Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,670
Likes: 673
O
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,670
Likes: 673
America Should Become a Nation of Renters

The very features that made houses an affordable and stable investment are coming to an end.

Rising real-estate prices are stoking fears that homeownership, long considered a core component of the American dream, is slipping out of reach for low- and moderate-income Americans. That may be so — but a nation of renters is not something to fear. In fact, it’s the opposite.

The numbers paint a stark picture. After peaking at 69% in 2004, the homeownership rate fell every year until 2016, when it was 64.3% — its lowest level since the Census Bureau started keeping track in 1984. The rate rebounded in Donald Trump’s presidency, hitting 66% in 2020, but that trend is likely to be arrested by a housing market that is desperately short on supply and seeing month-over-month price increases greater than they were in the frenzied market of 2006.

This process is painful, but it’s not all bad. Slowly but surely, most Americans’ single biggest asset — their home — is becoming more liquid. Call it the liquefaction of the U.S. housing market.

Even in the best markets, single-family homes have historically been an extremely illiquid asset. Appraisals have to be made on an individual basis, and mispriced homes can sit on the market for months waiting for a potential buyer — only for that buyer’s financing to fall through.

Liquid assets, like publicly traded stocks and corporate bonds, earn what’s known as a liquidity premium: Their market price is many times the dividend or coupon that investors get from holding them. The more liquid an asset, the higher that premium goes. On the flip side, those same high-flying stocks and bonds can see their prices collapse when investors get spooked and withdraw their cash from the market.

Houses have typically traded with very little liquidity premium. That meant a relatively low purchase price compared to what it would cost to rent — the equivalent of the dividend from housing investment — and stable prices over time.

These two factors made houses a good investment for moderate-income families who often lacked the cash and the risk tolerance for market investments. As investments went, single-family homes were cheap and slowly grew in value in both good times and bad.

In the early 21st century, automated appraisals and mortgage underwriting began to change that. Combined with the repackaging of subprime loans into presumably safer CDOs, they created a far more liquid market for housing. In response, housing prices soared — and became more sensitive to the vagaries of the markets. When investors pulled out of CDOs, buyer financing dried up and the whole housing market crashed.

It may have seemed at the time like a failed experiment. But financialization had changed the housing market forever. Houses are now more prone to be priced high relative to rents, and to see their prices fluctuate with the market. The very features that made home buying an affordable and stable investment are coming to an end.

But the illiquidity that made houses a safe investment also made America less dynamic and mobile. In coastal markets with strong demand for housing, market forces would normally have led to the replacement of single-family homes with duplexes and apartments. But existing homeowners are reluctant to agree to development with unknowable effects on the value of their most precious investments. The result is less development — and sky-high rents for any residents not lucky enough to own their own home.

As institutional investors increasingly enter the housing market, however, the incentives begin to shift. Large investors can expand or redevelop their properties themselves, because they benefit from a greater number of overall tenants, even if rents themselves dip.

Meanwhile, the increased availability of rental properties could benefit homeowners in declining areas of the country. They frequently cannot move to more prosperous areas because they can’t sell their homes for nearly enough to buy a new place somewhere else. In an economy with more rentals, however, they could afford to try a new place for a few years without the commitment of a mortgage or down payment.

A nation of renters could lead to a world where location decisions are driven far more by personal preferences and life-cycle demands. Younger workers might prefer the excitement of the city. A couple just starting a family could reunite with their parents or siblings in a small town.

The U.S. is not quite there yet, and not just because too many people are chasing too few apartments. To see the U.S. as a nation of renters requires a revision of the American dream of homeownership. This country was always more about new frontiers than comfortable settlements, anyway.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-17/america-should-become-a-nation-of-renters

Interesting take, but I don't see this happening. I think the heavy investments in real estate from big money interests are creating another huge housing bubble. These people learned nothing from 2008 and I hope they take a financial bath when they cause working class Americans to lose their homes.

All these bidding wars over normal middle class homes and driving prices through the roof is just child's play for big money. They don't give a damn if they are making housing unaffordable because they are making money in rents. Next they will raise rents across the country again. They will never be happy, even when half the working class can't pay for a place to live... what's wrong with America is greed.

Last edited by OldColdDawg; 06/19/21 01:01 AM.

Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Likes: 83
T
Legend
Offline
Legend
T
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Likes: 83
Why should America take advice from OldCold.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949
Likes: 763
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949
Likes: 763
It's a terrible long-term take on a short-term bubble.

2020 and beyond, isn't so much an influence of "big money", but a side effect of a ton of factors all hitting. Skyrocketing lumber costs have made it relatively cheaper to buy than build, and a lack of decent inventory on the market coupled with insane buyer demand, has created much of the pressure. The buyer demand is largely a factor of two things: one, people working from home in droves are no longer geographically bound. A person can earn a NYC salary and have a Cleveland cost of living. Two, a lot of people have been selling to try to cash in on the skyrocketing prices, which leads to more people in the Buyer's market because if you sell, now you need a place. People are putting their homes up for sale, but not in sufficient numbers to cover the demand and in a world where the cost to build has gone up like 40% due to material shortages and labor shortages, it is STILL cheaper to buy existing many times.

The bubble is going to pop soon. And in a HUGE way. There is a TON of real estate inventory that was kept off the market in 2020 due to all of the homes that got mortgage protection due to COVID. Once that mortgage protection ends (which should be soon) and the dam breaks on those foreclosures, the market will be flooded and current market values will bottom out.... and then, it will be a Buyer's market, again.


Browns is the Browns

... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,477
Likes: 162
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,477
Likes: 162
100% agree... if someone can't buy a property now because of the bubble I do agree that a good solution is continue to rent and save..... but there are lots of ways to buy a property and it still make great financial sense.... doing a live in flip or a house hack would be great ways to get a property that can earn you money and provide much better returns than the stock market can....

I do agree that housing prices are unreal right now... I'm hoping it cools off soon... we've considered selling our primary residence because of how much the price has inflated, but frankly where the heck would we move to? we like our street and overall like our house... would like some more land, but haven't found anything that makes sense.

We did purchase a couple rentals at the end of 2020 though that have done very well so far...


<><

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125
Likes: 134
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125
Likes: 134
Originally Posted By: THROW LONG
Why should America take advice from OldCold.


It wasn't Oldcold's take,, It was an article he posted....Yikes


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125
Likes: 134
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125
Likes: 134
With the middle class being squeezed out of the American Dream, it's just what it is.

But there is always people like my wife and I. Always owned homes or condos,, but nowadays, I just want to relax, let someone else take care of things.... so for now, renting works.


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
I think the mind set of younger people have changed quite a bit as a whole. Not for everyone, but for a lot of them. They leave college heavily in debt. They are having fewer children and generally later in life because they are starting out in so much debt it's financially wise for them to wait.

As such they are looking for more employment opportunities wherever they may find them. It makes sense for them to be mobile at a moments notice. People are also looking big picture at how much there really is to be gained by owning a home.

You have homeowners insurance, property taxes, which are both constantly being increased and the constant cost of the upkeep and maintenance involved in home ownership.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,576
Likes: 815
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,576
Likes: 815
I wouldn't say that renting should be the goal for the bulk of your life, but it makes sense at times.

Early on, most have to do so. Later on it makes a lot of sense, especially if you have the retirement income to do so.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,489
Likes: 723
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,489
Likes: 723
i think globalization, especially accelerated by social media and technology, should really give Americans a reason to due some self-reflecting on what the "american dream" is. it needs a very needed update.

we can come up with minor reasonings for why owning a home nowadays is difficult, but the core reason is that more and more people simply don't want to.

things like yard space and such isn't as appealing. don't let the pandemic fool us into thinking more and more people want to live out in open space. there's more and more people who are having less kids, making more career and life oriented decisions, and more concerned about other aspects of life. owning a home isn't part of a lot of people's american dream, because we have to realize that everyone's dream isn't the same.

hell, i'll use myself as an example. i bought this townhouse in 2017. i'm married and have two kids, and have a dog. its 1800 sq ft with two car garage. it cost 149k.

4 years we've been here, and my wife and i have realize that we don't need any more space. for what? we're constantly out and about, the kids are out with their friends, we go on walks with the dog but to the beach a lot as well, and we travel a ton. our individual lifestyle says we don't need anything bigger. so the major reason for not buying a bigger space is because of our family lifestyle.

