Luke90210 t1_jdkxqei wrote
The paperwork for a landlord dealing with Section 8 is non-stop. Only a large landlord can afford the staffing to do it. Its been awhile, but if Albany stalls on passing a budget, Section 8 payments can be suspended until the budget is passed. If the Section 8 tenant doesn't update their info, that could be a problem even if its something trivial like changing cellphone numbers.
Discrimination is not the right word. Its a problematic system anyone with a half a brain should avoid in favor of a tenant paying their rent with their income.
Silentarrowz t1_jdw0zqe wrote
Discrimination is the right word, small landlords just don't want to hear it. If you don't have the ability to handle this, maybe you just shouldn't be a landlord? There is no legal guarantee that every citizen can be a landlord, maybe some of the small ones just aren't cut out for it? Maybe they should try a different job if they can't run it. If a restaurant was failing to pay their employees on time in NYC no one would say "oh it's tough for restaurateurs out there give them a break." We'd say "You knew how tough the NYC market was before you invested in it. If you can't handle that then get out."
soyeahiknow t1_jdwn6br wrote
Its called the free market. Would you want a job where you have to jump through hoops and nonsense to get paid? Or would you settlle on another job doing the same work and making the same amount without all the bullshit?
Silentarrowz t1_jdxe6el wrote
It's called a legal obligation. I know landlords only like using that word when it comes to things that benefit them, but in some cases renters do in fact have rights, and you are in fact legally obligated to abide by them. If you get 400 applicants and decide to take someone with higher income that's one thing. If you do what a lot of landlords do and keep properties posted until they find someone with a preset income threshold and refuse to even consider voucher tenants? Scum of the earth.
Luke90210 t1_jdxga0a wrote
Restaurants are not forced to sell food under some government program. Supermarkets are and gladly do as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) consistently pays out. When Section 8 gets the same reputation without the constant horror stories, please let us know.
Silentarrowz t1_jdxgofy wrote
Then lobby for more funding for it. The people that want things like section 8 are not the same people who want it in its current state.
Luke90210 t1_jdxl5gh wrote
Paying for more Section 8 housing at a better rate will not solve the lack of affordable housing. Only more housing construction will. Now, would more demand stimulate more housing stock to meet the demand? It hasn't so far.
Silentarrowz t1_jdxni05 wrote
So let's fund more public/affordable housing. Let's build the housing and when it gets proposed actually build it instead going "well that apartment would be near a really pretty park...so we should just not build it." The NIMBYism in NYC from landlords that also deny section 8 is pathetic.
Luke90210 t1_jdxorf5 wrote
I like the idea of more public housing. However, most of public housing construction was funded by the federal government. They don't do that sort of thing anymore. NYCHA loses money as the rents are set up as a percentage of income driving anyone making a solid income away. And NYCHA is poorly managed.
Silentarrowz t1_jdxs65b wrote
The NIMBYism is a hard barrier in my eyes. There have been dozens of proposals for even private development that have been shot down for being too close to this, or being seen from that.
jae343 t1_jdnr0ma wrote
My friend flips homes to rent out to Section 8 in the southeast and doesn't seem to be a problem. Some residents certainly can cause trouble but that's the general risk of renting out property and it's a small operation.
Luke90210 t1_jdo6zym wrote
Good for him. It doesn't sound like he is working a highly competitive real estate market.
jae343 t1_jdp1ixi wrote
Yep, Charlotte isn't competitive compared to NYC obviously.
Luke90210 t1_jdtkee1 wrote
Perhaps North Carolina does a far better job of administering Section 8 than NY.
Silentarrowz t1_jdw1ahi wrote
Perhaps North Carolina lets landlords that can't handle it simply fail instead of letting them discriminate against applicants. No one has a right to a successful business, you have to work for it. If you want a successful NYC real estate business guess what; you're going to work for it.
Luke90210 t1_jdxgvp1 wrote
> No one has a right to a successful business, you have to work for it.
I agree. What does that have to do with a highly flawed government program landlords don't want to deal with? Doctors are not forced to accept Medicaid. Improve the system and landlords would happily take Section 8 just like supermarkets and bodegas take SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).
Silentarrowz t1_jdxhc9r wrote
I agree. Let's give them a few billion more dollars a year in funding. You would agree with giving section 8 a huge federal expansion? I think programs like this are crippled by funding and old laws.
Luke90210 t1_jdxk4ng wrote
Absolutely. Some of the rules are very antiquated as if its 1988. Why deny payments to the landlord because the tenant changed their cellphone number without informing the offices?
Silentarrowz t1_jdw15cf wrote
NYC landlords knew the market they were getting into when they bought the property. If landlords don't like operating in a large complex market perhaps they shouldn't?
Luke90210 t1_jdxfd1r wrote
You honestly think people buying expensive real estate in NYC for rentals had any intention of dealing with Section 8?
Silentarrowz t1_jdxghpy wrote
I mean considering it has existed in one form or another since the 1970s I'd sure hope so.
Luke90210 t1_jdxkl30 wrote
You think anyone investing in Tribeca or Dumbo rental properties is thinking about Section 8? You honestly believe think thats the clientele they are taking into consideration and not the people making 6 or 7 figures a year?
Silentarrowz t1_jdxlqdd wrote
What a landlord would like to be true and what their legal obligation is are two very different things. Just because a landlord failed to fully consider the marker they were in does not mean they get a free pass to break the law and illegally discriminate against voucher tenants.
Luke90210 t1_jdxn0ga wrote
You sound very naive. Under the current housing crisis any landlord can find an easy reason to legitimately reject a Section 8 applicant or just accept one as a token. Its just one more application out of many. And its not like the apartment is going to waste as someone else who needs it and willing to pay for it out of pocket will get it.
There is simply not enough housing stock in NYC for the demand. Section 8 isn't going to solve this.
Silentarrowz t1_jdxn8l3 wrote
Sure, and I accept that under normal circumstances they can refuse a lot of them, I would hope they do so in a good faith way (ie. Denying them when there is another applicant or an actual issue rather than just going "eh no good applicants" and leaving a space vacant). I want it improved, but I don't think landlords should just get to go completely ignore it.
Luke90210 t1_jdxp03g wrote
I'm envisioning a 1% acceptance rate for legal cover only. Thats really not solving anything.
WarmestSeatByTheFire t1_jdokmfo wrote
It's a viable business model in a lot of markets but those places have very different market conditions compared to NYC.
jae343 t1_jdp1fnb wrote
Definitely but the idea is that they get guaranteed payments and on time from the government.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments