US states brace for ‘avalanche’ of evictions as federal moratorium ends

[Brothahorn 10,085]

Federal program run through the Treasury using funds appropriated under Trump and Biden. It's to cover Covid losses to tenants and landlords.
Think PPP, but going through state and local governments - who do not have their shit together. 
Too late now for tenants and landlords. Republicans blocked. 

Interesting. I know a handful of would be landlords who have been struggling to keep their notes up while getting nothing in rent. I'll pass that along.

Although they probably should know that if they are seriously in the business.

I couldn't imagine being a property manager for apartments these days. I've heard some wild stories on both sides.

[The Ace of Aces 5,106]

5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Landlords could apply to paid - directly - under the program.

If you’re a landlord, you may think of rental assistance as help for renters. 

But right now, most federal emergency rental assistance programs accept applications from landlords. Where renters can apply, they often need your help to complete the process and make payments to you.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/coronavirus/mortgage-and-housing-assistance/renter-protections/emergency-rental-assistance-for-renters/?utm_source=outreach&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=treasury_banner/#5

Small landlords need an association to keep them apprised of programs in the interest of small landlords. The investor class wants to dominate the rental market and small landlords are at a large disadvantage, in my opinion.  

The cap was $750 (LOL) and they needed tenant approval (along with reasons why the tenant couldn't pay). It's an impossible ask. 

[washparkhorn 9,931]

1 minute ago, The Ace of Aces said:

The cap was $750 (LOL) and they needed tenant approval (along with reasons why the tenant couldn't pay). It's an impossible ask. 

It was 18 months under the laws as they were written. State and local government ultimately decide how much assistance would be made available, but the Treasury program permitted up to 18 months of relief. 

10. Is there a limit on how many months of financial assistance a tenant can receive?

Yes. In ERA1, an eligible household may receive up to twelve (12) months of assistance (plus an additional three (3) months if necessary to ensure housing stability for the household, subject to the availability of funds). The aggregate amount of financial assistance an eligible household may receive under ERA2, when combined with financial assistance under ERA1, must not exceed 18 months.

In ERA1, financial assistance for prospective rent payments is limited to three months based on any application by or on behalf of the household, except that the household may receive assistance for prospective rent payments for additional months (i) subject to the availability of remaining funds currently allocated to the grantee, and (ii) based on a subsequent application for additional assistance. In no case may an eligible household receive more than 18 months of assistance under ERA1 and ERA2, combined.

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/emergency-rental-assistance-program/faqs

Clear as mud.  The state and local involvement screwed it up. The program needed to be much more streamlined for the emergency nature of the problem. 

[The Ace of Aces 5,106]

15 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

It was 18 months under the laws as they were written. State and local government ultimately decide how much assistance would be made available, but the Treasury program permitted up to 18 months of relief. 

10. Is there a limit on how many months of financial assistance a tenant can receive?

Yes. In ERA1, an eligible household may receive up to twelve (12) months of assistance (plus an additional three (3) months if necessary to ensure housing stability for the household, subject to the availability of funds). The aggregate amount of financial assistance an eligible household may receive under ERA2, when combined with financial assistance under ERA1, must not exceed 18 months.

In ERA1, financial assistance for prospective rent payments is limited to three months based on any application by or on behalf of the household, except that the household may receive assistance for prospective rent payments for additional months (i) subject to the availability of remaining funds currently allocated to the grantee, and (ii) based on a subsequent application for additional assistance. In no case may an eligible household receive more than 18 months of assistance under ERA1 and ERA2, combined.

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/emergency-rental-assistance-program/faqs

Clear as mud.  The state and local involvement screwed it up. The program needed to be much more streamlined for the emergency nature of the problem. 

Yuuuup. State Rs went out of their way to make it a terrible program. The same here with HAF - they waited three months before authorizing funds to a state agency.  

[Smax 3,799]

3 hours ago, The Ace of Aces said:

The should have paid off landlords directly imo. 

100%

[wildcat09 29,187]

3 hours ago, The Ace of Aces said:

Yuuuup. State Rs went out of their way to make it a terrible program. The same here with HAF - they waited three months before authorizing funds to a state agency.  

Any time you allow Republican officials at any level of government to administer something, they'll intentionally do a shit job of it. It serves two purposes: (1) makes people hate government and buy into their propaganda, and (2) "encourages" people to sell their property/business/whatever to the already rich assholes who paid the Republicans to implement policies in a manner that would allow them to swallow up a bunch of distressed assets. 

