Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

fillet0fish t1_jdi5kws wrote

Vouchers aren't forever and not always 100 percent and when you have a tenant who won't pay back and squat on the property, it's easy to see that one bad experience will influence future decisions

104

CactusBoyScout t1_jdiqlux wrote

Yeah I used to work in homeless services and back when Bloomberg was mayor there was actually a pretty good housing voucher program that helped a lot of people get off the street. The state and city shared the expense and landlords generally trusted it and took on these tenants.

But then Bloomberg decided the city was paying too much and tried to play chicken with Cuomo by pulling the city’s portion of funding. Well, Cuomo called his bluff and also pulled the state’s portion of funding effectively killing the program.

So a lot of landlords were suddenly left with people who had no way to pay the full amount of rent. And they haven’t forgotten that experience.

So because of those two egotistical dickheads having a pissing match, landlords are very wary of any government vouchers for rent.

78

Chewwy987 t1_jdilpvq wrote

It goes deeper then that. I listed an apart last month for three days got 40 inquiries and 10 vouchers. They’re not only competing amongst themselves but also the working class with steady income.

On top of that I was informed by another realtor that while you accept a section 8 voucher it can take three months to process the paperwork. In that three months you can easily get someone else in there’s. And not have to eat the loss. On top of that it’s almost impossible to get a voucher holder out of an apartment.

64

CactusBoyScout t1_jdj92kl wrote

Yep. Last time the city/state had a decent voucher system a few decades ago, the housing crisis wasn’t nearly this bad. Landlords were at least open to it because they didn’t have dozens of well-qualified applicants with decent jobs beating down their doors.

Now you can get 50 people lining up for a single apartment viewing and they all have good income and checkbooks ready.

20

SeaAppeal3927 t1_jdksele wrote

Well actually the hap contract is back dated, so they can collect on those months. It’s why when you are approved and say you aren’t homeless you are just moving from one apt to another. Unless you have certain things like a disability etc. They expect you to move right away. I know from personal experience

3

Chewwy987 t1_jdkstc9 wrote

Landlords have mortgages with regular payments not a lump sum when it’s approved, so still wouldn’t work

17

panda12291 t1_jdinnbc wrote

It's also illegal under City & State law to discriminate based on source of income. It's easy to see how one major lawsuit or Human Rights Commission proceeding will cost you a whole lot more than just not discriminating against poor people and accepting the vouchers.

−17

fillet0fish t1_jdinuyi wrote

Right, but proving prejudice can be hard. You just need to give some other excuse

28

mehkindaok t1_jdmeb8w wrote

So are you saying one absolutely has to choose a voucher holder even when they have 50 potential renters with six figure salaries and perfect credit score fighting over the pen to sign the lease?

4

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdib2g1 wrote

In short, prejudice.

−34

Airhostnyc t1_jdidb5o wrote

All nyc has to do is guarantee payment and also agree to paying for damages and eviction cost if necessary. If you had a choice would you a qualified applicant with no eviction records/job stability or an applicant with no job and housing voucher than can expire?

34

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdipi3s wrote

In short, more prejudice.

−40

JeffeBezos t1_jditif1 wrote

Is it prejudice when Amex won't approve someone with a 500 FICO score?

34

jay5627 t1_jdiu0so wrote

There's no point in engaging with someone who just copies and pastes a response to try and frustrate

26

JeffeBezos t1_jdiu726 wrote

I just wanted to see where that person drew the line in the sand.

16

jay5627 t1_jdiufwm wrote

wherever it would be convenient for their position

21

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdiyqtt wrote

I didn’t draw the line. That’s legally defined as housing discrimination.

−19

JeffeBezos t1_jdj1ppk wrote

LLs cannot discriminate based on their source of lawful income. We all know that.

But they don't have to choose an applicant with a voucher over someone without.

16

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdj2jmk wrote

No one said they do, but if the decision always ends up being for the non-vouchered applicant, well, one has to wonder how that happens without discrimination. The voucher isn’t supposed to be factored into the decision at all.

