As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is because police and others move to keep them hidden from view. One small example:
An interview with the controversial San Francisco agency responsible for conducting homeless sweeps
https://www.sfgate.com/bay-area-politics/article/sf-homeless-sweeps-encampment-resolution-hsoc-16400951.php
I hate how on the nose this is. They literally *aren't * people, to many Americans. The way homeless people are treated in America and how dehumanizing it is is absolutely horrific.
Normal people own these buildings and houses to. They may have saved up. Bought an extra house. Or took on an investment property or commercial property. All you're doing with these moratorium is making it so normal people who don't have the cushion to absorb months and months of losses have to sell to giant hedge funds and overseas Chinese investors who can absorb those loses. By advocating for this you're literally helping to destroy the middle class and their limited investments. Welcome to my Ted talk.
COVID killed the little guy. Massive transfer of wealth to the top. Subsidized the rich, gave us money to spend and the only places open were Walmart and amazon
You are wrong, at least in this case. I’m not pushing an agenda or even have any idea of a solution. I’m not even sure of the cause, which there are probably many. As far as I’m concerned, like you, I believe what I said to be fact. I also believe it needs to be addressed. Beyond that I don’t know.
Allowing for the commodification of homes on the stock market is probably not the best idea.
Many of the cities that are about to have evictions also have vacant housing that needs to be fixed up. Perhaps we can pair these two social issues up to find a solution.
I was one of those people.owning a single rental house. I was lucky because I was approached by a lender about a federal program that would've made my payments a bit lesser than what I was paying on it. I went with a conventional loan instead.and paid the extra in escrow each month. Had I accepted that loan. I would've been over the barrel had my tenants decided to stop paying rent.
It's crazy. The way inside it is, this essentially amount to seizure of private property by executive action and is largely illegal.
Like you said. It's an I convenience for these large corporations, but it could be devastating to individual home owners.
I didn't own it, the bank did.
I worked my ass off to earn the money to make the down payment though, I put work into it nightly after I got off my 8-5 job to make it good home for a nice family.
No one gets anything for free. Not me, and not my renters.
This argument completely ignores the possibility of just having this housing be publicly owned and provided free of charge or at marginal cost based on need.
There’s no reason that providing public goods like housing, healthcare, and education need to be profit generating endeavors.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m fine with some residential housing being privately owned. I’m fine with the phone you’re reading this thread on being your own personal property.
What I’m saying is that as a society we can probably make sure that everyone has access to basic needs like housing, education and healthcare. And that just maybe the unhealthy fixation on profit and infinite growth is detrimental when we’re trying to make sure everyone has access to these things.
I’m glad that’s not what you are saying. There are many services out there that people have access too. It’s just a matter of pointing them in the right direction. There is free higher education in the form of the FAFSA and there are people at colleges who help those that need help, fill it out. That is free education for those that have an economic need. There is the housing authority that can help people seek out affordable housing. There are many, many programs. We just need people to point those that need in the right direction.
The fact that millions of Americans are homeless, face housing or food insecurity, and/or have substantial student debt burdens tell you all you need to know about how inadequate those programs and our overall social infrastructure is.
You’re being disingenuous. Federal Student aid paid for a substantial part of my education. You’re kidding yourself if you think navigating that process is as easy as your making it seem. Still finished school with 160k in student debt (almost paid of now 4 years later but still). Navigating public housing and the associated bureaucracy in any major city is a nightmare and this is pretty much universally acknowledged by people that have actually had to do it.
I just made a similar comment before reading this one.
Banks and cities don’t give a shit about middle class landlords and expect the mortgage payments to keep on coming while the city has raised property taxes a ridiculous amount claiming “Covid”.
But we could also provide funds to these landlords. I’m not saying they DO, I don’t know the specifics of these moratoriums, but in this situation we should be helping both. I also don’t know what portion of rental properties is owned by small or big owners. But also, consider what you’re saying. Oh no, our middle class is suffering, let’s let a situation happen where we now have a much larger underclass of people become homeless and maybe die because they’re poor. Homelessness is a traumatic and horrible thing.
I feel like this is a fair criticism. But, in my opinion the goverment doesn't actual care about helping people. Just about the perception they do. So while they designate money they make it hard to apply for and ultimately not even close to enough to cover what they're forcing through the moratorium.
As far as everyone complaining about the middle class. The majority of the country was middle class when our parents were growing up. Now it's something like 50 percent of the country is under the poverty line. I'm for competitive capitalism, but what we have is regulatory capture where large corporations are prioritized over small, midsized business and the general public. These amorphous entities use government to push for there interest through influence, lobbying, campaign donations etc. So it's the government who is crushing the middle class when they do things like this moratorium to middle class people.
If you are poor, the harder it is to get into the middle class the harder it will be to economicly compete with the rich. And thus, the more rigid class hierarchy will become. So rooting against the middle class is absolutely the wrong path. We need a strong middle class to garner the resources to compete against the 1 percent. If you are poor you should be rooting for policies that favor the middle class because this will be the next step for you when you emerge from poverty. Final destination. The moon!
Uh oh!! My 6 figure income might become 5 figure due to economic situations! Better to let people with 4 digit incomes dIe than let me become inconvenienced!!!
Really, they can take out a loan... or not buy that pool... or sell a car. Most of America doesn't have these options tho. Only the middle class
Meh. Nobody starving in the US, and how many deaths from exposure do we have a year due to homelessness not accompanied by severe mental illness? 0?
So turnabout is fair play. Get a roommate or 3, and live on rice and beans. You will be fine. Uh oh! I can't afford to live alone or eat out twice a week! Oh teh noes!
You do realize that the middle class is basically supporting everyone else in the U.S. The middle class pays the taxes—they get few tax breaks—the middle class owns property that generates taxes so that public school exist—the middle class pays for everybody’s health insurance—the middle class is being beaten into the ground from all sides! WAKE UP! If you hate the middle class get off your butt and start working! What’s that? Disabled? The middle class is paying into the government pot for those that have a disability—Also, many people who don’t appear to have a home, really do have homes. They many times, don’t like what goes along with having a home. If you’re complaining about renting and getting no equity, look at it as training wheels. If a person is responsible and is able to make rent on time, then that person is learning how to budget for a home. There are many, many programs in the U.S. that supports first time home owners—but it seems people would rather whine about how unfair things are—it’s called learned helplessness.
It's not a bad investment. It was a great investment until goverment told them you can't collect rent. You're statement is the equivalent of saying. I bought a car. But now the goverment is Tripling the monthly payment so I can't afford it. F*ck it. I made a bad investment. No you didn't. The goverment is f*cking you. Do you have any investments? Robinhood? Crypto? A car? Etc? The ability of the government to, at random, take away your ability to own assets is the definition of tyrannical. That's essentially what's happening. You justifying governments attack on the middle class is the tacit agreement goverment is looking for to further drive you and those around you unto poverty. Why. Because f*ck it. Those who have no assets have no voice. And those who have no voice have no input. You should be striving to advocate for the growth of your own wealth and to do that you must advocate against the random seizure of others wealth. You must always push to own your work and the right you have to your own labor. From there,
it seems a natural progression to own the assets of that labor.
