Arksansas - Where it's a crime to not pay rent.

[mysonx3]

If you are one day late, you can be charged with occupying the residence without paying rent. The original form of the law has been ruled unconstitutional.

I'm going based off of this sentence from the article you linked to: "Arkansas alone of all the states terminates tenants’ leases for late payment of rent (even only one day) and makes it a crime if they can’t get moved off the premises within ten days after the landlord gives notice".

Are you saying that the version of the law that is described above has been ruled unconstitutional? Or am I misunderstanding what the article is saying that the law entails? Or is there an additional statute that makes it so that you can be charged with occupying a residence without paying rent after only one day?

[sanantone]

If you are one day late, you can be charged with occupying the residence without paying rent. The original form of the law has been ruled unconstitutional.

I'm going based off of this sentence from the article you linked to: "Arkansas alone of all the states terminates tenants’ leases for late payment of rent (even only one day) and makes it a crime if they can’t get moved off the premises within ten days after the landlord gives notice".

Are you saying that the version of the law that is described above has been ruled unconstitutional? Or am I misunderstanding what the article is saying that the law entails? Or is there an additional statute that makes it so that you can be charged with occupying a residence without paying rent after only one day?

I corrected my post. 

I've been late on my rent before because I've had employers that would pay after the holidays instead of before. Thank goodness Texas doesn't have such a draconian law. My lease wasn't terminated; I just paid the late fee that was detailed in the leasing contract.

---

At one of the sheriff's departments I worked for, we would get calls all the time from landlords wanting to evict people. We told them to call the constable's office because they handled civil matters in our county. As an urban county, we didn't have time to deal with private party disputes. We also explained to them that the constable deputy was only there to keep the peace. Usually, people would leave after seeing the police. There was no need to give out criminal fines and jail time.

[dfrecore]

One of the reasons CA is so expensive is because they are the opposite - so tenant-friendly that many people just don't want to rent out property, which then creates it's own issues. It's basically a vicious cycle.

There is NO WAY I would rent out property in CA. None. There is just not enough upside as a landlord to deal with the downside. It is impossible to get someone evicted even if they don't pay rent. So I'm paying the mortgage, but they're not paying the rent, this goes on for months, and I'm screwed. I know so many people that used to rent out property, but they eventually sold it to get out of the game, because it sucked so bad.

I imagine there are many states out there in the happy medium, where tenants who don't pay have to get out quickly to mitigate the landlord's losses, and landlords have to act quickly to repair/maintain their property for their tenants. Those are the only places I'm going to own rental property in the future.

[videogamesrock]

In Arkansas you can still buy a house for $90,000 and rent it for $1050. A great place to buy a home.

You have a better opportunity in homeownership In places like Arkansas than any of the nutty blue states.

After all, when has keeping less of your own money and making it harder to earn money ever improved anyone’s life?

[sanantone]

One of the reasons CA is so expensive is because they are the opposite - so tenant-friendly that many people just don't want to rent out property, which then creates it's own issues.  It's basically a vicious cycle.

There is NO WAY I would rent out property in CA.  None.  There is just not enough upside as a landlord to deal with the downside.  It is impossible to get someone evicted even if they don't pay rent.  So I'm paying the mortgage, but they're not paying the rent, this goes on for months, and I'm screwed.  I know so many people that used to rent out property, but they eventually sold it to get out of the game, because it sucked so bad.

I imagine there are many states out there in the happy medium, where tenants who don't pay have to get out quickly to mitigate the landlord's losses, and landlords have to act quickly to repair/maintain their property for their tenants.  Those are the only places I'm going to own rental property in the future.

I was under the impression that it was expensive to rent in California because the salaries are high, demand is high, and the cost of buying a house is high. If you have to pay $500k for a decent-sized house, it only makes sense that rent will be expensive. 

In Arkansas you can still buy a house for $90,000 and rent it for $1050. A great place to buy a home.

You have a better opportunity in homeownership In places like Arkansas than any of the nutty blue states.

After all, when has keeping less of your own money and making it harder to earn money ever improved anyone’s life?