NOW you add the minor thing, such as cost. since our preferred lifestyle says we don't need a bigger space, why in god's name would we spend 350K plus on a home that we won't get maximum value out of? hell that's the cheap end now and you can't even see those prices here in NE ohio. a house that you won't have to renovate are going minimum 450K, and there's so much demand that you gotta go 700K plus just to not get outbidded, HOPEFULLY.

my family will never maximize a house like that. i don't want to spend half the week maintaining a freaking house. cutting the yard and all that crap? why would i spend half my income to purposely stress myself out like that? thats freaking stupid.

then on top of that, who am i gonna pass that house down to? my kids don't want to live in ohio like that. one wants to go to school in Cali and the other hopes we move back to europe. so i should pay 350K + on a crib nobody is even gonna want after i'm done? screw that.

so in OUR situation, we can do so much more with that money than wasting it on a crib we barely use. vacations, investing on the stock market, dumbass purchases on gadgets, cars, etc.

i'm not gonna go house broke just to say i own a home. thats dumb.

now, for other people, they need that big house. maybe they have/want a big family, and live the typical suburbia lifestyle and such. i have no problem with that, and i hope every person fulfills their dreams with the house with the big ass pool in the back. thats dope. and maybe thats when cost becomes the priority because the housing market has priced them out of their preferred lifestyle. that sucks.

but we gotta remember that not everybody's american dream is the same. so when i see people on the media try to chalk everything up to rising cost, its a bit misleading. there's a lot of people who can afford a house/condo/whatever. there's a lot of them out there too.

but the houses like that look like a perfect suburb on a HOA in a TV series? those stereotypical houses are what are in demand, despite the fact that most people demanding those houses don't live the lifestyle necessary to maximize the value of that home.

some people want a certain image only to realize the hard way that the image will never make them happy.

but keep getting them 30 year mortgages to keep up with the jones's.


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

- Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,990
Likes: 9
R
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
R
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,990
Likes: 9
I'm glad I paid off my home over a decade ago because I paid for it in cash up front. I bought a fixer upper for 14,000 in the Fannie Mae program that gives private citizens a chance to buy a home before banks and companies can with the condition that you live in it for at least a year before you sell it. Since then, I put about 25 thousand into it to fix it up and this 4 bedroom, 2 bath home is now worth a LOT more than I put into it.

There are still plenty of properties out there to buy but people are just too lazy to fix them up. It's a shame because I have saved well over $100,000 dollars in just the last 10 years alone by owning my own home.


You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,551
Likes: 499
E
Legend
Offline
Legend
E
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,551
Likes: 499
I agree with Swish. I live in a small starter home that I bought new 20 years ago. I can afford a larger home, but why? What am I going to do with all that space? Plus it would cost more in maintenance and utilities.

I know more more more is the American way, but sometimes just be happy with what you have. And stack money for retirement instead.


No Craps Given
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,413
Likes: 446
A
Legend
Online
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,413
Likes: 446
Every one has to find their own 'fit'. Too many want more more more.

Or, "show show show".

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,576
Likes: 815
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,576
Likes: 815
No doubt. Retirement is a lot more fun when you have the money to do it right.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,268
Likes: 168
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,268
Likes: 168
As long as there is up to 10K interest to write off every year, a house is a good investment.


There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,477
Likes: 162
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,477
Likes: 162
agreed... I've really struggled with what to do about my primary residence... have been in the same home for 6 years... I love our area... very close to my MIL... I would love a place with a pool...and would love more space... but I really don't want to move... so for now, even though I can easily buy a bigger place with a pool, I'll stay here for now... no (real) reason to move....

I think more people need to buy homes that are well within their means... instead of trying to buy the most they can be approved for...


<><

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,477
Likes: 162
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,477
Likes: 162
Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
No doubt. Retirement is a lot more fun when you have the money to do it right.


Amen!


<><

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
No doubt. Retirement is a lot more fun when you have the money to do it right.


So true. Paid our house off last year, and have never felt so free.

We plan to stay in this house until we just can't, or don't want to, maintain it anymore, and then we will probably rent a small condo or something.

I have an aunt that bought a house at 66, she is 71 now, and she can't retire because she has a mortgage.


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241
Likes: 594
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241
Likes: 594
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
I think the mind set of younger people have changed quite a bit as a whole. Not for everyone, but for a lot of them. They leave college heavily in debt. They are having fewer children and generally later in life because they are starting out in so much debt it's financially wise for them to wait.

