Rent and Eviction Filing at Enterprise-Backed Rental Properties

This paper examines the link between the financialization of rental housing and the rate of landlord eviction filings in Toronto, Canada. Our analysis is based on a novel database of all purpose-built rental properties (with 20 + units) in the city, linked to all eviction applications filed in the pre-pandemic decade (2010-2019), details on ownership and landlord-type, and socio-spatial data. Mirroring the extractive intensity of financial capitalism, we found that eviction filing behavior intensified along the spectrum of landlord types – from the least, to the most commodified and “financial” – with financial firms behaving most aggressively on all measures. Financial firms had the highest filing rates (eviction filings per 100 units annually), they increased filing rates the most after buying properties (by three times on average), and targeted properties in socially marginalized communities more aggressively than all other types of landlords. By contrast, non-market landlords of “decommodified” non-profit and public housing had the lowest filing rates, and similar rates across the city, regardless of neighborhood socio-economic status. Our findings suggest that expanded decommodification and definancialization of housing would protect tenants from eviction and residential instability and promote housing justice.

ObjectiveBans on evictions were implemented to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and to protect vulnerable populations during a public health crisis. Our objective was to examine how three bans on eviction enforcement impacted eviction filings from March 2020 through January 2022 in Ontario, Canada.MethodsData were derived from eviction application records kept by the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board. We used segmented regression analysis to model changes in the average weekly filing rates for evictions due to non-payment of rent (L1 filings) and reasons other than non-payment of rent (L2 filings).ResultsThe average number of weekly L1 and L2 applications dropped by 67.5 (95% CI: 55.2, 79.9) and 31.7 (95% CI: 26.7, 36.6) filings per 100,000 rental dwellings, respectively, following the first ban on eviction enforcement (p < 0.0001). Notably, they did not fall to zero. Level changes during the second and third bans were insubstantial and slope changes for L2 applications varied throughout the study period. The L1 filing rate appeared to increase towards the end of the study period (slope change: 1.3; 95% CI: 0.1, 2.6; p = 0.0387).ConclusionOur findings suggest that while the first ban on eviction enforcement appeared to substantially reduce filing rates, subsequent bans were less effective and none of them eliminated eviction filings altogether. Enacting upstream policies that tackle the root causes of displacement would better equip jurisdictions during future public health emergencies.

Eviction filing rates have declined in many large cities in the United States. Existing scholarship on eviction, which focuses on discrete tenant-landlord relationships, has few explanations for this decline. I consider whether community organizing by nonprofit organizations shapes the social organization of communities and causes landlords to file fewer eviction filings. In cities where tenant and anti-poverty organizing has become common, community-oriented nonprofit organizations advocate for disadvantaged communities and help residents avoid poverty. Community organizing has rarely been studied as a predictor of housing security among low-income tenants, despite studies of how community organizing shapes the use of property in wealthy neighborhoods. I estimate the causal effect of community organizations on eviction filing rates between 2000 and 2016 using longitudinal data and a strategy to account for the endogeneity of nonprofits and eviction. Evidence from year-to-year models in 75 large cities spanning sixteen years estimate that an addition of ten community nonprofits in a city of 100,000 residents is associated with a ten percent reduction in eviction filing. This effect is comparable to the effect of community organizations on murder and is roughly a third of the association between eviction and concentrated disadvantage.

Credit access and housing insecurity: Evidence from winter utility shutoff protections

Evictions cause substantial harm to lower income families. Housing subsidy might be expected to reduce eviction rates and provide greater stability. However, little research has examined the eviction rates of subsidized, affordable rental properties. We examine eviction filings for multifamily rental buildings in five-county metropolitan Atlanta, using a data set of eviction filings, property characteristics, and ownership information. We find that senior, subsidized multifamily properties have substantially lower eviction rates than market-rate properties do. A senior, subsidized multifamily rental building is expected to have an annual eviction rate that is 10.7 percentage points below that of a nonsenior, market-rate property; this result is significant (p < .01) and compares with a mean eviction filing rate of 16.3% (16.3 evictions per 100 rental units). On the other hand, a nonsenior subsidized building is expected to have an eviction rate that is 1.4 percentage points lower than a nonsenior market-rate building; this result is not statistically significant. We do not have data on the economic characteristics of tenants, and that may account for some of the relatively high eviction rates of the nonsenior-affordable properties. We discuss the implications of these findings for research and housing policy and practice.

The aim of this visualization is to determine whether populations at greatest risk for eviction have been vaccinated against COVID-19 prior to the end of the U.S. federal eviction moratorium. The authors identified nine jurisdictions in which both records of recent eviction filings and data on COVID-19 vaccination were available at the ZIP code level. In every jurisdiction, the ZIP codes with the highest rates of eviction filing during the pandemic had the lowest vaccination rates. These areas are also disproportionately home to majority Black and Hispanic populations. Given previous research demonstrating links between eviction and the spread of COVID-19, the present findings support the continuation of eviction protections. Communities at risk for eviction should be prioritized in vaccination campaigns.

