Virginia Eviction Laws Stacked Against the Poor

by Marc Lockhart

Last Tuesday I joined more than 100 people for the inaugural meeting of the Campaign to Reduce Evictions (CARE), sponsored by the Virginia Poverty Law Center, at First Baptist Church in Richmond. We assembled for two hours to investigate why Richmond has the second highest eviction rate in the country among large cities and what can be done about it. The goal of the campaign is to produce recommendations by 2019 that state and local policy makers can use to craft solutions to the crisis.

Why are we talking about this — how bad is it?

Richmond ranks #2 in the nation with an eviction rate of 11.44% with 6,345 evictions in 2016, according to data from the Eviction Lab. Roughly one out of every nine renters was evicted, or 17.38 households evicted every day. Comparing it to the rest of the country, Richmond is approximately five times the national average of 2.34%.

Moreover, Virginia has half the large cities with the country’s Top 10 highest eviction rates. Part of the reason is that Virginia, unlike many other states, has a legal process that favors landlords. (See eviction data for details.)

As Omari al-Qadaffi, a housing advocate from Leaders of the New South, points out, “An unlawful detainer is the only civil action in Virginia where an indigent person is compelled to pay the appeal bond. Any other civil action, you can be excused from it if you’re poor, but Virginia is such a real estate-friendly state that you cannot be excused from that. Also, something unique about Virginia is that a general district court is not a court of record, so there is no transcript that’s kept. So …in civil court, defendants just get run over top of in general district court, and cannot go back to a record to say ‘hey, my rights were deprived of me.’”

How is CARE approaching this?

CARE is conducting a series of meetings and workshops to create recommendations. The inaugural meeting was well organized and drew a cross-section of people and stakeholders involved in or affected by evictions. The breadth of stakeholder groups assembled was impressive — tenants who are in the process of being evicted and those who have been previously evicted, landlords, property managers, housing advocates and aid societies, housing authorities like Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority interim CEO Orlando Artze, attorneys, court personnel, and academicians.

The meeting started with a moving, personal story by Tonya Kernodle who recounted her experience being evicted as “emotionally devastating.” She admonished the audience to widen its perspective about who is evicted. “Don’t think it’s some type of person; it can be anyone.”

Martin Wegbreit, Director of Litigation for the Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, described the typical five-step eviction process, but noted that the duration can vary based on the court’s schedule and local practices. Nationally, 77% of evictions occur because of non-payment of rent and 23% for other reasons, like causing a public nuisance, poor building conditions, or calling the police too many times. Typically the process goes as follows:

Attorney Wegbreit noted how quick the eviction process is in Virginia and it favors the property owner, “the landlord [has many options] and has been made whole.  The landlord has gotten all of the rent, all of the late fees, all of the court fees, and all of the attorneys fees and is out nothing, and yet the tenant can be out everything, if the landlord so chooses.”

Housing Development Consultant Jonathan Knopf and VCU Professor Kathryn Howell presented data on the scope of the problem in Richmond and statewide based on data from the Eviction Lab and the Supreme Court of Virginia’s records.  The data is incomplete; it is missing from certain localities and sometimes the two data sets’ units of measure do not align.  That said, their analysis showed:

  • Eviction rates were probably underestimated. Christie Marra, Director of the ACES Community Development Initiative at the Virginia Poverty Law Center, stated that the Eviction Lab data is based only on the last writ of possession filed for a household, even though a household may have received multiple writs issued against it previously, likely resulting in an under count. Similarly, Martin Wegbreit surmised the published rates are lower than actual because they do not account for the number of renters who move after a writ of possession is issued but before the sheriff arrives at their door.  Professor Matthew Desmond, director of the Eviction Lab, states in his book, “Evicted” that “the American Housing Survey, along with most material-hardship studies, significantly underestimates the prevalence of involuntary removal among renters by relying on open-ended [survey] questions that do not adequately capture informal evictions that many renters do not consider to be “evictions.”
  • Certain sectors of Richmond had rates as high as 30%.
  • Areas of the city with high eviction rates also had high poverty and were mostly single family neighborhoods.

