Claim that one third of renters didn't pay rent

GAJ

Well-known member
So, I think I hear you implying that folks at fast food restaurants are are only working at those cush jobs so they could get fired/quit and scam the system during the covid out break?:rofl
I think if they were the type to scam the system , they wouldn't be working at all...they would already be scaming the system.:nchantr
DT

No, it's a very real problem for restaurants or other low wage jobs due to the $600/week Federal weekly stipend on top of normal unemployment.

Problem is getting it! :wtf

Consider an employee working 35 hours per week at $14 per hour, or $490 per week.

Typical UI benefits in Illinois would pay out 47 percent of that ($230). Now, under the stimulus package, the same employee is going to make $830 per week on unemployment—an increase of 70 percent of what they were making working full-time. Also worth remembering, this benefit extends to part-time employees as well now.

So, in the case of this restaurant brand, someone working half those hours, normally making $245 per week and able to make $115 on unemployment, is now bringing in $715—just about triple what they had been earning.

In four months, that employee is going to bank their normal annual salary.

Where this is really going to show up for restaurants is in areas of the country with low minimum wages. This dynamic came up over the relief bill’s final few days. Senator Lindsey Graham and three other GOP senators, Rick Scott of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina, and Nebraska’s Ben Sassee, called for an amendment that would cap benefits for the jobless at 100 percent of a worker’s pay before they were out of a job. Graham contended the bill would pay unemployed people roughly $24 per hour, “more not to work than if you were working,” he said, as reported by ABC News.

It was determined, however, not at fault enough to be scrapped or to put limits on it. Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said most people would elect to stay employed, and the provision was necessary to streamline and quicken the process of delivering aid to workers laid off by COVID-19’s effect on businesses.

https://www.qsrmagazine.com/legal/restaurants-theres-big-problem-stimulus-package
 

ctwo

Merely Rhetorical
Property management companies are having a rough go. They are stuck between building owners and renters, with service functions filling the gaps.
 

Climber

Well-known member
Property management companies are having a rough go. They are stuck between building owners and renters, with service functions filling the gaps.

It probably depends on their contract with the owner.

If they have language that says if the renter doesn't pay, then they don't have to pay the owner, then it's the owner that gets screwed.

I don't know of how their arrangement goes.
 

Killroy1999

Well-known member
It probably depends on their contract with the owner.

If they have language that says if the renter doesn't pay, then they don't have to pay the owner, then it's the owner that gets screwed.

I don't know of how their arrangement goes.

Yeah, that is typically how it works. If the tenants dont pay then the owner does not get paid. There is security deposit, but that does not cover much.

Yet, if the property manager does not collect, then they dont get their fees. Typically there are a cash reserve per unit for maintenance.
 

two wheel tramp

exploring!
I found this article interesting. The $69 billion dollar company can't do anything for their customers but the long time family owners at another location give relief without even being asked.

Corporate landlord: Pay our lawyers and we may or may not do something

Family landlord: Times are tough, we got you fam

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-two-landlords-during-the-coronavirus-crisis/


Good on the Timberlake Family. This guy is pretty rad, too:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/nyregion/coronavirus-nyc-landlord-mario-salerno.html
 

Holeshot

Super Moderator
Staff member
Just saw this thread. Not sure how LL's are supposed to make this work:

Last month, the board adopted a resolution restricting evictions and foreclosures related to late or non-payment of rent due to the coronavirus crisis. At an April 7 meeting, supervisors requested an “urgency ordinance providing similar but slightly expanded protections against evictions in order to prevent community members from losing stable housing during the pandemic,” according to a staff report.

The ordinance approved Tuesday includes protections from the original resolution as well as those discussed on April 7.

“The intention of this urgency ordinance is to protect against evictions until the local emergency is lifted and allow for 180 days after for tenants to come back into current status with any delinquent rent payments,” said Megan Stedtfeld, assistant county counsel.

https://www.dailydemocrat.com/2020/04/23/yolo-county-supervisors-pass-eviction-protections/

large turnover of commercial and residential properties statewide (which = loss of property tax collections) seems likely.

Tenants must notify their landlord within 7 days after their rent is due, unless extenuating circumstances exist, that they are unable to pay due to a loss of income related to COVID-19. Tenants will have twelve (12) months following the end of the moratorium period to pay back any amount due.

You can use this template (Spanish version) to notify your landlord of your inability to pay rent.

How long will the temporary moratorium last?

The temporary moratorium is effective from March 4, 2020 through June 30, 2020, and may be extended by the Board of Supervisors on a month-to-month basis.

https://dcba.lacounty.gov/noevictions/
 

Sticka

I am the Stig
Yeah, that is typically how it works. If the tenants dont pay then the owner does not get paid. There is security deposit, but that does not cover much.

Yet, if the property manager does not collect, then they dont get their fees. Typically there are a cash reserve per unit for maintenance.

Security deposit can't be used for monthly rent due. Only if they leave the place in arears or if there is damage.
 

GAJ

Well-known member
Just saw this thread. Not sure how LL's are supposed to make this work:

All of our residential tenants are still working and paying rent but if they couldn't we'd work with them as they are all good tenants.

I also think the fact that we charge about 60 percent of "market rent" motivates them to pay because once things "normalize" they would never find a comparable place with similar rent.
 

Kornholio

:wave
I read an article a couple of days ago that Starbucks is "demanding" that landlords cut their monthly rent due to profits being in the tank. Oh gee, that's nice. Do non-commercial renters get to do the same thing due to being laid off or having their hours reduced? : |
 

bpw

Well-known member
I read an article a couple of days ago that Starbucks is "demanding" that landlords cut their monthly rent due to profits being in the tank. Oh gee, that's nice. Do non-commercial renters get to do the same thing due to being laid off or having their hours reduced? : |

If you owe the bank hundred thousand and can't pay, you have a problem. If you owe the bank a hundred million and can't pay the bank has a problem.