−2

JeffeBezos t1_jdj2w43 wrote

Then where is the prejudice in electing to choose the most qualified applicant?

Is it prejudice when a company hires the person with an MBA versus a GED?

11

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdj34ck wrote

> The voucher isn’t supposed to be factored into the decision at all.

Discriminating on education and professional qualifications is one of the forms that is legal and societally accepted.

This is closer to employers discriminating based on criminal history in jurisdictions that have enacted “ban the box” laws. They’re not supposed to make decisions based on that particular characteristic.

1

JeffeBezos t1_jdj3kc1 wrote

The LL can't say they don't accept vouchers and can't deny solely based on the voucher.

But again, if there is an applicant without a voucher, they're very well within their legal rights to opt with the other applicant.

Vouchers aren't a golden ticket.

13

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdj3vqd wrote

> they're very well within their legal rights to opt with the other applicant.

Of course they are. I’m not sure why you’re repeating yourself when I already agreed with you. Not discriminating against vouchers does not mean favoring vouchers. I never claimed that and I already told you that.

What I have said is that the voucher status isn’t supposed to be part of the decision at all. If a landlord consistently ends up accepting non-vouchered applicants over vouchered ones, though, it would be hard to come up with an explanation that doesn’t rely on the voucher factoring in to the decision.

0

mehkindaok t1_jdn3hv3 wrote

Make 40x the monthly rent, have 750+ credit score and stellar prior landlord references? Voucher or not, come right over! Have 400 credit score and a bunch of prior eviction? Go pound sand, no soup apartment for you - irresponsible deadbeats are not a protected class! That's how it works in the real world bucko.

0

mehkindaok t1_jdmej7o wrote

Of course it is, racism as well - low credit score due to poor decisions is a protected class, amex black for all!

1

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdivm05 wrote

Yes, that’s literally the point of credit scores.

Prejudice takes a lot of forms. Most of them are both legal and societally accepted. Whether and how much it should be is debatable, but what’s not debatable is that “voucher tenants are going to destroy the place and refuse to leave” is a prejudicial statement (and if acted upon is illegal housing discrimination).

−5

lgny1 t1_jdjhlsx wrote

So why don’t you go buy an apartment building and fill it with section 8 ! Then look no prejudice

7

flightwaves t1_jdikfw4 wrote

NYC tenants to landlords about to lose their homes: When you can't pay your mortgage due inability to collect on rent, its your fault you made a bad investment

NYC tenants when landlords make decisions to ensure a good investment: NOOOO, NOT LIKE THAT!

77

SolitaryMarmot t1_jdjez5y wrote

so guaranteed rent payment from the government is bad? huh?

−20

flightwaves t1_jdjfags wrote

It can be pulled at any time and then landlord is SOL and stuck with tenant who he no way to pay

25

SolitaryMarmot t1_jdjftlt wrote

no it can't. you can only lose your section 8 voucher for specific reasons. It's not like...oh sorry, your voucher wasn't appropriated this year. Once you are in the program, you are in. Thats why the waiting list for vouchers is years long.

−13

Airhostnyc t1_jdjl9o2 wrote

Not all vouchers are section 8. Section 8 also only pays 70%

15

IAmGoingToSleepNow t1_jdm1afa wrote

And the deadbeat tenants will absolutely wreck the apartment to get out of their portion of the rent.

−1

SolitaryMarmot t1_jdjnaiy wrote

True. But it's the same with public housing section 9. Even a market rate tenant can lose a job and not be able to pay rent during the term of a lease. With section 8 (assuming your apartment meets the HUD criteria) you'll at least get 70% of the rent every month

−4

MrGarrett t1_jdjiq8t wrote

Think there is a non zero chance republicans move to gut section 8 now that social security seems to be off the table when the debt showdown starts ramping up more.

