Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

[herrfrank]

^Also reminds me of the rules to rent in my old midtown building in NYC -- the rent was several thousand per month (this was decades ago) and I had to demonstrate 50x monthly rent in annual income. That meant serious paperwork, adjusting some income dates and other fancy footwork to meet the requirement. Yet there were people in the building who must have been grandfathered in before the rules. That income test seemed like it would prevent rental to anyone without a MoTU job. Are those restrictions now illegal?

I have a few landlord friends in KC -- small businesspeople, five or ten "doors" each. But they have each experienced horror stories and want more powers to research and evict tenants.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I always love the cognitive dissonance of people on one hand saying "landlords are a succubus taking people's money for doing nothing" and then two minutes later "but, I would never be a landlord, dealing with people's BS all the time would be awful."

[Highlander]

I always love the cognitive dissonance of people on one hand saying "landlords are a succubus taking people's money for doing nothing" and then two minutes later "but, I would never be a landlord, dealing with people's BS all the time would be awful."

It's not cognitive dissonance. Both are correct. One of my adult kids have encountered a string of "scumbag" landlords. Landlords that charge a premium and fix nothing and have refused to return the deposit when the apartment was meticulously cleaned (I know, my wife and I travelled 1200 miles to help them move). My other adult kid has had a relatively benevolent landlord keeping rents fairly reasonable despite the ever inflationary Austin rental scene. I recognize that some tenants can be irresponsible, destroy property and don't pay their rent. It's not that one "side" has a monopoly on irresponsibility and bad practices.

[CrossroadsUrbanApts]

Just my two cents, but I think it is a good thing that some of these conversations on KCRag are uncomfortable. If everyone is just agreeing with each other, then no learning or growth is taking place. Of course, too much acrimony and division can be unproductive, too, when everyone loses the plot and the ad hominems start flying. I think KCRag is a better place than most in (usually) striking that balance. I'm not the most frequent commenter, but I've felt like I've had productive interactions with phuqueue (for one example) more often that not. I'm actually guessing he and I agree on more things in the wider U.S. political conversation than not.

That said, I don't think criticism of KC Tenants and their beliefs and tactics should be so casually dismissed as just developer griping. I think they had a profound impact on this past City Council term and what ordinances were passed. Many cities saw a boom in apartment development in 2019-2022, so much so that many are seeing meaningful rent decreases due to marked increases in supply. That phenomenon passed Kansas City by due to the Council shifting strongly to an anti-development stance, as seen in its misguided affordable housing set aside ordinance and other anti-incentive votes. Fortunately, there seems to be more openness to improving incentive policy in this new Council term, though nothing has really changed as of yet.

I don't need to repeat all that's been said in the past few pages about KC Tenants pushing a broader anti-development policy on the City. Today on Twitter, Tara Raghuveer made it crystal clear that Rent Control is her clear answer to affordable housing. Of course, they also think social housing is the only acceptable form of new housing development, as detailed in their housing manifesto ("People's Housing Trust Fund"), which describes market rate development as "not for us; they push us out". City Councilmembers listened to this and made public policy decisions based on this - which is becoming clear in hindsight was to the detriment of the city in stifling new development.

I have no issue with KC Tenants loudly making themselves heard in service to their constituents - but I do think it warrants criticism when it leads to bad policy and bad outcomes.

[alejandro46]

I agree Crossroads. Personally, I think KCT has done good work advocating for tenants against absentee or neglectful landlords to bring more equal balance to the relationship. Just because a place is cheap doesn't mean it should be unsanitary, dangerous, or in disrepair. Tenants do have some rights under law, but they often struggle to utilize them, so having pro bono tenant legal counsel is helpful. It's also hard to balance these types of laws in a way that doesn't put an undue burden on small or medium landlords who don't just have counsel on retainer to handle tenant disputes or evictions.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and to advocate for them with their voices and their dollars but also open to criticism and disagreement. Whenever there is a disagreement with that organization, the leaders in the past have often immediately start yelling and heckling. I know this is just an anon post on a forum, but if their maximalist policy goals continue like rent control, banning all incentives, etc. are followed, it would result in the lowest cost of housing for the fewest and an overall decrease in total housing supply and an increase in housing costs for everyone and harm to our city as well as continue to push sprawl out to surrounding communities.

