Disgraceful :mad:
I should note that bolded passages are questions put forth by the interviewer and were bolded in the original text.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2016/03/an_interview_with_matthew_desmond_on_evicted_his_book_about_the_eviction.html
Quote
Why More Americans Are Getting Evicted
The practice used to be rare. Now it's an epidemic. Matthew Desmond, the author of a landmark new book, explains how it happened.
By Jake Blumgart
Harvard sociologist Matthew Desmond lived in the poorest neighborhoods of Milwaukee for years, studying a seldom-analyzed housing crisis engulfing poor communities. Evictions used to be relatively rare events, even during times of economic distress. When they did take place, they often occasioned community resistance, as memorably documented in the 1977 book Poor People's Movements and as depicted in Ralph Ellison's novel Invisible Man. But Desmond's new book, Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City, demonstrates that this phenomenon has become devastatingly common, wracking whole neighborhoods and destabilizing poor, and usually black, communities.
Evicted successfully interweaves the narratives of white characters living in a trailer park at the most southern point of Milwaukee with landlords and tenants in the sprawling black ghetto of the city's North Side. (Milwaukee is one of the most segregated cities in the country and one of the worst places for black people to live in America.) Desmond's findings are grim, but he relates them accessibly. In one subtly horrifying chapter, he profiles a moving company that gets many of its jobs from booting families from their houses.* Desmond follows a moving crew as it works its way through the black neighborhoods of the North Side, the Latino communities of the near South Side, and that trailer park at the bottom of the city, where it kicks one of Desmond's central characters out of her home.
Desmond's book manages to be a deeply moral work, a successful nonfiction narrative, and a sweeping academic survey—all while bringing new research to his academic field and to the public's attention. One of Evicted's most significant contributions is its focus on the vulnerability of the vast majority of low-income renters who are not covered by public subsidies or affordability controls. Without those protections, they're left vulnerable in a grossly unequal marketplace that is exploitative by its very nature. As Desmond shows, the only profitable way to rent to poor people is by putting very little money into a property while taking a huge chunk of a household's income.
That doesn't mean we should vilify landlords, even as it helps explain how evictions have become so common, as Desmond told me in an interview about his book. Our conversation has been edited for concision and clarity.
In the beginning of the book, you point out that evictions used to be rare, even during the Great Depression. Today, you argue that millions are being evicted every year. Why has it become so common?
That's one of the big things you see when reading urban history of the 1930s and 1940s. Evictions are these moments of scandal and mass community resistance. There's a little note in the book about an eviction [in February 1932] of three Bronx families, which brought out a thousand people. The New York Times wrote about it like that was a poor showing because it was too cold.
Now we are evicting hundreds of thousands of people, probably in the millions, every year. There's this divergence between what low-income families are making and what they have to pay to keep a roof over their heads and heat in their house. Between 1995 and today, median rent increased by over 70 percent. In the 2000s the cost of fuel jumped by 53 percent.
When you ask people why they were evicted the big reason is nonpayment of rent. They can't afford to keep a roof over their heads. Utilities are a big part of the story too, while the third leg on the table is the lack of government help with housing. Most Americans think that the typical low-income family lives in public housing or gets housing assistance. The opposite is true. In years where you've had a growing gap between incomes and housing costs, only 1 in 4 families that qualifies for housing assistance gets any.
Why has so much scholarly and journalistic attention been paid to that one-fourth? I'm as guilty of that as anyone; I've written more about public housing and the Section 8 programs than about the private market for low-income renters. Even in terms of the other afflictions of poverty, drugs and gangs receive more attention than housing.
It's hard to answer that question. Issues like joblessness, welfare reform, and mass incarceration are essential to understanding inequality in America today, but so is housing. We paid a lot of attention to public housing because it was a really important story. There's this growing field of study and journalistic attention to the neighborhood and the effects poor neighborhoods can have on kids. In that research housing is a stepping stone to get to larger issues of ecology.
