Some estimates are putting the amount of people struggling to pay their rent in April at upwards of 30%. In the northeast region, hard-hit by COVID and with high rents, it’s likely higher. And even if people can somehow cobble together this month’s rent, what about next month’s? Our unemployment crisis is just beginning.

When trying to figure out a solution, we’ve focused on three parties who could cover this shortfall – the tenant, by delaying rent and paying it back later; the landlord, by forgiving some or all of the rent; and the government through emergency rental support. But there is a fourth party as well – the building’s creditors including banks, utility companies, and other entities that make up a building’s monthly expenses.

Right now, most plans seem to be for tenants to bear the entire financial brunt of this pandemic, despite being in the worst position to do so. Even with the eviction moratoriums currently in place, this simply kicks the can down the road. Tenants will just end up owing the entire rent amount later on – and with the possible addition of late fees and interest as well. Expecting people who have been jobless to be able to pay several months of rent at once after the moratorium ends is foolhardy and immoral.

Simply canceling rent, however, puts the onus entirely on the landlord – who is still responsible for paying workers, utilities, property taxes, insurance and mortgages. This would especially hit affordable housing providers, who generally work on small margins, very hard.

Similarly, providing mortgage relief to landlords does nothing for tenants unless there is a requirement to pass through savings to rent payers. In New Jersey, Governor Phil Murphy made it clear that he expects landlords getting mortgage relief to extend ​“similar relief to your tenants.” These expectations need to be codified and put in place in other states.

Assistance from the Federal government will help – a little. But a one time payment of $1,200 in a metro area where the fair market rent for a studio apartment is $1,665 every month is not going to cut it.

We also need to ask creditors and suppliers – the people the landlord pays money to – to do their part. If they chip in, these savings can be passed down to both building owners and tenants to better help them weather this crisis.

The chief expenses of almost any landlord are payroll, mortgage, utilities and property taxes. Cutting payroll is clearly counterproductive at a time when we’re spending a considerable amount of government money to preserve jobs, not to mention that building workers are essential workers needed to keep buildings clean and disinfected. This leaves three other parties who can step up.

Foremost among these are our financial institutions, who can restructure mortgage debt and reduce monthly building costs. It simply makes no sense right now to have the government give money to tenants, to give to landlords, to give to banks: this is just another way of subsidizing banks and other mortgage holders, not tenants. Our mortgage system is complicated, with many non-bank entities, independent servicers, securitization and other parties involved. But ultimately, a mortgage payment ends up somewhere, and somebody files for foreclosure if you can’t pay it.

If tenants can’t pay rent, building owners should start negotiating with these lenders to reduce mortgage payments. Government can play a crucial role by putting in place the framework that will encourage financial institutions to come to the table and make negotiations productive.

Second, utilities – most of which are heavily regulated by the states – can also do their part. New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut already have moratoriums on utility shutoffs, and other states could follow suit. But just like an eviction moratorium, this only delays the inevitable. Suspending or reducing utility payments for COVID-impacted properties would make a real difference. This should be able to be done in a way which won’t impact employment or service. Water charges, for instance, are almost all for expansion and maintenance of the system, not the day-to-say task of keeping the water running. This would also benefit strapped homeowners as well as tenants and building owners.

Third is property taxes. Since localities have the direct ability to collect – or not collect – property taxes it might be tempting to rely heavily on property tax relief as the primary solution. Indeed, some bills introduced to provide relief rely exclusively on reducing property taxes. But local and state governments are facing unprecedented hits to their budgets and don’t have the federal government’s ability to run deficits or print money. A large reduction in property tax revenue means a locality won’t be able to provide other crucial services.

Devising policies that are fair and effective will need to account for a wide range of circumstances. A large landlord with a property tax exemption and many struggling tenants is different from a small building with hefty property taxes and middle-class tenants who have the means to cover rent. But these complexities should not stand in the way of well-designed solutions that take them into account.

There are also smaller measures we could take immediately: Allowing tenants to access their security deposits to pay rent, as proposed in New York City, is one. Forbidding reporting to credit bureaus or debt collectors for the extent of this crisis and likely beyond is another (this is already in place in many places for people who miss mortgage payments on their homes). Eliminating late fees and interest, as was recently put in place during Connecticut’s 60-day grace period, is a third – which should also be extended to utilities, including the internet which is now much closer to a necessity than a luxury. Immediately guaranteeing an emergency right to counsel for eviction cases in all three states when any eviction moratorium ends is a fourth.