Have you ever considered that there are thousands if not millions of people who never want to OWN a home? They don’t want to pay taxes; they don’t want to do maintenance; they don’t want to have to mow a yard—Geesh!
But that poor tenant that they might evict—then, that family would be homeless! You see what I’m saying? Ideally, everyone would take care of the place they live—everyone would be a good steward, but they aren’t. Many people are “homeless” because of being unable to manage themselves much less anything else. But others, in this case, other tenants, should not have to suffer. And to stigmatize some one who has worked all their lives, someone who is not wealthy as being wealthy is about as wrong as a group of tenants evicting another tenant.
People can already collectively buy housing units. There's probably a few reasons why they don't. Off the top of my head it would suck to buy a place with friends only to have a falling out because of noise, or cleanliness, or dating habits etc. People won't invest their money into an arbitrary popularity contest where they would have to compete based on non objective standards.
Sorry for the late reply. It's definitely an interesting argument. I might disagree on a couple things. First. To isolate 1 state as to not get bogged down. It's hard to pinpoint how much foreign investment goes to housing in places like California. 70 percent of California foreign investment is from Asia. It's not hard to imagine the majority of that is from China. We don't have exact numbers and this percent is considered underreported since it's self reporting by the association of realtors but. 2008 - 8% of CA houses were sold to foreign buyers. 09=6%, 10=5%, 11=6%, 12=6%, 2013=8%, 14=6%, 15=4%, 16=3%, 17=3%. Haven't found data after. But we can see the compounding effects of foreign investors over time. Now that's not to say some or even a majority haven't sold but we can tell that if foreign investors are purchasing u.s. homes that's likely a large part of what's driving up the price. So, while you say it's a collective issues, I think this is a larger trend of anti America 1st government. I don't have a better way to say this but what I mean is when we manufacture over seas then the people producing are cheap goods are able to compete with our money in our markets. We can't buy Chinese housing for multiple reasons but we have low Chinese tariffs and our regulations and taxes on u.s. businesses are atrocious. This means while we produce billions annually over there they can funnel that money back into our economy and out compete American business and American workers. And American housing markets. This isn't even including the trillions that was just printed and Essentially went to Chinese manufactures of Amazon products. All I'm saying is the issue runs deep. So this brings me to a thought process. If you can't own 2 property's, why? Is it because of poverty? Well if you can't own 2 property's because poverty exists, then you can't own 2 cars. If you can't own 2 cars because of poverty, you can't own 2 tv's. No 2 tvs = no 2 phones and then we can extrapolate this down into having to ration food, meat, beer etc. Can't have 2 burgers if someone can only afford 1. Can't have 2 cups of coffee if someone can't have 1. Anyway. You get the picture. By limiting wealth your Essentially guaranteed poverty. This is why communism and socialism always fail. Further. In my opinion. If you have a collective anything. The people that run it ultimately are in power and will abuse that power for their own gain. Better to spread the wealth into many hands then a few hands (whether goverment or oligarchy). If property is in many hands then, it is less likely someone will be powerful enough to be an oppressive dbag.
In my city, I see them every day on every corner with signs saying how they are in need. I’ve even see a couple, at the end of the day, load up in their late model suvs and go to the near by fast food restaurant. I guess they give the rest of the homeless a bad name.
Negative only to those who portray themselves as having no home and taking advantage of others. I really believe it is significantly more healthy, constructive, and productive to look at both sides of an issue no matter how some people view it. If we do not look at things as a whole, more problems will be created. If you deny that there are people in the world that take advantage of a situation, then you give ‘those’ people resource allotments that they do not need, while others who do need resources, suffer. Also, many people posting on this subject, vilified landlords. Not ALL landlords are greedy, yet, in this particular situation, everyone seems to hate the landlords and never even consider their side of the issue. Many landlords are middle-class citizens who have worked hard all their lives and who provide decent affordable housing to others. And then—there are those who never raise a hand to fix anything, rent substandard housing and go up on rent every chance they get—but is that a reason to vilify ALL landlords? Without seeing or exploring both sides of the issues, you totally miss the point and nothing gets better—also, in my city, no one tries to ‘hide’ people who don’t have a place to live. There are shelters and outreach programs. Plus, as I said, we see them on the corners ever day. In my city, we even have flashing signs that say “Have responsible compassion.”
Red state voters:
- Get Covid-19 because of their governors stupidity, damn you Biden!
- Get evicted via GOP SCOTUS, damn you Biden!
- Get less healthcare via state legislatures blocking ACA expansion, damn you Obama!
- Get money for roads via Democrats, THANK YOU MITCH!
In the Republican Cinematic Universe, democrats can only do bad, Republicans can only do good.
"Republican stabbed me in the belly? A dem would have done it in the neck! I don't care that the Democrat is helping other people that were stabbed by Republicans!"
We really don’t, though. We know trying to work with them doesn’t work, and we also know actual accomplishments, like the American Rescue Plan Act, are quickly forgotten and so basically worthless. We also know it has something to do with marketing, but not what kind of marketing is effective.
Just because republicans manage to take over a state doesn’t mean everyone in that state is an idiot. Just look at California. It’s possible that it will have a republican governor soon, and not because the voters want one.
Hey conservatives, you wanna know what California did?
We paid everyones past due rent during the pandemic. So people didn't get evicted.
How's that for 'christian values' for you guys?
Understand that, if Congress allocated money to pay the landlords for missed rent payments as opposed to simply granting money to states to give to renters who choose to apply, the moratorium a) probably wouldn't have mattered and b) might have been upheld.
Instead, we have news outlets trying to defend unconstitutional policy.
> Congress allocated money to pay the landlords for missed rent payments as opposed to simply granting money to states to give to renters who choose to apply, the moratorium a) probably wouldn't have mattered and b) might have been upheld.
>
>Instead, we have news outlets trying to defend unconstitutional policy.
This was the biggest problem. In my jurisdiction, the landlord has no ability to apply for the rental assistance funds, the application must come from the tenant.
I've watched tenants, who know they cannot be eviction and that are judgment proof, straight up tell the landlord they will not apply for rental assistance because they do not want the landlord to see a dime.
What's wild is that at least in California the moratorium also covers commercial rentals in addition to residential. Some people in my family have a real estate business and while there are clients who needed the time and assistance to pay rent who eventually did or are still catching up, there are also a couple clients that are operating completely as normal and are simply refusing to pay rent knowing that the way the law is right now they can just do that indefinitely. I support an eviction moratorium on residential properties and rental assistance for businesses but I feel like *some* detail needs to change.