As such they are looking for more employment opportunities wherever they may find them. It makes sense for them to be mobile at a moments notice. People are also looking big picture at how much there really is to be gained by owning a home.

You have homeowners insurance, property taxes, which are both constantly being increased and the constant cost of the upkeep and maintenance involved in home ownership.



This part makes perfect sense, and I doubt that anyone would disagree. The article, however, was trying to say this but from a financial standpoint. I doubt it'll ever make more financial sense to pay rent vs a mortgage.


There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.

-PrplPplEater
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
I think a lot of that revolves around where you buy a home. If you invest in a location on the rise or established where your property values increase dramatically, it's a pretty sound investment. If over the long haul the location you buy a home gets worse I think you actually spend more in upkeep, property taxes, homeowners insurance and maintenance than you'll ever get back. There's a lot of decision making that goes into whether the home you buy is the correct decision or not.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241
Likes: 594
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241
Likes: 594
Location is definitely a YUGE variable in this equation.

My assumption has always been that you'd have to have really big numbers in the column you listed to overcome the fact that paying a mortgage is, in a way, paying yourself. You're paying for small bits of ownership in your home that you can turn around and cash in on later. Rent is just you paying someone (probably so they can pay their mortgage). Rent is nice in that it doesn't come with hidden costs like replacing the fridge/HVAC/etc when those decide to quit, but many times rent is calculated with that stuff in mind (mortgage, utilities (if paid), and even property taxes).

Don't get me wrong... I've done more than my fair share of the "homeowner eye roll" over my relatively short time owning my home.


There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.

-PrplPplEater
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
Home ownership is a long term investment. Unless you are lucky enough to get in at a low point in an up and coming area, you will often not profit much if you sell within the first 10 years.

Even more so if you just made the minimum payment the whole time.


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
The one variable that I think comes into play here has a lot to do with how long the person you rent from has owned the property. If their mortgage was taken out 20 ago, their mortgage payments are much lower and can create a situation where rent is much cheaper than home ownership at todays market prices.

I know in the city of Nashville home prices have skyrocketed over just the past ten years. It's like this area is a magnet for jobs. It's become a huge tourist location as well. I wouldn't pay a fraction of what they're asking for some of the dumps around Nashville. It's just crazy.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125
Likes: 134
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125
Likes: 134
Just clicking

So, out of the blue yesterday, the wife and I decided to visit a home a Rama in Aurora...We expected it to be more than one builder and more than one model to review. that's how Home a Rama's have been in the past.

Nope... One house, one builder..That's it.

It was in Barrington Estates here in Aurora.. The model was very nice. Lots of goodies.. Great finishes.. 3400 Sq Ft. $950,000 list price. $279 per Sq ft,

We do this every so often.. More or less because we are a little nosey but mostly it's because we like to see what new features they are putting in homes these days.

It was a very high end finishing job.. Sub Zero Fridge, Built in Coffee maker. The range and oven were top shelf..

But small for the money IMO. If that's what close to a million gets you today, I'll be happy right where I am....


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,576
Likes: 815
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,576
Likes: 815
Indeed, Nashville has gone nuts. The Music City has always had the tourist thing going on since it is the country music mecca, but now it is a business and foodie destination as well.

My wife and I would go for weekends 3-4 times a year but now you can't find a nice room downtown for under $250-$300 and up a night. When prices started to rise we could head to West End and still get a Courtyard for around $175 a night on weekends....no more.

Two nights now with a couple of nice dinners is going to set you back $1000 or so. Even staying out in Franklin is pretty pricy.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
We live relatively close to Franklin and since we moved here the home values have been escalating like crazy. We're less than 30 minutes from Nashville and I have to say that investing here was a wise choice.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,670
Likes: 673
O
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,670
Likes: 673
A very good article warning of what 'might' happen with this housing price bubble.



Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,670
Likes: 673
O
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,670
Likes: 673
Supreme Court blocks Biden's eviction moratorium

A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked an eviction freeze put in place by the Biden administration to shield cash-strapped tenants from the coronavirus pandemic.

In a ruling that appeared to break along familiar ideological lines, the conservative-majority court lifted the stay on a federal judge’s order which found the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) eviction moratorium unlawful.

