News

Evictions put on hold: How city and county rules help out-of-work tenants behind on rent

A crush of renters are seeking financial help, overwhelming local aid programs

Santa Clara County and several local cities passed emergency laws temporarily banning evictions last week, all of which are about to be put to the test.

With April 1 approaching and thousands of families already reporting being unable to pay the rent due to the new coronavirus, tenants and landlords alike are scrambling to navigate the new laws. How long is it in effect? How much time do renters have to report that they can't pay? And when is the money finally due?

The rules are in many cases different from one city to the next. For Mountain View, those questions were answered only as recently as Friday, just days before April rent payments are due.

The upshot is that families who have lost income because of the coronavirus -- either the illness itself or income lost due to the shelter order by public health officials -- can stay in their homes and not be subject to an eviction for failing to pay rent for several months. The county's eviction moratorium lasts through May 31, and gives renters a 120-day grace period after that to come up with the back rent.

The protections, which extend to commercial renters, mean tenants have a reprieve on March, April and May rents until late September, giving them time to return to work and earn money to pay off the delayed costs. Nothing in recent eviction protections imposed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the county or the city waives unpaid rent, meaning it must be paid back after the health crisis is over.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

In Mountain View, tenants will have seven days to inform landlords that they can't pay rent, and an additional seven days after that to provide documents proving that the coronavirus and its myriad impacts on the local economy has resulted in a "substantial" loss of income. Even if a landlord were to attempt to evict a tenant, it wouldn't go far: County courts announced Friday that they would not process any legal paperwork or hold court proceedings that would result in a residential or commercial eviction.

The county ordinance is purposefully vague about what constitutes a substantial loss, but indicates that proving any of the following should be enough:

• Job loss

• Layoff

• Reduction in work hours

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

• A store or business closure

• Missing work to care for homebound school-age kids

• Caring for a family member infected with COVID-19

An impending disaster

Last week, the nonprofit Destination: Home announced an $11 million fund to keep families housed and financially stable after losing income due to the coronavirus. It took two weeks to collect, drawing on the support of public agencies and private companies.

Within just a couple of hours of launching the relief program, there was a crush of 1,400 applications. Sacred Heart Community Services, the nonprofit spearheading the effort, had its website crash almost immediately and its voicemail system completely overloaded with requests. In three days, that pool of applications grew to 4,000, more than exhausting the fund.

Destination: Home CEO Jennifer Loving told the Voice that the eviction moratorium is important and staves off an immediate surge of evictions and people on the street. But she worries that a staggering number of lower-income families -- already barely scraping by -- are suddenly unable to pay for rent, health care and other essential costs. Absent enough financial assistance, she believes the county is on course for "financial calamity."

She acknowledged that the initial $11 million wasn't nearly enough, but that the nonprofit didn't want to wait for more philanthropic donations to start disbursing the funding. People need the help right now, she said, pointing out that a family that came to Sacred Heart on Friday seeking assistance had just $3 in their bank account.

Looking back on her 25-year career assisting those in poverty, Loving said the coronavirus poses an unprecedented challenge. The people who need help number in at least the tens of thousands, many of them workers in the gig economy, retail and food services who simply don't have the option to work from home.

"The scale and the enormity of the need is deeply concerning to me," she said. "I think that we have a looming financial catastrophe, and we are on the edge of just starting to understand what that is going to mean for the vulnerable families who live here."

Destination: Home is already working on ways to raise money and inject more funding into the now-depleted assistance program, including corporate donors and private, individual donations on its website. Meanwhile, local jurisdictions including Mountain View are launching their own relief programs for city residents.

The good news is that the eviction moratorium gives nonprofits and public agencies more time to assist families in need, but there is still a sense of urgency. A family making only $25,000 a year isn't going to be able to recover when unpaid rent piles up as high as $6,000 or $8,000, she said.

"Let's not let people get three months in arrears, because that is going to be insurmountable for many people," she said.

For Mountain View, a push and pull between landlords and tenants

Mountain View's local eviction moratorium, which the City Council passed unanimously on Friday, doesn't differ much from the county's own ordinance, with many council members citing a need to stay consistent or risk confusing landlords and tenants trying to navigate the emergency rules on rent.