But what I was seeing on the ground was here's this housing market where the vast majority of poor families live and spend most of their incomes just to live in it. The market dictates where they live, who they get to live with. It plays a vastly important role in destabilizing their communities, but we just didn't know a lot about it.
This eviction epidemic you describe is racialized. You found that among Milwaukee renters 1 in 5 black women report eviction, versus 1 in 15 white women. What kind of social effects does this have on, say, the ability to do well in school or keep a job? What effect does it have on neighborhood violence?
The consequences of eviction are so much greater than I was fully aware of when I started the work. Families not only lose their homes. Kids lose their schools. They also lose their things, which are piled on the sidewalk. It's a lot of time and money to establish a home, and eviction erases all that. It comes with a record, which affects your chances of moving into stable housing because a lot of landlords will turn you away. Even in public housing an eviction record is counted as a strike.
So we see families move from poor neighborhoods to poorer ones and neighborhoods with high violence rates to even more dangerous neighborhoods. When I started I thought that job loss would lead to an eviction, but we found better evidence of the opposite. Then there's the effect eviction has on your mental health. There are higher rates of depression even two years later, and we know that suicides attributed to eviction have doubled [between 2005 and 2010].
Evictions can ripple through multiple neighborhoods. When Doreen [one of Evicted's central characters] and her family moved from a neighborhood where they'd been a long time, a stabilizing presence was lost. After the eviction they moved to a neighborhood they didn't like, into substandard housing. They didn't invest in that neighborhood, and they didn't contribute, so one neighborhood loses a stabilizing presence, and the other doesn't gain one. It's really hard to invest in a neighborhood and try to drive down crime if you don't know your neighbors because so many people are being tossed every year.
You note that a landlord can expect about $750 a month in a white middle class suburb of Milwaukee but $550 a month in the most desperate ghetto. Why this small disparity?
When we looked at the distribution of rent in the city only 260 bucks separated the 90th percentile from the 10th percentile. Some of the most expensive and some of the least expensive apartments are not actually separated by all that much. A two-bedroom apartment in the poorest neighborhood in Milwaukee, where upward of 40 percent of people are below the poverty rate, its only $50 less a month than the citywide median.
You can buy in the neighborhood for much lower than you can in the suburbs, but you can still rent it at a decent amount. Your mortgage bills are lower, your tax bills are lower, and your return on investment is often better. There is a moment where Sherrena [a landlord in Evicted] is buying a duplex for $8,000, putting a bit of money into it, and recouping her total costs in a year. That's the kind of return that attracts some folks.
You don't demonize the landlords. You really emphasize how difficult the business is and how close to disaster many of these operators frequently are when they get an unexpected bill. What do you think is the most useful way for reform-minded readers, who might be tempted to villainize these people, to understand these actors?
I think we are letting ourselves off easy if we just say, "Oh those landlords they're so greedy," or "Oh these tenants are so irresponsible." If we as a nation are going to house the vast majority of our low-income families in the private market, landlords have to be at the table. We have to understand their perspective; we have to understand their incentives. The book does not shy away from moments where landlords have massive discretion over families' lives or where landlords drive their properties into the ground. But it also documents when landlords work with families and let them slide sometimes.
There's one part, in rent court—the busiest courtroom in Wisconsin—where your main landlord character is grousing about the system. To hear her tell it, "It's still not fair nobody ever does anything to these tenants. It's always the landlord. This system is flawed ..." But there's no sense in which that's true. There are reams of research that show rent court almost always favors the landlord—in some studies over 99 percent of the time. Why is rent court stacked in the favor of the landlord?
We don't fundamentally solve the affordable housing crisis, that's the answer to your question. If you have someone who is paying 88 percent of her income on rent and we have laws that allow a landlord to evict a tenant who falls behind under those circumstances, eviction becomes an inevitability.