“The equities do not justify depriving the applicants of the District Court’s judgment in their favor,” the justices wrote in an unsigned order. “The moratorium has put the applicants, along with millions of landlords across the country, at risk of irreparable harm by depriving them of rent payments with no guarantee of eventual recovery.”

The court’s three liberal justices wrote in dissent, noting that stripping the federal protections may result in crowded living conditions where “the doubly contagious Delta variant threatens to spread quickly.”

The move comes after the Biden administration enacted an eviction freeze earlier this month aimed at areas with high infection rates as the U.S. contends with the highly contagious delta variant of the coronavirus.

The court’s Thursday ruling handed a win to a landlord group that has been fighting since last fall to block the federal eviction suspension, which has cost property owners some $19 billion each month.

Led by the Alabama Association of Realtors, the challengers had previously notched a key victory when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled in May that the CDC measure amounted to an illegal government overreach.

But the judge, Dabney Friedrich, agreed to delay enforcement of her decision, citing the risk to public health if evictions were allowed to proceed. The justices’ move Thursday, though, lets Friedrich’s ruling take effect as the Biden administration weighs its next move.

The Justice Department, which has defended the eviction freeze on behalf of the administration, did not immediately respond when asked if it would continue to pursue an appeal of the underlying decision by Friedrich, a Trump appointee.

The White House expressed disappointment over Thursday’s ruling and called on all entities with a hand in evictions — from state and local governments, to courts, landlords and executive agencies — to mitigate the fallout.

“The Biden Administration is disappointed that the Supreme Court has blocked the most recent CDC eviction moratorium while confirmed cases of the Delta variant are significant across the country,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement. “As a result of this ruling, families will face the painful impact of evictions, and communities across the country will face greater risk of exposure to COVID-19.”

Some 15 million people are currently behind on rent in the U.S., according to one recent estimate, though it was not immediately clear how many tenants could be placed at greater risk of eviction as a result of the court’s move. A patchwork of state and local eviction freezes were unaffected by Thursday's ruling.

The latest legal wrangling over the eviction freeze marks the second time the Supreme Court has addressed the measure in recent months.

In June, a 5-4 court rejected the landlords’ bid to block the policy, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority. At that time, Kavanaugh said Congress would need to pass new legislation for the CDC to lawfully push the previous moratorium past its July 31 expiration date.

But Congress did not renew the policy. Instead, the Biden administration in early August acted unilaterally to renew the lapsed eviction freeze through early October, prompting this latest round of court fights.

In Thursday’s ruling, the court again singled out Congress’ inaction.

“Congress was on notice that a further extension would almost surely require new legislation,” the court wrote, “yet it failed to act in the several weeks leading up to the moratorium’s expiration.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the court’s more liberal members, wrote an 8-page dissent that was joined by fellow liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The trio blasted the majority for substituting its judgment for that of public health officials.

“The public interest strongly favors respecting the CDC’s judgment at this moment, when over 90% of counties are experiencing high transmission rates,” Breyer wrote.

The CDC policy, originally enacted in September and subsequently extended several times, has aimed to protect tenants who state under penalty of perjury that they are unable to pay rent and would face overcrowded conditions if evicted.

The measure aimed in part to provide an additional layer of protection while emergency federal rental aid made its way to tenants. But the Treasury Department on Wednesday said only some $5 billion of the roughly $46 billion allocated for emergency rental aid had been distributed by state governments.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/569662-supreme-court-blocks-bidens-eviction-moratorium

It's going to be interesting to see how this effects the economy. Most of these people got behind due to no fault of their own, yet many will be put out on the streets before the Holidays. It takes roughly 90 days to evict somebody from a home... some places less time other more... We could be looking at millions of new homeless by Thanksgiving or Christmas.

Don't think the court should have done this personally. Can't help but to wonder how many of these poor landlords will be homeless by the holidays over this by comparison...

Last edited by OldColdDawg; 08/26/21 11:48 PM.

Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,576
Likes: 815
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,576
Likes: 815
It's a bad situation, but a question. Is it right for landlords to not be able to collect rent?

There is really only one correct answer to that, so I know you would say no.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,489
Likes: 723
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,489
Likes: 723
So the feds allocated 46 billion to help renter, yet only 5 billion has been distributed by the states?

