Years ago I had a section 8 tenant. Lets just say they were not the cleanest tenants I ever had. I also had the place inspected before they moved in, and then two months after they moved in the state made me replace all my windows- 30 of them- and siding saying there was lead paint. There was only a minuscule amount on the outside. Cost me $20,000 and at the time that was a fortune It was all ok at their own inspection before anyone moved in. The state stopped giving me their share of the rent But the last straw was they - the tenants- refused to pay the $25.00 a month they were responsible for. Yes-- $25.00. I evicted them for no payment. Never again!
@@stevengoldstein114 What do I got right there. If People don't want to be a landlord they don't have to be and all people is doing right now is complain about not enough housing or that is the way it is were I'm living because landlords are not wanting to be landlords no more because they are a fraud of another episode where they are going to be forced to house people for free.
@@johnniebeavers4003 The natural result will be private interests will divest, and public options will return. THat is the choice. But do not think the private market can prevent the public options to grow and shrink the market to such a point that it will wind up not a good investment. Face reality it never was unless it was being manipulate by intentional productivity shortages. Which history can prove occured. Again look at Costa Hawkins and Ellis Acts of 1995 in CA. Both privatized the market and barred rent controls, under the claim it would reduce shortages, it made it worse.
When Section 8 was first implemented the government paid for all repairs. Then they stopped due to all the money they had to lay out. Those who run Section 8 tell you to sue the tenant. The problem with Section 8 is you can sue them, but they don't have any money to pay for the repairs.
I think section 8 has to up its game. If you don't screen your tenants properly, and allow a criminal tenant, then the government is liable. If a tenant causes damage, then the government is liable. These have to be addressed first before you make it mandatory to take these tenants.
Since when has any bureaucracy upped its game? I used to work at a shelter and I had to go to a class to get a certification to represent our clients at the hospital. We would send them for a checkup when they first came but then they were working so they couldn't take a day off to go get their bill reduced. I collected their pay stubs and went in their place. At the training they made a big stink about if you make an appointment at the Medicaid office and don't keep it you won't keep your certification. But when I went, they said we can't see you today because only two people are in the office
If this and if that. The bottom line is this case is asking the court to green light disparate impact housing discrimination, which the court has in the past said it wouldn’t.
This is the reason I’ve never done section 8. It seems like a great program that helps millions, but if the property gets trashed, then there seems go be no recourse
@@paulteske4735 there is the if word again. If is not evidence, it is a subjective term. With regards to public policies, if does not cut it. What that demonstrates is a form of discrimination, because you assume that the tenant is going to damage your units, even if they actually pass your selection process . That proves that the process is inherently flawed. It is a false positive. And what your also doing is establishing that you cannot prevent false negatives. false negatives are you rejected a tenant, but they were a good one for another landlord. That is the source of desperate impact discrimination. Either you prove you are not having excessive false results, or it is assumed discrimination.
Only from "disabled" tenants? Isn't that discrimination against people who are able bodied but still qualify for the problem? Also, define "disabled".... these days everyone and their sister has an Emotional Support critter because they're functionally "disabled" in their home: the place they have the most control over, peace, and quiet. Does that could as "disabled?" . What a mess! They day I'm told I MUST participate in a Govt-sponsored program, I sell my rentals to owner occupants and tell the tenants in my market to pound sand. Commercial real estate only going forward.
@@georgewagner7787 , thanks for the thoughts. I'm already into commercial, and that part of my portfolio is about 2x the value of residential, but dollar of rent per dollar spent my residential produce more cash flow... and more headaches!
With the addition of 10 million new disabled due to Covid, there are new possible consequences. It may be that these programs will have to be mandatory.
@@georgewagner7787 I have problems with sleeping. I have nightmares all the time due to post traumatic stress. It’s one of the reasons I have depression and have a very serious problem functioning.
Section 8 is not attractive. 1. People who are low income are that way for a reason. Yes, some are disabled and legit. If they are too irresponsible to work, they won't be upkeeping an apartment. If they trash it, Section 8 does not pay for damages. Good luck getting it from someone with limited income. 2. They have picky annual inspection demands that are often bogus. 3.They pay late and you can't charge them late fees. Then they wonder why landlords don't want to accept Section 8
Again, assuming facts not in evidence. The courts cannot take that approach or argument. This statement is disparate impact discrimination by definition.
@@lw3269My lawyer prepared this answer, and I have 90% completed adding all the evidence. THere is going to be a jury trial.I think it is going to go very well for me.
If the housing authority covered repairs it wouldn't be a problem because of the recent property tax and water bill hits that have been happening. The costs are astronomical to own property right now.
The problem with the rent control and the housing provider regulations system is the fact that all the problems and issues that arise from providing housing to such a diverse population is, most regulations and solutions are derived from everyone except the housing providers! For example, as in this section 8 discussion, the regulation requires acceptance of the voucher, but no one asks why the housing provider does not want this type of individual and then provide solutions for the objections, such as, cover the damages as well as the rent, cover the costs for justified eviction procedures, etc. There's no discussion, no compromise, and nothing is worked out. You have to acknowledge and address the legitimate concerns that exist in this business. The current approach is like tyranny. That is the problem! You absolutely need input from the housing providers in these negotiations, and that can not be ignored!
@@andymalanga your premise doesn’t matter, your rent is paid in full. Thus there is no negotiation. Sorry, but you are operating a business with full knowledge that this was the rules. The only way out is to not operate a business open to the public. Otherwise this was always the rules.
