Evicted Major and Minor Quotes

“If I give you a break, you give me a break.” (Chapter 6: Rat Hole)

—Sherrena

Analysis: Sherrena, a landlord, explains that if she accepts late payments on rent or looks the other way when too many people crowd into one apartment, she expects the tenant to refrain from making demands to have repairs made or unsafe conditions addressed.

This goes to the point that many low-income tenants were often faced with a no-win situation in which their rent was too high relative to their income, making it likely that they would get behind on rent. Once they were behind on rent, their landlord had more of a right under the law to evict them. Filing a report with a building inspector, for example, might ensure they had a safer home . . . until they were evicted from it. As a result, many tenants endured increasingly unsafe and unhealthy housing conditions for fear that any demand or complaint might trigger the landlord to serve them with an eviction notice. This illustrates the trade-off Desmond shows tenants making time and time again: trading the right to safe housing to have any housing at all. And Sherrena’s quote shows that this was a deliberate strategy employed to ensure landlords got the maximum profit from a rental by forgoing expensive repairs, even as they demanded the same rent for a declining property.

“Poor black men were locked up. Poor black women were locked out.” (Chapter 8: Christmas in Room 400)

—Matthew Desmond

Analysis: As Desmond examines the impact of eviction, he shows that it has a different impact on different demographics. One point he makes is that women are affected more by eviction than men, overall. Another point he makes is that Black people are affected more by eviction than white people, overall. This quote shows that Black women are at the intersection of these two trends. While Black men are imprisoned at higher rates than white men, Black women are evicted at higher rates than white women. Desmond backs up his statement with statistics: Black women in poor neighborhoods are evicted twice as often as Black men from the same neighborhoods. They are evicted nine times as often as similarly poor white women. Thirty percent of Milwaukee’s evictions are of Black women.

In addition, these two statements speak to a broader problem. With Black men more likely to be incarcerated—for the same crimes as white men who were not locked up—and Black women more likely to have unstable housing, the impact on children, neighborhoods, and whole communities can be clearly seen as a major crisis affecting the next generation. Today’s traumas become tomorrow’s traumatized. Desmond summarizes this effect in the book’s epilogue as he notes that the problem of poverty leaves a “jagged scar on the next generation.”

“It was easy to go on about helping ‘the poor.’” (Chapter 9: Order Some Carryout)

—Matthew Desmond

Analysis: Desmond critiques those who say they are committed to helping “the poor” but when faced with actual people who are in poverty, they find all sorts of reasons why they shouldn’t or can’t help them.

The “poor” are an abstraction—a faceless group of people whom pastors or the well-meaning wealthy might speak piously and earnestly about helping. Yet, Desmond says, the “help” never amounts to anything concrete, because the “poor” are human beings with human failings. Perhaps the poor person has an addiction, spent their rent money on drugs, or made foolish financial choices. Whatever the failing, it provides an excuse to the potential helper to not help. The net result is that a person can talk a lot about helping the poor and never actually help any specific poor person. Desmond makes the point that this is an attitude he encountered when interacting with a pastor who believed that the church, not the government, should help “the poor.” In some ways, this pastor wanted to block the government from helping the poor by saying it is the church’s job while also failing to bring the church’s help to the poor, leaving the poor without help from either government or church.

“The ’hood is good!” (Chapter 11: The ’Hood Is Good)

—Sherrena

Analysis: Here, Sherrena summarizes the profitability of being a landlord in areas of town filled with substandard housing. As the landlord for about three dozen inner-city units and most of her tenants at or below the poverty line, she has a net worth of about $2 million and an income of about $10,000 a month.

There are many reasons why being the landlord of inner-city units is so profitable. For one, the properties can be purchased at a low price—especially in the period described in the book, when housing prices had crashed. The rent charged by a landlord could be far more than the mortgage on the home. And in fact, many people, like Sherrena, took the opportunity afforded by the housing crash to buy up many properties, leaving few available homes for potential buyers. This created unstable neighborhoods with a great deal of coming and going and no one making a real home in them. Another huge factor is that landlords can skimp on repairs and maintenance because so many tenants are behind on rent and therefore are afraid to make demands. So low home prices, few repair and maintenance costs, and steady rents turn into huge profits for landlords. 

“No one thought the poor more undeserving than the poor themselves.” (Chapter 14: High Tolerance)

—Matthew Desmond

Analysis: Chapter 14 focuses on tenants in the College Mobile Home Park, where tenants tend to take the view that eviction is the result of making bad choices, not systemic factors. Not having the money for rent, many feel, is simply due to spending that money on something else. This perspective, Desmond notes, has the unfortunate effect of stopping the poor—who are actually kept poor by many societal forces—from banding together and demanding fairer rents, less dangerous housing, and more equitable housing laws. The folks in the trailer park may see someone else evicted, but they don’t see themselves as in solidarity with that person.

This is an example of how Desmond shows not only how specific landlords or laws affect poverty and substandard housing but how prevailing attitudes among all levels of society also feed the problem. This example shows how the elevation of individualism has influenced discussion on poverty as well as the attitudes of those trapped in it. And if those in poverty do not think they are worthy of a better life, they may not seek one.

