apartments

apartments
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Corey Anderson[/image_credit][image_caption]In Minnesota, the total estimated rent debt is $155.6 million for 53,000 households owing an average of $2,900.[/image_caption]
As Minnesota and other states gear up to distribute hundreds of millions of federal dollars to help tenants who’ve fallen behind in rent payments, the question remains: How many people are in that group — and how much do they owe?

Nationwide estimates have ranged from $36 billion (by Moodys Analytics) to $11 billion (by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia). But now, a new tool created by an Oakland, California-based research and policy nonprofit, PolicyLink, and the USC Equity Research Institute uses a combination of databases to show the scope of the problem in states and counties around the U.S. 

Bringing together data from the Census Household Pulse Survey and USC’s Understanding Coronavirus in America survey, the Rent Debt Dashboard estimates the national accumulated rent debt to be $19.8 billion, representing 5.74 million households with average debt per household at $3,400. In Minnesota, the total estimated debt is $155.6 million for 53,000 households owing an average of $2,900.

Of those Minnesota households, 60 percent are people of color, 43 percent report being unemployed, 75 percent earn less than $50,000 a year and 71 percent report having lost income during the pandemic. Just over half of the accumulated debt in the state is from the two largest counties — Hennepin and Ramsey — but there is evidence of a back-rent problem across the state.

Rent debt in Minnesota
[image_credit]PolicyLink[/image_credit][image_caption]Rent debt in Minnesota[/image_caption]
Congress is distributing $25 billion for state rental assistance programs, and the state received $375 million from the December COVID relief bill for rental assistance. There is also a program to help with utility bills. The federal law allows up to 15 months of payments to the landlords of those behind on rent. In Minnesota, a combined program by the state Housing Finance Agency, the large metro counties and Minneapolis and St. Paul allows people behind on rent— or who expect to be unable to pay in the next several months — to apply at renthelpmn.org. If they meet the income limits and can demonstrate that the pandemic contributed to their hardship, they can qualify for help dating back to the start of the pandemic.

Landlords can help tenants with the application process and the payments go directly to landlords. Getting those payments to landlords remains a challenge, however, as it was for a state program last fall and winter that eventually spent $100 million of federal CARES Act money.

The new program ties directly into negotiations among legislative leaders and Gov. Tim Walz over how to end the 14-month-old eviction moratorium. All want a phase-out of the moratorium so as to ease the flow of evictions. The disagreement is over when the phase-out would begin — at a date set in the law or some days after Walz lifts his emergency authority.

How the dashboard came together

Sarah Treuhaft, the vice president of research at PolicyLink, said the dashboard emerged from a request by Contra Costa County in California for better data to help its board make decisions about eviction moratoriums. She said the Census last summer added a question to the Pulse survey about whether respondents are behind in their rent. That was an addition to an earlier question about whether respondents were confident that they would be able to make their next rent payment.

Sarah Treuhaft
[image_caption]Sarah Treuhaft[/image_caption]
Meanwhile, the USC Understanding Coronavirus survey provided more data about the amount of back rent owed, and the dashboard grew out of tenant advocacy efforts during the pandemic. “It began with a need on the ground for more local data to inform anti-eviction work,” Treuhaft said last week. “We came up with a methodology to do that, to estimate how many households were at risk of eviction at the county level.

“It’s clear now that there is rent debt that has accumulated for some renters and that must be cleared for those households to stay in their homes and recover from the pandemic which unequally impacted them,” Treuhoft said.

Minnesota rates have been lower than the national average, Treuhaft told a recent meeting of the Minnesota Housing Partnership. “That is a good thing. But still, 53,000 households is a large number.”

The dashboard does not look at those behind in mortgage payments or utility debt. The latter is covered by the RentHelpMN program, while a separate batch of federal money will be used to help homeowners in arrears on mortgage payments. There was no attempt to measure other debt accumulation for tenants who have made rent payments but are still in financial trouble.

“People do everything to pay the rent,” Treuhaft said. “They (are forced to) make terrible tradeoffs on paying for food and clothing and medical bills.”

What about the landlords?

Every dollar of unpaid rent by a tenant is a dollar in money not received by the owner of the residential unit. While the rental assistance money will eventually flow to landlords, they have been without money for more than a year — money needed to cover loan payments, utility bills and payroll for their own employees.

Elijah de la Campa, a senior research associate in economics and urban analytics at the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative, has been working with Minneapolis housing officials, which is why the city is one of eight he looked at in his research. “There are two sides to the market,” de la Campa said during a recent webinar on his research. On one side, you have renters who are struggling to make rental payments, depleting their savings, ruining their credit and amassing arrears.

“On the other side, we have the landlords who are not collecting as much in rental payments as they were prior to the pandemic and they’re struggling to stay afloat themselves, struggling to make their mortgage payments, make their property tax payments,” he said. “If we really want to understand the full extent of this crisis, we ought to study how actors on both sides of this market are faring.” 

