrote

Plenty of people do well in life and don't get as butthurt as you appear to be about voluntary transactions performed by legal aged adults. You might want to figure out why you get so mad at things that don't involve you. It sounds like a psychological hangup.

1

drunklepockets t1_j4ai5ql wrote

And you sound like you don’t understand the greater implications of how societies are structured. Enjoy being a troll. ✌🏻

1

LongjumpingShot OP t1_j487i5y wrote

That’s not true, I think rent to own is something valuable. It give those time to build credit where they would otherwise be homeless. I don’t think people who can’t qualify for home loans deserve to be homeless. Sometimes tenants just need time to build credit or need to test an area to know if they want to make a 30 year investment in an area. It’s kind of elitist to think renters don’t deserve housing.

I rent because it’s near my job. To deny me housing near my job because I’m not sure where my next job will be is unfair to those who rely on a paycheck and actually work.

Maybe in a few years, I’ll by but I shouldn’t be denied housing because I’m not ready for ownership in the area.

3

drunklepockets t1_j48ce2l wrote

So you own a house you don’t live in and rent one you don’t own. In a better world wouldn’t you just own the house you live in?

2

LongjumpingShot OP t1_j49atv3 wrote

I don’t want to own where I work. I’ll stay here as long as needed for my career to develop. Everyone’s situation isn’t stable enough to just make long term investments such as home purchases in every scenario. In some scenarios it’s better to rent and let the land lord who knows how to pay taxes, where the most reliable contractors are, etc take those services. It’s more than just paying a bank note to owning a home.

1

drunklepockets t1_j48cywo wrote

Housing should be like plates a dinner, no one gets second’s until everyone has gotten their first plate. I don’t think small time landlords are the biggest problem in the world, obviously huge banks and hedge funds, companies like Zillow buying up huge amounts of properties and keeping a lot empty to drive prices up are the real problem. That being said, stealing $100 and stealing 10 million are both stealing. We know which one is worse. I’m not attacking you. I’m just pointing out that the system set in place (that you are benefiting from) is unethical.

2

LongjumpingShot OP t1_j49bjr7 wrote

I understand what you’re saying. I actually had my house for sale before I rented it. No body wants to buy, even the renter I offer to sell at a much cheaper mortgage rate than the rent, they weren’t interested.

That’s true of where I’m renting now. I can buy for a cheaper note but I don’t want to. I think only allowing home ownership is exclusionary. Good luck getting in west Howard county schools with bad credit or without a mortgage.

2