Hacker News Reader

Comment by mehrdadn | Hacker News Reader

> many states are suspending unlawful detainer and eviction actions until the crisis is over and people can get back to work

So how does that work? Instead of right now, they'll get evicted and become homeless as soon as things open up, because they've been piling up rent with no income in the meantime? Would you find that comforting?

View on HN

If everything just starts up with rent due and evictions happening to a significant population you just have a second wave of recession and a collapse of the rental market. I’d assume most people, particularly landlords and local government would want to avoid that.

> I’d assume most people, particularly landlords and local government would want to avoid that.

This seems like a “prisoner’s dilemma” situation. It’s rational for an individual landlord to evict a delinquent tenant and seek a new one. However, if everyone does this the entire market collapses. It’s better for everyone if the landlord takes a short term haircut to preserve the market.

Since cooperation is expected to break down between individuals, the government must step in to prevent collapse.

... or maybe this "landlord" is a parent who just rents out their old small house, and is now unable to make the rent or car payments

At least they have an asset they can use to survive and make those payments.

How does that change things? I think small landlords are especially exposed to the dilemma because they have fewer resources at their disposal.

Then they do what everyone else does. Sell the asset and cut back on expenses.

Capital owners are not a special class of citizen. If you have assets and need cash, there is a way to convert one to the other. It's called a "market". You may have heard of it.

It seems that during recessions, asset-rich/cash-poor people, nominally Capitalists, turn into overnight socialists because making cuts to the ol' lifestyle is for the little people, not them.

Why do you assume that would be the outcome? That is the cruelest, most pessimistic prediction that one could make. Come on, have a little faith in common sense and decency.

I'm not saying that will be for everyone, just that it is likely to be for many people, and those people may not be able to know if they're in that category until it's too late either. Obviously some landlords will be understanding and defer/waive payments long enough that people can repay, but my common sense says that, as cruel as it might be, what I described will also happen to a lot of people. I imagine in those cases they'll get served with a pay-your-rent-or-we'll-file-for-eviction notice as soon as that's legally possible. And unless some legal barrier is placed, I expect many landlords will evict as soon as they're able so that they can get their own income and pay their own bills.

That legal barrier already exists - and the proscription is very broad. Why do you think we’ll just rip the bandage off instead of gradually phasing rent and mortgage payments back in?

Has there been a shortage of misgovernment recently that you think they'll take care of everyone, especially the poor?

There has been no suggestion that this debt will be cancelled. If a family can barely make ends meet in normal times, how will they pay back several months' rent arrears? And what will happen when they don't?

I am having trouble understanding the landlord's perspective here. Say my tenant just missed 3 months of rent because they could not work during quarantine. Now, the economy reopens and they get their job back (yes, this is an assumption). Now they are able to pay rent but, because their job is not high-paying, they are unable to pay back the 3 months of debt. I can either waive the debt or evict and find a new tenant. But I lose the debt in either case, so why would I prefer to evict and have to suffer the hassle of finding a new tenant?

> Why do you assume that would be the outcome? That is the cruelest, most pessimistic prediction that one could make. Come on, have a little faith in common sense and decency.

Honestly, because its unlikely that most people will be able to share the burden of theses costs and we need only look at 2008 to see how a financial crisis reduced people to forced evictions (of people who even owned their homes, no less) because of delinquency.

Personally, I want to believe we could do more as individuals, as relying on the Government for solutions isn't going to work.

I'd prefer to enact a local/community based approach for this pandemic but I have serious doubts as to how it will take place or who would actually honor them when its clear so many businesses (even large corporations) are insolvent in the US. not to mention the level of wide-spread ignorance as seen with these quarantine protests taking place.

I'm starting to really wonder, especially as this can easily lead to a global depression if hasn't already, if we will have to have a debt jubilee given the severity of COVID.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/21/debt-jubi...

Why make these temporary suspensions at all then?

Why make these temporary suspensions at all then? Surely the people who need the government to prohibit them from evicting people during a pandemic who are unable to pay rent because of that pandemic, don’t inspire the most faith.

Because we still call them Land Lords

Reply on news.ycombinator.com