Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC7 Los Angeles)   California wants to pay off 80% of unpaid rent to everyone in the state if the landlords agree to forgive the other 20%. This is what happens when the gov works for the people   (abc7.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Landlord, President pro tempore of the United States Senate, Rental agreement, Leasehold estate, Renting, United States Senate, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Eviction  
•       •       •

922 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jan 2021 at 2:10 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



94 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-01-26 10:23:54 PM  
Given the number of people in Cali, and the price of real estate and rent, can the state government really afford this? Last I heard they were predicting budget deficits of several billion next year.
 
2021-01-26 11:13:42 PM  
Pollyanna Subby may have  missed this part from TFA:

But housing advocates worry the plan gives landlords too much power to decide what happens to their tenants' debt. If landlords refuse to forgive the debt, the state will only pay 25% of their unpaid rent to ensure their tenants qualify for the law preventing evictions through at least June 30.  But there appears to be no recourse for tenants whose landlords don't take the deal.
 
2021-01-27 12:16:08 AM  

ArkAngel: Given the number of people in Cali, and the price of real estate and rent, can the state government really afford this? Last I heard they were predicting budget deficits of several billion next year.


That was months ago. Turns out it's rich people who pay most of the taxes and the pandemic has been very good to them. Now it's a $15 billion surplus, so much that they might have to give people money back.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl​e​s/2021-01-08/california-weighs-how-to-​spend-surprise-windfall-in-a-pandemic
 
2021-01-27 12:56:38 AM  

ArkAngel: Given the number of people in Cali, and the price of real estate and rent, can the state government really afford this? Last I heard they were predicting budget deficits of several billion next year.


$1B for a population of 39M is $25.64 per person. Seems like several billion deficit in an emergency year isn't much to handle.
 
2021-01-27 1:16:55 AM  
Universal basic housing. It's time.
 
2021-01-27 1:53:01 AM  
ooooh. A sweet spot.

I think a lot of landlords are going to think long and hard..... and accept it. Kicking tenants out while haggling over unpaid rent, lawsuits, refurbishing and then finding new tenants is costly. I think if you are a landlord, you take the money and keep the good times rolling.
 
2021-01-27 2:15:44 AM  
My uncle was houseless for a time and when Covid showed up he told me the State said "we need to house all of these people" and lots of folks said "Exactly"
 
2021-01-27 2:18:02 AM  
 Landlords give up 20%? Unpossible!
 
2021-01-27 2:18:15 AM  

2fardownthread: ooooh. A sweet spot.

I think a lot of landlords are going to think long and hard..... and accept it. Kicking tenants out while haggling over unpaid rent, lawsuits, refurbishing and then finding new tenants is costly. I think if you are a landlord, you take the money and keep the good times rolling.


Most of them probably will, but not all. For many landlords, the allure of sticking it to the poors will be too great to resist.
 
2021-01-27 2:18:45 AM  
Hard to craft a one size fits all but sounds like a reasonable start.
 
2021-01-27 2:29:47 AM  
Yes, it's reasonable. It even makes sense. So does that mean it will never happen?

It's amazing how many Innovations and new perspectives come from California to sweep the rest of the country. It's a real pity the state is going to break off soon and float away. We'll miss it.
 
2021-01-27 2:36:24 AM  

Dr.Fey: Pollyanna Subby may have  missed this part from TFA:

But housing advocates worry the plan gives landlords too much power to decide what happens to their tenants' debt. If landlords refuse to forgive the debt, the state will only pay 25% of their unpaid rent to ensure their tenants qualify for the law preventing evictions through at least June 30.  But there appears to be no recourse for tenants whose landlords don't take the deal.


Make it so that any eviction proceedings tied to COVID won't be carried in the public record and landlords will take the deal unless they're full on morons, which I admit is fully possible.

It's the legal and long term ramifications of an eviction ruling that makes them such a biatch, and a good incentive to avoid court, so if that goes away so does a lot of an asshole landlord's leverage.
 