My only question now is WTH has the states been doing or not doing with this money?


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

- Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
It's a bad situation, but a question. Is it right for landlords to not be able to collect rent?

There is really only one correct answer to that, so I know you would say no.


Sadly it's yet another failure on the part of our government. There's no doubt that landlords should not be harmed or in default on their loans. They shouldn't be denied payments and rent cause them to be foreclosed on. They shouldn't have their credit destroyed. Covid is no more their fault than it is the fault of those renters.

Yet almost 90% of the money in assistance that was to be provided to stop this situation from happening has not been dispersed. The money was allocated to states and cities and it's just sitting there. This at least far the most part all could have been avoided......

89% of federal rental assistance remains unspent as potential evictions crisis looms

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...oms/5584441001/


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
Initially, I could see delays. To avoid extensive abuse of the system, I'm sure they require lease documents and rental agreements be uploaded or such to prove the need, which would need to be reviewed by hand.

But we are going on 18 months now, it should be farther along than this. Heck, pay people stuck at home to review documents.


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
The thing that sticks out in my mind the most about how harmful this is to both renters and landlords alike is a myth I see perpetuated a lot on this board and elsewhere. The myth is that states and local governments are better at handling their own situations than the federal government. That any federal money should be handed over to the states to be distributed because the state best knows their needs.

I certainly won't dispute that they know their own situation better than those at the federal level but this does go to show they are no less inept at handling funds. They are no better at addressing an issue with the money allocated to fix such problems.

To me it is a sad reflection that our government isn't only broken on the federal level but at every other level as well.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
The thing that sticks out in my mind the most about how harmful this is to both renters and landlords alike is a myth I see perpetuated a lot on this board and elsewhere.


Can you explain that in more detail. IMO it is harmful to both renters and landlords.


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 11,333
Likes: 1836
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 11,333
Likes: 1836
j/c...

Was wandering through wine country (Ohio, Geneva lol) a few weeks back and ran into a nice couple we shared some time with. He's been a property manager and landlord for decades... I asked the simple question "Is the gov't making you whole on your rent losses?"

"Hell no. I've got nothing. The system is so full of red tape and people with no answers... but the dumbest part is that the tenants have to file on the landlord's behalf, stating that they can't pay their rent, before the any case is opened."

He said that a couple of his renters have done that (to the best of his knowledge) and nothing has become of it. He went on to say that a couple tenants are catching up slowly, a couple are way behind but finally paying consistently and a few he just knows will be total losses. He's had to dump a couple properties to maintain cashflow and hopes that something is done (eventually) to reimburse him for all the losses.

His wife was steering away from the convo, as he was getting pretty fired up, and he just left things at "let's just say the entire process they put in place is corrupt".

So, the first box in the flowchart makes no sense at all... Wouldn't you have the person incurring losses filing the claim rather than the person who was basically told "don't worry about it if you can't pay"?


HERE WE GO BROWNIES! HERE WE GO!!
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
We had a tenant that in April last year flat out told us "The government says I don't have to pay", even though at this point they had already been 2 months behind for almost 6 months.

Lucky for us, their lease was up in May, so we refused to renew and they voluntarily left when it was up.


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
Originally Posted By: FloridaFan
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
The thing that sticks out in my mind the most about how harmful this is to both renters and landlords alike is a myth I see perpetuated a lot on this board and elsewhere.


Can you explain that in more detail. IMO it is harmful to both renters and landlords.


Boy was that a screw up on my part! That's most certainly not what I meant at all. Thanks for the catch.

My intention was to say that it IS harmful to both renters and landlords alike and the myth is how local and state governments handle things better than the federal government when this shows government failure at all levels.

My apologies for the mix up.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241
Likes: 594
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241
Likes: 594
I did have to read that a couple times... but yeah, it pains me to say (I'm one of the "states >> Federal" people) that you're right about the consistent levels of incompetence and corruption.


There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.

-PrplPplEater
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,565
Likes: 123
D
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
D
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,565
Likes: 123
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Supreme Court blocks Biden's eviction moratorium

A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked an eviction freeze put in place by the Biden administration to shield cash-strapped tenants from the coronavirus pandemic.

In a ruling that appeared to break along familiar ideological lines, the conservative-majority court lifted the stay on a federal judge’s order which found the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) eviction moratorium unlawful.

