Common myths about landlords

Not even slightly true. More than 60% of landlords in the US are "small landlords," defined as having fewer than 2 properties. That's FAR from a big corporate landlord. Most landlords live paycheck to paycheck and have had to work very, very hard to earn the money to buy our 1 or 2 houses. 

Small landlords (and, really, any landlords) don't deserve to be forced to house people with no money or recourse for someone causing harm. And, worse, small landlords will be forced to sell to actual big corporations or foreign interests who don't care about affordable housing in our communities at all. Or, we'll be taking units off the market, causing the housing crisis to get much worse.

Sadly, that's not true. Most states haven't distributed the funds very well, if at all. California is running out of funds. Even if landlords could get the money, the government requires that the tenant sign for it. Except that many tenants won't (in one case a paranoid schizophrenic thinks his landlord is conspiring with his ex-wife and her friend to get him). Some tenants don't qualify (they made too much money to qualify for rental assistance and still chose not to pay). And landlords in those jurisdictions cannot evict them for refusing to sign and refusing to pay. See Our stories for more.

Actually, people become landlords because it’s the fastest path to build wealth (the American Dream, anyone?). Unethical landlords, like any unethical person, may only care about money, but most care about having good tenants and about having relationships with their tenants. 

Should we protect tenants from predatory landlords and unethical practices? Absolutely. Should we protect tenants at the expense of making both landlords AND tenants homeless? No. 

Wrong. Ethical landlords do NOT like to evict tenants. Evicting a tenant, and finding a new one is expensive and a pain. For small landlords who handle these alone, it's stressful and emotionally draining. 

The vast majority of landlords do not evict good, paying tenants (or even good, non-paying tenants who are working with them) for money. Instead they often have to evict because tenants harass others, destroy property, or cause harm. When tenants have bad behavior, landlords must protect their neighbors, other tenants, and their property, so they may have to evict. Eviction moratoriums mean that unethical tenants can damage property and never have to pay. Ever. At this point, California has a clear and ethical way for tenants who have been financially impacted from COVID cannot be evicted unless they are intentionally choosing not to pay. The eviction moratoriums mean that good tenants who struggle to pay can't take advantage of this.

Should a landlord work with their tenant? Absolutely. And many do! For every negative story, there’s another positive. 

Should we protect tenants from predatory landlords and unethical practices? Absolutely. 

Should we protect tenants at the expense of making both landlords AND tenants homeless? No. 

Yes, landlords sometimes have to raise rent. And, some unethical landlords may try shady tactics within the bounds of the law (i.e., “loopholes”) to evict people and raise rents. 

But, most landlords only make a tiny amount after they pay the mortgage, taxes, utilities, and home maintenance on the rental unit. Here’s how the breakdown of one of our “landlord's” bills goes:

Mortgage: $653/month

Taxes: $100/month

Home Insurance: $100/month

Maintenance: $100/month

Total bills for the landlord: $903

Rent charge: $900/month

Profit: NONE. Losing $3/month

It's easy to see how raising the rent even a little will help pay the landlord for their time in maintaining and taking care of the property. Even if this property had no mortgage (because someone inherited it, maybe), the most the landlord would make here would be $600, which isn't even enough to pay their own rent!

Yes and no. The word “eviction” has become nasty. And, it often is. But it simply means that someone is being asked to leave. Sometimes this is because an unethical landlord bought the place and wants to kick people out, regardless of circumstances. This is not ok, and we agree! 

However, sometimes the “eviction” happens because someone broke the terms of their lease by damaging property, bringing in unauthorized people or guests, disturbing other residents, or not paying rent. We completely agree that landlords MUST try to work with tenants who are breaking their leases first. But, if that fails, there must be a way for the person who owns the property to say it’s enough.

Are there heartless, unethical landlord who evict without conscience? Of course. But, there are also heartless, unethical TENANTS who take advantage of laws without conscience, too. The law needs to account for BOTH. Making blanket statements about evictions or “all” landlords is inaccurate and incredibly harmful for people who are just trying to make ends meet by having a renter.

If you really believe this gross generalization, you are missing the point. Most landlords are ethical and care about the people they rent to. Unfortunately, most stories in the news are about unethical landlords who are doing shady things. 

But, let's remember that we have to offer some flexibility to small landlords who are generally working directly with their tenants when there are issues and protect them from having to sell to large, heartless corporations or take them off the market, making it worse.

Great question! Let's be clear. Landlords do NOT like to evict anyone. Most of us are honest, hardworking people who desire to help others, not hurt them. Most of us do business ethically. 

Sometimes, though, we need someone to move out of our rented house so we can move in our elderly mother (see Peter's story) or live in our own home because our kids are getting bigger and need more space (see Heather's story). The eviction moratoriums will not even let us move into our own homes. And our families are suffering for it.

You'd think. But we are a group of no fewer than 100 small landlords who are at risk of being homeless because eviction moratoriums are forcing us to pay for tenants but there are zero protections for us. We've lost countless hours and dollars in stress and health issues from stress. We've lost jobs and money because of COVID, too. And, most of us don't even own more than 1 home. Seriously! Our ONLY homes have been stolen from us by the government and forced us to house people without payment or recourse for bad behavior and violations of lease. There are no exceptions and our story isn't being told. This isn't just unfair. The future of affordable housing lives with small landlords and that is who the eviction moratorium is hurting.

You can, but the tenant comes with the property. And then, you have a non-paying tenant who is driving the value of the home down, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you foreclose, then the bank has to follow the same laws as any other property owner. Normally, they are unaware of tenants, so they get sued and lose. Because it's super easy for tenants to sue and almost no defense for any landlord. Maybe that's ok for a bank, but it drives hard-working home owners to financial ruin trying to get someone out of their home.

Wrong. Sadly. Maybe this was true for the first 3 months of the pandemic. But, once landlords started defaulting on their loans, it got real. We are now at 3+ years of people being forced to house others who are hurting them, their property, and their ability to keep their homes.

Let's be clear, we aren't even talking about landlords who want to evict for money. They just want to be able to enforce their leases. When someone doesn't pay or destroys property, it makes sense that they shouldn't be allowed to stay. However, these are COMPLETELY UNENFORCEABLE where there are eviction moratoriums. The lack of flexibility in being able to choose who stays in your one home (or maybe your second property), means that landlords are going to take these small, affordable units off the market, causing there to be FAR LESS supply. This causes more homelessness, higher rents, and landlords who are extremely selective in finding the cream of the crop in tenants, leaving everyone who actually needs it worse off.

Not in places that still have eviction moratoriums. The way it stands right now, it is cheaper to keep your home without anyone else in it than to rent any space in it. If things go wrong, it will cost you at least $35k to get someone out. Will you be getting more than that in rent? No? Then every expert I know would recommend against it.

Where there are eviction moratoriums, you cannot remove someone in your own home, whether you are a property owner or a master tenant. You have zero ability to enforce your lease, whether you're getting paid, the tenant is damaging your property, or whether you simply want to live in your own home without them.

The short answer? A series of complicated government restrictions on building for a variety of reasons. 

This is a complicated issue, but we want to work together to find solutions. We will post articles here that explain some reasons, as we find them. 

California is too slow in offering affordable housing. 

The new multifamily buildings in your neighborhood actually slow displacement