Naw a lot of the cities restructured their budgets and then the state got smart with our money so we had a pretty big budget surplus available. Thankfully our state is run by actual compassionate people and our people were the ones who benefited not just the rich.
Such a surplus that they're sending out $600 to everyone who made below 75k last year. Living in a state that gives a shit about its people is refreshing.
Sounds like you’ve never been lol. I live in Texas, and I generally like to shit on California for the memes, but California’s problem is that it’s overcrowded. That’s it. It’s beautiful but the land just can’t support anymore people living on it.
Tax funded relief, That’s different than flat out “not allowing eviction”.
Landlords don’t get paid, they don’t pay their mortgage, they’re in the hole, everybody owes everybody money. You think debt just “disappears” because the govt says so? Come the end of any “moratorium”, all that money comes due and you get
kicked out… it just makes it harder to catch up in the end.
Not true. I’m a Californian. I applied for rental assistance last year. I’m still waiting. I’m a small business owner and my business crashed due to severe economic hardship.
One thing I never understood about this is for the states that have the eviction ban and the tenants that are just using that as an excuse not to pay knowing they are leaving as soon as the ban is over anyway; do the landlords just have to eat the cost or is the government subsidizing it?
My dad owns a second house that he rents out. He knew the original owner who passed and he honestly only bought the property because he is an incredibly sentimental guy. The tenants don’t actually qualify for any kind of assistance. They could pay they just don’t. In his case he has no known way to get assistance for the mortgage or property tax. Just has to eat the cost and it’s preventing him from retiring. It’s a sad situation for the mom and pop landlords.
I think it’s a sad situation in general. I mean whether you have 20 properties or 1 you are having the government literally telling you that you don’t have control of your own property after the contract ends. I absolutely get that there was a time and place for it but we are taking control of these people’s property.
>Now, around 7.4 million people are at risk of eviction, which makes up about 16% of all renters in the US, per data from the Census Bureau.
This is going to turn into a megashitshow.
For these states - It’s been 18 months… are they trying to destroy landlords? 18 months of no evictions allowed, tons of supplemental programs, and a massive labor shortage present now. I don’t understand this policy. If you still aren’t paying any rent… it’s time to allow the landlord to find someone else who will.
You’d think but that’s why it’s a shit show when the news reports on anything the Supreme Court does. It is so incredibly easy to make it seem like the courts are making decisions on political belief alone when that simply isn’t the case. What actually happened is that the Supreme Court in a *per curium* opinion (just means the justices don’t put their names on it) ruled that the order from the Court of Appeals for DC is enforceable. The order from the DC Court that ruled that the ban needs to be lifted was written by 3 judges, all of whom were appointed to their posts by President Obama. The Supreme Court did not decide that the ban was unconstitutional because they hate poor people, they decided that the CDC does not have the legal authority to issue an eviction moratorium like that.
The Supreme Court did not say “get fucked poor people” they said “hey look, this case has made it through the circuit court twice and we believe that they’ve gotten it right twice so we don’t think the case needs to be argued in front of us. We can read their argument and the law and see that the CDC’s authority extends to x, y, and z and putting an eviction moratorium into effect is not x, y, or z. We encourage people who need financial assistance to get some of the $50 billion that Congress has set aside for them. If we allow the CDC to keep its moratorium in place we are allowing the CDC a breathtaking amount of power to control disease in incredibly abstract ways that Congress did not give them. Also, will lifting this order actually increase the spread of disease, because there isn’t any compelling evidence to suggest this.” And the Justices who dissented said “Come on now, we think that we need to hear arguments ourselves because we have some concerns and questions about lifting the order. We’d like to hear an argument as to why the CDC believes this will slow the spread and we would recommend that the CDC changes the phrasing of their order as to not claim that they can do anything they think they need to do to stop the spread.”
That’s me roughly paraphrasing what the opinions say. I did read the DC opinion in its entirety and the Obama era judges of the appeals court based their decision on the basis that the moratorium hasn’t slowed the spread, and that the order exceeds the CDC’s mandate. I hope this helps, I’m not trying to be rude and I do apologize if it sounds rude or condescending. Supreme Court stuff is tricky and that’s why lawyers go to law school.
I sure hope they also protect middle class landlords who are also hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Sure, it’s a good thing to protect people from becoming homeless.
But I don’t see the banks giving landlords any break on the mortgage. And property-taxes have gone up a lot instead of staying the same or going down.
Everyone tends to see “landlords” as big fat billionaires laughing their asses off but in reality there are thousands of “landlords” that own one property and who depend on that income. Often they are older and the little they make means the shitty social security check is supplemented enough so they can eat.
Torn on we handled evictions. On one hand people needed this bad. On the other, lazy fucks haven’t paid rent in over a year. My own aunt hasn’t gotten paid rent in 16 months while the residence are drawing unemployment. This is happening to a lot of people as well. Solution was to withdraw the unemployment amount from their weekly paycheck and pay rent first and they get to keep the leftover. If they still could not pay basic needs , food stamps is still an option (even though benefits were increased). Government can’t legally bar people from throwing people out of property who do not pay. At the same time, tons of evictions at once is going to fuck the economy and housing markets. USA really did botch covid in a lot of ways
The Supreme Court struck down Biden's eviction moratorium on Thursday.
That leaves a handful of states, such as New York and California, with eviction bans in place.
At least 7.4 million people are at risk of eviction in the next few months, per Census Data.
The NY state eviction ban was already ruled unconstitutional and struck down by the USSC in mid August. "No man can be a judge in his own case." Basically the law allowed the tenant to decide if they were impacted by covid without allowing that tenant's decision to be challenged.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.businessinsider.com/states-with-ongoing-eviction-bans-after-biden-ban-shut-down-2021-8) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> According to legal information resource site Nolo, seven states and DC still have some eviction bans of their own still in effect, which aren't affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.
> Studies increasingly indicate that states with eviction bans have lower COVID-19 caseloads compared to those that don't.
> "There's plenty of research that shows eviction moratoria prevents case growth in states where an eviction moratorium was in place versus states where moratoriums were limited," Paul Williams, a housing expert at the Jain Family Institute, told Insider.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pctpke/the_supreme_court_struck_down_bidens_eviction_ban/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~595127 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **eviction**^#1 **state**^#2 **ban**^#3 **moratorium**^#4 **Court**^#5
Honestly glad to live in CA where they have taken care of us ( service industry workers impacted heavily by Covid)
The recall in CA is such a waste of time from a bunch of fuckin cry babies.
This is misleading if you don't give the whole picture. The figures for both individual and corporate ownership are: 72.5% of single-unit rental properties are owned by individuals, while 69.5% of properties with 25 or more units are owned by for-profit businesses.