2021-01-27 2:40:56 AM  

2fardownthread: ooooh. A sweet spot.

I think a lot of landlords are going to think long and hard..... and accept it. Kicking tenants out while haggling over unpaid rent, lawsuits, refurbishing and then finding new tenants is costly. I think if you are a landlord, you take the money and keep the good times rolling.


Most probably will because 80% of a bill is better than 25% with little chance of getting the remainder, but you know there's going to be a few piles of parasite infested rat shiat given human form who will refuse it because they think they can bully someone out of more money that they don't have.

Which of course means any one who happens to be a landlord will be getting it in the ear when the story hits Fark.
 
2021-01-27 2:55:31 AM  

2fardownthread: ooooh. A sweet spot.

I think a lot of landlords are going to think long and hard..... and accept it. Kicking tenants out while haggling over unpaid rent, lawsuits, refurbishing and then finding new tenants is costly. I think if you are a landlord, you take the money and keep the good times rolling.


Agreed. A major influx of cash would take a lot of pain off of struggling landlords. Not pain-free overall, but a pretty good result for them (if rather late).

My question is how this handles the possibility landlords hiking rent just to claim that 80% from the state?
 
2021-01-27 2:56:19 AM  
bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe PeOpLe WhO pAiD tHeIr ReNt
 
2021-01-27 3:01:25 AM  

ArkAngel: Given the number of people in Cali, and the price of real estate and rent, can the state government really afford this? Last I heard they were predicting budget deficits of several billion next year.


Given the state of things, can they afford NOT TO.

The difference between LA and a Mad Max is like three missed meals.
 
2021-01-27 3:02:26 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: ArkAngel: Given the number of people in Cali, and the price of real estate and rent, can the state government really afford this? Last I heard they were predicting budget deficits of several billion next year.

$1B for a population of 39M is $25.64 per person. Seems like several billion deficit in an emergency year isn't much to handle.


Not every one of those 39M is an adult, living there n separate households or a renter. This is the first good thing CA has proposed to deal with fallout of the pandemic since the shutdown of 3/20.
 
2021-01-27 3:04:03 AM  

Epicedion: bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe PeOpLe WhO pAiD tHeIr ReNt


tHeY dOn'T gEt EatEn In ToRtIlLaS!
 
2021-01-27 3:06:22 AM  
Only in California: the government puts millions of taxpayer dollars directly into the pockets of wealthy property owners and the Progressive Left cheers them on.

Link it to a repeal of Prop. 13, and only then might I join in the cheering.
 
2021-01-27 3:07:44 AM  

Epicedion: bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe PeOpLe WhO pAiD tHeIr ReNt


Please republicans dont have rent. Theyve been living in their mom basement or on the good old family farm they never left in their life thats been paid off since 1875.
 
2021-01-27 3:16:14 AM  

OptimisticCynicism: 2fardownthread: ooooh. A sweet spot.

I think a lot of landlords are going to think long and hard..... and accept it. Kicking tenants out while haggling over unpaid rent, lawsuits, refurbishing and then finding new tenants is costly. I think if you are a landlord, you take the money and keep the good times rolling.

Agreed. A major influx of cash would take a lot of pain off of struggling landlords. Not pain-free overall, but a pretty good result for them (if rather late).

My question is how this handles the possibility landlords hiking rent just to claim that 80% from the state?


When Arizona did something similar, in an admittedly limited scope, I had to send them my ledger and the original signed lease agreement to verify eligibility for the programme.  It's possible a landlord will lie to get more money, but if they get caught it's fraud and grounds for taking back the money plus any legal penalties they decide to attach to dissuade the greedy.
 
2021-01-27 3:19:27 AM  
Good.

I hope that the rest of the government also follows suit and helps alleviate the housing/rent situation; too many people are on the verge of, or have already, lost their rentals during this pandemic. We need better social safety nets, if only to use during such emergencies as this pandemic.
 
