All Forum Posts by: Heather Frusco

Originally posted by @Rob Massopust:

Originally posted by @Heather Frusco:

I have had the opportunity to find and work with some of the best property managers (after many years) for our current properties. Over the years we have gone from me just treating them like just a service I hired to us working together toward a common goal and reaching a place of trust. So a few of our managers have reached out to us regarding their interactions with our tenants regarding the COVID-19 situation. So here goes: 

Rent is still due. Why? 

1 - Tenants should also have saved 'reserves' in place - so if they are already missing their rent payment come April just a few weeks into this, they are selectively deciding not to pay for their shelter in hopes of rent forgiveness - which is no different than shoplifting or any other use of a service with the knowing intention not to pay - no one to blame but one person.

2 - There are options available to Tenants: They can always put it on a credit card, which really already has a payment plan set up for them with their terms... a tenant can quite literally just pay the minimum until they get back on their fee, not suggesting anyone just may the minimum on a CC but that is an option, just like it is an option to put food, utilities and anything else on a credit card, shelter is no different. 

3 - There are loans available to Tenant: Applying for temporary loans to make ends meet are available and even more so now - and before anyone says you won't qualify - there's only one person to blame for that and yes... a CC is a type of loan when used - so if you have a CC... you can access to borrowed funds with a re-payment system. 

4 - Why does a tenant have to live in the current rental? - As if there aren't options...So if a single lady is renting a 4 bedroom waterfront rental for $3,000/mo. and then says she cant afford rent but continues to remain in place i.e. selectively choosing not to move out and just stay - wouldn't her moving out to 4 bedroom non-waterfront for $1,600/mo. make more sense? or better yet... downsize,  that is... if the tenant did really want to make it right. - so again selectively choosing to pass on the debt to someone else without taking 'sacrifice' for you situation under your own wing... is a choice. 

5 - One of our managers was trying to work out a deal with a tenant for deferred rent and contacted the employer to verify the situation before approving the deferred rent plan... The employer:

 'Yes unfortunately we had to lay him off due to this pandemic, but it just important you take that into consideration because everyone needs shelter, you should certainly let him stay'

---- Couldn't agree more everyone does need shelter just like everyone does need food and water, the baffling question is... if the this employer is worried about the employees than why not just continue to pay them a salary during this entire thing?.... oh yeah... because they want to pass the buck... essentially saying 'No, I cant afford to continue paying them because we have no customers but you should offer to continue paying for the mortgage on their rental even though your customer (tenant) is not paying you' - hypocrisy at its best. 

Albeit most that request assistance as it stands RIGHT NOW... only a few weeks into this situation... are unwilling to take on the responsibility for themselves onto their shoulders and find it just easier to put it onto someone else... which is why we have instructed our PM's to 1) verify the tenant's unemployment with connection to COVID-19, 2) allow them to take advantage of the options above, deffer rent for only those that truly absolutely need it, and file for eviction for all the rest to be in place when courts start the process... because as mentioned above options remain in helping tenants make ends meet but not paying for a product you are currently consuming is never going to be an option, if it is... next time you go to the grocery store for food... a first level necessity... try to walkout with a cart full of it without paying and see if they'll absorb the cost - the audacity of the manager even trying to stop you! 

MIKE TYSON – “EVERYONE HAS A PLAN UNTIL THEY GET PUNCHED IN THE MOUTH”.

Its easy to "spreadsheet" this out from your limited perspective. Not everyone is as smart and well off as you. Give them some slack. Wait till we are in the throws of this full swing, will be worse than 2008 x 10 unless we really get a handle on things and it does not look like that.

When Mike Tyson was asked by a reporter whether he was worried about Evander Holyfield and his fight plan he answered; “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

What Tyson said is similar to the old saying “no plan survives first contact with the enemy”. But does this mean that there is no need to plan? Absolutely not.

Holyfield was no doubt smarter and more strategic than Tyson (hard not to be), but was Tyson right? Tyson was a brawler, awesome at powerfully fighting his way out of a corner and landing devastating blows. Could Holyfield have planned to have half of his ear bitten off? How did he respond to Tyson’s unpredictable nature.

Holyfield won. Despite the massive 15/2 odds against him. He won. However had he blindly followed his plan when things had changed he may not have. The question is how you adapt your plan when you get punched in the mouth. There are two key things here

1. Most of the plan should survive despite everyone being focused on the bit that is broken. So, keep the old plan in mind when working out the new plan. You may have a puffed up eye and half an ear but your arms and legs are still working so don’t stop moving, defending and throwing punches.
2. The new plan needs to deal with right now reality. There’s no point thinking about training and strategy while you’re being punched in the face. Your ear hurts and your eyes are swelling so you need to think and make a decisive decision. In this case the fighter can either to go for a knockout now or stay away for a while, his choice will have knock on effects for the rest of the fight but the fighter needs to make a decision or get punched in the face again.

To bring this back to the workplace. If you’ve created a detailed work plan for your team that fully utilizes your people and equipment and key people call in sick or a machine breaks down. What do you do?

1. Most of the plan should survive, priority jobs should still happen and most of the team should be able to carry on doing what they were planned to be doing. So, adapt the current plan to cope with the change, don’t throw it all out and start again.
2. The new plan needs to deal with right now reality. In most cases planners won’t be around to help so your supervisor needs to be able to solve the problem himself, this means they must both understand the plan (the why behind the what) and believe that they have the authority to change it. Someone didn’t come in, I can borrow someone or do a different job from tomorrow’s plan. Machine is broken, can I do contingency work, fix it or borrow another machine. The last thing you want is for people to stand around doing nothing.