Another (related) problem is that the federal government itself probably isn't really capable of administering a landlord/tenant relief program. There's very little federal policy that is actually administered by the federal government. Of course, Republicans like this and make sure it remains the case so that when the feds do have to pass some sort of emergency assistance, they can fuck with it all they want by controlling how it's actually administered. 

[elfenix 34,168]

see, also, TANF (which is actual welfare, most other things aren't) being used to pay cronies for marriage counseling in oklahoma, pregnancy crisis centers (aka, places you go to get lied to in order to get you not to have an abortion) in texas and indiana, and scholarships at private liberal arts colleges in michigan. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by elfenix

[Incredulity 11,532]

17 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Any time you allow Republican officials at any level of government to administer something, they'll intentionally do a shit job of it. It serves two purposes: (1) makes people hate government and buy into their propaganda, and (2) "encourages" people to sell their property/business/whatever to the already rich assholes who paid the Republicans to implement policies in a manner that would allow them to swallow up a bunch of distressed assets. 

Another (related) problem is that the federal government itself probably isn't really capable of administering a landlord/tenant relief program. There's very little federal policy that is actually administered by the federal government. Of course, Republicans like this and make sure it remains the case so that when the feds do have to pass some sort of emergency assistance, they can fuck with it all they want by controlling how it's actually administered. 

Ok, now do D controlled legislatures fuck up with this program.

They fuck it up through being completely magnanimous?

Edited August 4, 2021 by Incredulity

[Updawg 2,260]

Small landlords need an association to keep them apprised of programs in the interest of small landlords. The investor class wants to dominate the rental market and small landlords are at a large disadvantage, in my opinion.  

I think this is the direction we have been headed for a while. Will be a massive transfer of property to big investors. They want everyone to be renters now.

[Yuk 1,505]

1 minute ago, Updawg said:

I think this is the direction we have been headed for a while. Will be a massive transfer of property to big investors. They want everyone to be renters now.

So... feudalism.

[Tuco 5,076]

Ok, now do D controlled legislatures fuck up with this program.
They fuck it up through being completely magnanimous?

Are you so lazy you’re crowdsourcing your both-siderism? You recognize that Republicans are dogshit on the issue, and your first thought is to inquire what the Dems can be criticized for? You tell us, how are the Dem controlled leg fucking it up? What’s the email chain news saying?

[Brothahorn 10,085]

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

On 8/4/2021 at 9:16 AM, TXSooner518 said:

Multiple federal district courts have ruled that way, and the Supremes only declined to vacate the stay based on the CDC's express promise that it wouldn't be extended beyond July 31.

Also, the order itself doesn't actually address any court action, it simply says "a landlord may not...", so in Texas, since the Texas Supreme Court's 34th Order expired, there hasn't been a way to legally apply it to evictions courts in Texas. The current situation is the court asks the landlord if they are aware of the moratorium and still wish to proceed. If the landlord says yes, the case moves forward, and if the landlord is in violation, they can be sued/prosecuted under the order, which isn't going to happen.

It's much more theater as opposed to the REAL, ACTUAL solution which is getting money in the hands of landlords and tenants and forgiving the mountain of rent debt for tenants. When the moratorium ends, many people are going to be 18 months in debt. People have been forced to allow another person to use their property for free for a year and a half. I don't understand how people call masks tyranny when that is happening. 

I have since read Friedrich's opinion, citing the other district courts, most of whom ruled against the moratorium.  Her analysis is pretty reasonable, I think.

But yeah,that's a good analysis and raises some interesting points about the theater of it all.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,965]

On 8/5/2021 at 10:20 PM, Tuco said:

Are you so lazy you’re crowdsourcing your both-siderism? You recognize that Republicans are dogshit on the issue, and your first thought is to inquire what the Dems can be criticized for? You tell us, how are the Dem controlled leg fucking it up? What’s the email chain news saying?

We are a nation of morons who elect even more moronic morons to do things moronically. If you think that your side is immune to this you are probably a Q level nutter. If you think that the other side is doing things solely to further some grand conspiracy you are almost certainly a Q level nutter.

Edited August 10, 2021 by NotActuallyALonghorn

[gmr548 16,463]

I think this is the direction we have been headed for a while. Will be a massive transfer of property to big investors. They want everyone to be renters now.