Most landlord data that has been available comes from national rental housing associations that tend to represent larger companies with many units under professional management. Those surveys have shown non-payment of rent in the 2 to 4 percent range. In Minnesota, the Minnesota Multi Housing Association’s most recent survey indicates that rent payments were at 95 percent for the highest quality apartments and 86 percent for what is considered naturally occurring affordable housing.

De la Campa wanted to look at smaller operations, so-called mom and pop landlords with a handful of units, which represent half of the nation’s rental units. He looked at eight rental markets, including Minneapolis, by surveying landlords via city rental housing registry databases. The other cities were Albany and Rochester in New York; Trenton, New Jersey; Akron, Ohio; Racine, Wisconsin; Indianapolis and San Jose.

Elijah de la Campa
[image_caption]Elijah de la Campa[/image_caption]
De la Campa found that landlords in all size groups report deferring maintenance on units with tenants behind in the rent. But there are differences in other responses based on size. Larger landlords, for example, are more likely to offer rent-payment plans to struggling tenants and decrease barriers to rent via rent cuts or lower tenant screening standards than small landlords. But they are also more likely to start eviction proceedings than small owners.

Minnesota has the strongest eviction moratorium of any of the states De la Campa studied, which is reflected in the few survey responses from landlords who say they have used eviction during the pandemic. But another question found that more large rental operators say they would consider evictions once they are allowed.

“The finding, that is robust to every sort of city and place that I look at, is that evictions are more likely among larger landlords and midsized landlords; they’re more likely in neighborhoods with more residents of color; they’re more likely in neighborhoods with lower incomes; and they are more likely to occur in the future,” de la Campa said.

Larger-sized landlords are more familiar with the eviction process in their cities, and consider it part of their business model, than are small landlords, de la Campa said, something true before the pandemic as well as during. In turn, owners of a small number of units are more likely than large landlords to report missing their own payment obligations on loans and taxes and are more likely to try to sell their holdings, de la Campa said.

De la Campa said that the highest number of responses came from Minneapolis, and he found that the rent payment problem in the city, while serious, is less so than in the other cities he examined. Between 2019 and 2020, the increase in units receiving less than 90 percent of what was owed in rent increased by 10 percentage points in Minneapolis. The same number for the three Midwest cities combined — Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Racine — was nearly 20 percentage points.

Still, the presence of units in arrears was higher among both renters and landlords in lower-income areas. In neighborhoods below the median Minneapolis income, the percent of units owing back rent was 20 percent, he said.

Join the Conversation

13 Comments

  1. Same old, same old…. Giving tax money out to renters so they can pay rent has only been a bandaid on a gushing wound. That is the easy thing to do, has been done for 60 years and nothing has changed in those 60 years. The hard thing to do is to look why folks can’t get a good paying job, to pay the rent themselves. The actual fix requires looking at schools (Mpls has the worst results for educating children as any city in America), looking at bringing back the trades (the elite’s stigma of working with your hands has to go) and preparing children for real world of competition. That is not happening in public funded, public schools.
    As I’ve stated many times, unless things change, nothing will change. The interesting thing is how new businesses pop up to digest figures (rent dent dashboard) and other non profits that throw out information but I never get to the root cause. Oh well, tax money comes in every year and goes out every year…. Much easier to bandaid the wound than suture and stop the bleeding.

    1. I might suggest they add economics as it’s clear you never learned the law of supply and demand. What do you suppose will happen the wages of those “trades” when you flood the market with labor?

      1. More labor might mean that the wages of those in the trades goes down a bit.

        It also means that the cost of building more housing or repairing rental units would go down. (Which also means lower rents).

        Are you seriously suggesting we continue paying people to sit on their couch because we want to keep the wages of skilled labor high?

        1. Just a bit, huh? Spoken like a child of plenty, it never crosses your mind that our present day norms are NOT the historical standard. Labor scarcity is the only thing keeping us from two-tier society, Dickensian dystopia. But go ahead, flood ALL the labor markets see how well you fare when literally thousands are willing to work your job for peanuts (because of course you don’t like minimum wages either, right?).

      2. Yet we have many managers and often times their wages go up. How we determine who is paid what wage is erratic. It is usually those on the lower end of the pay scale or in the middle who have more job stress due to lack of control, yet they make less and then we argue, despite many applicants, that we have to pay college presidents, managers, CEO of healthcare companies huge amounts.

    2. We are just (maybe) are coming out of global pandemic and unfortunately the economy suffered because an incompetent gameshow host was president through much of it. The root cause is electing lifelong failures like Donald Trump.

  2. If people are unemployed, they’ve been getting an extra $1200 a month from the feds due to Covid. They should consider that the fed’s contribution to their rent money.

  3. I’m confused about the numbers.

    We have an outstanding debt of $155M in the state. The story mentions a $350M payment in December and another pool of $100M.

    Was the original debt $500M and the $350M paid it down to its current level? Is the $100M in the state funding from that $350M payment from the Feds?