But throughout the meeting, there was an ever-present tension between what rules are fair to the landlords and the tenants. City staff originally sought to give renters 30 days after rent is due to inform landlords that they can't pay rent due to financial hardship, but later reneged and suggested three days would suffice. City Attorney Krishan Chopra said the decision was made to match other cities and "provide more equitable consideration to landlords." Council members ultimately landed on a compromise with a seven-day grace period.

City staff also initially recommended a 180-day grace period between the end of the moratorium and the due date for unpaid rent, which was later scaled back to 120 days to be consistent with the county.

Councilwoman Lisa Matichak said she wanted to include language in the moratorium that requires tenants and landlords to come up with a repayment plan, avoiding a situation where tenants would hold off on paying back rent until the final deadline in September. If no agreement is made, she said there should be a "default" requirement for tenants to pay back rent in four equal installments spaced out during that 120-day period.

"I feel like during this time when everyone is struggling -- we might have different struggles but everyone is struggling -- that good communication and setting expectations and having a good understanding of where we all are is helpful to both parties," Matichak said.

Requiring commercial or residential tenants to pay rent early may not be permitted. The county's ordinance supersedes local city ordinances unless they are "more protective of residential and commercial tenants," and mandatory early payments appear to be in violation.

Chopra did not comment directly on the legality of Matichak's proposal, conceding that the county ordinance is vague on the topic. Attorney Karen Tiedemann, said the idea would create confusion, and could lead to challenges from tenants.

"If you changed it to require four equal payments, we conceivably could have tenants claiming they're entitled to the benefit of the county ordinance and landlords claiming they're entitled to the city ordinance, and you've created kind of a muddle for both parties."

Councilman Chris Clark said he couldn't support the idea, and that every person affected by the virus is going to have a different situation. Some renters may not be able to start working until one or two months into the moratorium being lifted, and may need the flexibility to pay back the money.

"I do appreciate the sentiment of trying to avoid situations where someone pays the entire back rent on day 119, but I care much more about not being the only city in the county that requires equal payments," he said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Evictions put on hold: How city and county rules help out-of-work tenants behind on rent

A crush of renters are seeking financial help, overwhelming local aid programs

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 1:51 pm

Santa Clara County and several local cities passed emergency laws temporarily banning evictions last week, all of which are about to be put to the test.

With April 1 approaching and thousands of families already reporting being unable to pay the rent due to the new coronavirus, tenants and landlords alike are scrambling to navigate the new laws. How long is it in effect? How much time do renters have to report that they can't pay? And when is the money finally due?

The rules are in many cases different from one city to the next. For Mountain View, those questions were answered only as recently as Friday, just days before April rent payments are due.

The upshot is that families who have lost income because of the coronavirus -- either the illness itself or income lost due to the shelter order by public health officials -- can stay in their homes and not be subject to an eviction for failing to pay rent for several months. The county's eviction moratorium lasts through May 31, and gives renters a 120-day grace period after that to come up with the back rent.

The protections, which extend to commercial renters, mean tenants have a reprieve on March, April and May rents until late September, giving them time to return to work and earn money to pay off the delayed costs. Nothing in recent eviction protections imposed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the county or the city waives unpaid rent, meaning it must be paid back after the health crisis is over.

In Mountain View, tenants will have seven days to inform landlords that they can't pay rent, and an additional seven days after that to provide documents proving that the coronavirus and its myriad impacts on the local economy has resulted in a "substantial" loss of income. Even if a landlord were to attempt to evict a tenant, it wouldn't go far: County courts announced Friday that they would not process any legal paperwork or hold court proceedings that would result in a residential or commercial eviction.

The county ordinance is purposefully vague about what constitutes a substantial loss, but indicates that proving any of the following should be enough:

• Job loss

• Layoff

• Reduction in work hours

• A store or business closure

• Missing work to care for homebound school-age kids

• Caring for a family member infected with COVID-19

An impending disaster

Last week, the nonprofit Destination: Home announced an $11 million fund to keep families housed and financially stable after losing income due to the coronavirus. It took two weeks to collect, drawing on the support of public agencies and private companies.

Within just a couple of hours of launching the relief program, there was a crush of 1,400 applications. Sacred Heart Community Services, the nonprofit spearheading the effort, had its website crash almost immediately and its voicemail system completely overloaded with requests. In three days, that pool of applications grew to 4,000, more than exhausting the fund.