If you are someone like Arlene [a tenant in Evicted] and you move into a place, paying 88 percent of your income, and you have to pay first [month's rent], last, and security deposit ... that's impossible, so you start off behind. You start off in a legally precarious position. We do have laws on the books that protect tenants from indecent conditions and allow them recourse if landlords don't have heat or running water.*
Then you have a situation where there is no right to counsel in housing court or civil court in general. In many housing courts 90 percent of landlords have lawyers, and 90 percent of tenants don't. It's very difficult for tenants to have a fair hearing. In Milwaukee 70 percent of tenants just don't show up because they don't think they'll have a shot.
Why are protections for renters so weak? You note that if a tenant in Milwaukee is current on the rent, he or she can withhold payments to force repairs. Those who are most likely to need repair, poor people living in dilapidated housing, are most likely to be behind on their rent. Is that true in other cities too?
Most cities don't have a just-cause eviction law. Most allow no-cause evictions, as well as evictions for nonpayment. But if you looked at the eviction laws on the books in Milwaukee you'd say these are pretty good, these are pretty fair. In Milwaukee you can withhold rent from a landlord if they don't address particularly bad housing conditions. Not even withhold your rent but literally keep it. On paper those laws aren't weak, but they become weak in practice. They are weak when the majority of renting families are spending at least half their income on rent and 1 in 4 are spending over 70 percent on housing costs.
Considering conditions, why has tenant activism receded as eviction rates have gone up? I can't imagine renters are poorer than their counterparts during the Great Depression. Is it that evictions are so common now?
There's a scene in the book where [a black woman] is getting evicted, and it was her first one. She was 24. I remember asking if she was worried, and she said she wasn't: "Everyone I know, except my white friends, has an eviction record." It's this massive thing that has massive consequences, that creates a record, that can bar them from housing programs. That has become normalized in poor communities.
I do wonder if this is changing. Renters today may be reaching a point where they are growing to see themselves again as a class with shared interests and organizing together.
Where are you seeing that?
I've seen it in places with organizations working toward establishing just-cause eviction laws, in cities like Boston. Organizations like CASA [Community Action for Safe Apartments] in the South Bronx. These organizations are out there, and they are vocal and they get stuff done.
As a reform you propose a universal housing voucher for low-income renters, basically a massive expansion of the Section 8 program.
I always come back to the question of scale. Do we believe housing is a right and that affordable housing is part of what it should mean to be an American? I say yes. Then the question becomes how do we deliver on that obligation? I think taking this program that works pretty darn well and expanding it to all families below the poverty line is the best way to do that. These families spending 80 percent of income on rent would be paying 30 percent. They'd be saving and spending money on their kids. We know from previous research that when families get a housing voucher after years on the waiting list, they buy more food, they go to the grocery store, and their kids become stronger. The book goes into how much that would cost and how to do that. But first we have to recognize how essential housing is to driving down poverty and recognize that we can't fix poverty without fixing housing.
*Correction, March 17, 2016: This article originally misstated that Evicted includes a profile of a moving company that gets most of its work from evictions. The company gets many of its jobs that way, but not most. (Return.) It also misquoted Desmond as saying that "we don't have laws on the books" to protect tenants from indecent conditions. He said that "we do" have such laws. (Return.)
what a bad article. this part really sticks out
QuoteThere are reams of research that show rent court almost always favors the landlord—in some studies over 99 percent of the time. Why is rent court stacked in the favor of the landlord?
If these renters simply took control of their lives by not being black and just made more money, then they wouldn't have to worry about evictions.
I mean, sure, rent has the lowest income earners shouldering a great cost burden, but they should have thought about all that before and gone to a better college.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 18, 2016, 06:46:34 AM
If these renters simply took control of their lives by not being black and just made more money, then they wouldn't have to worry about evictions.
I mean, sure, rent has the lowest income earners shouldering a great cost burden, but they should have thought about all that before and gone to a better college.