All in all, there was a palpable commitment and passion brought by many participants to find a better way of handling this process because of its staggering human toll. Pam Kestner, Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, said the Department has set aside a small amount of funds for a demonstration project about stabilizing housing for high school students in Petersburg. It will track the outcomes and the data to demonstrate to the Virginia General Assembly that if there were more money for stable housing that students would have better education outcomes.


According to Professor Howell, the principal drivers of Richmond’s eviction rate are a shrinking supply of affordable housing stock, development of non-subsidized housing, too high a rent burden (spending more than 30% of household income on rent). Likewise, Attorney Wegbreit believes that:

High poverty rate + lack of affordable housing + few tenants rights = High Eviction Rate

Additional research will answer some of these questions by pursuing several lines of inquiry. First, collect more data to fill in the gaps. Second, perform qualitative analysis of the eviction process, focusing on filings and households. Third, investigate housing stability and social impact, such as school performance, health outcomes, housing insecurity and homelessness, and job access and stability. Fourth, determine the fiscal impact to social services, sheriff’s costs, court costs, and housing provider costs. Fifth, examine who owns the properties with the most evictions. Property ownership is opaque because many rental units are owned by LLCs, making it difficult to determine if there are bad actors. Sixth, confirm if gentrification raises eviction rates based on the increased rent burden.

Over the summer, three workgroups will explore services for prevention, affordable housing supply, and law reforms. The groups will present their results in the fall at the next general meeting on September 25, then begin work on compiling recommendations.

For more information, please see

Henrico County resident Marc Lockhart is an advocate for social justice and community development. He formerly served on the board of directors for Goodwill of Central and Coastal Virginia and is a citizen data scientist examining issues at the intersection of income, authority, and inequality in Richmond. 

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


23 responses to “Virginia Eviction Laws Stacked Against the Poor”

  1. 1) Fix Omari al-Qadaffi’s items. That would help.
    2) Is the problem on single parent families with more than one child and parent having no education? There are only so many people we can help that contribute by choices that aren’t condusive to a better situation in life. Time and again, the wealthier households follow a pattern: a) get education, b) get job, c) get married/stay married, d) then have kids.
    3) The shrinking supply of affordable housing stock, development of non-subsidized housing was a problem recognized by the RDA’s before. I think taking a look at developers’, profits, etc. would be helpful in showing that a big issue is the refusal to build housing that is profitable. Another point to look at? Are certain developers favored over others?

    1. Vic raises an important point here. Housing affordability, while related to evictions, is a distinct issue. A big part of the problem is the welter of local government zoning and planning restrictions that discourage (a) the development of lower-income housing, (b) the rental of garage and basement flats, and (c) the outright outlawing of single-room occupancy accommodations.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      generally agree but a couple of nits.

      wealthier people don’t get married and stay married.. they have a pretty high divorce rate – ergo – if you are already wealthy or well-employed – divorce does not make you “poor” on the level of people who get married while in poverty.

      second – if not mistaken – about half of all births are paid for by MedicAid.

      so that’s way more that the percent of people in “poverty”.

      In fact, we actually subsidize having kids from the tax exemptions and deductions to the earned income and child credit to free k-12 education free breakfast and lunch and health care – virtually all kids are covered by MedicAid and CHPS.

  2. First, Marc, let me welcome you to Bacon’s Rebellion. Thanks for your insightful analysis of the eviction problem in Richmond and across Virginia. You bring a valuable perspective not seen often enough on this blog, and I look forward to a rewarding exchange of views.

    Now… time to unleash the hounds! Sic ’em, boys!

    Just kidding… Let me make a couple of observations that might help you in your capacity as a citizen data scientist (I love that descriptor, by the way) achieve a keener understanding of the problem.

    It is remarkable indeed that five of the Top 10 cities for eviction rates are located in Virginia. And that raises a question. Is Virginia really such a hell-hole for renters… or could we be seeing some kind of statistical artifact or anomaly?

    For starters I would refer you to this Planetizen article citing a RentCafe ranking of the 50 states for renter-friendly versus landlord-friendly policies based on “10 common aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship, which include security deposits, rent increases, the warranty of habitability and eviction notices.” Far from ranking as one of the most landlord friendly states in the U.S., as one would assume by the rankings of individual cities, Virginia is right smack in the middle. On a 1 to 100 scale, with 1 being landlord friendly, Virginia is rated 45.

