On February 13, The New York Times published an article titled, “Some Tenants Could Get Only One Day’s Eviction Notice, Under Federal Bill,” which presented an inaccurate account of a proposed bill on eviction notices. Below is a reprint of PHADA’s response, submitted on February 18.
To the Editors,
Debra Kamin’s February 13 story, “Some Tenants Could Get Only One Day’s Eviction Notice, Under Federal Bill,” is misleading, inaccurate and fails to inform the public on what the bill will, and will not, do. It also fails to provide any comment from supporters of the bill or provide relevant information beyond the information provided by opponents.The bill as written would not reverse HUD’s rule requiring 30-day notice for non-payment of rent in the Public Housing and multi-family project-based rental assistance programs. It would reverse the broader 30-day notice mandate enshrined in the CARES Act, which due to technicalities of the legislative language did not expire at the end of the COVID-19 National Health Emergency.
From the perspective of public and mission-driven housing providers, as well as other landlords, the lost revenue from unpaid rent is significant. Federal rental assistance does not cover the lost revenue when assisted tenants fail to pay their required portion of rent (generally 30% of their income).
Among public housing authorities, Tenant Accounts Receivable (TARs)–the amounts of past due unpaid tenant rents–have grown substantially, threatening the fiscal solvency of some agencies and reducing their ability to effectively manage and maintain their properties. Total TARs, as of the most recent data available for 2022, were over $570 million, and 20% of the over 3000 public housing authorities nationwide were “severely impacted” (as defined by HUD) by TARs. Nonpayment continues at about twice the rate of pre-pandemic numbers, further undermining this pillar of the nation’s housing infrastructure.
For tenants and landlords, as well as courts and lawyers, one single standard is easier and less confusing (and thus less costly). Landlord-tenant law is primarily a state, not federal, jurisdiction. Attempting to apply a single national standard only to federally assisted housing, but not to the general rental housing market in any specific state or locality causes confusion and complication.
In nearly all cases, avoiding eviction is a priority for landlords. Policies, programs, and services to assist households at risk are needed. Longer notice periods, however, especially when selectively applied, have not been clearly demonstrated to effectively advance the goal of reducing evictions. Longer notice periods can have other significant and harmful impacts not just on housing agencies but on the families they house, such as larger owning balances and greater debt. For these and other reasons, as detailed in this statement from the PHADA Board of Trustees, and in PHADA’s formal comments on HUD’s 30-day notice rule, PHADA supports the legislation and withdrawal of the 30-day notice for non-payment of rent rule in federally assisted housing.
Sincerely,
David P. Weber
Senior Policy Analyst
PHADA