Apr 09

HT Tristan Pettit

This WaPo article is a good read, should read piece. The bottom line is if the rent is paid evictions for nonpayment stop, eliminating the need for moratoriums.

There was a need for stopgap measures at the beginning. Today everyone would be best served by effectively using the money that is currently available to pay for the housing of people who truly are in need.

The idea is to get the money to renters before courts nationwide begin processing evictions again.

“We are running the Emergency Rental Assistance Program every day like we’re going to lose the moratorium tomorrow,” said a Treasury Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the program before any formal announcements.

Washington Post The $50 billion race to save America’s renters from eviction

Mar 07

The article linked below is so wrongly anti-housing provider. If the rent is paid, the need for free legal representation disappears in most cases. Discriminatory housing policies are not those of the property owners. We want our houses full as that is the only way we make money. Instead, for the most part, discriminatory housing policies were created years ago through government programs. But now, we are being made the scapegoat by the very governmental bodies that created this mess. 

Redlining of mortgages and insurance, leading to housing segregation or worse? These were federal government-mandated rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

But articles like the one below try to paint property owners and managers as the causation. The truth is housing and renters must succeed for the other to succeed as well. We are two sides of the same coin. There are those who profit from encouraging conflict between owners and renters. This harms both residents and housing providers alike.

Contrary to the conclusion of the article, rental assistance is the solution. If the U.S. enacted a FoodShare for Housing program, where people below a certain threshold would receive portable housing vouchers, this would change many urban American problems. Multiple studies show the costs of such a program to the taxpayer are less than what we now pay for intervention when renters fail. 

Addressing extreme housing precarity requires more than rental assistance; it requires an overhaul of the system and redress of the longstanding discriminatory housing policies that led to this moment.

https://theappeal.org/the-lab/explainers/the-american-eviction-crisis-explained/
Mar 01

The Apartment Association, in conjunction with Community Advocates, Legal Action, Legal Aid, and many others, have been working to create a one-stop resource to help both renters and housing providers weather not only the current economic problems but to encourage sustainable, affordable rental housing.

Let’s get right to today’s big announcement: The Rental Housing Resource Center website is now live at: www.renthelpmke.org

This is THE place for you and your renters to find available financial and other help. Under the latest program up to 12 months, arrearages are covered as well as rent going forward. It is a big deal. The Resource Center is the culmination of many efforts by lots of folks hard at it for years.

I encourage you to take a look around the site and share the link with your colleagues. If you have any feedback about the site’s functionality or features you would like to see, just let me know.

Secondly, and previously announced, the Association in conjunction with the Rental Housing Resource Center partners, is having a meeting at 1 and 6 PM this Wednesday, March 3rd, where you will learn how you and your residents can apply for the Wisconsin Emergency Rental Assistance. To register, go to AASEW.org

Side note: I was a participant on the web design committee. I want to give a shoutout to Carl Cummings and his team at carldesigns.com. He did an excellent job, taking in many different design and flow viewpoints in a positive manner. Having been involved in other web design projects, this was one of the best processes I’ve seen. They also did the new site for Mediate Milwaukee.

Feb 22

[Thank you to Joe Murray for the research]

First, let me preface this that in general, I feel that Governor Evers has done well in the distribution of housing aid during the pandemic.

However, his proposed budget has a number of concerning provisions.  And how the heck does Wisconsin allows laws unrelated to spending to be part of a budget is well beyond me.

  • If passed, municipalities will be able to restrict how you screen, what you can charge, prohibit showing occupied units, making certain you lose a month or more between tenants, limit charging for damages, limit or prohibit security deposits and allow for rent abatement for minor issues.  
  • If passed municipalities will also be able to enact their own eviction moratoriums.
  • If passed, you will be inhibited from evicting for criminal activity. That should make other renters and neighbors feel safe — Not!  
  • If passed you can be required to disclose code violations “regardless of whether the landlord has actual knowledge of the violation

Actual details are below.  
—————————— 
Local landlord-tenant ordinances

Current law prohibits political subdivisions from enacting certain ordinances relating to landlords and tenants. Political subdivisions may not do any of the following:

1. Prohibit or limit landlords from obtaining or using certain information relating to a tenant or prospective tenant, including monthly household income, occupation, rental history, credit information, court records, and social security numbers.

2. Limit how far back in time a landlord may look at a prospective tenant’s credit information, conviction record, or previous housing.

3. Prohibit or limit a landlord from entering into a rental agreement with a prospective tenant while the premises are occupied by a current tenant.

4. Prohibit or limit a landlord from showing a premises to a prospective tenant during a current tenant’s tenancy.

5. Place requirements on a landlord with respect to security deposits or earnest money or inspections that are in addition to what is required under administrative rules.