    Clayton Morris, who provides a web resource for housing renters, lists the five most landlord friendly states in the country lists Texas, Indiana, Colorado, Arizona and Florida at the top. No sign of Virginia.

    Those data points suggest to me that something else is at work. I’m kind of a list geek, and I’ve published a lot of blog posts ranking states and metropolitan areas, and Virginia “cities” often appear as outliers. I’ve learned — and if I forget readers remind me — that Virginia is unique among the 50 states in having a city-county form of government. Cities and counties are entirely separate political jurisdictions; cities do not reside within counties, as they do in other states. The Virginia Constitution originally allowed for cities to expand by annexing urbanizing pieces of neighboring counties, but that system more or less broke down in the 1970s, and annexation is effectively dead. The result is that Virginia cities have been confined to 40-year-old boundaries, while cities outside of Virginia, which coexist with counties within which they reside, have been allowed to expand. Thus, Virginia “cities” appear to have more concentrated poverty.

    I think you have to allow for the possibility that the high eviction rate in the cities of Richmond, Norfolk, Hampton, and Newport News (as a suburban jurisdiction that adopted a city form of government, Chesapeake is a different story) is in part an artifact of Virginia’s no-annexation policy, the inability of cities to incorporate higher-income county neighborhoods, and the resulting concentration of poverty.

    To be clear, I’m not saying that evictions aren’t a genuine social problem. But I am suggesting that the perception that the problem is especially acute in Richmond and other Virginia cities might be severely exaggerated.

    1. djrippert Avatar

      Eviction is only one aspect of being landlord-friendly. Rent control laws, for example, may play a much larger role in landlord friendly states than eviction law. Just because a state is landlord friendly doesn’t necessarily mean it’s eviction friendly.

      I’d also be interested in what timeline Marc Lockhart thinks fair from the day the rent is due until the sheriff puts the renter’s possessions on the curb.

      Jim’s usual solution of renting garages and basements, etc only works if there is an adequate transportation plan in place as well. Packing more people into areas with inadequate mass transit and roads solves little.

      Jim makes two good points on Virginia’s archaic city / county structure and ban on annexation. Cities are intentionally kept weak in Virginia which is one big reason why Virginia doesn’t have any real cities. At 60.1 sq mi of land Richmond is just too small to ever become a Nashville (504 sq mi), Charlotte (297.7 sq mi), Atlanta (134 sq mi) or Austin (304 sq mi).

      The combination of Virginia’s city / county structure and ban on annexation is designed to keep Virginia’s cities emaciated, isolated and segregated.

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar

        Annexation should be prohibited unless both the receiving area and the area to be annexed each vote for annexation. Frankly, I know more people who would like to breakoff from Fairfax County than to be part of a city.

        I lived for several years in Omaha that had broad annexation powers. The City would not annex any new development unless and until the tax revenues exceeded the costs for debt service and a pro rata share of city budget costs. Each new development would have high debt to finance public infrastructure. Omaha only annexed winners from its residents’ perspective.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          re: annexation and home rule.. sounds like annexation is not “fixed” by home rule – there still is some governance boundary between city and county even in home rule states. no?

        2. djrippert Avatar

          Every state has different rules for annexation. Virginia actually allows annexation. However, 30 or 40 years ago the Imperial Clown Show passed a law that froze annexations while they “studied the matter”. Unsurprisingly, the clowns are still contemplating their navels.

          Urban areas create wealth. Rural areas destroy wealth. While I am sure there are exceptions that’s the general rule in the US today. Virginia’s approach to county / city structure and annexation freeze retards urban growth. In turn, this retards the growth of wealth in the state. I’d even go so far as to say that Virginia arcane approach to urban planning and development is a sophisticated form of Jim Crow legislation. Virginia keeps a large proportion of its minority and poor population trapped in isolated cities that are too small to succeed. This allows the much whiter suburban areas to prosper without any direct requirement to advance the welfare of those living in the cities.

          Virginia = Alabama = Mississippi. Old thinking. Old prejudices. Old economics. Old governance structures. The Old South. It’s time Virginia joined North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and the other states of the New South. Urbanization isn’t going away because a bunch of hillbillies in our General Assembly pine away for the days of bucolic rural living. Virginia either moves forward with the reality of cities or continues its slide into economic and social oblivion.