They should have studied harder and gotten top 30% test scores.
slate :bleeding:
I also agree with Tim. I too think it is disgraceful that people enter into contracts they then refuse to perform. What happened to "pacta sunt servanda"? :mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 18, 2016, 06:46:34 AM
If these renters simply took control of their lives by not being black and just made more money, then they wouldn't have to worry about evictions.
I mean, sure, rent has the lowest income earners shouldering a great cost burden, but they should have thought about all that before and gone to a better college.
Nah, I think Black Lives Matter should push for black people to get their leases rent-free. Similarly, black people should be able to enter any shop they want, take any goods they need without paying and without having to live in a constant fear of being shot by some racist cop.
Marty with a hat trick! :showoff:
This is the costume I ordered for my future as a landlord:
(https://www.quickhomebuyers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/evil-landlord.jpg)
To be fair the article doesn't actually blame landlords. It "blames" unaffordable housing, saying that when people are spending 70 or 80% of their income on rent it becomes almost inevitable that you won't be able to pay your rent and be evicted.
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2016, 12:41:38 PM
To be fair the article doesn't actually blame landlords. It "blames" unaffordable housing, saying that when people are spending 70 or 80% of their income on rent it becomes almost inevitable that you won't be able to pay your rent and be evicted.
it also blames laws, courts, and SCOTUS for not granting americans a right to counsel in housing matters.
re: unaffordable housing, the only way I can see really fixing this problem is to subsidize housing on a massive scale, far more so than any current subsidies
Quote from: LaCroix on March 18, 2016, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2016, 12:41:38 PM
To be fair the article doesn't actually blame landlords. It "blames" unaffordable housing, saying that when people are spending 70 or 80% of their income on rent it becomes almost inevitable that you won't be able to pay your rent and be evicted.
it also blames laws, courts, and SCOTUS for not granting americans a right to counsel in housing matters.
re: unaffordable housing, the only way I can see really fixing this problem is to subsidize housing on a massive scale, far more so than any current subsidies
Nah, there's a free market way to do it as well. Dramatically loosen up zoning regulations, allowing much denser buildings to be built.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 18, 2016, 01:11:56 PM
re: unaffordable housing, the only way I can see really fixing this problem is to subsidize housing on a massive scale, far more so than any current subsidies
What is the problem?
I found this article singularly uninformative.
also, the "millions are evicted every year!" is just a random guess
Quote from: BarristerNah, there's a free market way to do it as well. Dramatically loosen up zoning regulations, allowing much denser buildings to be built.
I don't know enough about this. are zoning regulations a problem in every city? maybe in the major cities, but what about elsewhere?
Quote from: Admiral YiWhat is the problem?
if some poor people getting evicted is a problem, then that's the problem.
(edit) this is desmond's article: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/fastfocus/pdfs/FF22-2015.pdf
according to him, 2/3 below the poverty line don't receive government subsidies. he argues they should receive subsidies, and then he notes annual evictions in a handful of cities (NYC had 28,700 in 2012).
There are people who can't afford their rent out in the country too. I don't think looser zoning regulations will fix that.
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2016, 12:41:38 PM
To be fair the article doesn't actually blame landlords. It "blames" unaffordable housing, saying that when people are spending 70 or 80% of their income on rent it becomes almost inevitable that you won't be able to pay your rent and be evicted.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.bwbx.io%2Fimages%2FiwTUa_hUmFmA%2Fv1%2F-1x-1.jpg&hash=d0d351e02f28c0e81e1407d0f5821430c9b3c867)
If only we would have listened. :(
This is the area where the state should intervene - but not by setting rent controls on private property but by building municipal low rent housing (or subsidising it if built by private people).
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2016, 11:15:01 AM
I also agree with Tim. I too think it is disgraceful that people enter into contracts they then refuse to perform. What happened to "pacta sunt servanda"? :mad:
Efficient breach FTW
Quote from: Savonarola on March 18, 2016, 01:57:32 PM
If only we would have listened. :(
Is that a Dr Seuss character?