2021-01-27 3:24:46 AM  

Cornelius Dribble: Only in California: the government puts millions of taxpayer dollars directly into the pockets of wealthy property owners and the Progressive Left cheers them on.

Link it to a repeal of Prop. 13, and only then might I join in the cheering.


Half of landlords are small time, single unit, landlords who simply rented out a house they moved out of or inherited from deceased family.  Punishing them for the sleights of the wealthy is ignorant and short sighted.
 
2021-01-27 3:28:09 AM  
Surely it would be better to spend the money to restructure the housing market to enable more owner-occupiers, and less rent seekers. Basic housing should be a public good, with affordable home ownership for everyone the goal. Guaranteed zero interest land/construction loans for first home owners with repayments capped at 1/3 income (debt can accrue until sold or estate). The debt dies with the homeowner and doesn't form part of the estate.

Landlords have had far too good a run of it. Wealth tied up in residential housing is a dead weight. Get that money into the productive economy.
 
2021-01-27 3:28:37 AM  

Cornelius Dribble: Only in California: the government puts millions of taxpayer dollars directly into the pockets of wealthy property owners and the Progressive Left cheers them on.

Link it to a repeal of Prop. 13, and only then might I join in the cheering.


Think of it like this: The wealthy are going to get that money at the end of the day one way or the other, but this way it helps the needy as it flows.
 
2021-01-27 3:28:45 AM  
Will they make my delinquent car payment too?
 
2021-01-27 3:31:22 AM  

Murkanen: OptimisticCynicism: 2fardownthread: ooooh. A sweet spot.

I think a lot of landlords are going to think long and hard..... and accept it. Kicking tenants out while haggling over unpaid rent, lawsuits, refurbishing and then finding new tenants is costly. I think if you are a landlord, you take the money and keep the good times rolling.

Agreed. A major influx of cash would take a lot of pain off of struggling landlords. Not pain-free overall, but a pretty good result for them (if rather late).

My question is how this handles the possibility landlords hiking rent just to claim that 80% from the state?

When Arizona did something similar, in an admittedly limited scope, I had to send them my ledger and the original signed lease agreement to verify eligibility for the programme.  It's possible a landlord will lie to get more money, but if they get caught it's fraud and grounds for taking back the money plus any legal penalties they decide to attach to dissuade the greedy.


Well that sounds more robust than i expected. Anything for expired leases?
 
2021-01-27 3:37:31 AM  

englaja: Surely it would be better to spend the money to restructure the housing market to enable more owner-occupiers, and less rent seekers.


The best intentions often have unintended consequences.
 
2021-01-27 3:40:43 AM  
englaja:

Surely it would be better to spend the money to restructure the housing market to enable more owner-occupiers, and less rent seekers.

I don't really disagree, but there's always going to be a market for renters. Owning a house in an area you're going to live long term is the smarter choice if all you care about is the dollars and cents of the issue, but not everyone wants the burdens and responsibilities that go with it.
 
2021-01-27 3:45:47 AM  
OptimisticCynicism:

Well that sounds more robust than i expected. Anything for expired leases?

It was based off of the signed lease, so even if it had expired during the moratorium it was still used to determine the amount you received to cover your payment from the state.
 
2021-01-27 3:47:13 AM  
What's to stop people from suddenly remembering they are "landlords" of their basement (nudge nudge, wink wink), whipping up some backdated contract, and giving a family friend's kid a 20% kickback for the free government money?
 
2021-01-27 3:50:11 AM  

Cornelius Dribble: Only in California: the government puts millions of taxpayer dollars directly into the pockets of wealthy property owners and the Progressive Left cheers them on.

Link it to a repeal of Prop. 13, and only then might I join in the cheering.