6. Limit a tenant’s responsibility for any damage to or neglect of the premises.

7. Require a landlord to provide any information to tenants or to the local government any information that is not required to be provided under federal or state law.

8. Require a residential property to be inspected except under certain circumstances.

9. Impose an occupancy or transfer of tenancy fee on a rental unit.

10. Current law also prohibits political subdivisions from regulating rent abatement in a way that permits abatement for conditions other than those that materially affect the health or safety of the tenant or that substantially affect the use and occupancy of the premises. 

The budget bill eliminates all of these prohibitions.

Local moratorium on evictions

Current law prohibits political subdivisions from imposing a moratorium on landlords from pursuing evictions actions against a tenant. 

The budget bill eliminates that prohibition.

Notification of building code violations

Under current law, before entering into a lease with or accepting any earnest money or a security deposit from a prospective tenant, a landlord must disclose to the prospective tenant any building code or housing code violations of which the landlord has actual knowledge if the violation presents a significant threat to the prospective tenant’s health or safety. The bill eliminates the condition that the landlord have actual knowledge of such a violation and that the threat to the prospective tenant’s health or safety be “significant”; under the bill, the landlord must disclose to a prospective tenant a building code or housing code violation, regardless of whether the landlord has actual knowledge of the violation, if the violation presents a threat to the prospective tenant’s health or safety.

The budget bill eliminates these provisions.

Terminating a tenancy on the basis of criminal activity

Current law allows a landlord, upon providing notice to a tenant, to terminate the tenant’s tenancy, without an opportunity to cure the tenant’s default, if the tenant, a member of the tenant’s household, or a guest of the tenant 1) engages in any criminal activity that threatens the health or safety of other tenants, persons residing in the immediate vicinity of the premises, or the landlord; 2) engages in any criminal activity that threatens the right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or persons residing in the immediate vicinity of the premises; or 3) engages in any drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises. 

The budget bill eliminates these provisions.

Feb 08

You are permitted to forbid smoking in your units and in fact HUD has forbidden smoking in public housing since February 2017, mandatory since July 2018. HUD specifically forbids marijuana, as even though some states purport to have legalized its use, it is still federally illegal.

The Public Health Law Center has a great Q&A on this that states

Q: Can tenants smoke marijuana in multi-unit apartment buildings if they live in states where the use of medical or recreational marijuana is legal?

A: There is no absolute right to smoke medical or recreational marijuana in any state, especially when smoking impacts others. Secondhand smoke, whether from combustible or aerosolized tobacco or marijuana products, spreads throughout multi-unit dwellings. A recent U.S. study reports that even in multi-unit buildings where smoke-free policies were enforced, 50 percent of residents experienced smoke entering into their units from adjacent units. Multi-unit residential property owners have the legal authority to make their properties smoke- free, which includes prohibiting the smoking or vaping of medically prescribed marijuana in individual units and common areas, even in jurisdictions in which the use of medical marijuana is permitted by state law.

https://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/Marijuana-in-Multi-Unit-Residential-Setting-2019-1.pdf

Feb 05

At my company, we have tenants on bi-weekly, weekly, and alternative pay dates because I have long known the cost to us when a renter fails.

The alternative pay date can be a legal gotcha under Fair Housing. Let’s say a renter receives Social Security Disability, and their check arrives on the 3rd of the month and you have a pay before the 1st policy that has a late fee or unrealized discount after the 1st. If the renter asks you to change their due date to the 4th so that they can receive their payment and get it to you and you refuse this “reasonable accommodation” or may be in violation of Fair Housing.

Jan 24

Separate from any eviction moratorium that was applicable to lessors under the CARES Act, evictions of persons from properties securing FHA-insured Single Family mortgages, excluding actions to evict occupants of legally vacant or abandoned properties, are also suspended through March 31, 2021.

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/OCHCO/documents/2021-03hsgml.pdf

Note this covers all tenants in HUD insured single family properties

Jan 18

President elect Joe Biden proposes a $15 minimum wage claiming it will lift 1 million people out of poverty.

Clearly, it is not possible to pay current rents working full time at the current minimum wage. That needs to be addressed. I said similarly in New York Times interviews in 1991 and 2010:

“On $673 a month, how do you buy tennis shoes for the kids, clean shirts for school and still pay your rent?” Mr. Ballering said.
($673 was the W2, WI’s welfare program, cash payment in 2010)

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19evict.html

I do not think increased minimum wage is the answer though. Such programs will cause rapid inflation, leaving those making minimum wages in a similar position in a few years as they are today. A better answer is something like FoodShare for Housing, which addresses the needs without rampant inflation.