&#x0D; The contribution made by SAPs to landlords was to create rented house properties, which were beneficial both to the landlords and tenants. In Dar es Salaam city and Urban Mbeya there has been an increase in housing stock as a result of rented houses built by landlords in the context of the programmes. The rented house properties contributed were used by the owners as productive assets and rented out to generate incomes, which were used to meet various socio-economic needs of the landlords. The tenants benefited from the rented houses contributed by having places to live and carry out their various socio-economic activities.&#x0D; Despite all the above benefits the study found that while in Dar es Salaam 81% of 99 rented houses surveyed were incomplete in various physical structures and lacked electricity that of Urban Mbeya constituted 74% of 100 rented houses, an indication of poor conditions of many rented houses available in the neighbourhoods. The houses in Dar es Salaam in addition of being characterised by those two aspects water was also missing in many of them. Three factors accounted for the situation of poor condition of rented houses in the surveyed areas of Dar es Salaam and Urban Mbeya. First, the inability of government agencies responsible for issuing security of tenure to landlords on rented properties. Secondly, the problem of inadequate finance existed to the side of the landlords, a situation attributed to an erosion of their incomes. And thirdly, bureaucracy exercised by some of TANESCO officials.&#x0D; SAPs had never acted as a force that made incomes of the landlords to be eroded. Instead the programmes created various opportunities for the landlords and tenants to tap them in order to generate incomes that could be used as financial resources for improving and building housing respectively. The opportunities facilitated by SAPs were skills development, micro finance enterprises/organisations development and development of pro-poverty reduction strategies. It was found that many households however never benefited from the opportunities created by the programmes due to factors like unreliable market, stiff conditions of loans imposed by the micro finance enterprises, lack of loan management skills existed among the households, lack of awareness among the households on the existence of micro finance enterprises in the neighbourhoods and failure of the pro-poverty reduction strategies to trickle down to the households.&#x0D;

Housing evictions occur throughout the United States but are unevenly distributed within cities and counties. Evictions are more common in some neighborhoods than in others. This study explores why evictions are more prevalent in certain neighborhoods than in others. First, it explores what neighborhood attributes explain the varying prevalence of evictions and eviction filings. Second, it investigates whether federal rental housing assistance reduces neighborhood evictions or eviction filings. Using the Kernel-Based Regularized Least Squares method suitable for exploratory analysis, this study examines the variation in evictions and eviction filings across Kansas City, Missouri, neighborhoods, between 2010 and 2016. This study finds that neighborhood racial composition (percentage of Black rental households) and family composition (percentage of rental households with children) are the strongest predictors of neighborhood evictions and eviction filings. This study finds that neighborhood housing insecurity and gentrification do not significantly affect the prevalence of evictions and eviction filings when other neighborhood characteristics are held constant. Variations in evictions and eviction filings are due to several neighborhood characteristics, which have nonlinear and heterogeneous effects on evictions and eviction filings. It also finds that federal rental housing assistance significantly reduces neighborhood evictions and eviction filings.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US states enacted moratoria on evictions. Leveraging detailed administrative eviction filing data, we analyse the effects of eviction moratoria on eviction filings. Depending on the specification, we estimate that eviction filings declined by 75% in moratorium states relative to states with no moratorium in effect. We then impute the race and gender of renters facing eviction. We find significant and robust reductions in filings for all groups except Asian males. We estimate that eviction moratoria reduced eviction filings for Black, Hispanic and Asian renters significantly more than white renters, and women more than men. The simplest explanation for this disparity is that non-white (female) renters are disproportionately evicted compared to white (male) renters in general, and preventing evictions in a broad, uniform manner would thus disproportionately affect these groups.

Race, mental health, and evictions filings in Memphis, TN, USA

Housing affordability and eviction are intertwined, yet much remains unknown about how policy responses to increase affordable housing affect the local dynamics of eviction. This article establishes a framework for understanding how supply-side housing subsidy programs in the United States may impact the incidence of eviction filing. We apply this novel framework in a descriptive analysis of 9 years of eviction filing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Overall, we find theoretical and practical support for the hypothesis that tenants in subsidized multifamily housing are less vulnerable to eviction than tenants in similar unsubsidized properties, but we find those protections vary between subsidy programs. Namely, we find public housing and project-based rental assistance properties are associated with decreases in the incidence of eviction filing, whereas the findings for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit properties are inconclusive. We cannot treat subsidized housing programs as a universal solution to eviction, but both theory and our analysis suggest it is an important tool for lowering eviction and eviction filing rates.