I don't like prop 13 either, but most landlords aren't rich, to say nothing of the tenants -- this is an emergency, and evicting that many people from their homes in pursuit of property tax reform is both cruel and an economic catastrophe. Besides you can't just repeal it, there is an enormous edifice of school funding and propositions related to property assessments tied to it, there needs to be a well-considered replacement bill. Using a disaster as political leverage is something a goddamn Republican would do.
 
2021-01-27 3:52:07 AM  
Ok now just erase all credit card debt for 20 cents on the dollar.  The Great Reset is upon us!

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-27 3:55:22 AM  

I_told_you_so: englaja: Surely it would be better to spend the money to restructure the housing market to enable more owner-occupiers, and less rent seekers.

The best intentions often have unintended consequences.


It's still something that needs to be addressed.  Speculators have rentals priced ridiculously, which keeps the unit empty except as an absolute last resort, so punishing that practice would help alleviate some of the housing/shelter crisis.

Though realistically the problem is that California can't keep up with the influx of people migrating there and the cities can't keep up with the growth.  That's not something that has an easy answer since building houses/apartments takes time.
 
2021-01-27 4:02:03 AM  

englaja: Surely it would be better to spend the money to restructure the housing market to enable more owner-occupiers, and less rent seekers. Basic housing should be a public good, with affordable home ownership for everyone the goal. Guaranteed zero interest land/construction loans for first home owners with repayments capped at 1/3 income (debt can accrue until sold or estate). The debt dies with the homeowner and doesn't form part of the estate.

Landlords have had far too good a run of it. Wealth tied up in residential housing is a dead weight. Get that money into the productive economy.


What happens when people default and/or trash/fail to maintain their homes?

The state takes them back, fixes them up, then a game of musical chairs us played?
 
2021-01-27 4:26:49 AM  

cryinoutloud: Universal basic housing. It's time.


I like it.
 
2021-01-27 4:33:56 AM  

Murkanen: It was based off of the signed lease, so even if it had expired during the moratorium it was still used to determine the amount you received to cover your payment from the state.


Makes sense. We're just in the weird twilight zone of a widespread, long running moratorium, so I wasn't sure whether expired got pulled forward.
 
2021-01-27 4:36:26 AM  
Based on my experiences, the landlords won't.
 
2021-01-27 4:37:47 AM  

Epicedion: bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe PeOpLe WhO pAiD tHeIr ReNt


Suckers...
 
2021-01-27 4:41:08 AM  

LabGrrl: Based on my experiences, the landlords won't.


Why not? As a former landlord, 80% beats nothing,the trouble of eviction, and the finding of a new tenant.

I even always raised rent below the average increase when the same people signed up for a new lease. Only when it one didn't did I bump it back to market rate.

It makes little sense for landlords not to take this, unless they have someone else lined up and the tenant who cannot pay is going to leave on time.
 
2021-01-27 5:06:41 AM  
Smackledorfer:It makes little sense for landlords not to take this, unless they have someone else lined up and the tenant who cannot pay is going to leave on time.

I went through a real landlord from hell situation a couple of years back, couldn't leave the apartment because he'd destroy my stuff, just really the worst stuff you can imagine. Cops there ALL the time. Still recovering. I still don't even know what I lost.

Even with police reports, he had all the power when it came to court and I got screwed. And that was in a town with a slight uptick in real estate prices.

Right now in places with robust real estate markets tenants get screwed, and we basically have to rely on the landlords to be 'good people.' So if the 80% deal needs a majority of landlords to be good people I don't think it will happen, because there's no penalties for the bad people and people need housing so badly there is always a next sucker.
 
2021-01-27 5:57:52 AM  

Gpzjock: Landlords give up 20%? Unpossible!


It's really not that hard of a choice for many landlords: Would you rather get 80% of their desired income, or 100% of nothing?

Plenty of people simply don't have the money to pay their previously agreed upon rent amounts anymore, no matter how much they wish that were different.
 