Destination: Home CEO Jennifer Loving told the Voice that the eviction moratorium is important and staves off an immediate surge of evictions and people on the street. But she worries that a staggering number of lower-income families -- already barely scraping by -- are suddenly unable to pay for rent, health care and other essential costs. Absent enough financial assistance, she believes the county is on course for "financial calamity."

She acknowledged that the initial $11 million wasn't nearly enough, but that the nonprofit didn't want to wait for more philanthropic donations to start disbursing the funding. People need the help right now, she said, pointing out that a family that came to Sacred Heart on Friday seeking assistance had just $3 in their bank account.

Looking back on her 25-year career assisting those in poverty, Loving said the coronavirus poses an unprecedented challenge. The people who need help number in at least the tens of thousands, many of them workers in the gig economy, retail and food services who simply don't have the option to work from home.

"The scale and the enormity of the need is deeply concerning to me," she said. "I think that we have a looming financial catastrophe, and we are on the edge of just starting to understand what that is going to mean for the vulnerable families who live here."

Destination: Home is already working on ways to raise money and inject more funding into the now-depleted assistance program, including corporate donors and private, individual donations on its website. Meanwhile, local jurisdictions including Mountain View are launching their own relief programs for city residents.

The good news is that the eviction moratorium gives nonprofits and public agencies more time to assist families in need, but there is still a sense of urgency. A family making only $25,000 a year isn't going to be able to recover when unpaid rent piles up as high as $6,000 or $8,000, she said.

"Let's not let people get three months in arrears, because that is going to be insurmountable for many people," she said.

For Mountain View, a push and pull between landlords and tenants

Mountain View's local eviction moratorium, which the City Council passed unanimously on Friday, doesn't differ much from the county's own ordinance, with many council members citing a need to stay consistent or risk confusing landlords and tenants trying to navigate the emergency rules on rent.

But throughout the meeting, there was an ever-present tension between what rules are fair to the landlords and the tenants. City staff originally sought to give renters 30 days after rent is due to inform landlords that they can't pay rent due to financial hardship, but later reneged and suggested three days would suffice. City Attorney Krishan Chopra said the decision was made to match other cities and "provide more equitable consideration to landlords." Council members ultimately landed on a compromise with a seven-day grace period.

City staff also initially recommended a 180-day grace period between the end of the moratorium and the due date for unpaid rent, which was later scaled back to 120 days to be consistent with the county.

Councilwoman Lisa Matichak said she wanted to include language in the moratorium that requires tenants and landlords to come up with a repayment plan, avoiding a situation where tenants would hold off on paying back rent until the final deadline in September. If no agreement is made, she said there should be a "default" requirement for tenants to pay back rent in four equal installments spaced out during that 120-day period.

"I feel like during this time when everyone is struggling -- we might have different struggles but everyone is struggling -- that good communication and setting expectations and having a good understanding of where we all are is helpful to both parties," Matichak said.

Requiring commercial or residential tenants to pay rent early may not be permitted. The county's ordinance supersedes local city ordinances unless they are "more protective of residential and commercial tenants," and mandatory early payments appear to be in violation.

Chopra did not comment directly on the legality of Matichak's proposal, conceding that the county ordinance is vague on the topic. Attorney Karen Tiedemann, said the idea would create confusion, and could lead to challenges from tenants.

"If you changed it to require four equal payments, we conceivably could have tenants claiming they're entitled to the benefit of the county ordinance and landlords claiming they're entitled to the city ordinance, and you've created kind of a muddle for both parties."

Councilman Chris Clark said he couldn't support the idea, and that every person affected by the virus is going to have a different situation. Some renters may not be able to start working until one or two months into the moratorium being lifted, and may need the flexibility to pay back the money.

"I do appreciate the sentiment of trying to avoid situations where someone pays the entire back rent on day 119, but I care much more about not being the only city in the county that requires equal payments," he said.

Comments

The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 1, 2020 at 5:41 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 1, 2020 at 5:41 pm
2 people like this

SIMPLY PUT, THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUNTAIN VIEW IS WEAPONIZING THIS PANDEMIC

Even when the city attorney stated:

“But throughout the meeting, there was an ever-present tension between what rules are fair to the landlords and the tenants. City staff originally sought to give renters 30 days after rent is due to inform landlords that they can't pay rent due to financial hardship, but later reneged and suggested three days would suffice.”