          Being the only state where cities aren’t in counties doesn’t make Virginia smart or advanced or clever or anything but backward.

          1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
            Reed Fawell 3rd

            Very insightful comments –

            Stated a bit differently, but without a real distinction, this Virginia dispersal of political power that you describe greatly encourages and allows easy, cheap, and trashy suburban sprawl. This gobbles up far too much land with little long term benefit, development that ruins the future of places instead. Meanwhile it also throttles the chance to build high quality urban places that builds long term wealth in locates where it could really thrive. Instead here you get highly inefficient and rapidly obsolete mongrel hodgepodges that are neither fish or fowl, trashy suburban cities that morph into no where places like Fairfax county, crap development that serves short term local business interests at the everyone’s else expense.

            And of course this is exactly what the system is designed to do.

  3. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    Both article and commentary are a good start on a very complicated subject. Virginia’s remarkable lead in evictions nationally (if I read that right) surely sticks out like a sore thumb. What’s dynamic here, the unique combination?

  4. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    I look forward to reading what the additional research turns up, and the problem is going to be far more complicated than the court process.

    Virginia is not a very friendly or forgiving place if you are poor – absent Medicaid coverage any health issue is devastating financially, the unpaid court fine/license suspension problem has been a Bacon’s Rebellion topic already, Virginia actually imposes state income tax on almost the first dollar of very low incomes and does not offer a refundable earned income tax credit, child care and public transportation are problematic and any time you get behind on a bill – not just rent – you enter a court system very friendly to the creditor, usually with no legal help in your corner. I doubt very much that the people we are looking at here have only a single problem, nor do I think just letting people who are behind on their rent stay in the property a while longer qualifies as a solution.

  5. Acbar Avatar

    I’ve been watching the effects of “gentrification” with great interest in northern Virginia and adjacent Washington, and it’s perfectly obvious that there are major shifts towards the “urban lifestyle” both culturally and geographically in those older cities with charming and close-to-downtown but run-down neighborhoods. Areas that used to be abandoned to rentals and slums are now being fixed up, well beyond what was thought possible 30 years ago. Richmond has lots of those neighborhoods. It’s also perfectly obvious that this process displaces folks who have lived and are currently living in those neighborhoods, in some cases as owners for generations, more often as renters, people who neither want the new lifestyle nor can afford the price of it.

    Personally, I’m all for letting the market sort out the consequences of gentrification PROVIDED we recognize and ameliorate the enormous displacement of our poorest citizens that results. They have to live somewhere. Greater Richmond is not immune to the fact that if an area gentrifies and new folks move in and real estate prices go up, then the displaced folks will have to relocate somewhere else and real estate prices there probably will go down, because it’s already undesirable enough they can afford it compounded by the added transience, drugs and other issues they bring.

    In northern Virginia and the District and adjacent parts of Maryland, there’s a shell game practiced in some of our many little jurisdictions where the need for more and better housing (let alone schools and services) for the poor is acknowledged, even bemoaned, but sufficiently little is actually done about it that most of the problem population quietly dissipates and becomes some other jurisdiction’s problem. Only one larger, comprehensive jurisdiction can deal with housing for the poor unless, by some mandate or yet-unseen (and unlikely) voluntary level of coordination, all the local jurisdictions follow a similar policy and provide similar resources. Jim is correct that housing the poor appears concentrated because the concentration is “in part an artifact of Virginia’s no-annexation policy, the inability of cities to incorporate higher-income county neighborhoods, and the resulting concentration of poverty.” Or as DJR puts it succinctly, “The combination of Virginia’s city / county structure and ban on annexation is designed to keep Virginia’s cities emaciated, isolated and segregated.”

    Where are the emigrees gentrified-out of Richmond’s old neighborhoods finding new homes at prices they can afford? Ginter Park? Hah. Forest Hill or Woodland Park? Not likely. Ah, but consider the Broad Rock, Maury or McGuire neighborhoods. How about Gilpin, or Barton Heights, or Oakwood, or Whitcomb/Mosby Court? Guess what? Those latter neighborhoods are right in there where those nasty pink and red blotches are located on your map of “extreme eviction rates.”