“Larraine threw money away because she was poor.” (Chapter 18: Lobster on Food Stamps)

—Matthew Desmond

Analysis: This assertion follows a discussion about “poverty mentality”—the idea that people who are poor make bad decisions about money because they don’t have the discipline to take the steps needed to grow savings or become financially secure. To many people, Larraine’s decision to make a lobster dinner, rather than use her food stamps to buy a large amount of lower-cost, nutritious food, is an example of the kinds of decisions that lead to poverty.

However, Desmond suggests that poverty is the cause, not the result, of many careless financial decisions. He suggests that for people like Larraine—isolated, aging, chronically ill, with a lifetime of dire poverty behind them—there is no real road out of poverty. No amount of skimping and saving will do the trick. So since responsible behavior will not have any real effect on their lives, they choose to “season the suffering with pleasure” by getting high, having a beer, or, as in Larraine’s case, eating lobster. Desmond also notes that Larraine is fully aware of her choices. She often eats one or two fancier meals in a month, then eats noodles the rest of the month. She sometimes buys food for needy families. Larraine’s life story might not fit easily into a tidy narrative about poverty, but it is an authentic story, nonetheless.

“Job loss could lead to eviction, but the reverse was also true.” (Chapter 19: Little)

—Matthew Desmond

Analysis: As Desmond explains the many self-perpetuating cycles that lead to a downward spiral into deep poverty, he explains how evictions and job loss are connected. The obvious is that losing one’s job can lead to an inability to pay rent, and then eviction can result. But he points out here that the reverse relationship also occurs. Evictions leave renters scrambling for a place to stay. The time needed to secure a new home might mean missed shifts at work or late arrivals. It is a stressor that makes employees more likely to make mistakes on the job. And a relocation that took them far from their place of work might cause issues with transportation to and from work. All these factors could lead to job loss.

And of course, this would then lead to additional difficulties keeping housing. It might mean another eviction. And eviction could lead to difficulty finding new housing and the increased likelihood of further evictions. Like seeing poverty as a cause, rather than an effect, Desmond suggests that we should see evictions not only as an effect of nonpayment but a cause of further poverty and nonpayment.

“But equal treatment in an unequal society could still foster inequality.” (Chapter 20: Nobody Wants the North Side)

—Matthew Desmond

Analysis: Desmond argues that since societal structures, such as the law, the banking system, and the real estate industry, have treated Black and white people differently, there are situations when equal treatment results in worse outcomes for Black people overall.

For example, Desmond explains, a long history of discrimination in the housing and lending industries, coupled with Jim Crow laws meant to keep Black people from gaining power in the South after slavery was abolished, blocked Black people from gaining generational wealth through home ownership. This left Black people, especially Black women, more at risk for eviction. And landlords’ racial bias added to this risk, as landlords might be more inclined to evict a Black tenant than a white one. At that point, having a policy that housing applications will be turned down if there are past evictions—an objective criterium that doesn’t seem biased on the surface—results in more Black women being turned down than white women.

“Eviction is a cause, not just a condition, of poverty.” (Epilogue: Home and Hope)

—Matthew Desmond

Analysis: This statement sums up much of the evidence presented in the book. Desmond challenges the idea, seemingly logical on its face, that eviction is just something that happens when a person is too poor to pay their rent. He does not say eviction is not caused by poverty; he just says that in addition, eviction contributes to poverty. It works like this: A person is evicted. The cause may be any number of factors—some that are within the tenant’s control and some that are not.

But once that eviction is on the person’s record, everything changes. Now it is much harder to get a rental, as many landlords just don’t rent to people with evictions. Those that do tend to offer substandard situations, with serious structural issues; broken appliances or plumbing; and health hazards such as black mold, lead paint, asbestos, or insect infestations. And landlords who rent to a person with a past eviction already feel that they are doing that person a favor. The past eviction gives the landlord greater power in the landlord-tenant relationship, making exploitation of the tenant more likely, as they are reluctant to complain or make demands for fear of losing their housing.

“Exploitation. Now, there’s a word that has been scrubbed out of the poverty debate.” (Epilogue: Home and Hope)

—Matthew Desmond

Analysis: Desmond argues that exploitation is an essential component of poverty. He says that low incomes coupled with “extractive markets” are at the root of the kind of entrenched poverty that traps people in the most destitute of circumstances. Simply put, the idea is this: When renters have more money, landlords charge—extract—higher rent. Therefore, higher wages have historically pushed rents up, and many government programs meant to put cash back in the pockets of the poor actually just flow additional cash into landlords’ bank accounts.

He also points out that exploitation is common when someone controls an essential product needed for survival, such as food or shelter. People must spend money on these things, and often the need is urgent, and so they do, even if they have to borrow, steal, or engage in other criminal activity. Given this truth, Desmond argues, any solution to persistent, dire poverty needs to consider the ways that exploitation contributes to the problem and how social apathy and government policies make this exploitation possible and lucrative.