But this is where LISA MATICHAK takes advantage of the PANDEMIC by saying:

“Councilwoman Lisa Matichak said she wanted to include language in the moratorium that requires tenants and landlords to come up with a repayment plan, avoiding a situation where tenants would hold off on paying back rent until the final deadline in September.”

Under the County Moratorium, she had no option to add a condition to the County Order. Thus she is trying to act as an agent of the landlords, many of whom are not City Residents and the California Apartment Association. Since when did she ever think she could pull this stunt?

CHRIS CLARK at least was pointing out that this was nothing but an arbitrary act attempting to weaponize the PANDEMIC when he stated:

“Councilman Chris Clark said he couldn't support the idea, and that every person affected by the virus is going to have a different situation. Some renters may not be able to start working until one or two months into the moratorium being lifted, and may need the flexibility to pay back the money.”

Of course LISA MATICHAK is PRESUMING that the ordinance is set in stone. Finally the President is admitting that this situation is hardly going to resolve itself by the end in May. This County Moratorium is going to be extended because the optimists are saying the will start testing a vaccine in September. But he also stated:

“I do appreciate the sentiment of trying to avoid situations where someone pays the entire back rent on day 119, but I care much more about not being the only city in the county that requires equal payments," he said.”

HE IS CORRECT THAT IF THE CITY WANTS TO MAKE RULES DIFFEREANT TO ANY CITY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, THE CITY WILL VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES IN BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH UNDER THE CITY CHARTER.

The City Attorney also stated:

“City staff also initially recommended a 180-day grace period between the end of the moratorium and the due date for unpaid rent, which was later scaled back to 120 days to be consistent with the county.”

But that order is almost impossible to be set in stone, again, the best hope is that a vaccine will start testing a vaccine in September. LISA MATHICHAK also stated:

“I feel like during this time when everyone is struggling -- we might have different struggles but everyone is struggling -- that good communication and setting expectations and having a good understanding of where we all are is helpful to both parties," Matichak said.”

But if all landlords have federal insured mortgages or loans on their property, they do not have to make any payments at all. These are likely to be at least 50% of their operating costs. So her position is actually unfair to tenants because they are not getting any direct benefits yet under the PANDEMIC aid signed last week.

LISA MATICHAK is simply trying to use the PANDEMIC as a weapon, and she knows it.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 2, 2020 at 3:04 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 2, 2020 at 3:04 pm
2 people like this

Now if anyone is paying attention:

The Palo Alto Daily reports that property taxes are able to waived during the COVID-19 crisis.

So on top of the mortgages being forbearance, now taxes are being cut for these people.

That means as much as 75% of operational expenses are cut for landlords.

And they STILL expect full rent payments. LISA MATICHAK is working to create a rediculous cash windfall for people who the majority don't even live here.

WHEN WILL THE CITY COUNCIL STOP BEING A CASH RESOURCE TO THESE PEOPLE?




The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 2, 2020 at 11:04 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 2, 2020 at 11:04 pm
Like this comment

LISA MATICHAK is living in an alternative state of reality.

Imagine this, as much as 2 million new people lost their jobs in California in the last week,

And yet, she wants some kind of contract written by the people that lost their jobs by no fault of their own to repay rents.


WHAT KIND OR REALITY IS SHE LIVING IN?

THE REALITY THAT SHE IS A PAID REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. AND WE CITY CITIZENS SHOULD NEVER EVER ELECT ONE WITH THOSE KINDS OF FUNDING TO BE ELECTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGAIN.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 3, 2020 at 4:09 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 3, 2020 at 4:09 pm
Like this comment

LISA WHY ARE YOU NOT WILLING TO COMMUNICATE WITH US?

WHAT EXPLANATION DO YOU HAVE TO LEGITIMIZE YOUR ACTIONS?

WE WANT TO HEAR IT.


@BM
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 pm
@BM, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 pm
16 people like this

Nobody cares about your point of views.

Correction, maybe 3 other people in the city, all activist and or renters like yourself.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 3, 2020 at 8:50 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 3, 2020 at 8:50 pm
2 people like this

In response to @BM you said:

“Nobody cares about your point of views.”

