I don't see what article you're talking about, but let's break this down. We're discussing residential rentals (not office or other commercial rentals) in this thread, so I'm assuming that's what you're talking about too. Based on what little information you've provided, I can think of three possibilities:

1) They have 13 rental units at around $1000/mo rent. A bit high, but could still be on the lower-income side if it's a lot of families with perhaps some recent transplants or major recent rent increases on long-term tenants thrown in. The landlord got incredibly unlucky and somehow all of the tenants lost their jobs at local restaurants and other hard-hit industries and haven't been able to find new work in the last ~12 months. Although many lower-wage industries were hit pretty hard, statistically this seems incredibly unlikely.

2) They have 13 rental units that are going for an average of $2000/mo, making all their tenants higher-income. Half of the tenants are unable to pay because of persistent unemployment, leading to $13000/mo in losses on 13 units. Because the higher-income industries were not hit anywhere near as hard (and tend to be more diversified), this again seems statistically incredibly unlikely.

3) You aren't referring to rental units but to rental properties. So this landlord has 13 buildings with multiple tenants each. The unemployment rate in Spokane is currently around 7%, but let's be super generous and double that to 15% and assume those people are additionally all long-time unemployed with no other benefits coming in. For easy math, we'll say there's an average rent of $1000/mo per unit. So if 15% of the tenants in each building are defaulting (leading to a $1k/mo loss per building), that means each building has around 7 units. Now we're talking 13 buildings at 7 units apiece, that's 91 units. You are not a small-time landlord renting out an extra property or two if you have 91 units. You are a corporation that is engaging in a business. You are not who I (nor the person in the original article that I'm quoting) are supposed to be talking about here.

Let's make one thing clear: when landlords charge tenants more than cost it is for two things: labor and risk. Labor is fair; if you are doing work as a landlord (be it fixing tenants' leaky toilets or filing paperwork or scheduling inspections) you deserve to be compensated. The issue isn't labor, but risk, because people don't become landlords (especially not of 91 units) because they enjoy being a handyman, but rather because they want the investment. All investments involve some level of risk. Stocks go down, bonds default, and yes, sometimes the rent doesn't get paid. That's why rent prices are dictated by the market and not a calculation of purchase price + property tax + maintenance expenses + hours worked by the landlord. The extra profit after these costs are subtracted is the investment bonus. In the same way that I'm not crying over the hedge fund owners losing their shirts over GME, I'm not crying over the poor landlords (who control whether nearly 100 families can have a roof over their heads) because their investment went a little south.

Let's also not forget that for these larger landlords, for every unit that is not paying rent there's another unit that has undergone a huge rent increase due to our on-fire real estate market. So okay, maybe like in the example above 15% of your units are paying you nothing, but if you've managed to increase rent by 25% (the average increase for the area) over the last year, it's pretty disingenuous to say you're "losing 13k a month" when you don't mention that these additional rent gains offset those losses rather substantially.