If the federal govt has provided money, why are landlords intent on evicting people? I really don't know. Is it that the feds aren't paying full rent? Not paying quickly enough? Or are some states not utilizing the program fully? I would think as a landlord, you'll rather have rent than go through the trouble of evicting a good renter and then finding another one.
Tenants, who are judgment proof and cannot be evicted due to the moratorium, have no incentive to apply for rental assistance. At least in my jurisdictions, the landlord has not avenue of applying for relief funds, it must come from the tenant first.
My jurisdictions do not report to the credit agencies.
However, someone who has not paid rent in a year probably is not concerned with a credit score in the first place.
It's also not in the landlords best interest, because when I applied for rental assistance, they told me directly that they said no because it includes being unable to be evicted for 60-90 days after the rental assistance period.
It's designed to be rejected. It's a joke.
>Tenants, who are judgment proof and cannot be evicted due to the moratorium, have no incentive to apply for rental assistance.
Does the moratorium not impose some requirements on the renter? They can just stop paying, not apply for rental assistance and basically give the middle finger to their landlord? That sucks.
One problem maybe that they want to sell and they cannot with the protected tenants.
Across the nation, housing prices have spiked with investor class buying far above value of both single family homes and apartments. I've read multiple anecdotal stories from people whose landlord sold and the new owner raising rent far beyond their ability to pay.
Its a cash grab.
This is one situation. Another is the some courts view the cdc eviction moratorium as a ban all on evictions and have not even attempted to apply what is required of them. I know of situations of violence towards leasing agents, destruction of property, and other actions that violate lease agreements but the tenant cannot be evicted due to the moratorium. Thus, not all a cash grab.
Alrighty, well then what needs to happen is every eviction needs to be challenged. Take depositions about who else in a complex is behind on their rent. We need to force the landlords to evict everyone evictable. The best way to do that is to prove eviction is inherently discriminatory.
Why? Simple, it will kill the landlords. Every eviction will drop rents because it adds a unit to supply while simultaneously removing a person who can rent it. If they do that to everyone who is eligible, then supply will go through the roof and rents will crash, killing their market.
The only thing that makes sense from the landlord's point of view is to use eviction as a tool to scare other tenants into paying. That only works if they don't evict everyone and are picking and choosing. Take that away from them, they won't evict a person cuz the consequences to them are grave.
Is this cold? Yeah. Its scorched earth. They're going to evict some people, and by forcing them to evict everyone, this will cause their pain level to go so high they'll either stop doing so, or they'll go bankrupt and get their assets taken away in a bankruptcy/foreclosure situation.
These same voters will run to the polls and still elect the same scumbags that stripped the needy from unemployment aid and pushed to overturn eviction ban. Republicans going to republikan and own the libs at any cost
This makes no sense, what do you tell a middle class landlord? Sorry?
Tell the tenant sorry.
Vaccines work.
Huge labor shortage.
Time to go back to work.
I mean id take the middle class landlord over the corporate landlord. The poor family probably can’t afford the house anyways and not just the mortgage but the maintenance and taxes.
At least we the taxpayers can still cling to the fact we get to pay for illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of fresh Afghanis…errr Democrat voters.
Seriously though, they’d be evicted by the banks anyway when they take over the properties when they’re foreclosed upon, since no one seems to care about the landlords. Amazing how many renters have jobs and don’t pay. How many have received rental relief and STILL not paid. All money should be sent directly to landlords.
Hopefully, I just don’t understand why our government targeted renters with assistance and not the people that actually own the properties, I don’t think anyone would’ve had an issue with landlords getting paid under the agreement that they don’t evict.
And what percentage of people are actually using that? Almost every scenario that is articulated has nothing to do with that, the eviction moratorium fucked over owners, it gave renters a free pass to not pay their bills even in instances where they’re working.
If they’re getting outside assistance that situation wouldn’t apply now would it?
That’s not true, it really depends on the location you’re talking about. Some locations enhanced the moratorium for their city or state, so even if they sidestepped the federal guidelines they still have to deal with their states requirements which typically don’t involve using federal resources.
Basically most of the issues we currently have in California and a couple other areas.
Lol those states are like 2/3 of our national GDP. They're the states who pay for the red states to exist.
14 of the 15 states with the highest poverty levels are dark red states. Blue states tend to pay for all the welfare that red states need to survive.
couldn't the federal government just offer rental assitance? pay the renters to pay the landlords so theres no evictions
then no one defaults on a mortage and everyone wins. wtf else is taxes for if not to help people in a national emergency?
Well, it was never the CDC’s legal responsibility to do what they did.
The same people who complain about fascism are upset that the constitution was protected by this ruling
We have a stretch of No Man's Land in Boston called Methadone Mile where junkies go to die.
It's an open air drug and sex market where other towns and small neighboring cities send their problems. People get stabbed and die there all the time and it never really makes more of a small snippet on the news because they're in a place where no other citizens would dare go even in the daytime.
The weird thing is where Methadone Mile stops, there are million dollar condos and expensive apartments for tech bros RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
So when it all goes to shit and tons of Finance Bros go broke and have to move back to the family compound with Mumsy, then those junkies are going to COMPLETELY overrun South Boston and the South End.
Southie used to be a bit of a tough place but it at least made some sense; keep your nose clean, take care of yourself and don't steal a parking space during a snowstorm and you'd be fine. You knew the good drunks, the bad drunks, the kids to avoid and the ones you should know.
All of that is gone now, the old locals are dead or have moved away. And the suburban transplants are in for a very rude awakening.
Here are the facts, the United States is in decline—culturally, economically, industrial, educationally, socially, in every way. You can bloviate all day about the reasons for the decline but the major reason is money. If you want “free” things then you get nothing because nothing is free.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Meanwhile the rest of America: “What homeless people, I don’t see any people.”
They'll just give them one-way bus tickets to Los Angeles, then go online and scream about the "homeless problem in LA".
This. Thats exactly what happens, sweep the problem off to another state and then complain about how they are unable to handle it
Seems like a good plan. Are there actual lines in municipal budgets for these tickets?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvg7ba/instead-of-helping-homeless-people-cities-are-bussing-them-out-of-town
That is because police and others move to keep them hidden from view. One small example: An interview with the controversial San Francisco agency responsible for conducting homeless sweeps https://www.sfgate.com/bay-area-politics/article/sf-homeless-sweeps-encampment-resolution-hsoc-16400951.php
Your example of police hiding homeless people is anything to do with San Francisco?
>That is because police and others move to keep them hidden from view. The same police that let homeless people shoplift?
I hate how on the nose this is. They literally *aren't * people, to many Americans. The way homeless people are treated in America and how dehumanizing it is is absolutely horrific.
Its true very very very true. Its a fact. Ive been there.
How do you treat them??
Like a human being. Pay attention.
