Coronavirus

Ayanna Pressley Wants To Cancel the Rent. She's Also Made at Least $15,000 As a Landlord.

The Massachusetts Congresswoman is a two-time supporter of the Rent and Mortgage Cancelation Act.

|

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.) wants to cancel the rent. She also is the owner of a rental property from which she and her husband have received tens of thousands of dollars in income.

On Monday, the Washington Free Beacon—relying on tax and financial disclosure records—reported that Pressley and her husband purchased a Boston property for $615,000 in 2019, and rented out one of its units for $2,500 a month. That same year, the Free Beacon reports, Pressley reported $15,000 in rental income.

It's unclear when or if Pressley stopped renting out the property. Regardless, it raises interesting questions about her two-time sponsorship of the Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act.

The latest version of the bill—written by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.), and co-sponsored by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Rashida Talib (D–Mich.)—would forgive renters' and homebuyers' obligations to pay rent or a mortgage from March 2020 through April 2022.

People couldn't be evicted or foreclosed on for failure to pay for their housing during that period. Unlike the existing federal eviction moratorium, renters would also be released of any obligation to pay back-rent. The legislation went nowhere when it was first introduced in April 2020. Omar reintroduced the proposal again in March of this year.

Pressley's support of this bill while also being a landlord would seem to cut across her class interests.

The Free Beacon does note that the Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act creates a fund to compensate landlords for lost rental income. If she remains a landlord, Pressley could avail herself of that aid if she agreed to a five-year rent freeze, to not bar tenants with criminal convictions (a potentially concerning condition given that Pressley's rental property also contains her primary residence), and a requirement to only evict tenants for "just cause."

The Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act would also require Pressley to notify federal housing regulators if she puts her property on the market. The law would give public housing agencies, nonprofits, and state and local government bodies first dibs on buying it.

Pressley, in a press release, said that passing the Rent and Mortgage Cancelation Act "help move us towards an America where no person has to choose between putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head."

Does Pressley also think that her own receipt of rental income has taken food out of her tenant's mouth? Perhaps her congressional salary liberates her having to rely on any rental income. Unfortunately, many small-time landlords are not in such a fortunate position.

The Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act has been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services in March. The previous year's version of the bill was referred to the same committee but never received a vote.

NEXT: Derek Chauvin Found Guilty of Murdering George Floyd

Coronavirus Rent control Housing Policy Property Rights Eviction Moratorium

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

38 responses to “Ayanna Pressley Wants To Cancel the Rent. She's Also Made at Least $15,000 As a Landlord.

  1. Mrs. Clean.

      1. FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better D DS DS than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    1. She’s a problem. When the time comes, some democrats will remain (in some capacity). Some will not. Presley is unworkable. She will have to go.

  2. This bill is worth billions to her and her allies. She’s not an idiot.

    Ultimately rich people are going to have to fund free housing – so that people can live there and vote against free housing.

    1. “ Ultimately rich people are going to have to fund free housing”

      Nope. Rich people will find a way around, and we’ll pay for it.

      1. They will with that attitude.

      2. Most landlords aren’t “rich” even by modest standards. They [along with the bank] own 1-2 income properties that have at least for a time been their primary residence or they leveraged to the maximum at some point in the past. Unless you’re just really good at renovating properties, buying into a positive cash flow rarely happens.

      3. Who do you think pays the vast majority of income taxes in the US (approx 87% per annum). I’ll give you a hint: Unless you are in the top 20% of income earners, it ain’t you.

        1. top 20% is only 131k/yr, pretty sure quite a few of us here pass that bar easily.

      4. Yes, it’s always the middle class that pays for all this social programs. Even if you took 90% of Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, warren Buffett, Elon musk… Wealth, they still would live the exact same lifestyle because once you get to become that wealthy money is meaningless. There just isn’t anything to buy unless you want to play God like Bill Gates does, or play Monopoly by buying companies like Jeff Bezos.

    2. Nah. We left that sort of thing years ago. If this is undertaken (and, while this particular bill appears to be beyond even most progressive’s wish list, I wouldn’t doubt some form of such “free” housing is in our future), it will be funded by nobody directly. The money will simply be spent, either for the tenants or the landlords or both. And the result will be a creeping increase in the US debt service (which is, in effect, the sale of a portion of tax revenues).

  3. So I can sell my house and live rent free for a couple years? Good deal

  4. “The law would give public housing agencies, nonprofits, and state and local government bodies first dibs on buying it.”
    And shockingly when they inspect the property they find it needs to be condemned cutting the worth by 90% and the only buyer left is the government.
    Am I the only one who has seen this show before?

    1. So as a buyer, you are automatically in 4th position. Sounds like a government land grab to me. It’s always fun to bid against your own government when trying to buy a family home or investment property.

      Maybe it’s time to start my own non-profit. Buy up the property and sell it to myself later, passing along the profits to myself as management salary for running the non-profit. The Clinton method. Anyone want to make a cash deductible donation?