    But yours is a map of where within the City of Richmond these gentrification emigrees are landing. I’m interested where in Henrico or Chesterfield similar housing opportunities for the poor exist. I’d like to see what the patterns for evictions look like around Highland Springs or Varina or Ettrick. Is Richmond gentrifying at eastern Henrico’s and southern Chesterfield’s expense? Shouldn’t the latter do more, not less, to shoulder this regional burden with a regional housing safety net?

    Vic N mentions al Quadaffi’s highlighted problems with the eviction process today, and I agree; but there’s no way the lack of a record in District Court is going to get fixed any time soon. The peculiar un-waivable requirement of an appeal bond for unlawful detainer cases, however, strikes me as fixable. Can we hear more about this?

  6. TooManyTaxes Avatar

    “An unlawful detainer is the only civil action in Virginia where an indigent person is compelled to pay the appeal bond.” If this is, indeed, true, it troubles me. Why provide an income-based exception for posting an appeal bond for every civil action except unlawful detainer? It’s not logical and should be changed.

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      “Why provide an income-based exception for posting an appeal bond for every civil action except unlawful detainer? It’s not logical and should be changed.”

      I could not agree more.

      1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
        Reed Fawell 3rd

        This perversity signals that there is something rotten in Denmark.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    I do not consider landlords bad guys. And if they have money invested in rental property – they have to get return of their money just to pay the bills and maintain the property for everyone. Laws to delay payment can and do lead to problems for everyone including the other tenets who do pay their rent but the landlord is not bringing in rent on all units which may well her ability to keep rentals in good condition and keep rents lower.

    There is also conflation confusion about the concept of “affordability”.

    To give an example – the huge commuting herd on I-95 between Washington and Fredericksburg is said to be caused by a housing “affordability” crisis – which is not the same thing in my view because those commuters are not looking for the same kind of housing stock as others who live on the margins just trying to find a place they can live in .

    So.. I’m not in favor of taking this issue out on the landlords – most of who are just ordinary business folks engaged in entrepreneurialism. Probably in their numbers are a few payday-loan types but the majority are not – just folks who picked homes and apartments as a way to generate income.

    Someone who does not pay their rent SHOULD get kicked out just as someone who does not pay their mortgage will also…. or their car payment.

    We have poverty – generational poverty – and a criminal justice system that if the lack of education and poverty doesn’t make you and your families life chaotic… try adding getting cycled into and out of the jail/prison system.

    Many of the evictions are tied to this… the lack of an ability to keep/hold a job and pay that rent.

    If we really want to fix this problem – using govt – we ought to do things like waiving the property tax on properties where evictions are ongoing…

    Finally, I’m not really convinced that Richmond is significantly different than many other places to be honest and if they are because evictions are “too short”.. I’m not in favor of laws and regulations that further penalize landlords… that’s how you drive a lot of people out of that business and encourage slum-lording.

    1. djrippert Avatar

      The problem in eviction disputes is that there are often two sides to the story. A repair isn’t made so the renter withholds some rent or doesn’t pay. This happens all the time. Virginia seems strongly slanted toward the landlord.

  8. Posted on behalf of reader Steve Emmert, a Virginia Beach attorney and author of the Virginia Appellate News & Analysis blog:

    I’ve enjoyed reading just now the post and discussion of evictions in Virginia cities. In the comments section, some of your readers have wondered about the appeal-bond provisions in Virginia law — specifically, that an indigent litigant who appeals from general district court to circuit court must pay a bond to secure the rent during the pendency of the litigation. At least one reader has wondered whether this exception is really unique to unlawful-detainer proceedings, and if so, why.

    This is one situation in which it pays to have a lawyer among your readers, even a “lurker” like me. Here’s the relevant text of Code Section 16.1-107, “Requirements for appeal”:

    In all civil cases, except trespass, ejectment, unlawful detainer against a former owner based upon a foreclosure against that owner, or any action involving the recovering rents, no indigent person shall be required to post an appeal bond. In cases of unlawful detainer against a former owner based upon a foreclosure against that owner, a person who has been determined to be indigent pursuant to the guidelines set forth in § 19.2-159 shall post an appeal bond within 30 days from the date of judgment.