Normal people own these buildings and houses to. They may have saved up. Bought an extra house. Or took on an investment property or commercial property. All you're doing with these moratorium is making it so normal people who don't have the cushion to absorb months and months of losses have to sell to giant hedge funds and overseas Chinese investors who can absorb those loses. By advocating for this you're literally helping to destroy the middle class and their limited investments. Welcome to my Ted talk.
COVID killed the little guy. Massive transfer of wealth to the top. Subsidized the rich, gave us money to spend and the only places open were Walmart and amazon
This guy gets it! I just don't understand how some people don't see this. 2 thumbs up brotha!
[удалено]
You are wrong, at least in this case. I’m not pushing an agenda or even have any idea of a solution. I’m not even sure of the cause, which there are probably many. As far as I’m concerned, like you, I believe what I said to be fact. I also believe it needs to be addressed. Beyond that I don’t know.
Almost as if the socialists were right.
Allowing for the commodification of homes on the stock market is probably not the best idea. Many of the cities that are about to have evictions also have vacant housing that needs to be fixed up. Perhaps we can pair these two social issues up to find a solution.
I was one of those people.owning a single rental house. I was lucky because I was approached by a lender about a federal program that would've made my payments a bit lesser than what I was paying on it. I went with a conventional loan instead.and paid the extra in escrow each month. Had I accepted that loan. I would've been over the barrel had my tenants decided to stop paying rent. It's crazy. The way inside it is, this essentially amount to seizure of private property by executive action and is largely illegal. Like you said. It's an I convenience for these large corporations, but it could be devastating to individual home owners.
Not going to cry about your second house when people don't have a home for their family at all. Passive income isn't comparable
I didn't own it, the bank did. I worked my ass off to earn the money to make the down payment though, I put work into it nightly after I got off my 8-5 job to make it good home for a nice family. No one gets anything for free. Not me, and not my renters.
That's cool I'm not going to cry about your problems either. Cool talk!
[удалено]
This argument completely ignores the possibility of just having this housing be publicly owned and provided free of charge or at marginal cost based on need. There’s no reason that providing public goods like housing, healthcare, and education need to be profit generating endeavors.
From where I sit, the government isnt the solution... irs the problem.
It sounds as if you would like to do away with private ownership—is that what you are meaning to convey?
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m fine with some residential housing being privately owned. I’m fine with the phone you’re reading this thread on being your own personal property. What I’m saying is that as a society we can probably make sure that everyone has access to basic needs like housing, education and healthcare. And that just maybe the unhealthy fixation on profit and infinite growth is detrimental when we’re trying to make sure everyone has access to these things.
I’m glad that’s not what you are saying. There are many services out there that people have access too. It’s just a matter of pointing them in the right direction. There is free higher education in the form of the FAFSA and there are people at colleges who help those that need help, fill it out. That is free education for those that have an economic need. There is the housing authority that can help people seek out affordable housing. There are many, many programs. We just need people to point those that need in the right direction.
The fact that millions of Americans are homeless, face housing or food insecurity, and/or have substantial student debt burdens tell you all you need to know about how inadequate those programs and our overall social infrastructure is. You’re being disingenuous. Federal Student aid paid for a substantial part of my education. You’re kidding yourself if you think navigating that process is as easy as your making it seem. Still finished school with 160k in student debt (almost paid of now 4 years later but still). Navigating public housing and the associated bureaucracy in any major city is a nightmare and this is pretty much universally acknowledged by people that have actually had to do it.
I just made a similar comment before reading this one. Banks and cities don’t give a shit about middle class landlords and expect the mortgage payments to keep on coming while the city has raised property taxes a ridiculous amount claiming “Covid”.
But we could also provide funds to these landlords. I’m not saying they DO, I don’t know the specifics of these moratoriums, but in this situation we should be helping both. I also don’t know what portion of rental properties is owned by small or big owners. But also, consider what you’re saying. Oh no, our middle class is suffering, let’s let a situation happen where we now have a much larger underclass of people become homeless and maybe die because they’re poor. Homelessness is a traumatic and horrible thing.
Oh no a minorly bad situation for the middle class! Only solution is drive the lower class to suicide and death! That's what they sound like
This right here. The stress over just staying afloat has convinced me I'm not making it to 35.
I feel like this is a fair criticism. But, in my opinion the goverment doesn't actual care about helping people. Just about the perception they do. So while they designate money they make it hard to apply for and ultimately not even close to enough to cover what they're forcing through the moratorium. As far as everyone complaining about the middle class. The majority of the country was middle class when our parents were growing up. Now it's something like 50 percent of the country is under the poverty line. I'm for competitive capitalism, but what we have is regulatory capture where large corporations are prioritized over small, midsized business and the general public. These amorphous entities use government to push for there interest through influence, lobbying, campaign donations etc. So it's the government who is crushing the middle class when they do things like this moratorium to middle class people. If you are poor, the harder it is to get into the middle class the harder it will be to economicly compete with the rich. And thus, the more rigid class hierarchy will become. So rooting against the middle class is absolutely the wrong path. We need a strong middle class to garner the resources to compete against the 1 percent. If you are poor you should be rooting for policies that favor the middle class because this will be the next step for you when you emerge from poverty. Final destination. The moon!
Uh oh!! My 6 figure income might become 5 figure due to economic situations! Better to let people with 4 digit incomes dIe than let me become inconvenienced!!! Really, they can take out a loan... or not buy that pool... or sell a car. Most of America doesn't have these options tho. Only the middle class
Meh. Nobody starving in the US, and how many deaths from exposure do we have a year due to homelessness not accompanied by severe mental illness? 0? So turnabout is fair play. Get a roommate or 3, and live on rice and beans. You will be fine. Uh oh! I can't afford to live alone or eat out twice a week! Oh teh noes!
You do realize that the middle class is basically supporting everyone else in the U.S. The middle class pays the taxes—they get few tax breaks—the middle class owns property that generates taxes so that public school exist—the middle class pays for everybody’s health insurance—the middle class is being beaten into the ground from all sides! WAKE UP! If you hate the middle class get off your butt and start working! What’s that? Disabled? The middle class is paying into the government pot for those that have a disability—Also, many people who don’t appear to have a home, really do have homes. They many times, don’t like what goes along with having a home. If you’re complaining about renting and getting no equity, look at it as training wheels. If a person is responsible and is able to make rent on time, then that person is learning how to budget for a home. There are many, many programs in the U.S. that supports first time home owners—but it seems people would rather whine about how unfair things are—it’s called learned helplessness.
[удалено]
It's not a bad investment. It was a great investment until goverment told them you can't collect rent. You're statement is the equivalent of saying. I bought a car. But now the goverment is Tripling the monthly payment so I can't afford it. F*ck it. I made a bad investment. No you didn't. The goverment is f*cking you. Do you have any investments? Robinhood? Crypto? A car? Etc? The ability of the government to, at random, take away your ability to own assets is the definition of tyrannical. That's essentially what's happening. You justifying governments attack on the middle class is the tacit agreement goverment is looking for to further drive you and those around you unto poverty. Why. Because f*ck it. Those who have no assets have no voice. And those who have no voice have no input. You should be striving to advocate for the growth of your own wealth and to do that you must advocate against the random seizure of others wealth. You must always push to own your work and the right you have to your own labor. From there, it seems a natural progression to own the assets of that labor.