Same as any other business sector. Now that we’re short millions of housing units the demand is great enough for it to be worth the investment of getting in the game.

[SwAss 105]

On 8/4/2021 at 7:10 PM, Yuk said:

So... feudalism.

 

That appears to be where we are heading, not just in the housing market, but with wages not keeping up while cost of living continues to rise, and the push by a certain party to limit or eliminate needed regulations that help the working classes.  

Edited August 10, 2021 by SwAss

[lmao 178]

2 hours ago, SwAss said:

 

That appears to be where we are heading, not just in the housing market, but with wages not keeping up while cost of living continues to rise, and the push by a certain party to limit or eliminate needed regulations that help the working classes.  

One of the best things for the working class and working Americans would be to untie healthcare with employment, unfortunately BOTH parties are against this. I miss this version of AOC:

 

 

[SwAss 105]

2 hours ago, lmao said:

One of the best things for the working class and working Americans would be to untie healthcare with employment, unfortunately BOTH parties are against this. I miss this version of AOC:

 

 

What has changed?  I agree we need to unlink employment with healthcare and progress towards a system that resembles those in other first world/developed nations.  

[SwAss 105]

Unlinking health coverage from employment would be a boost to businesses since they(employers) would no longer have to bear the expense for the employees and give the employees greater flexibility, but I've had too many beers at the moment to explain coherently, lol

Edited August 10, 2021 by SwAss

[Tuco 5,076]

On 8/9/2021 at 7:51 PM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

We are a nation of morons who elect even more moronic morons to do things moronically. If you think that your side is immune to this you are probably a Q level nutter. If you think that the other side is doing things solely to further some grand conspiracy you are almost certainly a Q level nutter.

I'm not exactly sure what the intent of this post is.  If it is some rebuttal of me saying the Dems are without morons or moronic positions, it appears to be misplaced.  I've been involved in party politics and certainly recognize there are morons on my side. The Democratic Party needs to improve, both at the national and state level.  

But, with that in mind, reflexive both-siderism is just stupid and lazy.  Recognition of Democratic flaws is not a defense of both-siderism.  Rather, It is the obscuration of any flaws, Republican or Democratic, with some fucked nihilism that just states that it doesn't matter who is in charge on the issue.  The fact is it does fucking matter, not because of the parties but because of the policies and philosophies they espouse.  If someone wants to be critical of Democratic polices, cool, let's have that discussion.  But when a reflexive defense of Republican fuckery is 'well, yeah, what above the Dems...I don't know what they did, but I'm sure it's bad", it completely neuters the attempt to hold our politicians accountable for their persistent failures.  

 

[Incredulity 11,532]

SC overturned ban

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/us/eviction-moratorium-ends.html

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

3 hours ago, Incredulity said:

SC overturned ban

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/us/eviction-moratorium-ends.html

Things always end well when SC nullifies things from DC

[washparkhorn 9,931]

4 hours ago, Incredulity said:

SC overturned ban

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/us/eviction-moratorium-ends.html

As predicted. 

Sorry tenants and landlords. It's a raw deal and a failure from the top all the way down - especially at the state and local level. 

I will say it again - small landlords need better advocates - starting at the local level. 

And tenants, forget about ever buying. Everything will be flipped up and out of reach.

___________________________

On the macro side -
 

Spoiler

• This asset bubble continues to grow.
• The home as a store of family wealth - the American Dream - will dim for many.
• There will negative economic externalities associated with this trend.
  • And look at the associated industries who lose in this trend, including:
    • realtors,
    • those in the trades,
    • and many other freelancers associated with home improvement, 
• Consolidation in this sector will be more efficient, but it comes at a cost for those who do not want to be employees.
• Independent businesses lose income when Big Boys take over a market sector. 

It ain't right how this turned out.

Hopefully there is a bipartisan fix in the barrel ready to go. The money was allocated for a problem and the need to get landlords and tenants relief. We need to do the right thing on this - everyone. It shouldn't be partisan. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by washparkhorn

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

6 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Things always end well when SC nullifies things from DC

What's interesting about this case is that it brings into question the breadth of power that can be validly exercised by the Director of the CDC.

Setting aside for the moment whether an eviction moratorium is a good or necessary idea in these circumstances -- I think it is -- the question remains does the Director of the CDC have the power to do it.