[Sirius_Blue]

I agree, alejandro. Gotta have the long-term perspective.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I always love the cognitive dissonance of people on one hand saying "landlords are a succubus taking people's money for doing nothing" and then two minutes later "but, I would never be a landlord, dealing with people's BS all the time would be awful."

It's not cognitive dissonance. Both are correct. One of my adult kids have encountered a string of "scumbag" landlords. Landlords that charge a premium and fix nothing and have refused to return the deposit when the apartment was meticulously cleaned (I know, my wife and I travelled 1200 miles to help them move). My other adult kid has had a relatively benevolent landlord keeping rents fairly reasonable despite the ever inflationary Austin rental scene. I recognize that some tenants can be irresponsible, destroy property and don't pay their rent. It's not that one "side" has a monopoly on irresponsibility and bad practices.

I don't want to hijack the thread for a silly observation. Of course, there are bad actors and terrible landlords. The point had nothing to do with any specific landlord. There are many many people who believe landlords shouldn't exist, that they are ALL bad and that they are all leaches on society, no matter how well maintained their property or how happy their tenants are. You don't spend enough time on Reddit if you haven't seen this sentiment.

[phuqueue]

Pretending that every single instance of eviction is some evil landlord who is preying on lower and lower middle class is a completely disingenuous stance, and the majority of us calling that out is somehow frowned upon? Okay.

Pretending that anybody except you said "every single" anything is a completely disingenuous stance.

I currently work at a multifamily development in JOCO, and it’s not affluent by any means but also not low income. We’ve had three eviction/abandonment units within the past 4 months, and every single one of them left behind thousands of dollars worth of goods, and had things like new game console boxes, new phone boxes, large TV boxes. Things that are very much not necessities.

I would contend that you actually have no idea what is going on in any of these people's lives and that what you are engaging in right now is simple confirmation bias. Basically every home has "thousands of dollars worth of goods" in it. These goods are generally acquired piecemeal over a number of years and not necessarily brand new or at a price commensurate with their supposed value. Or maybe they were bought brand new at that price, and then your tenant lost their job or otherwise had their income reduced, incurred some other large unforeseen expense (e.g., medical), etc. There is any number of innocuous explanations for how they came to acquire such goods before they were evicted for not paying their rent before you jump to "they could have paid rent but were too lazy" ("lazy" being Chris's word, but I won't blame you if you want to back away from defending that now). And I'd probably dispute your valuation of the goods in question if it's based mainly on consumer electronics, considering big 4K TVs can be had for dirt cheap and even high-end smartphones are often heavily subsidized or even free, depending on your plan (plus I've already previously addressed the bonkers assertion that a phone is "very much not a necessity"). Either way, surely people leaving "thousands of dollars worth of goods" behind did so for a reason. Most people, I think, would prefer to keep their "thousands of dollars worth of goods" if they were able to. Possibly they lacked the means to move them or a new place to take them, which might be stronger evidence of inability to pay rent than the opposite. I don't know. I'm not here to tell you what really happened because I don't know any better than you do. But on the other hand, you also don't know any better than I do, which, far short of making declarations about "every single landlord," is actually the only point I ever really made in the first place.

(and ditto to the other landlord anecdotes; the details of the anecdotes might differ but my basic point would be the same, so I don't feel I need to respond to each one individually)

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Lol okay

[grovester]

Pretending that every single instance of eviction is some evil landlord who is preying on lower and lower middle class is a completely disingenuous stance, and the majority of us calling that out is somehow frowned upon? Okay.

Pretending that anybody except you said "every single" anything is a completely disingenuous stance.

I currently work at a multifamily development in JOCO, and it’s not affluent by any means but also not low income. We’ve had three eviction/abandonment units within the past 4 months, and every single one of them left behind thousands of dollars worth of goods, and had things like new game console boxes, new phone boxes, large TV boxes. Things that are very much not necessities.