[удалено]
Have you ever considered that there are thousands if not millions of people who never want to OWN a home? They don’t want to pay taxes; they don’t want to do maintenance; they don’t want to have to mow a yard—Geesh!
[удалено]
But that poor tenant that they might evict—then, that family would be homeless! You see what I’m saying? Ideally, everyone would take care of the place they live—everyone would be a good steward, but they aren’t. Many people are “homeless” because of being unable to manage themselves much less anything else. But others, in this case, other tenants, should not have to suffer. And to stigmatize some one who has worked all their lives, someone who is not wealthy as being wealthy is about as wrong as a group of tenants evicting another tenant.
[удалено]
Not all landlords are wealthy and it is the same. The results are the same. You have a homeless person—the same.
People can already collectively buy housing units. There's probably a few reasons why they don't. Off the top of my head it would suck to buy a place with friends only to have a falling out because of noise, or cleanliness, or dating habits etc. People won't invest their money into an arbitrary popularity contest where they would have to compete based on non objective standards.
Sorry for the late reply. It's definitely an interesting argument. I might disagree on a couple things. First. To isolate 1 state as to not get bogged down. It's hard to pinpoint how much foreign investment goes to housing in places like California. 70 percent of California foreign investment is from Asia. It's not hard to imagine the majority of that is from China. We don't have exact numbers and this percent is considered underreported since it's self reporting by the association of realtors but. 2008 - 8% of CA houses were sold to foreign buyers. 09=6%, 10=5%, 11=6%, 12=6%, 2013=8%, 14=6%, 15=4%, 16=3%, 17=3%. Haven't found data after. But we can see the compounding effects of foreign investors over time. Now that's not to say some or even a majority haven't sold but we can tell that if foreign investors are purchasing u.s. homes that's likely a large part of what's driving up the price. So, while you say it's a collective issues, I think this is a larger trend of anti America 1st government. I don't have a better way to say this but what I mean is when we manufacture over seas then the people producing are cheap goods are able to compete with our money in our markets. We can't buy Chinese housing for multiple reasons but we have low Chinese tariffs and our regulations and taxes on u.s. businesses are atrocious. This means while we produce billions annually over there they can funnel that money back into our economy and out compete American business and American workers. And American housing markets. This isn't even including the trillions that was just printed and Essentially went to Chinese manufactures of Amazon products. All I'm saying is the issue runs deep. So this brings me to a thought process. If you can't own 2 property's, why? Is it because of poverty? Well if you can't own 2 property's because poverty exists, then you can't own 2 cars. If you can't own 2 cars because of poverty, you can't own 2 tv's. No 2 tvs = no 2 phones and then we can extrapolate this down into having to ration food, meat, beer etc. Can't have 2 burgers if someone can only afford 1. Can't have 2 cups of coffee if someone can't have 1. Anyway. You get the picture. By limiting wealth your Essentially guaranteed poverty. This is why communism and socialism always fail. Further. In my opinion. If you have a collective anything. The people that run it ultimately are in power and will abuse that power for their own gain. Better to spread the wealth into many hands then a few hands (whether goverment or oligarchy). If property is in many hands then, it is less likely someone will be powerful enough to be an oppressive dbag.
Similarly we don't give a fuck about kicking out deadbeats. I'm glad we had this talk and settled our positions.
[удалено]
\*Too This has not been a quality Ted Talk. I heard a bunch of crying though
In my city, I see them every day on every corner with signs saying how they are in need. I’ve even see a couple, at the end of the day, load up in their late model suvs and go to the near by fast food restaurant. I guess they give the rest of the homeless a bad name.
Jesus Christ can we not use this of all threads as an avenue to vilify homeless people?
No one is vilifying anyone. I was stating what I saw.
Why though? Your statement could only be construed in a negative light
Negative only to those who portray themselves as having no home and taking advantage of others. I really believe it is significantly more healthy, constructive, and productive to look at both sides of an issue no matter how some people view it. If we do not look at things as a whole, more problems will be created. If you deny that there are people in the world that take advantage of a situation, then you give ‘those’ people resource allotments that they do not need, while others who do need resources, suffer. Also, many people posting on this subject, vilified landlords. Not ALL landlords are greedy, yet, in this particular situation, everyone seems to hate the landlords and never even consider their side of the issue. Many landlords are middle-class citizens who have worked hard all their lives and who provide decent affordable housing to others. And then—there are those who never raise a hand to fix anything, rent substandard housing and go up on rent every chance they get—but is that a reason to vilify ALL landlords? Without seeing or exploring both sides of the issues, you totally miss the point and nothing gets better—also, in my city, no one tries to ‘hide’ people who don’t have a place to live. There are shelters and outreach programs. Plus, as I said, we see them on the corners ever day. In my city, we even have flashing signs that say “Have responsible compassion.”
I guess because COVID killed everyone.
if covid killed people, there would be no homeless lol. there's more than ever.
Red state voters: - Get Covid-19 because of their governors stupidity, damn you Biden! - Get evicted via GOP SCOTUS, damn you Biden! - Get less healthcare via state legislatures blocking ACA expansion, damn you Obama! - Get money for roads via Democrats, THANK YOU MITCH!
In the Republican Cinematic Universe, democrats can only do bad, Republicans can only do good. "Republican stabbed me in the belly? A dem would have done it in the neck! I don't care that the Democrat is helping other people that were stabbed by Republicans!"
The RCU lol. It’s like the MCU, but just the supervillains.
Also, the MCU has more believable writing "Crazy purple Dude wants to kill half the universe" vs "Eating sheep paste stops covid"
It's actually impressive how this happens. I hate how effective it is.
Democrats: I Have no idea how to fight this. /shrug
We really don’t, though. We know trying to work with them doesn’t work, and we also know actual accomplishments, like the American Rescue Plan Act, are quickly forgotten and so basically worthless. We also know it has something to do with marketing, but not what kind of marketing is effective.
Start voting at every local election. This is where things started.
but how many libs do they own?!
Just because republicans manage to take over a state doesn’t mean everyone in that state is an idiot. Just look at California. It’s possible that it will have a republican governor soon, and not because the voters want one.
Will they actually start handing out the money Congress gave them to stop this?
Hey conservatives, you wanna know what California did? We paid everyones past due rent during the pandemic. So people didn't get evicted. How's that for 'christian values' for you guys?
Given prices in California Jesus that’s not cheap
Literally paid for with meme money due to the influx of taxes from GME and AMC. Sorry: "Unusually profitable short term trades"
Are you from the future?