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2016, 02:14:01 PM
This is the area where the state should intervene - but not by setting rent controls on private property but by building municipal low rent housing (or subsidising it if built by private people).
Will still lead to housing being unaffordable for those who aren't suffering from poverty but also not wealthy.
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 18, 2016, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 18, 2016, 01:57:32 PM
If only we would have listened. :(
Is that a Dr Seuss character?
Jimmy McMillan
Is not a villain
In fact
he acts
With decorum and tact
And if you ask him why
He'll reply
In the blink of an eye
It's because the rent is too damn high
New York City
Is not very pretty
There's bums in the street
And rats at your feet
And taxi cab fleets
That run you over
If you don't duck and cover
But Jimmy McMillan
Who still isn't a villain
Will be happy to fill in
For you the reason why
It's because the rent is too damn high
I read this as "More Americans Are Getting Excited Than Ever Before" and had to concur.
And yes, there should be appointed counsel in eviction proceedings among other civil (and quasi-civil) court actions (child support arrears and restraining order hearings, for instance).
As long as there is an empty house in Detroit I refuse to believe in an American housing problem.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 03:09:59 PMAnd yes, there should be appointed counsel in eviction proceedings among other civil (and quasi-civil) court actions (child support arrears and restraining order hearings, for instance).
how much would this cost?
Quote from: LaCroix on March 18, 2016, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 03:09:59 PMAnd yes, there should be appointed counsel in eviction proceedings among other civil (and quasi-civil) court actions (child support arrears and restraining order hearings, for instance).
how much would this cost?
A lot. :) How much do appointed criminal defense attorneys cost? Justice isn't cheap.
EDIT: And keep in mind multiple lawyers are appointed in family court proceedings where the State is involved. Half the reason it was so miserable was that there were 5.5 lawyers in the room -- mom's, dad's, DCF's, the ADA, the child's, and the GAL. :bleeding:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 03:34:29 PMA lot. :) How much do appointed criminal defense attorneys cost? Justice isn't cheap.
EDIT: And keep in mind multiple lawyers are appointed in family court proceedings where the State is involved. Half the reason it was so miserable was that there were 5.5 lawyers in the room -- mom's, dad's, DCF's, the ADA, the child's, and the GAL. :bleeding:
so, a fundamental right to counsel in family matters (including evictions, etc.)? http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/spdp07.pdf shows a median of 163 public defenders per state. or 8,150 PDs across the nation. if we put the average PD salary at $60,000 (is this reasonable?), that's about half a billion. this assumes a similar need as with criminal cases, though I suspect there'd be an overall higher need for family matters than criminal
Double or triple that money estimate if you actually want to meet Due Process and Sixth Amendment standards in criminal proceedings in most states, while continuing to charge the same number of people, i.e. the number of public defenders per capita is woefully low, as is well known, and lots of states don't use public defenders per se, but contract attorneys often paid by the case (giving them an obvious incentive to "greet 'em and plead 'em" as we said).
We manage to give Israel $3 billion a year in military aid, so I have no reason to think a couple billion a year to ensure adequate representation for Americans in court would be a fiscal problem. :)
Try to find the average number of minutes spent per client for appointed cases, while you're looking for statistics. Indigent representation in criminal court is an open disgrace, and all those lawyers *already* have to be appointed in any family court case where DCF wants to take custody of a child in any way (not just physical custody).
let's say $3 billion. now, what would this change? would your standard eviction hearing be any different with an overburdened public defender/contracted attorney present? would the cost make a material impact on improving poor people lives?
I assume our $3 billion aid to our ally has a material impact on our ally.
Yeah, I wouldn't guess most (all?) eviction hearings involve intricate legal issues.
"You're 90 days late on rent."
"My client is very sorry your honor and promises to do better."
I guess it could drive up attorney costs for the landlord, assuming public defenders would do their damnedest to delay the eviction. an increase in litigation costs could help prevent evictions in some cases. but, wouldn't this hurt everyone? landlords now have to pay extra $ to fight (potentially) lengthier court battles with stubborn delinquent tenants, which I'm sure would trickle down and screw a lot of innocent tenants over because landlords might be less likely to rent to poor tenants.