First, it is irrelevant whether anyone cares about my point of view. Second, what statistical proof do you have to say that NOBODY cares? What scientific poll did you perform to justify your statement? Simply put you are defending a person’s conduct that is IRRATIONAL, UNREASONABLE, and INDEFENSIBLE. You said:

“Correction, maybe 3 other people in the city, all activist and or renters like yourself.”

Nice try. By trying to denigrate or malign a person with a valid question of the conduct of LISA MATICHAK’S conduct. Almost like Donald Trump saying that anyone that asks a valid question but does not want to answer it. He tries to malign anyone asking good direct questions by saying it is a “nasty” person or a “nasty” question. Or even more weird, claiming that the question is no good if it is being asked by a “unpopular” person or group or claiming the questioner is “fake”.

WHY NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS?

Because there is no good answer given the situation. LISA MATICHAK IS NOTHING BUT AN AGENT OF PRIVATE INTERESTS AND EVERONE KNOWS IT.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 4, 2020 at 1:12 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 4, 2020 at 1:12 pm
2 people like this

WHEN WILL THE CITY COUNCIL MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY HAVE NO END DATE OF THE CURRENT CRISIS?

WHEN WILL LISA MATICHAK EVER CONCEDE SHE HAS NO CLUE ABOUT THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS CRISIS?

WHY IS IT THAT NO ONE WANTS TO ADMIT THIS IS AN INDEFINITE PROBLEM UNTIL A TREATMENT OR VACCINE IS PROVIDED AND USED?

EVEN IF THE INFECTION RATE GOES DOWN, WE CANNOT STOP THE CURRENT PROCESS UNTIL THE TREATMENT OR VACCINE IS ADMINISTERED!

NO ONE WANTS TO ADMIT THEY ARE NOT IN THE LEAGUE REGARDING COVID 19!


The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 4, 2020 at 10:48 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 4, 2020 at 10:48 pm
2 people like this

WOW, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO ONE WILLING TO STAND UP FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AT THIS TIME?

WHY NOT? THERE HAS TO BE SOME GOOD REASON FOR THE POOR DECISIONS BEING MADE?

I CANNOT BE THAT CORRECT?


The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 5, 2020 at 4:22 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 5, 2020 at 4:22 pm
Like this comment

JUST AN UPDATE:

IT IS REPORTED THAT 1.6 MILLION TESTS HAVE BEEN PEFORMED AN IT RESULTS IN 335,500+ POSITIVES.

THAN YOU CAN TRY TO ESTIMATE THE POSSIBLE REAL INFECTIONS REGRADING THE PUBLIC BEING 355,500/1,600,000 TO ESTIMATE HOW MANY AMERICANS ARE LIKELY INFECTED. THAT PERCENTAGE IS 22.3% POSITIVE.

NOW IF YOU MULTIPLY 330,000,000 PEOPLE BY THAT PERCENTAGE IT CAN BE AS MANY AS 73.3 MILLION PEOPLE ARE INFECTED, OR AT LEAST UNTIL EVERYONE IS TESTED. AND SINCE IT LOOKS LIKE 3% OF THOSE WILL DIE, YOU CAN EXPECT AS MANY AS 2.1 MILLION PEOPLE ARE LIKELY TO DIE.

SIMPLY PUT FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEE ANY CHANGE IN OUR LIFE.

LISA MATICHAK SHOULD ALREADY BE AWARE OF THIS.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 6, 2020 at 4:31 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 6, 2020 at 4:31 pm
Like this comment

Even if we are succeeding in “bending the curve”, that does not man we will be free of this current lifestyle. We are stuck until there is a proven treatment and vaccine that everyone is been treated with.

Otherwise, this is going to go on indefinitely in order to “control” the infection rates.

The last I heard about 1.7 Million people have been tested, the current statistics are that 364,700 people tested positive which results in a 21.5% infection percentage.

The statistical significance sample is about 3.75 Million people, which means it is not a solid current infection statistic.

But when we reach that number, you can assume that if it stays at 21.5%, then you can assume that 73.3 Million people are infected. And since the uncounted fatalities currently are 10,771 which is 3% of the people infected.

3% of 73.3 Million people is 2.2 Million people are likely to die. But I am learning that that number is artificially low because many people are not being diagnoses with COVID 19 at time of death in many cases. So this could be artificially low.