2021-01-27 5:59:12 AM  

ArkAngel: Given the number of people in Cali, and the price of real estate and rent, can the state government really afford this? Last I heard they were predicting budget deficits of several billion next year.


If their economy collapses because everybody's suddenly jobless and homeless, including the landlords, will they be better off? Aka: Can they afford not to?
 
2021-01-27 6:00:27 AM  

Epicedion: bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe PeOpLe WhO pAiD tHeIr ReNt


They're among the lucky folks who been okay all along. Yay for them, I guess.
 
2021-01-27 6:05:16 AM  

Epicedion: bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe PeOpLe WhO pAiD tHeIr ReNt


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-27 6:10:42 AM  

Murkanen: I_told_you_so: englaja: Surely it would be better to spend the money to restructure the housing market to enable more owner-occupiers, and less rent seekers.

The best intentions often have unintended consequences.

It's still something that needs to be addressed.  Speculators have rentals priced ridiculously, which keeps the unit empty except as an absolute last resort, so punishing that practice would help alleviate some of the housing/shelter crisis.

Though realistically the problem is that California can't keep up with the influx of people migrating there and the cities can't keep up with the growth.  That's not something that has an easy answer since building houses/apartments takes time.


Big systemic problems that I can't even attempt to synthesize in a fark post. This is not a place for serious discussion. It is a place for dick and fart jokes.

However...this is a pretty good 50,000 foot view of the systemic arc over the last 50 years which basically says debts are out of whack to incomes for everyone but the top quintile. It is not the Thomas Frank argument, although there are commonalities.

Mark Blyth - Why People Vote for Those Who Work Against Their Best Interests

The scary part to me is it sucks to be Black in America.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-27 6:11:54 AM  

Dr.Fey: Pollyanna Subby may have  missed this part from TFA:

But housing advocates worry the plan gives landlords too much power to decide what happens to their tenants' debt. If landlords refuse to forgive the debt, the state will only pay 25% of their unpaid rent to ensure their tenants qualify for the law preventing evictions through at least June 30.  But there appears to be no recourse for tenants whose landlords don't take the deal.


If you are a landlord in a place in CA where there are people with good jobs looking for apartments and your tenant is now 10 months and $30k behind with no job prospects, do you take $7500 from the state, and take another $3k loss in January through December, or not forgive the debt, evict, and rent it out to a full paying tenant?  The landlord will likely make $30k with a new tenant in 2021 and have checks coming in on the reg, which is a better deal.  Maybe the state is unaware of utility, repairs, and local property taxes?
If the state covers local property tax plus covers 90% of rent forward plus all back rent then that is a reasonable deal.
However CA would have to liquidate Calipers to pay for it.
Another thing CA could do is overturn their property tax laws, especially those connected to Prop 13 and adjust taxes to property values rather than point of sale.
 
2021-01-27 6:17:05 AM  
How does it help landlords to eat 20% of their revenue?  Those margins aren't exactly big to start with.
 
2021-01-27 6:45:19 AM  

LL316: How does it help landlords to eat 20% of their revenue?  Those margins aren't exactly big to start with.


Part of running a business  and investing is the acceptance of risk, so it is good to have a diversified portfolio to manage risk.

If I am a California landlord, I would probably have a line of credit on the property which had dramatically increased in value far more than any rental losses. I am going to use that line of credit to cover costs, and if I can get 80% back more power to me. I was already expecting to eat a chunk of money. Depending on your accounting method (cash or accrual of rental income), the lost income may be used as a tax deduction against other income or I can carry forward those losses into future.

Worst case scenario is to sell the property, and take your capital gains. With the state picking up the back rent, it should not hit the value too much, and if it is a rental home, you just kick out the tenants at the end of the lease, if you choose.
 
2021-01-27 6:58:25 AM  

ArkAngel: Given the number of people in Cali, and the price of real estate and rent, can the state government really afford this? Last I heard they were predicting budget deficits of several billion next year.


It's probably less costly than the alternative.
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.