2

irishdancer2 t1_jdjtpm4 wrote

7

SolitaryMarmot t1_jdjz95v wrote

That's not how that program worked. It gave homeless people up to $1000 to pay towards an apartment lease for up to 2 years. Any landlord that accepted that voucher knew it would be gone in 24 months anyway. And it wasn't a voucher for any apartment. They had to sign up individual apartments for the Advantage program. So in a building you would have normal apartments and voucher apartments. Its not like Section 8 which will pay for any apartment up to code.

3

TeamMisha t1_jdj4ura wrote

Maybeeeee relying on the private sector to work out subsidized housing is not such a good idea after all

36

WarmestSeatByTheFire t1_jdksyl6 wrote

There are a lot of legitimate reasons that landlords are hesitant to take vouchers (Ex: the system is slow to process the paperwork which means that the unit sits empty for months, additional compliance and inspection requirements which can be difficult and expensive to navigate, fear that the voucher will be withdrawn, etc.).

I see a lot of articles about tenants having trouble using them but nobody ever attempts to explain the reason is primarily due to the inefficiency of the government organizations providing them.

19

kiklion t1_jdlzphh wrote

> I see a lot of articles about tenants having trouble using them but nobody ever attempts to explain the reason is primarily due to the inefficiency of the government organizations providing them.

It’s ‘free’ government backed money… if they need to make a law requiring people to accept it then there’s something wrong with the program.

9

Luke90210 t1_jdkxqei wrote

The paperwork for a landlord dealing with Section 8 is non-stop. Only a large landlord can afford the staffing to do it. Its been awhile, but if Albany stalls on passing a budget, Section 8 payments can be suspended until the budget is passed. If the Section 8 tenant doesn't update their info, that could be a problem even if its something trivial like changing cellphone numbers.

Discrimination is not the right word. Its a problematic system anyone with a half a brain should avoid in favor of a tenant paying their rent with their income.

18

Silentarrowz t1_jdw0zqe wrote

Discrimination is the right word, small landlords just don't want to hear it. If you don't have the ability to handle this, maybe you just shouldn't be a landlord? There is no legal guarantee that every citizen can be a landlord, maybe some of the small ones just aren't cut out for it? Maybe they should try a different job if they can't run it. If a restaurant was failing to pay their employees on time in NYC no one would say "oh it's tough for restaurateurs out there give them a break." We'd say "You knew how tough the NYC market was before you invested in it. If you can't handle that then get out."

2

soyeahiknow t1_jdwn6br wrote

Its called the free market. Would you want a job where you have to jump through hoops and nonsense to get paid? Or would you settlle on another job doing the same work and making the same amount without all the bullshit?

3

Silentarrowz t1_jdxe6el wrote

It's called a legal obligation. I know landlords only like using that word when it comes to things that benefit them, but in some cases renters do in fact have rights, and you are in fact legally obligated to abide by them. If you get 400 applicants and decide to take someone with higher income that's one thing. If you do what a lot of landlords do and keep properties posted until they find someone with a preset income threshold and refuse to even consider voucher tenants? Scum of the earth.

1

Luke90210 t1_jdxga0a wrote

Restaurants are not forced to sell food under some government program. Supermarkets are and gladly do as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) consistently pays out. When Section 8 gets the same reputation without the constant horror stories, please let us know.

3

Silentarrowz t1_jdxgofy wrote

Then lobby for more funding for it. The people that want things like section 8 are not the same people who want it in its current state.

−1

Luke90210 t1_jdxl5gh wrote

Paying for more Section 8 housing at a better rate will not solve the lack of affordable housing. Only more housing construction will. Now, would more demand stimulate more housing stock to meet the demand? It hasn't so far.

3

Silentarrowz t1_jdxni05 wrote

So let's fund more public/affordable housing. Let's build the housing and when it gets proposed actually build it instead going "well that apartment would be near a really pretty park...so we should just not build it." The NIMBYism in NYC from landlords that also deny section 8 is pathetic.

1

Luke90210 t1_jdxorf5 wrote

I like the idea of more public housing. However, most of public housing construction was funded by the federal government. They don't do that sort of thing anymore. NYCHA loses money as the rents are set up as a percentage of income driving anyone making a solid income away. And NYCHA is poorly managed.

2

Silentarrowz t1_jdxs65b wrote

The NIMBYism is a hard barrier in my eyes. There have been dozens of proposals for even private development that have been shot down for being too close to this, or being seen from that.

2

jae343 t1_jdnr0ma wrote

My friend flips homes to rent out to Section 8 in the southeast and doesn't seem to be a problem. Some residents certainly can cause trouble but that's the general risk of renting out property and it's a small operation.

0

Luke90210 t1_jdo6zym wrote

Good for him. It doesn't sound like he is working a highly competitive real estate market.

7

jae343 t1_jdp1ixi wrote

Yep, Charlotte isn't competitive compared to NYC obviously.

1

Luke90210 t1_jdtkee1 wrote

Perhaps North Carolina does a far better job of administering Section 8 than NY.

2

Silentarrowz t1_jdw1ahi wrote

Perhaps North Carolina lets landlords that can't handle it simply fail instead of letting them discriminate against applicants. No one has a right to a successful business, you have to work for it. If you want a successful NYC real estate business guess what; you're going to work for it.

−1

Luke90210 t1_jdxgvp1 wrote

> No one has a right to a successful business, you have to work for it.

I agree. What does that have to do with a highly flawed government program landlords don't want to deal with? Doctors are not forced to accept Medicaid. Improve the system and landlords would happily take Section 8 just like supermarkets and bodegas take SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

2

Silentarrowz t1_jdxhc9r wrote

I agree. Let's give them a few billion more dollars a year in funding. You would agree with giving section 8 a huge federal expansion? I think programs like this are crippled by funding and old laws.

1

Luke90210 t1_jdxk4ng wrote

Absolutely. Some of the rules are very antiquated as if its 1988. Why deny payments to the landlord because the tenant changed their cellphone number without informing the offices?

2

Silentarrowz t1_jdw15cf wrote

NYC landlords knew the market they were getting into when they bought the property. If landlords don't like operating in a large complex market perhaps they shouldn't?

0

Luke90210 t1_jdxfd1r wrote

You honestly think people buying expensive real estate in NYC for rentals had any intention of dealing with Section 8?

2

Silentarrowz t1_jdxghpy wrote

I mean considering it has existed in one form or another since the 1970s I'd sure hope so.

1

Luke90210 t1_jdxkl30 wrote

You think anyone investing in Tribeca or Dumbo rental properties is thinking about Section 8? You honestly believe think thats the clientele they are taking into consideration and not the people making 6 or 7 figures a year?

2

Silentarrowz t1_jdxlqdd wrote

What a landlord would like to be true and what their legal obligation is are two very different things. Just because a landlord failed to fully consider the marker they were in does not mean they get a free pass to break the law and illegally discriminate against voucher tenants.

1

Luke90210 t1_jdxn0ga wrote

You sound very naive. Under the current housing crisis any landlord can find an easy reason to legitimately reject a Section 8 applicant or just accept one as a token. Its just one more application out of many. And its not like the apartment is going to waste as someone else who needs it and willing to pay for it out of pocket will get it.

There is simply not enough housing stock in NYC for the demand. Section 8 isn't going to solve this.

2

Silentarrowz t1_jdxn8l3 wrote

Sure, and I accept that under normal circumstances they can refuse a lot of them, I would hope they do so in a good faith way (ie. Denying them when there is another applicant or an actual issue rather than just going "eh no good applicants" and leaving a space vacant). I want it improved, but I don't think landlords should just get to go completely ignore it.

1

Luke90210 t1_jdxp03g wrote

I'm envisioning a 1% acceptance rate for legal cover only. Thats really not solving anything.

1

WarmestSeatByTheFire t1_jdokmfo wrote

It's a viable business model in a lot of markets but those places have very different market conditions compared to NYC.

1

jae343 t1_jdp1fnb wrote

Definitely but the idea is that they get guaranteed payments and on time from the government.