Just understand, we cannot “stand down” this lifestyle until the vaccine and treatments are there and deployed. We have a long time to go.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 10, 2020 at 6:00 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 10, 2020 at 6:00 pm
Like this comment

Well, it appears that San Diego is about to be hit with a City wide rent strike if you read the article “San Diego rent strike: Who’s participating and why“ (Web Link).

It looks like a possible movement that could stretch state wide.

It looks like landlords have to start negotiating in good faith now. If they don’t they could be out of business fast.

But there have been too many stories where landlords are intimidating their tenants even during this crisi, one story can be found in the article “San Diego landlord to tenants: ‘Nobody really has a legitimate reason not to pay rent’“ (Web Link)

In this article false notions are described like that the promised assistance has already been provided, as stated:

““Nobody really has a legitimate reason not to pay rent,” wrote Jeff Miller, CEO of Pacific Living Properties, to tenants.

A renter forwarded the email to the Union-Tribune calling it “tone deaf.” Efforts to reach Pacific Living Properties for comment were unsuccessful.

In the letter, Miller says many renters have a mistaken belief that mortgages are forgiven for landlords during the crisis — not that they eventually have to pay it back.

He said the company is sympathetic to job losses because of coronavirus but that federal aid programs should mean they should not be financially burdened.

“For those that did lose jobs the CARES Act was put in place by the Federal Government to enhance unemployment, to minimize the impact, and help you pay your obligations and necessities,” he wrote.”

BUT THEY ARE BURDENED WHEN AS MUCH AS 6 MILLION PEOPLE LOST THEIR JOBS IN CALIFORNIA.

Again, this CRISIS simply needs to have 4 things done:

First, a mortgage forbearance should be implemented and no interest accrues universally to all properties.

Second, all property taxes are suspended, and not expected to be repaid on all properties.

Third, the state, county, and local governments should provide funding for all legitimate operational expenses during this time.

Fourth, all of this is contingent in a forbearance of all rents regarding tenants.

WHY ISN’T THIS HAPPENING?


The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 18, 2020 at 8:57 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 18, 2020 at 8:57 pm
Like this comment

I wonder if there will be a RENT HOLIDAY in he country.

I just read a report from Forbes magazine that is indicating is possible because it looks like the Congress sees this situation is not going away anytime soon.

The Forbes article is called “Proposed: $2,000 Monthly Stimulus Checks And Canceled Rent And Mortgage Payments For 1 Year” found here (Web Link)

Specifically it is proposing:

“Proposal #2: Cancel Rent & Mortgage Payments Through The Coronavirus Emergency

Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) introduced the Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act. This Act, if approved, would call for a nationwide cancellation of rents and home mortgage payments through the duration of the coronavirus pandemic, or up to one year.

The bill would include:

Full rent payment forgiveness for your primary residence

Full mortgage payment forgiveness for your primary residence

No accumulation of debt for renters or homeowners

No negative impact on their credit rating or rental history.

It would establish a relief fund for landlords and mortgage holders to cover losses

It would create an optional fund to finance the purchase of private rental properties to increase the availability of affordable housing.

The bill would be retroactive to March 13, 2020, and would last for one year, unless extended. Renters and homeowners who made payments during April 2020 would be reimbursed for their payments.

No Double-Dipping Allowed. The bill would only allow taxpayers to receive coverage for their primary residence. It would not cover second homes, vacation homes, or other non-primary residences. Those who have both a mortgage and also rent a home would have to choose the home for which they would want to receive financial relief.

Landlords and Mortgage Companies Would be Covered Through a Fund Managed Through the Department of Housing and Urban Development

The Department of Housing and Urban Development would create a relief fund for lenders and landlords to cover the lost rental and mortgage payments they would have received.

To receive these funds, lenders and landlords would be required to follow federal guidelines for fair lending and renting practices for five years.”

I THINK THIS SOUNDS VERY FAMILIAR, OH YESS I WROTE ABOUT THIS BEFORE.


The Business Man
Castro City
on Apr 19, 2020 at 3:43 pm
The Business Man, Castro City
on Apr 19, 2020 at 3:43 pm
Like this comment

I just read that there is a bill that just needs 2 votes to require a 25% discount on rents in California.

It is called AB 828 and can be read here (Web Link)

I sure hope it passes will last until 2022

It applies to all units where owners own or manage more than 10 units statewide.

ABOUT TIME


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.