I would contend that you actually have no idea what is going on in any of these people's lives and that what you are engaging in right now is simple confirmation bias. Basically every home has "thousands of dollars worth of goods" in it. These goods are generally acquired piecemeal over a number of years and not necessarily brand new or at a price commensurate with their supposed value. Or maybe they were bought brand new at that price, and then your tenant lost their job or otherwise had their income reduced, incurred some other large unforeseen expense (e.g., medical), etc. There is any number of innocuous explanations for how they came to acquire such goods before they were evicted for not paying their rent before you jump to "they could have paid rent but were too lazy" ("lazy" being Chris's word, but I won't blame you if you want to back away from defending that now). And I'd probably dispute your valuation of the goods in question if it's based mainly on consumer electronics, considering big 4K TVs can be had for dirt cheap and even high-end smartphones are often heavily subsidized or even free, depending on your plan (plus I've already previously addressed the bonkers assertion that a phone is "very much not a necessity"). Either way, surely people leaving "thousands of dollars worth of goods" behind did so for a reason. Most people, I think, would prefer to keep their "thousands of dollars worth of goods" if they were able to. Possibly they lacked the means to move them or a new place to take them, which might be stronger evidence of inability to pay rent than the opposite. I don't know. I'm not here to tell you what really happened because I don't know any better than you do. But on the other hand, you also don't know any better than I do, which, far short of making declarations about "every single landlord," is actually the only point I ever really made in the first place.

(and ditto to the other landlord anecdotes; the details of the anecdotes might differ but my basic point would be the same, so I don't feel I need to respond to each one individually)

I've worked in apartment management/maintenance as well as the storage unit biz and this is the truth.

This is not just big screens and xboxes, it's personal papers, kids drawings, wedding photos.

These things aren't planned, they happen to people who failed at capitalism. Their options to get out of their mess was going to cost money they didn't have.

People with means choose bankruptcy at this point, so you never get to see their stuff.

[Chris Stritzel]

Let's admit that there’s a very harsh reality to face when it comes to evictions. Yes, some are evicted because of economic hardship and mean no harm. They wish they could stay, but they can’t afford rent or a lawyer to help them any. Those people are the ones I side with and, in every capacity I’ve worked in (with family friends and a big company), have worked with to create a plan that works for all of us. We feel for these people.

I do not feel for those who blow their money on marijuana plants and growing sets, tons of pairs of shoes, and especially those lowlifes that leave their pets behind to either run off or to starve and die. When these people are evicted, they destroy the homes in the process causing thousands of dollars in damage. In some cases, the homes are so far destroyed that insurance deems them a total loss (because of the neighborhood or damage sustained) and the property ends up being boarded up or demolished. In some instances, my family friends have owned properties that were occupied by tenants running a drug ring. When that came to light, the tenants were evicted, and the homes were demolished as they were unfit for occupancy for another tenant (they feared for tenant safety in these instances).

It isn’t all unicorns and rainbows. Some evictions are wrongful, and that's a damn shame. But if you knowingly don’t pay your rent and blow money on ridiculous items, while trashing the property, then yes. You need to be evicted. Additionally, there are responsibilities on both sides of that contract you sign when you move into a house, apartment or condo. Both sides must abide by those rules or face consequences. Some people hate these facts.

Some think all landlords are the devil in human form working to “crush the little guy” while “living a life of luxury”. That’s not the case. Every family friend I know, who does own property, owns no more than 3 properties. Most of the time, these are properties inherited after the death of a family member. Only one family friend owns homes purchased from the LRA of St. Louis and fixed up for rental purposes. These family members work day jobs in the teaching, banking, medical, and national defense sectors. These are middle-class people who were lucky to pursue another venture.

Thankfully, they’ve had some success. It’s those few instances of literal hell that make them consider backing out of this secondary gig/job. Even with the revenue from their other properties, it is difficult to recoup the costs brought on by damaging tenants who leave in a terrible way.

Some will claim that my family friends were absent landlords, but they’re not. They would respond to tenant concerns and maintenance requests in an extremely timely manner. They’d be looser with rent due dates than most other landlords because they understand that homes are necessary to life. But they’re clearly the enemy in the eyes of a lot of people. Got it.

