Does evicting tenants increase homelessness?

[Purple]

Given that evicting a tenant from a property does not reduce the housing stock how does it increase homelessness? Is there data to back up the contention that it does?

 

[noelÓm]

1. The rent the evicted tenants were paying will often be lower than the current market rent or even the controlled rents units to let in RPZs. So, eviction more often than not will mean that housing costs go up for the departing tenants. Hence, affordability challenges and a greater chance of homelessness. Landlords might have good or bad reasons for keeping rent below market levels, but tenants will generally lose this slack when they are evicted. This will be true even if the size of the rental stock is unchanged.

2. Not all households are alike. Say you have three rental houses. House 1 has two young professional couples in it who are each looking to buy a place on their own. House 2 has four low income workers living in cramped conditions. House 3 also has four low income workers living in cramped conditions. The landlords of Houses 2 and 3 want to sell up for whatever reason (e.g., high current prices, concern about rent control/regulation, hitting retirement age). 8 low-income people are thus evicted and have to find accommodation somewhere other than Houses 1, 2, or 3 (none are available during the sales process). Our young professional couples buy Houses 2 and 3 and get on with their lives in more comfortable homes. House 1 only comes onto the rental market after the sales process and is of no use to the 8. So, when the dust settles, we're down 1 rental unit net solely because of changes in how the three houses are occupied.

 

[Purple]

1. The rent the evicted tenants were paying will often be lower than the current market rent or even the controlled rents units to let in RPZs. So, eviction more often than not will mean that housing costs go up for the departing tenants. Hence, affordability challenges and a greater chance of homelessness. Landlords might have good or bad reasons for keeping rent below market levels, but tenants will generally lose this slack when they are evicted. This will be true even if the size of the rental stock is unchanged.

That doesn't increase homelessness. It may cause rent inflation but the same number of people will be housed.

2. Not all households are alike. Say you have three rental houses. House 1 has two young professional couples in it who are each looking to buy a place on their own. House 2 has four low income workers living in cramped conditions. House 3 also has four low income workers living in cramped conditions. The landlords of Houses 2 and 3 want to sell up for whatever reason (e.g., high current prices, concern about rent control/regulation, hitting retirement age). 8 low-income people are thus evicted and have to find accommodation somewhere other than Houses 1, 2, or 3 (none are available during the sales process). Our young professional couples buy Houses 2 and 3 and get on with their lives in more comfortable homes. House 1 only comes onto the rental market after the sales process and is of no use to the 8. So, when the dust settles, we're down 1 rental unit net solely because of changes in how the three houses are occupied.

... or the inverse could happen and we'd be up on rental unit. On a macro level I don't see it changing things.