Arkansas only has 3 million people for a reason. Poor, undesirable states usually have a low cost of living. The housing costs match the wages. New Mexico is a blue state, and it's cheap because it's poor. I don't like astronomically high housing costs, and I don't like being poor or living in poor cities with few amenities and limited necessities, so I've found a happy medium. Blue or red, these dirt cheap states usually have high obesity rates, limited access to healthcare, lower educational attainment rates, higher poverty rates, and lower life expectancies.

[dfrecore]

One of the reasons CA is so expensive is because they are the opposite - so tenant-friendly that many people just don't want to rent out property, which then creates it's own issues.  It's basically a vicious cycle.

There is NO WAY I would rent out property in CA.  None.  There is just not enough upside as a landlord to deal with the downside.  It is impossible to get someone evicted even if they don't pay rent.  So I'm paying the mortgage, but they're not paying the rent, this goes on for months, and I'm screwed.  I know so many people that used to rent out property, but they eventually sold it to get out of the game, because it sucked so bad.

I imagine there are many states out there in the happy medium, where tenants who don't pay have to get out quickly to mitigate the landlord's losses, and landlords have to act quickly to repair/maintain their property for their tenants.  Those are the only places I'm going to own rental property in the future.

I was under the impression that it was expensive to rent in California because the salaries are high, demand is high, and the cost of buying a house is high. If you have to pay $500k for a decent-sized house, it only makes sense that rent will be expensive. 

Yes, those are the reasons rent is high in SOME places.  But in CA, there are laws everywhere, even places where salaries aren't high, demand isn't high, and housing prices aren't high.  I'd say at least 50% of the state is NOT the Bay Area & LA - but everyone still ends up with costs higher than they should be because of these issues.

[videogamesrock]

One of the reasons CA is so expensive is because they are the opposite - so tenant-friendly that many people just don't want to rent out property, which then creates it's own issues.  It's basically a vicious cycle.

There is NO WAY I would rent out property in CA.  None.  There is just not enough upside as a landlord to deal with the downside.  It is impossible to get someone evicted even if they don't pay rent.  So I'm paying the mortgage, but they're not paying the rent, this goes on for months, and I'm screwed.  I know so many people that used to rent out property, but they eventually sold it to get out of the game, because it sucked so bad.

I imagine there are many states out there in the happy medium, where tenants who don't pay have to get out quickly to mitigate the landlord's losses, and landlords have to act quickly to repair/maintain their property for their tenants.  Those are the only places I'm going to own rental property in the future.

I was under the impression that it was expensive to rent in California because the salaries are high, demand is high, and the cost of buying a house is high. If you have to pay $500k for a decent-sized house, it only makes sense that rent will be expensive. 

In Arkansas you can still buy a house for $90,000 and rent it for $1050. A great place to buy a home.

You have a better opportunity in homeownership In places like Arkansas than any of the nutty blue states.

After all, when has keeping less of your own money and making it harder to earn money ever improved anyone’s life?

Arkansas only has 3 million people for a reason. Poor, undesirable states usually have a low cost of living. The housing costs match the wages. New Mexico is a blue state, and it's cheap because it's poor. I don't like astronomically high housing costs, and I don't like being poor or living in poor cities with few amenities and limited necessities, so I've found a happy medium. Blue or red, these dirt cheap states usually have high obesity rates, limited access to healthcare, lower educational attainment rates, higher poverty rates, and lower life expectancies.

The entire mortgage payment PITI on a $90,000 house is under $500. So anyone can afford one at $16,000 a year income. The GOV will classify that person as living in poverty - but are they really living in poverty just because the gov says so?


Your chance of foreclosure is much lower in AR vs CA.

[sanantone]

One of the reasons CA is so expensive is because they are the opposite - so tenant-friendly that many people just don't want to rent out property, which then creates it's own issues.  It's basically a vicious cycle.