The arguments pro and con are amazingly similar to what's going to go on with Abbott's power to override local officials in disaster responses, except there isn't the aspect of competing officials with similarly broad powers.

I have read Judge Friedrich's (yes, Trump appointee) opinion, which lines up with a few other district court opinions that the statute cannot be interpreted to grant this broad power.  And it's pretty hard to disagree with the analysis, which has nothing to do with the merits of the moratorium, but rather whether the Director of the CDC is the "right person" to issue such a moratorium.

In this last go round at SCOTUS, the "liberal wing" didn't really take issue with the legal analysis, but rather wanted to de facto extend the moratorium by refusing to rule on an interim or temporary basis.  I suppose reasonable minds can differ on the need for urgent action, and that is where the conservative/liberal split manifests here.

If this were to go to full argument on the merits, which I don't believe it will, it would be interesting to see how or if the liberal wing analyzes the statute differently.

 

[pyrohornIII 4,801]

They have moved on from foreclosures to evictions for making money.  While the money is better in foreclosure, the turnaround in rent/eviction is faster, so it's a matter of quantity over quality.   

And the more renters defaulting justifies higher deposits and rents.   So the money is getting better.    And these fucks don't care if anyone gets hurt, or if the thing isn't sustainable, as long as they get theirs and get out before the market collapses.  

[ChickenSandwich 9,797]

states requiring both landlord and renter to fill out relief paperwork was a terrible idea. 
 

 

[Poolflood 845]

On 8/27/2021 at 7:14 AM, TwiceHorn said:

What's interesting about this case is that it brings into question the breadth of power that can be validly exercised by the Director of the CDC.

Setting aside for the moment whether an eviction moratorium is a good or necessary idea in these circumstances -- I think it is -- the question remains does the Director of the CDC have the power to do it.

The arguments pro and con are amazingly similar to what's going to go on with Abbott's power to override local officials in disaster responses, except there isn't the aspect of competing officials with similarly broad powers.

I have read Judge Friedrich's (yes, Trump appointee) opinion, which lines up with a few other district court opinions that the statute cannot be interpreted to grant this broad power.  And it's pretty hard to disagree with the analysis, which has nothing to do with the merits of the moratorium, but rather whether the Director of the CDC is the "right person" to issue such a moratorium.

In this last go round at SCOTUS, the "liberal wing" didn't really take issue with the legal analysis, but rather wanted to de facto extend the moratorium by refusing to rule on an interim or temporary basis.  I suppose reasonable minds can differ on the need for urgent action, and that is where the conservative/liberal split manifests here.

If this were to go to full argument on the merits, which I don't believe it will, it would be interesting to see how or if the liberal wing analyzes the statute differently.

 

Appreciate the thoughts. 

I'd ask questions but can't afford your hourly rate and now there certainly won't be a moratorium on that front. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

To elaborate, this is the federal law under which the rent moratorium was issued.

Quote

The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.

So, at the outset, you have a statement that's pretty broad, then you have a second sentence that seems to contemplate powers directly related to controlling disease

It's not quite as concise, but the Texas Emergency Act grants to the governor fairly broad powers to act under a declared emergency, probably the broadest of which is this:

Quote

Sec. 418.018. MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE. (a) The governor may recommend the evacuation of all or part of the population from a stricken or threatened area in the state if the governor considers the action necessary for the preservation of life or other disaster mitigation, response, or recovery.

(b) The governor may prescribe routes, modes of transportation, and destinations in connection with an evacuation.

(c) The governor may control ingress and egress to and from a disaster area and the movement of persons and the occupancy of premises in the area.

There are some other provisions about suspending laws and regulations that might support the anti-mask-mandate-mandate, maybe, but this is the broadest grant of power.

And mayors and county judges, at the local level, are granted similar powers:

Quote

(f) The county judge or the mayor of a municipality may order the evacuation of all or part of the population from a stricken or threatened area under the jurisdiction and authority of the county judge or mayor if the county judge or mayor considers the action necessary for the preservation of life or other disaster mitigation, response, or recovery.

(g) The county judge or the mayor of a municipality may control ingress to and egress from a disaster area under the jurisdiction and authority of the county judge or mayor and control the movement of persons and the occupancy of premises in that area.

And the Texas statute provides no direction as to whose orders trump whose.

[Hagbard Celine 10,734]

you're talking about wheels.

he will use emergency powers to order the texas rangers to shoot the tenants and the landlords then seize the property for his war chest.