[jliptzin]

Not everyone wants to be a homeowner. A lot of people enjoy the flexibility of being able to just pay the monthly rent and not worry about anything else, and being free to move on a whim when they need to. You expect the owner of the property to do the upkeep work for free in that scenario?

[tjr225]

I think renting is great. I’ve done it many a time. I’ve also been screwed over once or twice. That’s not really the issue.

The people who are landlords agree to the risk of owning a property and renting it out to someone. Why should I feel bad when the risk comes to fruition? Why should anyone?

Should you be able to just profit endlessly on housing risk free for no dang reason other than you had money before someone else? I don’t know. I don’t really care. I have a feeling these landlords will be just fine.

[lettergram]

> Why should I feel bad when the risk comes to fruition? Why should anyone?

The landlord didn't assume the risk that they couldn't remove the resident AND the resident wouldn't have to pay.

This was effectively the state seizing property, forcing the landlord to maintain the property and providing it to someone else.

You also probably don't know who most landlords are, but in way of example, say I rent out a room. Should I be subjected to someone living in my house, then lose my house because they aren't paying and I cannot afford to not rent out that room?

This is a common scenario.

[KozmoNau7]

>The landlord didn't assume the risk that they couldn't remove the resident AND the resident wouldn't have to pay.

Then they assumed wrong. National emergencies happen, in this instance a pandemic (that is still very much ongoing) meant that potentially millions of people stood to lose their livelihoods and their place to live. Millions of people with no jobs and no homes, a catastrophe, to put it mildly. Ordinary rules do not apply the same way in extraordinary situations.

How many landlords lost their homes due to this? How many could sell one of their properties and weather the storm with the profits?

>This was effectively the state seizing property, forcing the landlord to maintain the property and providing it to someone else.

No property was seized. The government did its most important job, namely supporting citizens who are unable to support themselves, those who do not have enough capital to weather a storm.

Someone who rents out a room is not going to lose their home from such a moratorium. It is a deliberately misleading argument to frame it like that, and it is not a common situation.

[Ekaros]

Some risks should belong to those people if they can't save enough to survive a year or two without pay they don't deserve to rent. They should be out on streets or find place where they can afford to buffer a year or two for rent. It's not up to landlords to take that burden, but instead it should have been on renters.

You don't plan, you get out. Maybe then government can find you some tiny box or tent to live in until you can plan and pay.

[KozmoNau7]

You should sit down and calculate the absolutely disastrous consequences for the economy if you put millions of (jobless) people on the streets, during a massive epidemic.

The rise in property values alone over the last 10+ years should have been more than plenty to cover any landlord's expenses due to the moratorium. They did not plan for the bad times, too bad for them. They had the means to mitigate by preparing, renters living paycheck to paycheck have no such possibility, so the government did its job for once and helped out the under-privileged.

So the landlords can just sell some of their properties, downsize and scale back until better times. They gambled on stability and lost.

[Ekaros]

Why don't renters have to take reasonable responsibility during pandemic? That is have enough funds on hand to cover their living cost in any situation? Being jobless is no excuse as they could have lived cheaper and saved more previously. Maybe by being homeless for a few years or decades.

[tjr225]

> The landlord didn't assume the risk that they couldn't remove the resident AND the resident wouldn't have to pay.

That’s not how risk works.

> You also probably don't know who most landlords are, but in way of example, say I rent out a room. Should I be subjected to someone living in my house, then lose my house because they aren't paying and I cannot afford to not rent out that room?

My parents are landlords, god bless their souls. But they know what they got into. I chose to distance myself from their business because I find it morally revolting.

Also; don’t gamble your house away if you can’t afford to lose! That is how this works!

PS: my parents are making fucking bank as landlords right now! Don’t feel bad for any of them! They literally just made an offer on a third lake house.

[jliptzin]

It is how risk works. You assume any and all risks when you buy the home, including the ones you don’t know about.

[spaceflunky]

> The people who are landlords agree to the risk of owning a property and renting it out to someone. Why should I feel bad when the risk comes to fruition? Why should anyone?

Ok then. People who didn't take on the risk to buy a home in 2009 when homes were cheap should not complain that homes are too expensive now, therefore we should not have tax payer funded affordable housing. Those same people didn't take on the risk to go to school and get a better job. Why should I feel bad when someone wants the fruits of risk, but doesn't want to take on any of the risk?

[tjr225]

Exactly; don’t.