This comment is amazing. Succinct and great in overall summary. Ignore steve. Sounds like a bitter tenant who doesn't know what the law is. He doesn't get youre trying to add to the law for protections and nuance to situations rather than one size fits all laws.
He also doesn't account for private buisness laws, which absolutely do allow buisness owners to choose who they offer their services to or not. Obviously, within a certain scope (no racial profiling and such). But credit scores, past history of the prospective tenant damaging past rental units, and previous judgments. None of that is discrimination. It's evidentiary fact by definition.
While I have nothing against blind people with seeing eye dogs, I disagree with your example that a reasonable accommodation is excepting a pet/service dog when your standard policy is no pets. I know that sounds harsh, but it comes down to does the landlord own their property and have the right to do with it what they want, or does somebody else get to make those choices for them? What if the landlord has a severe pet allergy and caring for the property, or potentially using it as their primary residence at some point in the future is going to be completely ruined by allowing a service dog. Does that landlord now have the responsibility to offer their residence to someone else at their own expense? If this keeps going, before long, the governments gonna be telling people that they have to allow homeless people to stay in their spare bedrooms if they don’t have enough dependents to fill all the bedrooms in the house.
I agree. Other residents may have severe allergies - that rented a property on the premise that a no pet policy is in place. If the service or emotional service pet is accepted - the landlord is open on legal action. The landlord is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Here is great news, the Federal housing plan is going to give direct support to DEMAND and NOT SUPPLY. Making customers more powerful than ever. This will force more competition on the SUPPLY SIDE.
The cost of any needed modifications are paid by the tenant, and if and when the tenant moves out comma the tenant is responsible to restore the property to its former condition
Most trailer park rentals are not the same as apartment and house rental because most of the tenants own the trailers they live in and have a substantial. One of the problems with this is many trailer park operators are retiring and big money investors buying these up and substantially raising the lot renting prices or closing the parks an converting the property to a more profitable use. Because of this the mobile home owners are faced with the choice of moving the home to another location, which is difficult if not impossible to find and would require about 10k in moving fees. Most of these people are low income and cannot afford this. If they can’t pay the higher lot rent or the trailer park is being closed, they end losing the trailer and the investment they put into it. If the park is being closed most if not all of the trailers left are simply destroyed and removed.
I feel it should be 💯 voluntary and the section 8 program should pay for the alterations necessary to accommodate them. Also if the tent does not pay their portion they should be terminated If I violate my obligation they cease payments but the tenant has no repercussions for failure to pay
You really have to charge separately for heat and water so people conserve. In my town, the custom is for the landlord to pay sewer, not sure why. That varies too based on water usage but it's only once a year
Hello, Tony hope everything's doing good. I love your videos in California they just pass the law that they're going to do away, complete with inviction laws that you cannot evict anybody and if. It's not our law it's a government law they own our property take care
In this economic environment, having the government pay the bulk of the rent is a great way to have stable cash flow. Forces such as inflation, rising insurance, Ai and new labor laws (4 day work weeks), corporate landlords, immigration, etc for example will excel the race to the bottom.
So they are trying to tie section 8 to FHA saying if are disabled then you should be accommodated by both physical and economic means. With these type of government assistance programs too much paperwork and nitpicking on the landlord and little accountability on the tenant. Makes them undesirable even if a great, hardworking, clean tenant.
I don't think this article says how old the woman is? But I have to say it's time to put better guidance counselors in the high schools. There's no reason the Next Generation should end up like this. There are many many jobs that pay really well and if people got steered into the right training they wouldn't end up in this situation. My mom was a nurse who worked 25 years in the hospital and then got a pension for 25 years of $20,000 a yearIn addition to her social security. She was able to support herself and my dad and live in a very nice place until their old age
In her case, she took time off in the middle to raise us. Look for another person, 25 years from the age of 20 would only put them at 45. Then if they became disabled they would still be taken care of
Wait, you are saying if a person gets injured, or infected with any permanent injury, getting a guidance counselor in school will solve the problem? That was highly unrealistic. And you are saying you are an educator? This was obviously a bad idea.
As I understand it for a landlord to participate in Section 8, the landlord would have to waive his fourth amendment rights. It is totally understandable that there are some landlords who do NOT wish to waive their fourth amendment rights. All a landlord needs to do to not participate in section 8 is to refuse to waive his fourth amendment rights. I think it would be unconstitutional for the government to require any landlord to waive his fourth amendment rights.
If landlord does not rent to section 8 people, the community will build new facilities to compete with 60 year old buildings. I have never rented to section 8, but I would participate if I could.
It's a happy median. I don't like the idea of corporations taking over mobile home parks and raising the rents to astronomical rates. A lot rent shouldn't have equivalent to the cost of an actual rental. They're should be safeguards in place that restrict the amount they can increase lot rents.
I don't think it's unreasonable but only if the apartment is within the income range. I would risk one of my apartments maybe but not a house that costs so much more to maintain. But this story is about a mobile home, not too expensive probably
Oh yes, the Supreme Court rejected the case regarding New York, there is no private property rights in the constitution except emanate domain ad due process. deal with it.
looks like disability discrimination, and it just so happens you are advocating for it. I think it looks like the case will be overturned. This is another story that is well known. By the way, another opinion article? When are you going to deal with real news?
@@pissedoffshitzu601 that doesn’t matter, and you know it. If a disabled person qualifies for section 8, and a landlord refuses to take housing assistance based on that qualification, that is disability discrimination. It is disparate impact. Which is prohibited l