“The equities do not justify depriving the applicants of the District Court’s judgment in their favor,” the justices wrote in an unsigned order. “The moratorium has put the applicants, along with millions of landlords across the country, at risk of irreparable harm by depriving them of rent payments with no guarantee of eventual recovery.”

The court’s three liberal justices wrote in dissent, noting that stripping the federal protections may result in crowded living conditions where “the doubly contagious Delta variant threatens to spread quickly.”

The move comes after the Biden administration enacted an eviction freeze earlier this month aimed at areas with high infection rates as the U.S. contends with the highly contagious delta variant of the coronavirus.

The court’s Thursday ruling handed a win to a landlord group that has been fighting since last fall to block the federal eviction suspension, which has cost property owners some $19 billion each month.

Led by the Alabama Association of Realtors, the challengers had previously notched a key victory when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled in May that the CDC measure amounted to an illegal government overreach.

But the judge, Dabney Friedrich, agreed to delay enforcement of her decision, citing the risk to public health if evictions were allowed to proceed. The justices’ move Thursday, though, lets Friedrich’s ruling take effect as the Biden administration weighs its next move.

The Justice Department, which has defended the eviction freeze on behalf of the administration, did not immediately respond when asked if it would continue to pursue an appeal of the underlying decision by Friedrich, a Trump appointee.

The White House expressed disappointment over Thursday’s ruling and called on all entities with a hand in evictions — from state and local governments, to courts, landlords and executive agencies — to mitigate the fallout.

“The Biden Administration is disappointed that the Supreme Court has blocked the most recent CDC eviction moratorium while confirmed cases of the Delta variant are significant across the country,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement. “As a result of this ruling, families will face the painful impact of evictions, and communities across the country will face greater risk of exposure to COVID-19.”

Some 15 million people are currently behind on rent in the U.S., according to one recent estimate, though it was not immediately clear how many tenants could be placed at greater risk of eviction as a result of the court’s move. A patchwork of state and local eviction freezes were unaffected by Thursday's ruling.

The latest legal wrangling over the eviction freeze marks the second time the Supreme Court has addressed the measure in recent months.

In June, a 5-4 court rejected the landlords’ bid to block the policy, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority. At that time, Kavanaugh said Congress would need to pass new legislation for the CDC to lawfully push the previous moratorium past its July 31 expiration date.

But Congress did not renew the policy. Instead, the Biden administration in early August acted unilaterally to renew the lapsed eviction freeze through early October, prompting this latest round of court fights.

In Thursday’s ruling, the court again singled out Congress’ inaction.

“Congress was on notice that a further extension would almost surely require new legislation,” the court wrote, “yet it failed to act in the several weeks leading up to the moratorium’s expiration.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the court’s more liberal members, wrote an 8-page dissent that was joined by fellow liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The trio blasted the majority for substituting its judgment for that of public health officials.

“The public interest strongly favors respecting the CDC’s judgment at this moment, when over 90% of counties are experiencing high transmission rates,” Breyer wrote.

The CDC policy, originally enacted in September and subsequently extended several times, has aimed to protect tenants who state under penalty of perjury that they are unable to pay rent and would face overcrowded conditions if evicted.

The measure aimed in part to provide an additional layer of protection while emergency federal rental aid made its way to tenants. But the Treasury Department on Wednesday said only some $5 billion of the roughly $46 billion allocated for emergency rental aid had been distributed by state governments.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/569662-supreme-court-blocks-bidens-eviction-moratorium

It's going to be interesting to see how this effects the economy. Most of these people got behind due to no fault of their own, yet many will be put out on the streets before the Holidays. It takes roughly 90 days to evict somebody from a home... some places less time other more... We could be looking at millions of new homeless by Thanksgiving or Christmas.

Don't think the court should have done this personally. Can't help but to wonder how many of these poor landlords will be homeless by the holidays over this by comparison...


Great job Supreme Court. Maybe some of these renters that have failed to pay their rent will go back to work.


Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,797
Likes: 1346
rofl


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241
Likes: 594
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241
Likes: 594
That's just as poor of a characterization of the situation as the "evil landlord" trope.


There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.

-PrplPplEater
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus America Should Become a Nation of Renters

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5