I attach these images of properties my family friends had to evict tenants from. Excuses from these tenants ranged from being unemployed to unexpected medical expenses. Meanwhile, their Facebook profiles were (laughably) set to public, and we found multiple posts of these tenants partying in nightclubs, going on international trips (or trips within the country to high-end/popular destinations), buying a new car, and having lavish parties. All the while telling my family friends that they were broke and had no money or simply didn't respond to landlord texts about rent payments or Ameren/Spire shutting off service. It doesn’t add up. If I were in their situation, I’d choose having a roof over my head, electricity, and food to live instead of blowing money on non-essentials. Call me an idiot if you wish. I don’t care.

Spare me the cries of, "this isn't planned". If you're not paying your rent/not communicating what's going on, the time is ticking down, and you should know better. In the case of the following photos, people have enough time to paint graffiti on the walls and make a mess on their way out, while also cultivating weed, but not to move their stuff out.

This is the reality of tenants who have no shame. This is the reality that landlords, both good and bad, have to deal with when working with difficult tenants. It’s uncomfortable, but it needs to be seen by people because I doubt many of been exposed to such images. Deplorable conditions.




































KCTenants can fight for those who aren’t fortunate enough to fight eviction or make their case to landlords about their financial situation and troubles. Communication and dialogue goes a long way. KCTenants can fight for better living conditions and management response times. KCTenants can fight back against absent slumlords. Those are noble. Fighting for those who openly screw themselves and demand empathy is a stupid mission. I feel for the prior two, not the latter. Fight for the prior, not the latter.

[Sirius_Blue]

Well. Shit.

[Cratedigger]

Let's admit that there’s a very harsh reality to face when it comes to evictions. Yes, some are evicted because of economic hardship and mean no harm. They wish they could stay, but they can’t afford rent or a lawyer to help them any. Those people are the ones I side with and, in every capacity I’ve worked in (with family friends and a big company), have worked with to create a plan that works for all of us. We feel for these people.

I don’t really have much perspective to add to this tricky conversation. So I’m staying out of it for the most part.

I do want to echo this sentiment specifically. I have a good friend who cofounded a Property Management firm that manages over 20,000 units in the Midwest and Southwest. He is one of the most principled and genuinely kind people I’ve ever met. Every single tenant that had fallen on tough times but came to their offices with a plan or the willingness to make up the rent difference another way was respected. I know of dozens of people who over the first few months of Covid got landscaping jobs with his firm so that they could support themselves.

Again, very tricky conversation but I’m glad it is being had in both this forum and the city.

[phuqueue]

Chris, I appreciate your post (which I won't quote, just due to length), but I think you are making the same mistake as Anthony made when he suggested that my argument was that "every single" eviction is an evil landlord. I haven't made any sweeping generalization about "all landlords" or "all tenants." I'm only guessing here, but if anybody from KCT joined this thread, I imagine they would also tell you that their organization doesn't exist to defend drug dealers who are renting houses not to use as homes but to run criminal enterprises.

I raised the comparison of the welfare queen in my earlier post, and I think it really is a helpful illustration here. I previously called the welfare queen "fake," but in a very literal sense, that's not quite accurate. There really was a specific person who became identified as the Welfare Queen (her name was Linda Taylor, you can look her up if you aren't already familiar with her story), and she really did commit welfare fraud. But Reagan seized on her as the face of a supposedly vast population of fraudsters bilking the system, and that was 100% fake. She was a singular figure, an all around con artist who committed lots of crimes, many far worse than welfare fraud (including kidnapping and possibly several murders), which were generally ignored lest they undercut the political project being built on her infamy. The actual incidence of fraud in the welfare system, then and now, was and remains extremely low in comparison to the scale of the system (in the most recent semiannual report, OIG reported 284 indictments and 268 convictions for various offenses against SSA, which distributes more than a trillion dollars to tens of millions of people annually). Much of the fraud that does occur is perpetrated by identity thieves and scammers preying on benefits recipients, not fraudulent claimants, and many of the fraudulent claims that are made are made by white collar criminals (like doctors overbilling Medicaid). But the response to fraud fears in recent decades has been to gut the system, reducing or eliminating benefits to millions of innocent people with genuine need, effectively punishing them for others' crimes.

