[tuna-piano]

I understand evictions trigger lots of emotions and can be terrible situations for the tenant. But so many comments here seem to treat an apartment as something the tenant is entitled to, even without payment.

How is living at a property without paying for it any different than walking out of Walmart without paying for bread?

Staying at a place without paying rent is a form of direct theft. The non-paying-tenant is stealing use of the property without payment. It's somewhat normalized, but that doesn't make it ok or something anyone needs to tolerate.

[cwhiz]

I really don't understand what people expect to happen. The moratorium doesn't mean tenants are living rent-free, it just means landlords can't evict. All the missed rent payments are still due. What do people think is going to happen on January 1st, 2021, when the moratorium ends and people have many months of back rent? That rent is immediately due in order to avoid eviction.

It just seems comically short sighted. The most idiotic temporary punt of 2020.

[foxyv]

What's worse is that the moratorium doesn't prevent landlords from starting the eviction process ahead of time. They just can't kick people out until January.

[throwaway0a5e]

While I might not agree with a lot of the opinions in these comments the sheer ignorance of the eviction process is what bothers me more. Opinions are pretty easy to write off but anyone here also has a multitude of search engines at their fingertips so there's no excuse for ignorance.

It varies by state but evicting someone is not the "just show up and kick out the tenant with threat of violence" process that many comments seem to be operating under the assumption that it is. You might be able to get away with that once or twice but (in the US) even the most shady of slumlord make a profit on a timeline longer than that approach is tenable.

[tuna-piano]

Those people would be surprised to learn how common "cash for keys" agreements are...

When a landlord wants to evict a tenant who hasn't been paying rent, it's not uncommon for the landlord to actually pay the tenant cash to leave! This is so the landlord doesn't need to wait months with no rent income while spending significant time going to court, etc[1].

In much of the country it likely takes several months. Each step in the multi-step process generally has lots of loopholes, gotchas and potentially weeks of waiting.

[1]https://www.nav.com/blog/cash-for-keys-357679/

[scarface74]

If I had known what I know now, instead of going through the entire eviction process, I would have done that.

It’s a win/win for everyone.

The tenant won’t have an eviction on their record making it harder to rent somewhere else, they can move their own stuff out without the risk of it being damaged, they have cash in hand to stay somewhere else temporarily like a weekly stay hotel [1], and/or they could put their stuff in storage.

I should have been willing to pay up to two to three months mortgage for a cash for keys deal. They weren’t paying anyway, I could have saved the aggravation and they wouldn’t have trashed the place.

[1] all weekly hotels aren’t bad. I stayed in one with my wife and son for months after my lease was up and we were waiting for our house to be built.

[nitrogen]

It varies by state but evicting someone is not the "just show up and kick out the tenant with threat of violence" process that many comments seem to be operating under the assumption that it is.

It's a lot easier to just leave when the semester is almost over, you find out your roommate was maybe pocketing your rent, and the landlord shows up and says "I don't want to rent to singles any more. I've got a family moving in on Monday." That one had ripple effects in my life for years even with the highly undesirable safety net of moving in with family on short notice.

I also know how much damage a bad tenant can do to a property -- graffiti, smoke damage, pet stains -- on top of not paying rent.

I can see why people get pretty heated about tenants' rights, but I've also seen how badly both sides of the transaction can behave. Sometimes eviction is the best course of action for both parties.

[scarface74]

I don’t believe that is the point the parent poster is making. It’s the entire Dunning Kruger Effect of most people who are posting who have no idea how a legal eviction process works.

[throw_m239339]

> How is living at a property without paying for it any different than walking out of Walmart without paying for bread?

The difference is that failing to pay the rent isn't a crime.

Furthermore, according to the article

> The CDC has ordered a moratorium on evictions amid COVID-19 — making it illegal for landlords to force out tenants who can't afford rent during the pandemic

Which makes a certain number of evictions illegal at first place.

[abstractbarista]

Maliciously failing to pay should be a crime, in my lowly opinion. It's one thing if you lose your job, but some folks out there are living and working like usual, while simply withholding rent because they can. Obviously this hurts impressions of those who seriously need and deserve the help. Shameful, but some have no shame...

[Schweigi]

The article is incorrect about the CDC eviction moratorium as it makes it sound to be some automatic thing. The tenants needs to file a letter (template is at bottom of CDC order) to the landlord or court and only after that they “might” be covered by the moratorium. It’s still up to the court to make the final decision.

[scarface74]

I am replying repeatedly that many of the comments are factually incorrect and how evictions actually work - that police are there at least in my state to monitor the process - and people seem to disagree with the facts (witnessed by all of my gray replies) and no one has cited anything to the contrary.

I guess I am arguing against some type of narrative that I don’t know about.

[sascha_sl]

It's because the system is broken to begin with.

Landlords usually provide little value compared to what they ask for and for a lot of them, it's essentially passive income, an investment if you want, but one that is basic survival for others. The US should not be having a homelessness crisis. We have more empty places than homeless.

The same way I personally believe Nestle or anyone else should not be trying to commodify drinking water beyond the "utility" grade.

If you want an expanded look at this line of reasoning, I can recommend Thought Slime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2EWQ4v9wbA

[tuna-piano]

Thought experiment for you:

Evictions become much more difficult, maybe even illegal.

What happens to people who want to rent apartments?

[sascha_sl]

Goes right past my comment. I don't want apartments owned by people for any other than their personal use to begin with because the profit motive incentivizes bad behavior and is inflexible in handling situations like Covid.

[tuna-piano]

So you believe that buying a house should be legal, selling a house should be legal, but renting a house should be illegal? Or you believe all land+buildings should be government owned?

And you believe the government should have a monopoly on buying/renting houses?

And how would government renting houses be different than landlords? If the government wanted to give rent flexibility they can do it other ways besides owning the houses.

[sascha_sl]

I don't have all the answers, but the current system cannot continue and needs to find a way to treat housing more as a public or heavily regulated utility with no profit motive.

I'm also fine with incremental change. We can start by moving ownership of unused decrepit housing to a public body that transfers based on real occupancy. Essentially expanding adverse possession.