There is NO WAY I would rent out property in CA.  None.  There is just not enough upside as a landlord to deal with the downside.  It is impossible to get someone evicted even if they don't pay rent.  So I'm paying the mortgage, but they're not paying the rent, this goes on for months, and I'm screwed.  I know so many people that used to rent out property, but they eventually sold it to get out of the game, because it sucked so bad.

I imagine there are many states out there in the happy medium, where tenants who don't pay have to get out quickly to mitigate the landlord's losses, and landlords have to act quickly to repair/maintain their property for their tenants.  Those are the only places I'm going to own rental property in the future.

I was under the impression that it was expensive to rent in California because the salaries are high, demand is high, and the cost of buying a house is high. If you have to pay $500k for a decent-sized house, it only makes sense that rent will be expensive. 

In Arkansas you can still buy a house for $90,000 and rent it for $1050. A great place to buy a home.

You have a better opportunity in homeownership In places like Arkansas than any of the nutty blue states.

After all, when has keeping less of your own money and making it harder to earn money ever improved anyone’s life?

Arkansas only has 3 million people for a reason. Poor, undesirable states usually have a low cost of living. The housing costs match the wages. New Mexico is a blue state, and it's cheap because it's poor. I don't like astronomically high housing costs, and I don't like being poor or living in poor cities with few amenities and limited necessities, so I've found a happy medium. Blue or red, these dirt cheap states usually have high obesity rates, limited access to healthcare, lower educational attainment rates, higher poverty rates, and lower life expectancies.

The entire mortgage payment PITI on a $90,000 house is under $500. So anyone can afford one at $16,000 a year income. The GOV will classify that person as living in poverty - but are they really living in poverty just because the gov says so?


Your chance of foreclosure is much lower in AR vs CA.

Most people who live in houses either have children or are looking to have children. I couldn't even imagine saving for a down payment making $16,000 a year. Plus, $500 would be 37.5% of your monthly gross income. After taxes are taken out, you're getting close to 50% of your income. Then, you have to worry about insurance and property taxes. In Jefferson County, the property tax would be over $1500 per year. Buying a home at this income level would not be advisable. 

There are a lot of poor homeowners. I remember I had a subordinate who made about $20,000 per year. She couldn't afford to save for a down payment, and she didn't have a high credit score, so she did the rent-to-own thing in a cheap house. When her A/C went out, she couldn't afford to fix it. She also struggled to pay the property taxes because Texas has one of the highest property tax rates in the nation. I'd rather rent than live without A/C in Texas and live paycheck to paycheck. The term "house poor" has been around for a long time.

But, this was about 10 years ago. The median home cost in San Antonio is much higher. If you want to buy a house for $90k, you're going to get an old one that's possibly in poor shape, and you're going to be living in a high-crime neighborhood. Texas is much wealthier than Arkansas, though.

[dfrecore]

The entire mortgage payment PITI on a $90,000 house is under $500. So anyone can afford one at $16,000 a year income. The GOV will classify that person as living in poverty - but are they really living in poverty just because the gov says so?


Your chance of foreclosure is much lower in AR vs CA.

There is no way anyone making $16,000/yr is getting a loan to buy a $90k house anywhere.  $500/mo out of $1300/mo gross pay is ridiculous.  And then, how in the world would they pay for anything else - water heater goes out, leaky roof, plumbing problem - and you are screwed without the money to fix any of these minor problems.

I'm going to say that if you want to buy a $90k house, you should probably be making a least $30k.  Now, a married couple could make that much on minimum wage just about anywhere, so not a problem.  But saying you could buy a house making $16k is pretty silly.

[sanantone]

I missed the PITI part of videosgamesrock's post, but the rest of my response still stands. Buying a $90k house on a $16,000 income is not advisable. I also agree with Dfrecore that one would have a hard time getting approved for a loan. 

When you're making $60k per year, spending half of your income on housing costs is not as bad because you'll have plenty of money left over for utilities, food, transportation costs, unexpected repairs, etc. If half of a $16k income is going toward housing costs, that's at or near poverty anywhere in the U.S.

I remember when I made $18k, and I couldn't afford to fix my car even though I only paid $550 in rent.