Hey, there! Log in / Register
Governor extends eviction and foreclosure moratorium to Oct. 17
By adamg on Tue, 07/21/2020 - 12:09pm
Gov. Baker announced today that he's extended the state's ban on evicting tenants and foreclosing on homeowners through Oct. 17, based on an April law letting him due that because of Covid-19.
Baker emphasized that tenants and homeowners should continue making payments if they can - in part because small landlords do not have similar protections.
The Act’s limitations on evictions and foreclosures have allowed many tenants and homeowners impacted by COVID-19 to remain in their homes during the state of emergency. I am confident that this action, coupled with federal assistance, helped to slow the spread of COVID-19 while minimizing the impact to date on vulnerable families and on our housing market. The extension I am declaring today will provide residents of the Commonwealth with continued housing security as businesses cautiously re-open, more people return to work, and we collectively move toward a "new normal."
The moratorium had originally been set to expire Aug. 18.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
That is nice for the
That is nice for the individual, but will the MA gov support property owners by cutting property taxes, or providing grants for emergency building maintenance? When cash flows disappear for long periods of time property owners can not pay maintenance staff, construction materials, taxes, utilities, mortgages, etc.
People here like to bash the evil landlords for exploiting people but without rent there is no way that property owners can maintain or keep their buildings.
What will happen is that many owners will be forced to sell to large property holding companies that do not have ties to the community or care about the people. This is already happening in the housing market, multinationals are out bidding individuals for homes and renting at very high rates.
Not saying that a hold on evictions is necessarily a bad thing. Just that it is not sustainable.
That's funny
When I buy something, I make sure that I can afford it. Some examples:
Situation 1: I'd like a Lamborghini.
Q: Can I afford a Lamborghini
A: No
Outcome: I don't buy a Lamborghini
Result: The bank doesn't have to repossess a Lamborghini
Situation 2: I'd like an iPhone 11 Pro Max
Q: Can I afford an iPhone 11 Pro Max and service
A: No
Outcome: I stick with an old droid while avoiding being broke and having my service cutoff
Result: I have a phone that works, even though it's not fashionable
Situation 3: I'd like to buy a penthouse in Downtown Boston
Q: Can I afford to buy a penthouse in Downtown Boston
A: No
Outcome: I don't buy a penthouse in Downtown Boston
Result: I don't get kicked out of my home that I can't afford
Situation 4: I'd like to invest $1000 in Acme stock
Q: Can I afford to lose $1000 if said stock loses value
A: No
Outcome: I don't make an investment I can afford to lose money on.
Result: I save $1000 for an emergency rather than risk losing it
Sounds like some landlords might have planned ahead better.
Zero Fs given.
Have you ever owned property?
Have you ever owned property?
Buildings require constant maintenance and work is often budgeted years in advance based on what is required and what money is available. It is true that property owners should have a rainy day fund to fix emergencies but that does not include routine work.
For example, I know that I dont need a roof now, but based on its age I will need one next year and start saving now for next fiscal year budget.
If there is no inflow of cash there will be no money to put aside for the routine maintenance or to replenish the rainy day fund used to pay for emergencies.
I understand you dont care about landlords but what about the people in the apartments? No new roof, they get water damage, and with no money to fix the problem the building gets condemned and the renters are on the street.
If ownership is such a horrific burden then sell it.
If you have a problem with the consequences of ownership (i.e., having to front the costs of upkeep during an emergency), then don't own.
If you can't afford to fix the shit properties you own, give them to someone who will.
If you can't do the job of an owner then quit. Let someone else own.
Its not about a burden, its
Its not about a burden, its about fiscal responsibility. When a property is purchased, even 100% with cash, the owner most likely does not have the money on hand to fix all issues for the term of ownership.
Say I own a house, I have money now to pay the mortgage, taxes, and utilities. I know that due to the age of the house I will need a new roof, siding, and heater within the next three years. Chances are that I do not have the money now for all three projects so I do one at a time. First year, roof, next, heater, and third siding. With this financial plan I can budget and save enough for these repairs and be able to live.
The same goes for apartment building owners or any business owner. Deferring routine maintenance causes much larger and costlier damage tot the buildings in the long run.
Wow, so only people who can
Wow, so only people who can buy property with cash and have hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank outside of normal savings can own even a small investment property?
Why would anyone own property?
I own part of a downtown building
See 'Situation 3'. Similar situation. If I encounter a time when I can't afford maintenance, then it might be time to let the building go on the market.
2/3 of Boston is renters. I side with the 2/3 even as an owner.
Better Planning You Say?
Your analogies do not apply here. Owning property is a business and investment just like corner store, restaurant, gym or any other.
By your assessment it seems a restaurant should have planned more for a pandemic which would cause all of their cashflow to cease. Can they afford this? No. Part of being able to afford a business is the cashflow the comes in. Is the city letting the guests eat for free? No.
The small local gym relies on members being able to access the facility and pay membership. I guess the gym should have planned for a six month shut down with no income. Can they afford this? No. Is the city allowing members in to use the gym without paying? No.
The city allowing residents to skip rent and not give the owner of the property any means to defend that is not only wrong it's unconstitutional.
So according to your logic, Boston_res,
if you lost your job because of Covid-19, which was no fault of your own, you should not receive unemployment benefits, food stamps or any other type of assistance, and be summarily evicted when you don't pay rent, because you should have planned ahead for a pandemic.
owner occupied a different animal
Investment properties held by well capitalized LLCs, sure, they should have prepped for such emergencies, but an owner occupied 2-3-family should be eligible for some sort of support. Their "cash reserves" likely only cover a month or two of no rent (they may have lost their jobs as well), so they have to dip into equity (if they have any) and are not much better off than their tenants. For those who say they should then sell, sure, plenty of well funded LLCs looking for more properties to snap up when times are tight and people panic or are forced to sell (think Potter in It's a Wonderful Life), put in granite and stainless, bump up the rent or condo and flip them, is that what we want to see happen?
This doesn't help make landlords look any better
Unemployment is paid for with a federal unemployment tax. Employers are responsible for paying this tax, not employees. A landlord is working for their own wealth growth based on their own investment. They're their own employer, are responsible for their own future losses, and must plan for their own loss of income.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/federal-unemploy...
It's pretty simple really: If
It's pretty simple really: If you make it so that only super-well-capitalized (read: SUPER RICH) people can afford to be landlords, then you will end up with a housing market where only super rich people can be landlords.
Is that what we want? It's not what I want.
Apparently it's not simple enough
This position seems to entirely fail to realize one very important aspect of small landlords: They don't own their properties if they have a mortgage. The bank owns the properties. Those SUPER RICH already own the financed properties by being banks.
There are just so many ways
There are just so many ways that this is misguided that I don't even know where to start, but I'll try...
1. Unlike when you buy a home for yourself, to get a loan for an investment property you have to kick in a significant amount of your own money (at least 20% of the value but usually more like 25-30% unless you want to pay insanely high interest rates). This means that even relatively new landlords are likely already holding at least 20% of the value of the home.
2. But I'm not sure why this even matters, since a landlord cannot simply stop making mortgage payments (or other property expenses, such as insurance, utilities, HOA fees, property management fees, etc) without facing significant personal consequences (such as a big negative mark on their credit and liens on their property, among other things).
That's funny
Situation 1: I'd like to live in Boston
Q: Can I afford a $150,000 down payment because there are no landlords and the only option is to buy?
A: ???
The law is designed only to
The law is designed only to help landlords with connected lawyers and capital. Not Joe Shmoe owner of a 3 decker .