Yeah, let's deny people adequate representation to save landlords money on their legal fees. :unsure: Evictions, like foreclosures, are a two-way street.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2016, 05:43:50 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't guess most (all?) eviction hearings involve intricate legal issues.
"You're 90 days late on rent."
"My client is very sorry your honor and promises to do better."
:lmfao: I don't use that smiley hardly at all, but I really did laugh -- that was the basic dialogue in hundreds of misdemeanor guilty pleas and probation violation admissions that I did. But we still appoint them attorneys. And you know, it still helps to have a guy in a suit with you who can say words like "your honor" and "deeply sorry," rather than just letting the tenant go on a rant that hurts his interests and makes the judge dislike him. Without their own lawyers, a lot of landlords would be likely to do the same.
And setting up things like payment plans based on income are actually something a little sophisticated that a lawyer can help with. Like if the judge says, "OK counsel your client reports $2200 monthly income, we'll have him pay $450 a month in arrears plus keep up with his current rent and come back in 60 days and see where we're at, alright?"
The client might just be cowed into saying "Yeah, OK, sure, thank you" then proceeding to fuck it up again and actually get evicted. A lot of people are scared in court, not just criminal court, for good reason. But the lawyer might say instead "Well your honor, my client does take home $1100 biweekly after taxes, but he has two children who don't live with him, and he pays $600 monthly for their upkeep, so his effective income is really $1600 monthly." "Fine, $250 a month in arrears. But he better he keep up with his current rent!" "Certainly, your honor."
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 08:01:17 PM
Yeah, let's deny people adequate representation to save landlords money on their legal fees. :unsure: Evictions, like foreclosures, are a two-way street.
I'm saying that landlords having to pay potentially grossly more legal feels with potentially every eviction would change landlord policy, and I don't think the outcome would benefit tenants in the long run
I think the more likely result is that landlords would just be less likely to institute eviction proceedings in court if they couldn't use the very fact of the legal system itself as an enormous cudgel over the tenant. And that landlord-tenant disputes would be worked out, within and outside the legal system, on a more equitable basis.
You can describe the parade of horribles resulting from giving poor people some of the same legal representation as rich people, but there's a problem of fundamental fairness -- in more than just landlord-tenant cases -- at the heart of the issue, which can't be buried under this or that hypothetical consequence.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 05:35:08 PM
Try to find the average number of minutes spent per client for appointed cases, while you're looking for statistics. Indigent representation in criminal court is an open disgrace, and all those lawyers *already* have to be appointed in any family court case where DCF wants to take custody of a child in any way (not just physical custody).
The county PD office is begging the legislature for more funds. Chance of getting said funds, zero.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2016, 11:02:48 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 05:35:08 PM
Try to find the average number of minutes spent per client for appointed cases, while you're looking for statistics. Indigent representation in criminal court is an open disgrace, and all those lawyers *already* have to be appointed in any family court case where DCF wants to take custody of a child in any way (not just physical custody).
The county PD office is begging the legislature for more funds. Chance of getting said funds, zero.
:( Missouri's public defense system is a mess. These things vary so much state by state, and even county by county. Colorado and Montana are both well-regarded, but not Idaho or Wyoming. Tennessee and Alabama are also decent to my knowledge, but Mississippi and Louisiana are nightmarish. When I was in New England, Rhode Island and New Hampshire were the good ones, while Maine and Massachusetts were the bad ones.