I doubt anybody has an issue with evicting drug rings from rental houses, just as nobody would object to cutting off Linda Taylor's welfare benefits, but protection for landlords from situations like that cannot entail throwing innocent families out of their homes as collateral damage. I am deeply suspicious of claims that "I support the good and deserving ones, but" because it's easy to agree that the most egregious cases were clearly not good and deserving, but it's even easier to err in edge cases and deprive people who are good and deserving but for whatever reason don't necessarily appear so based on whatever limited information is available to third party observers. Despite situations like what we see in your photos, landlording seems to be on balance a pretty profitable venture (landlords who find it not to be so are free to sell their properties and exit the business, and I'm sure some do, but we clearly do not see a mass exodus of landlords), so I remain more concerned with keeping people in their homes than with goosing profit margins.

[CrossroadsUrbanApts]

There's another point to making evictions even more difficult that I think should be considered: the unseen cost to those who can't rent at all because of bad credit or other black marks on their record for whatever reason (maybe previous evictions, having been incarcerated, etc.) Especially in an overall context of a housing shortage.

Imagine a world in which evictions are quick and inexpensive. In that world, landlords can take a risk on a tenant with a questionable rental history because they know if things don't work out, they can evict the tenant and gain possession back easily and quickly. In the opposite world - where eviction processes are extremely onerous or lengthy - landlords are incentivized to do whatever they can to keep out bad tenants, and to not take any chances on the "edge cases" that phuqueue mentions. They have the incentive to leave a unit vacant until a better (on paper) tenant comes along. Because if that tenant with the checkered history stops paying, it could be months or even years before you can get back possession. There was an article in the NY Times about a lady with a brownstone in Brooklyn who used to lease out her top floor to renters, but stopped because in two cases she had unscrupulous tenants stop paying and then drag out an eviction process for over a year. So there's a housing unit remaining vacant in a market with a dire shortage.

That said, I do think there is a special case for tenants with children. Because it is not the children's fault if their parents are poor tenants. And the cost of eviction to children is really high, as Matthew Desmond documented so well in his book. This is an area where more social housing options clearly would make a difference.

So when evaluating whether to make evictions easier or more difficult, the public needs to take into account the perhaps unseen incentives that it creates for both landlords and tenants.

[kenrbnj]

Chris, it's my hope that the full identity of the tenant who destroyed the house and neglected the dogs is published for all to see.

There is something to be said about "harsh consequences": I have personally no moral objection to a tenant who destroys a property and neglects animals to live beneath an overpass.

There should be a landlord registry; where abusive tenants can be identified and shunned. It's not being inhumane. It's a consequence for bad behavior. Let those people pay above market rents with draconian conditions (late by 14 days? You're on the street. You want to rent? Three months' of security deposit.)

Disgusting.

[phuqueue]

I'm not sure in what world I could possibly be convinced that looser eviction rules are actually good for tenants, but it's not this one. There is zero reason to believe landlords wouldn't abuse an "easy and quick" eviction process, and it stands to reason that those tenants with "questionable history" are likely to be the ones kept on the shortest leash, so it's not obvious to me that putting people through a constant revolving door of apartment > eviction > apartment > eviction ad nauseam is going to be better than the status quo. And this assumes landlords will be more willing to "take a risk" in the first place on someone they feel they might evict, but given that we are experiencing a significant housing shortage, not an abundance of vacant units struggling to match with the perfect tenant (notwithstanding articles spotlighting individual landlords pulling their single units off the market), it's also not obvious to me that such a change would meaningfully change aggregate landlord behavior anyway.

The focus on landlord concerns in this thread is somewhat understandable given the number of landlords on this board, but it is hard for me to weigh the landlord's interest in maximizing their passive income even remotely as heavily as the tenant's interest in not getting tossed out on the street. Eviction is a traumatic experience that meaningfully and persistently raises a person's risk of homelessness and negative health outcomes, but I feel that many of you don't appreciate how serious it actually is.