1

bkornblith t1_jdib3zu wrote

Indeed rain is very much wet

14

jamie030592 t1_jdi551m wrote

Why would landlords NOT take the vouchers?

10

Airhostnyc t1_jdiduzo wrote

It’s not permanent in most cases. NYC had a similar programs a decade ago that scorned landlords as they stopped the program and was stuck with non paying tenants. Eviction takes up to a year in nyc housing court, that’s 12 months of unpaid rent.

Section 8 only covers 70% of the rent, the 30% has to be covered by tenant. Plus the endless bureaucracy that makes working with these programs a hassle. If people aren’t taking guaranteed money then there are obviously issues with the program.

42

patriotpotato t1_jdiip52 wrote

Because in today's market there are no shortage of renters, so if you were a landlord and had the choice between someone with good credit and a good job vs someone who is having the majority of the rent paid for them, it's easy to see why the former would be less risky.

Also there are more evictions (time, money, and headache) and the tenants don't tend to keep the apartments nice.

39

MillennialNightmare t1_jdik43f wrote

So discrimination based on generalizations.

−47

patriotpotato t1_jdimz1j wrote

No just based on track record really. If people don't pay rent and destroy apartments, you don't want to rent to them in the future.

If you had a nice belonging that's worth a lot to you, you wouldn't go lending it out to just anyone, you would make sure you only gave it to someone you know has proven to you that they have the ability to take care of it.

If it were much faster/easier to evict tenants that don't pay, landlords will probably be more open to vouchers, but right now it's just a nightmare.

34

Chewwy987 t1_jdiofe5 wrote

That last sentence basically sums it all up what’s gets me about this article I’d the person used I’d in the healthcare industry and they still qualify for a voucher. Most people working in healthcare are capable of managing money well enough to afford their own place. So something is up. Nyc needs to teach financial literacy in grade school if they ever want to get out of this mess

18

Chewwy987 t1_jdimtja wrote

Goes beyond that. I have a section 8 tenant snd I’ve been trying to get section 8 to recognize and record the signed legal lease amount for 3 year 6 years everyone said something different no one can get it done attorneys I’ve spoken with Day the courts can’t do anything about it. So we have to fit here snd eat the loss because they govt can’t get it straight. Aldo everyone that works there is a different form of incompetence they as ll need to be retrained. Mind you this voucher holder doesn’t even live in the apartment and the daughters baby daddy lives there illegally. Often when dealing with couches landlords hands are tied so why bother deal with it when someone qualified comes along looking to rent. There’s no reason to.

8

Iadara1457 t1_jdibr0z wrote

I worked as a housing specialist for a bit (albeit in Columbus, OH. Not NY state) and the primary reason I would hear from landlords for not leasing a HCV tenant is either because of the limits on how much they can raise rent in a given lease period or they didn't like dealing with the housing authority itself. I have no experience with NYC's HA but if it's anything like Columbus, then it's a shit show for everyone involved.

On the other hand landlords are 95% of the time shit bags and slumlords. I almost got into a fight with one landlord because he refused to accept that the housing authority would not authorize his unit for inhabitance because it didn't pass inspection. In this case it was because he had an open outlet on the wall where water from a shower head would pour. Obviously not going to pass but he disagreed.

16

CactusBoyScout t1_jdir4gs wrote

NYC had a good housing voucher system for homeless people back when Bloomberg was mayor but he and Cuomo had a dispute over the funding and basically killed the program overnight leaving landlords with tenants who couldn’t pay.

So they haven’t trusted voucher systems ever since.

6

SolitaryMarmot t1_jdjf8yu wrote

because vouchers can only be sent to landlords if the building is up to code. if they take the voucher they will eventually get inspected and be asked to repair their buildings before getting another payment (and the tenant has a lease.) They would rather get someone who will pay the whole amount upfront each month regardless of the condition of the building.