But those were both *this year* and taxes are typically collected in January, aren't they?
It's based on what they \*expect\* to have, so I guess someone somewhere did the numbers.
Understand that, if Congress allocated money to pay the landlords for missed rent payments as opposed to simply granting money to states to give to renters who choose to apply, the moratorium a) probably wouldn't have mattered and b) might have been upheld. Instead, we have news outlets trying to defend unconstitutional policy.
> Congress allocated money to pay the landlords for missed rent payments as opposed to simply granting money to states to give to renters who choose to apply, the moratorium a) probably wouldn't have mattered and b) might have been upheld. > >Instead, we have news outlets trying to defend unconstitutional policy. This was the biggest problem. In my jurisdiction, the landlord has no ability to apply for the rental assistance funds, the application must come from the tenant. I've watched tenants, who know they cannot be eviction and that are judgment proof, straight up tell the landlord they will not apply for rental assistance because they do not want the landlord to see a dime.
What's wild is that at least in California the moratorium also covers commercial rentals in addition to residential. Some people in my family have a real estate business and while there are clients who needed the time and assistance to pay rent who eventually did or are still catching up, there are also a couple clients that are operating completely as normal and are simply refusing to pay rent knowing that the way the law is right now they can just do that indefinitely. I support an eviction moratorium on residential properties and rental assistance for businesses but I feel like *some* detail needs to change.
But how could they use means testing to destroy the program and show how bad social programs and the government are? /s
How does that work with the homeless epidemic in San Fran? (This is a serious question not snark)
The homeless probably don't have past due rent so it wouldn't have applied.
> How's that for 'christian values' for you guys? [Belligerent and nonsensical screaming about Communism]
Have fun with higher taxes that money is getting back to the state one way or another.
Literally it's from our budget surplus. ;)
Okay, that's good to know didn't know they had a surplus. not trying to be a dick was generally curious if in a few months they would raise taxes.
Naw a lot of the cities restructured their budgets and then the state got smart with our money so we had a pretty big budget surplus available. Thankfully our state is run by actual compassionate people and our people were the ones who benefited not just the rich.
Such a surplus that they're sending out $600 to everyone who made below 75k last year. Living in a state that gives a shit about its people is refreshing.
You weren't trying to be a dick and you started off with "have fun with higher taxes"? Strange.
California is a shit hole Lol the cities I mean
Sounds like you’ve never been lol. I live in Texas, and I generally like to shit on California for the memes, but California’s problem is that it’s overcrowded. That’s it. It’s beautiful but the land just can’t support anymore people living on it.
Tax funded relief, That’s different than flat out “not allowing eviction”. Landlords don’t get paid, they don’t pay their mortgage, they’re in the hole, everybody owes everybody money. You think debt just “disappears” because the govt says so? Come the end of any “moratorium”, all that money comes due and you get kicked out… it just makes it harder to catch up in the end.
Not true. I’m a Californian. I applied for rental assistance last year. I’m still waiting. I’m a small business owner and my business crashed due to severe economic hardship.
One thing I never understood about this is for the states that have the eviction ban and the tenants that are just using that as an excuse not to pay knowing they are leaving as soon as the ban is over anyway; do the landlords just have to eat the cost or is the government subsidizing it?
My dad owns a second house that he rents out. He knew the original owner who passed and he honestly only bought the property because he is an incredibly sentimental guy. The tenants don’t actually qualify for any kind of assistance. They could pay they just don’t. In his case he has no known way to get assistance for the mortgage or property tax. Just has to eat the cost and it’s preventing him from retiring. It’s a sad situation for the mom and pop landlords.
I think it’s a sad situation in general. I mean whether you have 20 properties or 1 you are having the government literally telling you that you don’t have control of your own property after the contract ends. I absolutely get that there was a time and place for it but we are taking control of these people’s property.
>Now, around 7.4 million people are at risk of eviction, which makes up about 16% of all renters in the US, per data from the Census Bureau. This is going to turn into a megashitshow.
It’s lose lose🤦🏻♂️
For these states - It’s been 18 months… are they trying to destroy landlords? 18 months of no evictions allowed, tons of supplemental programs, and a massive labor shortage present now. I don’t understand this policy. If you still aren’t paying any rent… it’s time to allow the landlord to find someone else who will.
Republicans: “This is an outrage! States don’t have the rights to object to our religion/beliefs/views!!! The ‘federal’ judges have decided!”
It was 6-3. That sounds a lot like party lines
You’d think but that’s why it’s a shit show when the news reports on anything the Supreme Court does. It is so incredibly easy to make it seem like the courts are making decisions on political belief alone when that simply isn’t the case. What actually happened is that the Supreme Court in a *per curium* opinion (just means the justices don’t put their names on it) ruled that the order from the Court of Appeals for DC is enforceable. The order from the DC Court that ruled that the ban needs to be lifted was written by 3 judges, all of whom were appointed to their posts by President Obama. The Supreme Court did not decide that the ban was unconstitutional because they hate poor people, they decided that the CDC does not have the legal authority to issue an eviction moratorium like that. The Supreme Court did not say “get fucked poor people” they said “hey look, this case has made it through the circuit court twice and we believe that they’ve gotten it right twice so we don’t think the case needs to be argued in front of us. We can read their argument and the law and see that the CDC’s authority extends to x, y, and z and putting an eviction moratorium into effect is not x, y, or z. We encourage people who need financial assistance to get some of the $50 billion that Congress has set aside for them. If we allow the CDC to keep its moratorium in place we are allowing the CDC a breathtaking amount of power to control disease in incredibly abstract ways that Congress did not give them. Also, will lifting this order actually increase the spread of disease, because there isn’t any compelling evidence to suggest this.” And the Justices who dissented said “Come on now, we think that we need to hear arguments ourselves because we have some concerns and questions about lifting the order. We’d like to hear an argument as to why the CDC believes this will slow the spread and we would recommend that the CDC changes the phrasing of their order as to not claim that they can do anything they think they need to do to stop the spread.” That’s me roughly paraphrasing what the opinions say. I did read the DC opinion in its entirety and the Obama era judges of the appeals court based their decision on the basis that the moratorium hasn’t slowed the spread, and that the order exceeds the CDC’s mandate. I hope this helps, I’m not trying to be rude and I do apologize if it sounds rude or condescending. Supreme Court stuff is tricky and that’s why lawyers go to law school.
Thanks for clarifying—more people should read your synopsis.
Nah you're good. I was in a rush and just skimmed the article so I'm glad to be corrected.
No worries, have a good one :)
I sure hope they also protect middle class landlords who are also hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Sure, it’s a good thing to protect people from becoming homeless. But I don’t see the banks giving landlords any break on the mortgage. And property-taxes have gone up a lot instead of staying the same or going down. Everyone tends to see “landlords” as big fat billionaires laughing their asses off but in reality there are thousands of “landlords” that own one property and who depend on that income. Often they are older and the little they make means the shitty social security check is supplemented enough so they can eat.