[DColeKC]

I'm not sure in what world I could possibly be convinced that looser eviction rules are actually good for tenants, but it's not this one. There is zero reason to believe landlords wouldn't abuse an "easy and quick" eviction process, and it stands to reason that those tenants with "questionable history" are likely to be the ones kept on the shortest leash, so it's not obvious to me that putting people through a constant revolving door of apartment > eviction > apartment > eviction ad nauseam is going to be better than the status quo. And this assumes landlords will be more willing to "take a risk" in the first place on someone they feel they might evict, but given that we are experiencing a significant housing shortage, not an abundance of vacant units struggling to match with the perfect tenant (notwithstanding articles spotlighting individual landlords pulling their single units off the market), it's also not obvious to me that such a change would meaningfully change aggregate landlord behavior anyway.

The focus on landlord concerns in this thread is somewhat understandable given the number of landlords on this board, but it is hard for me to weigh the landlord's interest in maximizing their passive income even remotely as heavily as the tenant's interest in not getting tossed out on the street. Eviction is a traumatic experience that meaningfully and persistently raises a person's risk of homelessness and negative health outcomes, but I feel that many of you don't appreciate how serious it actually is.

Looser eviction rules offer several advantages for landlords and the housing market as a whole. They enable landlords to protect their property rights and investments efficiently. This streamlined process allows for quicker resolution of issues like non-payment of rent and lease violations, maintaining property values and reducing the financial burden on responsible tenants. Why is it that many properties require the first and last months rent as a security deposit? Because of past tenants who abused the system and left the landlord in debt.

Additionally, it encourages landlords to conduct more thorough tenant screenings, leading to more responsible tenant selection and fewer evictions. Looser rules can also incentivize more individuals to invest in rental properties, addressing housing shortages in certain regions and increasing the overall housing supply. We need more affordable housing which in turn means we need more small time investors to get into the landlord game. If the system is setup to benefit the tenants and punish the landlord, we will never solve the affordable housing crisis.

You can't seem to understand that most of us in here can in fact appreciate how serious being evicted can be and the long lasting consequences one can suffer from it. That doesn't mean we can't also admit that groups like KCT is having a overall negative impact on the housing market by scaring away potential landlords. They are bullies and have mostly unrealistic expectations. By the time they realize they've made things worse for the ones they claim to want to protect, it will be too late.

[phuqueue]

If you think that helping landlords "protect their property rights and investments efficiently" is as important as -- or more important than -- keeping people in their homes and off of the streets, then no, you don't appreciate how serious eviction is. When someone gets run over by a car, do you also worry about the damage to the car?

[CrossroadsUrbanApts]

I'm not sure in what world I could possibly be convinced that looser eviction rules are actually good for tenants, but it's not this one. There is zero reason to believe landlords wouldn't abuse an "easy and quick" eviction process, and it stands to reason that those tenants with "questionable history" are likely to be the ones kept on the shortest leash, so it's not obvious to me that putting people through a constant revolving door of apartment > eviction > apartment > eviction ad nauseam is going to be better than the status quo. And this assumes landlords will be more willing to "take a risk" in the first place on someone they feel they might evict, but given that we are experiencing a significant housing shortage, not an abundance of vacant units struggling to match with the perfect tenant (notwithstanding articles spotlighting individual landlords pulling their single units off the market), it's also not obvious to me that such a change would meaningfully change aggregate landlord behavior anyway.

The focus on landlord concerns in this thread is somewhat understandable given the number of landlords on this board, but it is hard for me to weigh the landlord's interest in maximizing their passive income even remotely as heavily as the tenant's interest in not getting tossed out on the street. Eviction is a traumatic experience that meaningfully and persistently raises a person's risk of homelessness and negative health outcomes, but I feel that many of you don't appreciate how serious it actually is.

Well, as a landlord (of a single building that I co-developed), I can only explain my thought process as I go about leasing to tenants, and how the ease or difficulty of eviction weighs on my mind. I don't think I'm some crazy outlier, either. In my experience, eviction is never the first choice, and only undertaken after months of trying to work with a tenant. In particular, for non-payment of rent.