Starbucks has a lot of weight/money to throw around, not fair, but that is what is going on. A lot of commercial landlords would rather have Starbucks paying something than Starbucks paying nothing since losing them will hurt a lot.
 

Holeshot

Super Moderator
Staff member
All of our residential tenants are still working and paying rent but if they couldn't we'd work with them as they are all good tenants.

I also think the fact that we charge about 60 percent of "market rent" motivates them to pay because once things "normalize" they would never find a comparable place with similar rent.

I think it will be hard for most non-commercial lessors to go 12 months without any rental payments. Not all...but most of the smaller LL's. Your strategy is solid, but it also doesn't help to pad in the good times. Benefits and backdraws to both, IMO. We're like you, more in line with holding and taking care of tenants instead of hitting the top of the market all the time.

If you owe the bank hundred thousand and can't pay, you have a problem. If you owe the bank a hundred million and can't pay the bank has a problem.

Starbucks has a lot of weight/money to throw around, not fair, but that is what is going on. A lot of commercial landlords would rather have Starbucks paying something than Starbucks paying nothing since losing them will hurt a lot.

LOL at the first comment. That's good!

In a full service lease, expenses can attribute to more than 2/3 of costs (debt service included). There's room to give back some to unoccupied tenants so long as the locations isn't being operated. I'm not sure the specifics of Sbux's leases, but they're probably a mix of NNN and full service.
 

two wheel tramp

exploring!
I'll have to find the article. I was reading that smaller residential landlords are getting screwed hard right now. If they go into foreclosure the trend will be for their properties to be bought by wall street investors as part of a portfolio. These investors favor higher income units and higher income tenants. It's going to be interesting to see how much more unaffordable housing may become because of this.
 

GAJ

Well-known member
I read an article a couple of days ago that Starbucks is "demanding" that landlords cut their monthly rent due to profits being in the tank. Oh gee, that's nice. Do non-commercial renters get to do the same thing due to being laid off or having their hours reduced? : |

Yep, my wife and her sisters own one piece of commercial property under a name brand fast food chain and they took the same position; no rent for three months, half rent for six months, take it or leave it, no paying back the lost rent.

The franchisee is a real scumbag, he told another landlord that I know that he "had handed the keys to all the Sonoma County restaurants so you'd better take my offer in Marin or else."

Of course he hadn't done anything of the sort and has shown his true colors.

The sisters decided that half rent was better than no rent, the don't have deep enough pockets to go through the eviction process post crisis and don't want to have zero income so have decided to sell the property post crisis to someone else who has deeper pockets to execute eviction if he pulls similar stunts in future.

The store was open with Drive Thru and able to maintain 80 percent of revenues and I have no doubt he got PPP loans too.

The sisters are in their mid 60s and while they'll make nowhere near the ROI after sale as currently, they just don't want the headaches of a scumbag tenant who last year had a quarter of a billion in revenues.

Crises tend to show a person's true colors and it certainly has in this case and, evidently, in Starbuck's'.
 

GAJ

Well-known member
I'll have to find the article. I was reading that smaller residential landlords are getting screwed hard right now. If they go into foreclosure the trend will be for their properties to be bought by wall street investors as part of a portfolio. These investors favor higher income units and higher income tenants. It's going to be interesting to see how much more unaffordable housing may become because of this.

The amazing thing is that I'm guessing many of those not paying rent are likely making as much, if not more, with unemployment with the $2600/month Federal "bonus" on top of normal State unemployment.

Of course my brother in Florida has yet to see a dime despite applying two months ago.
 

Holeshot

Super Moderator
Staff member
Geoff, if they do want to move the property, depending on location (and national chain name), I'd be interested.
 

GAJ

Well-known member
Geoff, if they do want to move the property, depending on location (and national chain name), I'd be interested.

Well, he has a lease till like 2040 but someone with deep pockets could evict his ass if he pulls a similar stunt down the road and put whoever they want in there; I know Starbucks is drooling for that drive thru location.

I'll PM you the info.
 

Kornholio

:wave
Yep, my wife and her sisters own one piece of commercial property under a name brand fast food chain and they took the same position; no rent for three months, half rent for six months, take it or leave it, no paying back the lost rent.

The franchisee is a real scumbag, he told another landlord that I know that he "had handed the keys to all the Sonoma County restaurants so you'd better take my offer in Marin or else."

Of course he hadn't done anything of the sort and has shown his true colors.

The sisters decided that half rent was better than no rent, the don't have deep enough pockets to go through the eviction process post crisis and don't want to have zero income so have decided to sell the property post crisis to someone else who has deeper pockets to execute eviction if he pulls similar stunts in future.

The store was open with Drive Thru and able to maintain 80 percent of revenues and I have no doubt he got PPP loans too.

The sisters are in their mid 60s and while they'll make nowhere near the ROI after sale as currently, they just don't want the headaches of a scumbag tenant who last year had a quarter of a billion in revenues.

Crises tend to show a person's true colors and it certainly has in this case and, evidently, in Starbuck's'.

Indeed...

200.gif


:rolleyes
 

FXCLM5

bombaclaud
I read an article a couple of days ago that Starbucks is "demanding" that landlords cut their monthly rent due to profits being in the tank. Oh gee, that's nice. Do non-commercial renters get to do the same thing due to being laid off or having their hours reduced? : |

I dunno how you can demand a change on a signed contract.

Majority of the Starbucks still have huge drive through lines.

Also I was told Starbucks employees getting $3 hazard pay per hour bonus.......

I wonder if any other business is paying extra like this
 
Top