The person with some skills who is making $15 dollars an hour today is not going to accept the person with no skills making the same amount, they will demand more. Now that the former $15 an hour person is making $25, the one-time $15 an hour person will expect $40—this causing the costs of goods and services to rapidly increase.

The other factor is it will result in far less lower-paid jobs, as companies will move work overseas and automate all that can be done by a machine. But you can’t replace the hamburger flipper … oh wait, they just did. Miso Robotics Flippy robot for $30,0000 replaces 3-4 employees, produces better quality and works 100,000 hours between major servicing. 24/7 staff for 30¢ an hour, no overtime, no worker comp, no paid holidays, no calling in sick because there was a Packer Game last night…

At many fast food places, when you talk into the drive-through speaker, you are speaking to someone that is in an off-site call center. When was the last time you were at Home Depot or or the large grocery chain store that the checkout person was not you? 😉

The winners of the increased minimum wage programs will be people who own hard assets when the increase becomes law. THe more you own at the beginning of an inflationary cycle, the more you win at the end.

The biggest winners will be those with a fixed rate mortgage. Let’s say you own a $100,000 duplex with a $75k loan. Today you have $25k and 25% equity. Ten years at 7% inflation, and it is worth just shy of $200k. Now you have $125k and 62% equity, plus your principal paydown. If inflation hits 12%, you reach those numbers in 6 years.

Crazy- This will never happen. But it did. From 1973 to 1981, we saw an average of 9.25% inflation, with three years over 12%. Mortgage interest rates in 1981 were north of 18%. Interest rates were over 8% for the entire period of 1973 to 1992.

If they pass a new minimum wage, the smart answer might be to buy as much highly leveraged real estate as you can manage, unless, of course, the inflation it causes and the trillions spent on COVID relief crash the entire economy…

Jan 17

The overview of Jesse Tree is at https://www.jessetreeidaho.org/. The details of their Badge program are at https://www.jessetreeidaho.org/sign-up-for-workshops. They promote eviction prevention through rental assistance, mediation services, and working with property owners. A quote from their homepage:

It costs $1,000 on average for Jesse Tree to keep a family housed, compared to $5-10,000 for a family to find new housing after being evicted.

Evictions also result in significant costs to the property owner. TransUnion found in a 2014 study that “the true cost of an eviction can range from $3,500 up to $10,000” TransUnion infographic on eviction costs.

Between the cost incurred by the renter and the cost incurred by the property owner, as well as hidden costs incurred by the community such as the impact on MPS, evictions have a significant economic impact on the community

The Jesse Tree Badge workshops remind me of the 1990s UW-Extension “Good Neighbor/Good Tenant Program” for Milwaukee County residents.   HACM, Milwaukee County, and the City of West Allis provided the funding. It was a $52,500 County budget item in 1995. 

The UW program provided training to renters with evictions or no rental history. Renters that completed the program were given a partial move money grant. More importantly, the program had a rent guarantee for the first year of the tenancy that would pay a month of rent if the renter failed to pay. With what was in essence, two months security, owners were more likely to take a chance on a renter that would not otherwise meet screening criteria. Owners that participated had to offer certificate holders a special deal. I think most owners gave a 25/month discount if the rent was paid by the 5th.

My company was a participating owner in the Good Neighbor/Good Tenant Program. I considered the program successful.

Jan 07

There was a discussion on the free  Apartment Association listserv about application fees and move-in fees. One member told of how large management companies charge many hundreds of dollars in application and move-in fees.

In WI an owner can charge for a credit check fee up to $25 actual costs and, if the applicant is from out of state, additional actual background costs, up to $25. In WI all other application and move-in fees appear to be illegal.

WI Administrative Code ATCP 134 RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PRACTICES.

134.02 (3) “Earnest money deposit” means the total of any payments or deposits, however denominated or described, given by a prospective tenant to a landlord in return for the option of entering into a rental agreement in the future, or for having a rental agreement considered by a landlord. “Earnest money deposit” does not include a fee which a landlord charges for a credit check in compliance with s. ATCP 134.05 (3).

coupled with

134.05 (2)(b) A landlord who receives an earnest money deposit from a rental applicant shall do one of the following if the landlord enters into a rental agreement with that applicant:

1. Apply the earnest money deposit as rent or as a security deposit.

2. Return the earnest money deposit to the tenant.

makes it clear that all application and move-in fees, except credit reports and out of state background checks, are illegal in WI.

Owners that try to circumvent this with fancy wording will eventually find themselves in trouble as “any payments or deposits, however denominated or described” is extremely clear.

preload preload preload