More Americans Are Getting Evicted Than Ever Before

[Martinus]

mihali's doing just fine. and martinus doesn't seem like a sociopath. probably narcissistic (not NPD, though)

I usually score higher on histrionic than narcissistic in those online tests, and I have a highly developed sense of guilt/responsibility, which I think is not a common narcissistic trait.

[LaCroix]

I usually score higher on histrionic than narcissistic in those online tests, and I have a highly developed sense of guilt/responsibility, which I think is not a common narcissistic trait.

I didn't mean an overwhelming narcissism, but maybe above average (everyone is narcissistic to a degree, which is why "hypocrite" is a pretty worthless word)

[Capetan Mihali]

should there be a guaranteed fundamental fairness in private matters?

Yes.  But then, I'm a socialist.

In reality, we don't need formal legal proceedings, or legal representation, for probably 90% of what ends up in housing court.  The vast majority of landlord-tenant issues are already worked out independently of the court system.  Things like the work-out plan I described in my hypo for Yi are done out of court all the time.  (And as an aside, plenty of law school legal clinics, among others, already "jam up" the system and make things expensive for landlords by representing tenants, by sending students to practice in housing court.)

Ideally, mandatory housing mediation (with neither party having counsel) before permitting an eviction proceeding to commence in court, would be an a much cheaper and fairer way of dealing with the situation.

The real problem is that the we've reached the point where the legal system itself is a weapon in the hands of the wealthy and powerful, not the even playing-field for resolving disputes that it was supposed to be.  The exponential increase in "legal expertise" and in the complexity of the legal system is something that certainly couldn't have been imagined in the 1780s, when I think it was much more taken for granted that the average intelligent citizen could represent himself in a civil suit if he needed to. 

That's just not the case anymore, and some of the same access to counsel that we give to indigent criminal defendants needs to be extended to civil litigants -- not in every case, and not in every housing case, but eviction and foreclosure are extreme events.

I'd say the same is true for a divorce where there are children involved, and for civil proceedings that can trigger the suspension of important civil privileges (driver's license, license to practice a trade) like child support arrears hearings.

Most crucially it is needed for civil proceedings where noncompliance with the judgment is criminalized or where there's a high chance that a party may incriminate himself in testifying in his own defense: I'm thinking of restraining order hearings and civil DUI license-suspension hearings, in particular.

(And yes, Yi, I believe most courts are inclined to impose such work-out plans before issuing eviction orders, if the tenants actually contest the proceeding and come to court.  Landlords are more interested in actually getting some cash, even less than they're owed, rather than getting a Pyrrhic cashless eviction, and judges don't generally like throwing people out on the street.  But I haven't spent a fraction of the time sitting in the gallery of housing court as I have in criminal or family court.)

[Capetan Mihali]

Wow, Mihali must be the craziest person we currently have on Languish. Even Raz is more reasonable.

He has taken a deep dive in the last few days.

I'm glad you guys are concerned for me, but I'm feeling just fine.  Maybe I've just been ascending and ascending, and I've crossed over to a new level of political thinking, like DGuller was talking about, so now all of a sudden I seem incomprehensible and crazy to you guys stuck at the previous stage.  We'll all be on the same page once you level up, don't worry.

[LaCroix]

Yes.  But then, I'm a socialist.

In reality, we don't need formal legal proceedings, or legal representation, for probably 90% of what ends up in housing court.  The vast majority of landlord-tenant issues are already worked out independently of the court system.  Things like the work-out plan I described in my hypo for Yi are done out of court all the time.  (And as an aside, plenty of law school legal clinics, among others, already "jam up" the system and make things expensive for landlords by representing tenants, by sending students to practice in housing court.)

Ideally, mandatory housing mediation (with neither party having counsel) before permitting an eviction proceeding to commence in court, would be an a much cheaper and fairer way of dealing with the situation.

The real problem is that the we've reached the point where the legal system itself is a weapon in the hands of the wealthy and powerful, not the even playing-field for resolving disputes that it was supposed to be.  The exponential increase in "legal expertise" and in the complexity of the legal system is something that certainly couldn't have been imagined in the 1780s, when I think it was much more taken for granted that the average intelligent citizen could represent himself in a civil suit if he needed to. 

That's just not the case anymore, and some of the same access to counsel that we give to indigent criminal defendants needs to be extended to civil litigants -- not in every case, and not in every housing case, but eviction and foreclosure are extreme events.

I'd say the same is true for a divorce where there are children involved, and for civil proceedings that can trigger the suspension of important civil privileges (driver's license, license to practice a trade) like child support arrears hearings.

Most crucially it is needed for civil proceedings where noncompliance with the judgment is criminalized or where there's a high chance that a party may incriminate himself in testifying in his own defense: I'm thinking of restraining order hearings and civil DUI license-suspension hearings, in particular.

(And yes, Yi, I believe most courts are inclined to impose such work-out plans before issuing eviction orders, if the tenants actually contest the proceeding and come to court.  Landlords are more interested in actually getting some cash, even less than they're owed, rather than getting a Pyrrhic cashless eviction, and judges don't generally like throwing people out on the street.  But I haven't spent a fraction of the time sitting in the gallery of housing court as I have in criminal or family court.)

re: law school clinics, I'm not sure a couple of clinics at some schools makes a dent on the system.

re: mandatory housing mediation, I don't follow you on how this would help.