    It would be nice if the author could clear this up. I’d love to know how much of the $350M has been spent and of that how much actually got to landlords.

  4. I see the broad brushes are out once again among readers.

    One need not read far into the article to see the gross racial disparity or too deeply into some of the comments to know that this disparity is regarded by some as the fault on the part of individuals rather than far deeper forces.

    The issues of race and poverty have evaded simple solutions for far longer than 60 years, perhaps in part because we’ve never really fully committed to addressing them. Political compromise is one of the enemies, never fully funding any effort and disparaging every attempt to address the issues.

    This is not to say that every individual affected has responded reasonably to the economic impact of the pandemic, any more than every individual has responded reasonably to the virus. How many of those who criticize tenants in default on their rents have themselves refused to take recommended precautions to protect themselves and society at large?

    Some may not have noticed that many aspects of life have become more expensive over the past 14 months, including food. Perhaps it’s time to quit bitching and try understanding.

  5. Let’s not get carried away with false equivalence here. Yes, the pandemic recession has inflicted harm on a lot of people, but here are some major differences between landlords and tenets:

    1) Unlike most of these tenets landlords have been collecting 90% of their usual revenue, in addition to their COVID relief checks. Tenet’s that are behind on their rent’s are jobless and living on unemployment, even the enhanced unemployment doesn’t match 90% of their lost wages.

    2) Unlike tenets, landlords are not in danger of losing their own housing. Landlords might miss payments, etc. etc. but the won’t lose their homes and end up on the street.

    3) Landlords WILL get their rent, they just haven’t gotten it yet. Tenet’s lost wages are gone forever.

    One question that would be interesting to ask is how many landlords would have actually evicted some these tenets if they could have?

    1. 1) Unlike most of these tenets landlords have been collecting 90% of their usual revenue, in addition to their COVID relief checks. Tenet’s that are behind on their rent’s are jobless and living on unemployment, even the enhanced unemployment doesn’t match 90% of their lost wages.

      I think unemployment should cover more that it does by default but the initial stimulus package included enough unemployment benefits that 68% of people were making MORE on unemployment than when they were working. I did some calculations and individuals who are currently laid off and were making $39,000 per year or less are receiving 90% or more of their wages in unemployment, and that’s on an individual basis. 47% of Americans make $38,175 or less. Anyone who was making $31,200 or less is getting more in unemployment than they did from working (39% of people.) MN pays out roughly 50% of wages up to a max of 740/week – which would mean the individual was making ~$77,000 per year. With enhanced unemployment those individuals making $77k per year would still receive 70% of their wages or about $4500 a month. 78% of people make $75,650 per year or less.

      As a question, I’m trying to figure out what situation you would be in where you’re receiving unemployment benefits and can’t pay rent. Most of what I think of is restaurant servers and other tipped employees that underreported (illegally I will add) wages and therefore aren’t getting benefits based on their actual income but rather their stated income. I’m genuinely curious what other situations you’ve heard of where someone was laid off and because unemployment wasn’t paying enough they couldn’t make their rent payments.

      2) Unlike tenets, landlords are not in danger of losing their own housing. Landlords might miss payments, etc. etc. but the won’t lose their homes and end up on the street.

      Well, there are some larger landlords but I’ve known several people who are small landlords – 2 apartments above their shop, a unit above their house, 3 houses they bought since they don’t have a 401k through work, etc. All of those people have to sign a personal guarantee (even when they had a business set up) on the loan from the rental, so if they can’t pay the mortgage on the rental, they could very well lose their own homes. Not all landlords are giant corporations.

      3) Landlords WILL get their rent, they just haven’t gotten it yet. Tenet’s lost wages are gone forever.

      Landlords won’t necessarily get back rent. It’s a tedious process to collect, the debt can be cancelled via bankruptcy and often times because it’s so onerous to try and collect back rent, the debt often gets sold to a debt collector for pennies on the dollar since the landlord is just trying to collect something to make up for all of the missed payments.

      1. “I think unemployment should cover more that it does by default but the initial stimulus package included enough unemployment benefits that 68% of people were making MORE on unemployment than when they were working.”

        I’m afraid you’ll have to show us your sources for this, the median household income in the US is $68k, so did you conclude that 70% of Americans are only making $39k? And how did you decide that THIS demographic represents the majority of those who have been laid off and are behind on their rent? This claim about unemployment is a popular false claim among Republicans. I keep asking people who make this claim why they don’t quit their jobs and live the dream on unemployment?

        It may be a hassle to collect rent, but if this is your business and your livelihood you deal with the hassles. Why are tenets expected to pursue all hassles while landlords get to live hassle-free lives? Besides, eviction is quite the hassle as well.

  6. Another thing to bear in mind regarding landlords and property owners is that for a significant number of them this rental income isn’t their only source of income. Many landlords hold normal day jobs as well so unless they were also laid off that 90% of rental income is in addition to their salaries and wages elsewhere.

Leave a comment