And I know St. Louis County's is particularly bad even by Missouri standards, and that you're better off getting charged in the city or way out in the sticks. Call your legislator. :(
They have to pool 200 jurors before they find 12 that'll won't immediately say the person is guilty simply because they are on trial. The idea of leveling the playing field between the prosecutor's office and the public defender's office, even a little bit, is seen as disrespectful to the family of the victim. They held a guy for six years down in Miller county (the county a little to the south of me), without trial and with any trial date even set. When the judge cried foul and released the guy people wanted to impeach her. A guy in St. Louis was released after 20 years because it was found the police beat a confession out of him. People were complaining that this horrible person was released because the police made a mistake. A mistake is when the police screw up the chain of evidence. You don't mistakenly beat a confession out of a guy. And again, think of the family of the victim.
We have a shit highway system because nobody wants to pay taxes. Missouri couldn't even get federal matching funds. Still, that makes some sense. You get a shit highway system because you don't want to pay for a decent one. We have a shit justice system because people here want a shit legal system.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 09:21:40 PM
I think the more likely result is that landlords would just be less likely to institute eviction proceedings in court if they couldn't use the very fact of the legal system itself as an enormous cudgel over the tenant. And that landlord-tenant disputes would be worked out, within and outside the legal system, on a more equitable basis.
You can describe the parade of horribles resulting from giving poor people some of the same legal representation as rich people, but there's a problem of fundamental fairness -- in more than just landlord-tenant cases -- at the heart of the issue, which can't be buried under this or that hypothetical consequence.
there's a real possibility that low-incoming (shit apartments, not government subsidized) renting to those without government assistance might evaporate under this plan. wouldn't make it worth the risk of costly legal battles for with potentially every single delinquent tenant.
should there be a guaranteed fundamental fairness in private matters?
Wow, Mihali must be the craziest person we currently have on Languish. Even Raz is more reasonable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2016, 05:43:50 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't guess most (all?) eviction hearings involve intricate legal issues.
"You're 90 days late on rent."
"My client is very sorry your honor and promises to do better."
This. It's not a criminal trial, it's simply a matter of establishing whether the rent was paid or not. Even in Poland, where state-appointed legal representation is common one would normally not get it in a case like this.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 05:28:49 PMWe manage to give Israel $3 billion a year in military aid, so I have no reason to think a couple billion a year to ensure adequate representation for Americans in court would be a fiscal problem. :)
I knew it was all Malthus's fault. I hope he frenzies in this thread like he did in the other.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2016, 04:05:54 AM
Wow, Mihali must be the craziest person we currently have on Languish. Even Raz is more reasonable.
I was thinking of a doing a Poll on who is the craziest.
Martinus: Delusions, believes he is a sociopath.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 18, 2016, 08:14:40 PM
The client might just be cowed into saying "Yeah, OK, sure, thank you" then proceeding to fuck it up again and actually get evicted. A lot of people are scared in court, not just criminal court, for good reason. But the lawyer might say instead "Well your honor, my client does take home $1100 biweekly after taxes, but he has two children who don't live with him, and he pays $600 monthly for their upkeep, so his effective income is really $1600 monthly." "Fine, $250 a month in arrears. But he better he keep up with his current rent!" "Certainly, your honor."
How often do evictees get a work out plan? Is it there for the asking?
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2016, 04:05:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2016, 04:16:16 AM
I was thinking of a doing a Poll on who is the craziest.
It's Lettow.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2016, 04:47:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2016, 04:16:16 AM
I was thinking of a doing a Poll on who is the craziest.
It's Lettow.
Lettow endorsed Trump. That makes him less crazy. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2016, 04:16:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2016, 04:05:54 AM
Wow, Mihali must be the craziest person we currently have on Languish. Even Raz is more reasonable.
I was thinking of a doing a Poll on who is the craziest.
Martinus: Delusions, believes he is a sociopath.
I never knew where this "sociopath" thing comes from. People just throw it around on the internet for people they don't like or think are assholes.
The sociopath things comes from the impression you give to many posters, such as myself, that you interact with people on a disfunctional level.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2016, 04:59:25 AM
The sociopath things comes from the impression you give to many posters, such as myself, that you interact with people on a disfunctional level.
Explain.
Also you said
QuoteI think I'm (moderately) sociopathic.