I'm not sure I agree that landlords use eviction proceedings as a "weapon." the landlord runs a business and wants a return on his investment. so, a landlord who's got a troublesome tenant wants him out and a better tenant in. and the market decides whether there are enough landlords and tenants. the problem with child support, state matters, etc., is that these are between parties who are either permanently or semi-permanently connected. they have to work something out. the landlord doesn't have to work anything out with the tenant, because the tenant is one of a thousand/million. while workarounds make sense with child support, they don't make as much sense with eviction proceedings. the landlord wants his money because he runs a business, so why should he put up with the possibly endless hassle of dealing with troublesome tenants?

re: landlords taking less cash and keeping bad tenant over no cash with the potential for long term gain (eviction and new, possibly good tenant). why would they do this, unless wherever you saw these proceedings (east coast?) had some pretty pro-tenant law that I don't know.

[Capetan Mihali]

All tenants are "troublesome" to a certain extent, and some are extremely troublesome, but I thought we were talking about eviction for non-payment rather than eviction for smashing in the wall with a chair every weekend during a drunken arguments. 

Why wouldn't the landlord prefer some cash now and getting a new tenant when the lease expires, rather than no cash and paying for the eviction process, in court and in the building, whether or not the tenant has a lawyer?

Mediation first of all diverts a lot of cases from the court and frees up the calendar for more important legal matters, ultimately saving the courts and state money.  It is useful because there is rarely the straightforward case of a completely conscienceless tenant with an angelic landlord who just refuses to pay and only causes trouble.  Sometimes there are issues that escalate -- like, the apartment won't get over 55 degrees, so I'm not paying you the full amount this month -- and problems like a tenant losing a job where the landlord will make more money working with the tenant rather than trying to throw him out, getting no rent from him, and having to clean the place over and find a new tenant again. 

As I said, eviction is only reached via a two-way street.  Landlords (other than the gov't) everywhere have a lot of options about who they rent to, and if they've rented to such an impossible tenant that they have no recourse but eviction, it's their fault too. 

[LaCroix]

All tenants are "troublesome" to a certain extent, and some are extremely troublesome, but I thought we were talking about eviction for non-payment rather than eviction for smashing in the wall with a chair every weekend during a drunken arguments. 

Why wouldn't the landlord prefer some cash now and getting a new tenant when the lease expires, rather than no cash and paying for the eviction process, in court and in the building, whether or not the tenant has a lawyer?

Mediation first of all diverts a lot of cases from the court and frees up the calendar for more important legal matters, ultimately saving the courts and state money.  It is useful because there is rarely the straightforward case of a completely conscienceless tenant with an angelic landlord who just refuses to pay and only causes trouble.  Sometimes there are issues that escalate -- like, the apartment won't get over 55 degrees, so I'm not paying you the full amount this month -- and problems like a tenant losing a job where the landlord will make more money working with the tenant rather than trying to throw him out, getting no rent from him, and having to clean the place over and find a new tenant again. 

As I said, eviction is only reached via a two-way street.  Landlords (other than the gov't) everywhere have a lot of options about who they rent to, and if they've rented to such an impossible tenant that they have no recourse but eviction, it's their fault too.

yup, I meant non-payment when I said troublesome/bad.

well, right now in these eviction cases that we've been talking about, landlords are preferring to evict non-paying tenants (the negotiations that end with both parties satisfied aren't really at issue, at least I don't think). I assume court costs are low enough to make this profitable, or they're paying to evict tenants to set an example to other tenants. in this proposed regime with (likely) additional court costs, maybe it wouldn't be profitable and landlords would more harshly scrutinize prospective tenants, or maybe landlords would continue evicting tenants.

who pays for mediation? ide's happy because now there are thousands more legal jobs, but this cost comes from somewhere. so, I don't know by how much it would free up court/state expenses.

[Valmy]

Texas did not.

oh, but that's not "real" south, you see. tejas is tejas--only technically part of the south. I don't make the rules

Oh LaCroix

Your words do honor to my homeland. I think all Texans agree that you are worthy of this inestimable honor I am going to bestow upon you.



I was too moved by emotion to fill it out but I am sure once you reflect on the enormity of this moment you can do the honors.

[Valmy]

It certainly has enough barbecue joints per capita to qualify.

Texas BBQ not that pork shit they make out east.

[LaCroix]

Oh LaCroix

Your words do honor to my homeland. I think all Texans agree that you are worthy of this inestimable honor I am going to bestow upon you.

image

I was too moved by emotion to fill it out but I am sure once you reflect on the enormity of this moment you can do the honors.

[Eddie Teach]

Texas BBQ not that pork shit they make out east.

Pulled pork is amazing. And pork ribs are pretty standard in any type of bbq.

[Admiral Yi]

That's just something Tejanos feel like they have to say.

[Capetan Mihali]

That's just something Tejanos feel like they have to say.

Yeah, PC Texans trying not to offend the Solid South.  Everyone knows they want beef, beef, and more beef, with a side of beef.  Though they're not averse to a little bacon or something sliding in the mix from time to time.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, PC Texans trying not to offend the Solid South.  Everyone knows they want beef, beef, and more beef, with a side of beef.  Though they're not averse to a little bacon or something sliding in the mix from time to time.

I meant the opposite, that dissing BBQ pork is just for show.

Spell check is OK with dissing. 

[Capetan Mihali]

Hmm.   I don't know Texas BBQ well at all, but I just can't imagine beef BBQ being remotely as good as that luscious pork, so I could see that, too.