    (Emphasis added) The common thread among three of these four areas is that an owner is seeking to recover possession or control of real property that belongs to him. Trespass is where a person enters land belonging to another and damages it. A court that decrees relief for trespass can enjoin future acts of trespass. Ejectment asserts that someone is occupying land without any legal right to do so. (Think squatters.) Unlawful detainer is where someone lawfully took possession of land — usually through a lease — but his right to stay there has ended, and he continues to “detain” the property without a lawful right to do so.

    The fourth category is where the owner has already recovered his land, but sues for a money judgment for unpaid rent. That makes it technically a fish out of water in this group, though obviously it’s closely related to the unlawful-detainer proceeding, which commonly includes a request for a damage award for unpaid rent.

  9. Posted on behalf of John Butcher, loyal reader and publisher of Cranky’s Blog:

    Marty left out two crucial items in his eviction summary. Seems to me that too many of these solutions, esp. the attack on the Landlord and Tenant Act (your comment is on the money there), overlook the basic problem.

  10. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    Thanks to Steve Emmert and John Butcher for their input. My knowledge on this subject is very limited. On the face of it, this eviction process as so outlined by Emmert and Butcher seems reasonable on paper if not practice.

    Surely, we can’t solve these complex problems by shifting the cost onto private interests who require and have a right to a reasonable return on their investment, and whose current and future investment in affordable housing is necessary to help solve this affordability problem now and in the future.

    And, is not this long term chronic problem of affordable housing, including rent defaults and eviction problems, on the rise most everywhere in our big urban cities, and spreading today into more and more of our older suburbs and rural places in Virginia and many other locales, impacting growing numbers of people in all sorts, including all racial groups?

    And how many experiments in trying to solve this affordable housing issue have been tried since the 1940s? And where are the successes despite all the efforts and monies thrown at the problem? In my memory, these efforts go back to places like Stuyvesant Town, massive investments by Metropolitan Life insurance Company in New York City and around the country, including places like Alexandria, and Arlington County. Even there it seems that it has been its is far easier to make matters worse over time than better, as if massive amounts of money over many decades have brought no lasting reduction or relief, much less a cure, to the underlying problem. And in many instances have resulted in whole new sets of problems and issues.

    So what has worked? Where has it worked? Why has it worked? And with what result? Surely, we can learn from some past success somewhere.

    I do not have that answer. All I have is the belief that more far more wealth and health can be created for all people if we have the will to deploy far more creative and effective land use development that is built to work cumulatively and in a synergistic way for all its residents. I believe we have the tools to pull that off. And the skills and money to. What we lack is the will, the ethics and political structure.

    For how that could work see for example: See too all the extensive comments to that article.

    Right now though, like Jim suggests, I suspect that poor land use planning and development, and weak government structures, likely acerbate Virginia’s affordable housing problem, instead of ameliorating or diluting it.

    1. “How many experiments in trying to solve this affordable housing issue have been tried since the 1940s? And where are the successes despite all the efforts and monies thrown at the problem? “

      Good questions. I would like to know the experience of someone who thinks they know how to do it better. The federal government was the first to give it a try — with public housing. That didn’t turn out so well. But perhaps social progressives could try giving it a whirl themselves — buy some rental properties and manage them more humanely than the mean ol’ landlords doing the job now. See what happens!

  11. There’s another facet to this:

    The drug and related disorder in Richmond are concentrated at identifiable places, mostly associated with rental property. State law declares this activity to be a nuisance and provides abundant criminal and civil authority to abate it.
    Indeed, nuisance abatement (generally directed at the property owner) is the sole strategy that can be shown scientifically to control drug dealing and related crime at private rental places. Links here:

    The primary tool for a landlord to control disorder on the property is eviction. Seems to me we should be celebrating Virginia’s fair and efficient process.

  12. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: “there are two sides”

    the folks withholding rent over repairs or services are justified in having fair treatment but I’d like to know more about the “kinds” of evictions – whether it’s non-payment for a reason like repairs or just non-payment.

    Like I said earlier – if the landlord is not getting enough revenues to pay for repairs.. the whole thing feeds on itself.

    I just don’t think the answer is to stretch out the eviction process… especially if the tenant just didn’t pay at all for no stated reason.

    We can’t force landlords to fix the poverty problem…

Leave a Reply