Back in 2011 http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,5197.25.html
:D
Ok Raz. Also, what kind of man stays the same after 5 years?
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2016, 05:04:29 AM
Explain.
You're self defeating when it comes to achieving what you want with people, whether it be to make them laugh, or to win their trust, or their respect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2016, 05:09:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2016, 05:04:29 AM
Explain.
You're self defeating when it comes to achieving what you want with people, whether it be to make them laugh, or to win their trust, or their respect.
I don't think that is true, at least not in real life. On Languish, maybe, but I never actually see Languish avatars as real people (at least until I meet them in real life) so there may be that.
mihali's doing just fine. and martinus doesn't seem like a sociopath. probably narcissistic (not NPD, though)
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2016, 04:55:31 AM
Lettow endorsed Trump. That makes him less crazy. :P
He endorsed Trump on the basis of him "making anime real", whatever the fuck that means.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2016, 05:24:47 AMHe endorsed Trump on the basis of him "making anime real", whatever the fuck that means.
don't be ridiculous! he endorsed trump on the basis that the solid south all voted for him. :)
Texas did not. :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2016, 05:28:00 AM
Texas did not. :contract:
oh, but that's not "real" south, you see. tejas is tejas--only technically part of the south. I don't make the rules
It certainly has enough barbecue joints per capita to qualify.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 19, 2016, 05:18:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2016, 06:11:15 AMI 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)
Quote from: LaCroix on March 19, 2016, 03:09:17 AM
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.)
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2016, 04:36:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2016, 04:05:54 AM
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. :)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 19, 2016, 07:28:58 PMYes. 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.
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.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 19, 2016, 08:35:51 PM
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 19, 2016, 05:39:11 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2016, 05:28:00 AM
Texas did not. :contract:
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 :hug:
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.
(https://cdn3.volusion.com/nqrhj.vepqr/v/vspfiles/photos/2013-1-2.jpg)
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 19, 2016, 05:51:39 AM
It certainly has enough barbecue joints per capita to qualify.
Texas BBQ not that pork shit they make out east.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2016, 11:12:17 PMOh LaCroix :hug:
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.
:Canuck:
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2016, 11:13:05 PM
Texas BBQ not that pork shit they make out east.
Pulled pork is amazing. :mmm: And pork ribs are pretty standard in any type of bbq. :yeahright:
That's just something Tejanos feel like they have to say.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2016, 05:26:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 09:17:38 PM
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. :hmm:
Hmm. :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.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 20, 2016, 09:17:38 PM
Yeah, PC Texans trying not to offend the Solid South.
Screw the South!
And screw your inferior shitty BBQ :blurgh:
I just realized all this Texas is its own region crap is to hide the fact that Valmy's from a family of carpet-baggers. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 21, 2016, 09:27:27 AM
I just realized all this Texas is its own region crap is to hide the fact that Valmy's from a family of carpet-baggers. :hmm:
Hell I am not even a real Texan being an Austinite :P
But actually my Grandmother's family has been here since the 1850s so as far as Texans so only truly native sons like Katmai have anything on me.
But fuck you southerners, you have your own damn 20 fucking states of whatever. Be happy with the shit you have. Leave us alone.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 19, 2016, 07:28:58 PM
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.
Isn't the real problem lack of affordable housing? I can see the argument for providing poor tenants legal representation in eviction proceedings, but I'm not convinced it would accomplish anything beyond providing employment for more lawyers unless there's evidence that a substantial number of people are getting evicted who aren't behind in their rent (leaving aside people getting evicted for destroying property and the like). More people getting evicted doesn't sound to me like a legal problem so much as an economic problem.
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2016, 04:36:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2016, 04:05:54 AM
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.
He's been expressing opinions generally outside of the Languish consensus recently, and with a militancy and frequency that was previously uncharactaristic. But while I admit I haven't been following his every post, I don't think anything he said is really beyond the boundaries of mainstream discussion, much less marking him as insane.