2

MathDeacon t1_jdjtl68 wrote

Lots of landlords are concerned not by vouchers (the rent payments are fine) but by terms/docs that must be signed (ie agreeing not raise rents etc). If voucher was just payment then I think some of these issues might be reduced

4

MortaLPortaL t1_jdjdrj9 wrote

It's been prevalent for a while. When I was in the shelter in 2015, NO landlord would take my section 8 voucher. I applied to roughly a few hundred places, and not one person wanted it.

3

Frequent-Shape6950 t1_je8650b wrote

How did you make it out?

2

MortaLPortaL t1_je894r9 wrote

Took my voucher to a different state and found a place there. that still haunts me to this day. I made it out of the Armory shelter, but I lost everyone and everything I had.

1

Frequent-Shape6950 t1_je8i4mh wrote

Sorry to hear. I unfortunately might be headed back in the system.

I'd made it out during lockdown, but then a debilitating injury and spine surgery 3 months ago left me with a life-threatening infection.

Tapping this from NYU Langone Orthopedic hospital on 17th while receiving IV antibiotic infusion treatment.

Nice view from 11th flr north up 2nd Ave tho. I can see the Vanderbilt tower, Chrysler Bldg, and Stuy Town to the East.

1

Turtle_Shaft t1_jdjlpgf wrote

I work in social services and can confirm this. Another aspect is that a lot of realtors dont want to work with people who already live in their own apartments because the city offers a lower amount of money for the brokers fee. A lot of brokers who deal with clients want people from SROs or shelters because the city offers a full brokers fee payment.

3

F4ilsafe t1_jdml80s wrote

I honestly don't know much about housing vouchers at all, but doing some google-fu for the last 15 minutes it seems like the problem is not so much discrimination against the PEOPLE that want to pay with vouchers, but the landlords are fearful of the IMPLICATIONS of dealing with voucher-holders.

In other words, landlords do not want A) to wait for the government to send an inspector which can take god-knows-how-long before the person can actually move in and rent, B) wait for the government to pay the landlords which, as with any aspect of dealing with government agencies, can take a dawn's age resulting in late payments or insufficient payments from the housing authority, C) endure yearly government inspections which, while designed to ensure that voucher holders do not live in substandard housing, are completely subjective and leases can be terminated because of a hairline crack in a light switch faceplate, &c.

In other words: it seems like landlords' problems aren't with voucher-holders, themselves, but the voucher system itself because it's administered by a government agency. In this case, the NYCHA which, everyone knows, is an absolute steaming pile of dog shit. It's an agency that would rather spend billions defending lawsuits than just making repairs in the first place.

3

movingtobay2019 t1_jdsbasy wrote

All that plus vouchers do not pay the full rent.

>In this case, the NYCHA which, everyone knows, is an absolute steaming pile of dog shit

Yea...people with ambition don't exactly line up to go work for the NYCHA.

3

diggydar t1_jdsxb05 wrote

I had a voucher application I accepted because it was the supers friend, theirs a window of time before they can move in and landlord actually receive payment. She decided not to move in for whatever reason, leaving me unpaid for 1 months rent. Never mind the pain the paperwork is, never again

3

soyeahiknow t1_jdwnrah wrote

Imagine dealing with the DMV all the time. Thats why LL don't take vouchers.

3

freshmoves91 t1_jdmcqjn wrote

This has pretty much been going on for years. It's the same on Long Island.

1

SeaAppeal3927 t1_jdkshge wrote

It’s actually against the law to deny a person an apt that has a voucher.

−4

mehkindaok t1_jdmfcta wrote

Only when everyone else applying has lower income, lower credit score, worse employment history and worse landlord references than the voucher holder that makes your heart bleed so profusely.

5

SeaAppeal3927 t1_jdnlnon wrote

My heart isn’t bleeding for anybody. That’s me I’m talking about. Stating there are exceptions. But there are always people who take a sentence and run away a with it. Since I removed my post, this really isn’t even worth the time I’m am giving it. Have a really nice day

0

mehkindaok t1_jdnogxp wrote

Wait, so you have 40x income, 750+ credit score AND a voucher?

3