Abstract: The roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have become increasingly controversial in the modern world of residential mortgage finance. The authors describe the special features of these two companies and their roles in the mortgage markets and then discuss the controversies that surround the companies and offer recommendations for improvements in public policy. JEL classification: G21, G28. Key words: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises, residential mortgages, securitization, regulation The Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation--commonly known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively (1)--have led the way in dramatic changes that have taken place in the structure of the U.S. residential mortgage markets since the 1970s. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are quasi-private/quasi-public: for example, they have federal charters that confer unique regulatory provisions; but their shares are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The biggest advantage of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's anomalous legal status arises because financial markets treat their obligations as if those obligations are backed by the federal government--even though the federal government explicitly does not do so. With the benefit of this special status, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have grown into enormous financial institutions, with combined total assets of over $1.8 trillion in 2003. One critic, Richard Carnell (2004), a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, has suggested that the two companies' growth is at least partially a consequence of a double game that they play: [They] tell Congress and the news media, 'Don't worry, the government is not on the hook'--and then turn around and tell Wall Street, 'Don't worry, the government really is on the hook.' The preferential legal status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac serves as one of a number of mechanisms by which the federal government encourages the consumption (and, arguably, the over-consumption) of housing in the U.S. economy--this one with an on-budget cost of zero. But economists are congenitally suspicious of programs that seem to offer something for nothing. After all, a federal of the deposits in savings and loans cost nothing for many decades--until the early 1990s, when it cost taxpayers about $150 billion (U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 1997). Furthermore, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (2004), among others, has suggested that the anomalous situation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may even pose systemic risks to the financial sector. This article will offer a generalist's guide to the functions that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac perform in the residential mortgage financial markets and the controversies that swirl around them. Along the way we will highlight some important--and perhaps under-appreciated--changes that are occurring in the structure of U.S. residential mortgage markets. Some Background What Do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Do? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac participate in the secondary mortgage market: Mortgage originators come to them with pools (bundles) of mortgages and either these assets for securities or sell them outright to one of the two companies. Under Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's swap programs, an originator exchanges a mortgage pool for a mortgage-backed security that is issued and guaranteed by one of the two companies and that represents an interest in the same pool. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac promise the security holders that the latter will receive timely payment of interest and principal on the underlying mortgages, less an annual guarantee fee of about 20 basis points (0.20 percent) on the remaining principal. In essence, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are providing insurance to holders of mortgage-backed securities against default risk on the underlying mortgages and are thus bearing that risk themselves. …

A causal relationship between eviction rates and homelessness rates has long been hypothesized, but there is little empirical evidence to support its existence. We address this gap by estimating the extent to which rates of eviction filings and eviction judgments are associated with subsequent rates of U.S. homelessness. We align community-level homelessness rates with county-level rates of eviction filings and eviction judgments from 2007 to 2017 and use fixed-effects regression models to assess relationships between eviction filings and eviction judgments and rates of homelessness. We find a positive association between the eviction filing rate and the rate of sheltered homelessness, but do not observe significant associations between eviction judgments and rates of homelessness. Although the community-level relationship between evictions and homelessness is significant, it is more nuanced than previously hypothesized. Findings corroborate the harms of eviction proceedings and suggest a need to intercede before an eviction judgment has been issued.

After the U.S. foreclosure crisis, institutional investors purchased thousands of homes and converted them into rental properties. Past research links these entities to a number of negative outcomes, including rent increases and eviction filings. This paper examines a larger variety of investors, including private equity firms and contract sellers. Using a national dataset of real estate transactions from 2010 to mid-2017, we examine the inter- and intra-metropolitan geography of institutional investors. Consistent with prior research, we find that large publicly traded entities purchased homes in growing Sunbelt metros, yet some specific firms target weaker-market metros. Large, publicly traded firms have concentrated investment in higher-value neighborhoods with larger shares of white residents. In contrast, private equity firms and contract sellers tend to invest in relatively lower-value neighborhoods with larger shares of Black residents. Results suggest different potential implications for these diverse actors’ investments, from crowding out prospective homebuyers to racial targeting.

Drawing on over 8 million eviction court records from twenty-eight states, this study shows the role that eviction filings play in extracting monetary sanctions from tenants. In so doing, it documents an unanticipated feature of housing insecurity: serial eviction filings. Serial eviction filings occur when a property manager files to evict the same household repeatedly from the same address. Almost half of all eviction filings in our sample are associated with serial filings. Combining multivariate analysis with in-depth interviews conducted with thirty-three property managers and ten attorneys and court officials, we document the dynamics and consequences of serial eviction filings. When legal environments expedite the eviction process, property managers use the housing court to collect rent and late fees, passing costs on to tenants. Serial eviction filings exacerbate tenants’ housing cost burden and compromise their ability to find future housing. Using tract-level rent and filing fees, we estimate that each eviction filing translates into approximately $180 in fines and fees for the typical renter household, raising their monthly housing cost by 20%. The study challenges existing views of eviction as a discrete event concentrated among poor renters. Rather, it may be better conceived of as a routinized, drawn-out process affecting a broader segment of the rental market and entailing consequences beyond displacement.