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.

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.

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

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.

Same people are littering outside the city too. Now to all of that trash on the city streets add weed smell and crack heads. Is the trash the only problem here?

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.

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.

"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

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

Youre not a landlord?

Yes and that is a two way street

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

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.

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

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

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.

No I didn't say that.

Eviction prevention… prevents eviction. Prevents homelessness.

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

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

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

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.

Or owned by the people who reside in it.

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.

👅🥾

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