  5. “…Pressley, in a press release, said that passing the Rent and Mortgage Cancelation Act “help move us towards an America where no person has to choose between putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head.”…”

    No one should ever have to choose between things!

    1. Not to mention getting tattooed.

  6. She’s still wildly wrong as a matter of policy but at least she’s not an obvious hypocrite. That puts her well above average for politicians.

    1. Yeah I can’t see how she’ll financially profit from this, but author makes reasonable point that she can afford it with her salary. And ultimately she’s just buying votes by promising other people’s property.

  7. The Free Beacon does note that the Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act creates a fund to compensate landlords for lost rental income.
    We already have that. It’s called section 8.
    But I see areal opportunity here. Buy a 5 million dollar house, stiff the bank. Sell it for 6 million next year and close on May 1, 2022.
    If you’ve been paying your rent or mortgage for the last year do you get a refund? Or is this for deadbeats only.
    I spent 25 years paying off the mortgage on the Grimsrud Estate during which time Mrs. Grimsrud and I faced periods of economic adversity. Oh and we both got the flu on multiple occasions. If we’re gonna make this retroactive to 2020 why not 2010 or 2000 or 1990?
    Seriously fuck these ignorant bitches.

    1. Mortgages at least wouldn’t have their balance go down for this period, which makes it a delay instead of actual theft. However, implementing this for renters is beyond absurd. What business can stay open if they are required to provide services free of charge for two years? Even mega-corps like Amazon, Walmart, or Exxon would falter based on that.

  8. In their districts, what is the # of landlord voters vs. # of renter voters and mortgaged home voters? Whatever their shortcomings, you have to admit these women can count.

  9. Just another proggie hypocrite and Ye Olde Media will remain silent.

    1. The NYT says she right on target. 1619, science and stuff.

  10. Another quality product of the American Mal-Education/Industrial Complex. Congrats, AmericanTeachers! Good Job!

  11. “help move us towards an America where no person has to choose between putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head.”

    Sure, sure; because an America fully loaded with lazy, incompetent, irresponsible citizens will definitely Make America Great Again… So with everyone getting *free* necessities I wonder what is going to motivate them to actually produce anything at all?? The barrel of Gov-Guns forcing people to produce (i.e. Slavery), the magical unicorn in the clouds, or are these completely incompetent idiots in congress going to go out the produce everything they promise for *free*???

    Lefties have a serious delusion about golden eggs falling from the sky.

  12. My spouse and I owned one rental property, a single family residence, for about ten years. We had a mortgage on the property, but we were fortunate to have pretty good tenants – two different families, over that time span – so we had positive cash flow and we were able to build up enough in reserves to replace/repair things like HVAC. I am so glad we sold the house a few years ago.

  13. Rent’s too damn high.

  14. What was the point of this article? Shouldn’t we be applauding a politician who supports a law that does not benefit them? Or is the article trying to say that she would profit off of it to a measly equivalent of $15,000 (measly compared to the rest of the millionaires in Congress)?

    This is either lazy journalism or rank propaganda. And considering that it is picking on a black female politician over whether she maybe has a measly $15,000 at stake shows some extreme bias at play here. They could have simply written an article criticizing the bill. Dragging Pressley’s situation into it when we know that plenty of other politicians have much larger financial stakes in legislation is just pathetic.

    1. As the author notes, Pressley justifies the bill with argument that tenants shouldn’t have to choose between food and shelter. But by that logic she herself forced her own tenants to make that choice by charging them rent. Of course her premise is silly: housing supply is limited just like food is limited. If you don’t allow suppliers to charge for it then a) you quickly get a shortage and b) suppliers have no incentive to increase supply.

      1. “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

  15. The article takes one fact, exaggerates it, and then indulges in pure guesswork.
    1. “she and her husband have received tens of thousands of dollars in income……That same year, the Free Beacon reports, Pressley reported $15,000 in rental income.” So where’s the “tens of thousands”?
    2. “Does Pressley also think that her own receipt of rental income has taken food out of her tenant’s mouth? “ Mr. Britschgi has no idea what Ms. Pressley thinks, so he resorts to a rhetorical question to smear her.
    3. “Perhaps her congressional salary liberates her having to rely on any rental income.” Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t.   The Beacon report notes that “Pressley and her husband refinanced the building as a multifamily investment property in August 2020. ” Owners often refinance to save money – but that’s as much a guess as Mr. Britschgi “perhaps”.

    1. She owns a property in Beacon Hill, an extremely white, upper class area with 10x the average income and 3 times the rent of the the people she supposedly represents, 2500 a month for rent(more than the average person of color makes on a monthly basis n Boston) is probably for a 100sqft studio she made in the attic space. These commies are all hypocrites.

      1. When someone rich promotes socialist policies they are accused of being a hypocrite.

        When someone poor promotes socialist policies they are accused of the politics of envy.

        Is there some band in the middle class who *are* allowed to be socialists in your book?

  16. All those high price weaves and tattoos cut into the rent money.

Comments are closed.