Both Tyson and Holyfield were right, plans shouldn’t survive the first punch in the mouth but you need one in the first place to be able to adapt it for changes in reality…

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first then seek to win” Sun Tzu, the Art of War.

So, be like Holyfield, put a plan together in sufficient detail to “win first” but ensure you can adapt this plan so that one “punch in the mouth” does not result in defeat. Holyfield won with a TKO in the 11th round after Tyson tried to bite his other ear.

Some things you just can’t plan for!

 Rob, I've noticed you reference Mike Tyson in other post threads on BP... I'm sorry but... which part don't you agree with and what is the argument?

Scott agreed the relief available to renter's in the form of moratorium on evictions in the bill... is going to wind up hurting renter's much more that it's going to help them. Don't get me wrong in the immediacy of this issue it'll help some but, it's certainly going to hurt A LOT of renters once this is over. - Every time the government gets involved in the free market usually it's the very same people they are trying to help which wind up loosing  and hurting but only realize it once it's too late - look at rent control... how has that worked out - not too good.

Fritz, thank you and agreed. Most don't like to hear that they need to take personal responsibility for their own situation and instead always find it easier for someone else to provide assistance. At what point does it become a LL's responsibility to provide assistance to a tenant (another grown adult) which has failed to prepare and save appropriately? Not saying that LL's can't help out but if they do... it's a courtesy... NOT a requirement or an entitlement. 

The govt. is planning to credit each individual $1,200... some see this as an 'entitlement' which are likely the same people which don't like to hear that they are responsible for their own actions and their position in life. Others see it for what it is... a courteous act by our government. Just for perspective, the US govt. the most powerful govt. in the world is crediting individuals $1,200 - flip that around and the average rent in the US is $1,216... heck some expect LL's to absorb their rent (entitlement)... I don't know about most but most LL's are no where near as as powerful as the US govt. - they're people with families - but yet... are expected to support these grown adults more so?... 

Additionally, most in the 'entitlement mentality' camp fret a the idea of 'payment options' because it simply implies that individuals are still responsible for their situation... what most fail to realize is that those 'options' are a complete courtesy by their LL's, if offered at all, in an effort to help Tenants make ends meet... the alternative would be 'no options'. But it gets worse... those with entitlement mentalities not only fail to see options given to them by the LL's as a courtesy but... they actually get upset if the options given are not 'free' - akin to receiving a gift and asking for more... heck if even the US govt. isn't willing to support these adults much more than $1,200... what makes anyone think that LL's should, or even have the resources to support them 2-3x's more? 

 Alyssa, I would imagine being a Tenant posting on this thread would be much like going into a hornets nest but you are from the sounds of it.... an A class tenant and from what I gather from your post just a good and responsible person in general. One thing that is apparently clear in your post is your sense of responsibility for 'your' situation and your commitment to take it on yourself. You and tenants like you are exactly who I am referring to when I write '...for only [good tenants] that truly absolutely need it...' - when I see a Tenant such as yourself that has done everything right and then continues to make up payments during this time, using all of the options available and keeps me informed throughout the process - that is someone in my opinion which has tried and exhausted everything they possibly could for as long as they could to make good... but then if by chance is still not able to or comes up short, not due to lack of trying or preparation... that is exactly the type of Tenant that absolutely needs my (LL) assistance, if the LL is able to provide it. We're not talking about an entitlement and we're not talking about entitlement mentality tenants (those are on their own) ; we're talking about saving limited resources and deploying them to only those which absolutely need them after they have exhausted all of their options, but again that does depend from LL to LL and what if any, assistance they can offer to Tenants such as yourself, some can and some just can't, some will and some won't - the decision is completely theirs to make. 

John although I appreciate your input but still don't understand your argument, you are repeating yourself over and over, so for the sake of doing the same... again... you are arguing with yourself and getting all flustered; no one has said that. I think you need to take sometime and just go back and re-read posts... you're all wound up and trying very hard to make your point but it's either not being made clearly or no one really cares/agrees, this is now the 5th member that has called you out... you really just need to take a breather, stop complaining and take it for what it is... this is just a simple discussion, relax.

John, again... you are arguing with yourself and getting all flustered; no one has said that. I think you need to take sometime and just go back and re-read posts... you're all wound up and trying very hard to make your point but it's either not being made clearly or no one really cares/agrees, this is now the 5th member that has called you out... you really just need to take a breather, stop complaining and take it for what it is... this is just a simple discussion, relax.  

@Gary L Wallman geez thank you, tried to tell him... John's gone off the deep end. 

@John Clark You obviously have a grudge against giving tenants options other than 'free' and are pretty wound up about the whole post. Word of advice... take a breather and realize that... shutting out information you don't agree with doesn't change it (and again still don't know what your argument is). You win... in your own mind, good luck. 

@John Clark I'm sorry sir but if you are not able to realize that using a paid service without intending to pay for it, is wrong... don't really know what you would like anyone to say... I've got a tip for you... it's wrong. Something which you should have deduced from reading my original post. I'm not trying to offend you but your analogy/example not only does it not apply here... but no one really knows what you're referring to or what the basis of your argument is... which is why I'm one of the only here which has at least entertained your posts. So for the record John, and again not trying to offend you but if the my original post was not clear enough... if you are continuing to use a service with the known intention of not paying it back... it's wrong... extrapolate it out and apply it universally. Hope that helps you connect the dots. 

@John Clark again, no idea what your obsession with Cheesecake factory is about or what you are referring to, you just seem really disgruntled and one-sided. Is shoplifting or the continued use of services without the intention to pay not theft? -- if you don't agree, then what would you call it? If you're continuing to occupy a unit with the knowing intention to never pay for your occupancy what would you call that? I hope that's straight forward enough John and can't wait to hear the reply.