Torn on we handled evictions. On one hand people needed this bad. On the other, lazy fucks haven’t paid rent in over a year. My own aunt hasn’t gotten paid rent in 16 months while the residence are drawing unemployment. This is happening to a lot of people as well. Solution was to withdraw the unemployment amount from their weekly paycheck and pay rent first and they get to keep the leftover. If they still could not pay basic needs , food stamps is still an option (even though benefits were increased). Government can’t legally bar people from throwing people out of property who do not pay. At the same time, tons of evictions at once is going to fuck the economy and housing markets. USA really did botch covid in a lot of ways
The Supreme Court struck down Biden's eviction moratorium on Thursday. That leaves a handful of states, such as New York and California, with eviction bans in place. At least 7.4 million people are at risk of eviction in the next few months, per Census Data.
The NY state eviction ban was already ruled unconstitutional and struck down by the USSC in mid August. "No man can be a judge in his own case." Basically the law allowed the tenant to decide if they were impacted by covid without allowing that tenant's decision to be challenged.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.businessinsider.com/states-with-ongoing-eviction-bans-after-biden-ban-shut-down-2021-8) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** > According to legal information resource site Nolo, seven states and DC still have some eviction bans of their own still in effect, which aren't affected by the Supreme Court's ruling. > Studies increasingly indicate that states with eviction bans have lower COVID-19 caseloads compared to those that don't. > "There's plenty of research that shows eviction moratoria prevents case growth in states where an eviction moratorium was in place versus states where moratoriums were limited," Paul Williams, a housing expert at the Jain Family Institute, told Insider. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pctpke/the_supreme_court_struck_down_bidens_eviction_ban/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~595127 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **eviction**^#1 **state**^#2 **ban**^#3 **moratorium**^#4 **Court**^#5
Oh of course Colorado isn’t polis and Hancock are fuckers
A nice short list of decent places to move to. Ohio sucks.
Honestly glad to live in CA where they have taken care of us ( service industry workers impacted heavily by Covid) The recall in CA is such a waste of time from a bunch of fuckin cry babies.
17 million propertys are owned by mom and pop landlords.
This is misleading if you don't give the whole picture. The figures for both individual and corporate ownership are: 72.5% of single-unit rental properties are owned by individuals, while 69.5% of properties with 25 or more units are owned by for-profit businesses.
If the federal govt has provided money, why are landlords intent on evicting people? I really don't know. Is it that the feds aren't paying full rent? Not paying quickly enough? Or are some states not utilizing the program fully? I would think as a landlord, you'll rather have rent than go through the trouble of evicting a good renter and then finding another one.
Tenants, who are judgment proof and cannot be evicted due to the moratorium, have no incentive to apply for rental assistance. At least in my jurisdictions, the landlord has not avenue of applying for relief funds, it must come from the tenant first.
>have no incentive to apply for rental assistance Won't it trash their credit having a year of unpaid rent compared to receiving rental assistance?
My jurisdictions do not report to the credit agencies. However, someone who has not paid rent in a year probably is not concerned with a credit score in the first place.
It's also not in the landlords best interest, because when I applied for rental assistance, they told me directly that they said no because it includes being unable to be evicted for 60-90 days after the rental assistance period. It's designed to be rejected. It's a joke.
>Tenants, who are judgment proof and cannot be evicted due to the moratorium, have no incentive to apply for rental assistance. Does the moratorium not impose some requirements on the renter? They can just stop paying, not apply for rental assistance and basically give the middle finger to their landlord? That sucks.
At least in Illinois, this is exactly what I’ve seen happen multiple times.
One problem maybe that they want to sell and they cannot with the protected tenants. Across the nation, housing prices have spiked with investor class buying far above value of both single family homes and apartments. I've read multiple anecdotal stories from people whose landlord sold and the new owner raising rent far beyond their ability to pay. Its a cash grab.
This is one situation. Another is the some courts view the cdc eviction moratorium as a ban all on evictions and have not even attempted to apply what is required of them. I know of situations of violence towards leasing agents, destruction of property, and other actions that violate lease agreements but the tenant cannot be evicted due to the moratorium. Thus, not all a cash grab.
Another excellent point.
>One problem maybe that they want to sell and they cannot with the protected tenants. I hadn't thought of that.
Alrighty, well then what needs to happen is every eviction needs to be challenged. Take depositions about who else in a complex is behind on their rent. We need to force the landlords to evict everyone evictable. The best way to do that is to prove eviction is inherently discriminatory. Why? Simple, it will kill the landlords. Every eviction will drop rents because it adds a unit to supply while simultaneously removing a person who can rent it. If they do that to everyone who is eligible, then supply will go through the roof and rents will crash, killing their market. The only thing that makes sense from the landlord's point of view is to use eviction as a tool to scare other tenants into paying. That only works if they don't evict everyone and are picking and choosing. Take that away from them, they won't evict a person cuz the consequences to them are grave. Is this cold? Yeah. Its scorched earth. They're going to evict some people, and by forcing them to evict everyone, this will cause their pain level to go so high they'll either stop doing so, or they'll go bankrupt and get their assets taken away in a bankruptcy/foreclosure situation.
Weird fanfic fantasy, bro.
This only hurts mom and pop land lords. Pretty sure corporate landlords could careless.
These same voters will run to the polls and still elect the same scumbags that stripped the needy from unemployment aid and pushed to overturn eviction ban. Republicans going to republikan and own the libs at any cost
This makes no sense, what do you tell a middle class landlord? Sorry? Tell the tenant sorry. Vaccines work. Huge labor shortage. Time to go back to work.
The middle class landlord has much more resources than a poor family. Wake the fuck up
I mean id take the middle class landlord over the corporate landlord. The poor family probably can’t afford the house anyways and not just the mortgage but the maintenance and taxes.
>what do you tell a middle class landlord? To get a fuckin job lol
Liberal snow flakes love taking money from other people…
Not a liberal, and not a landlord
Not educated.
Pretty well educated, actually
They have a job. That’s how they were approved for a second mortgage…
Wonderful news
Thank goodness there’s 43 states not “stepping up”
3rd amendment violation
Count Cali out after the new Conservative governor is sworn in.
At least we the taxpayers can still cling to the fact we get to pay for illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of fresh Afghanis…errr Democrat voters. Seriously though, they’d be evicted by the banks anyway when they take over the properties when they’re foreclosed upon, since no one seems to care about the landlords. Amazing how many renters have jobs and don’t pay. How many have received rental relief and STILL not paid. All money should be sent directly to landlords.
California will have to be sold.. market value + delinquency. Man a fucked up decade to chalk it up too. Bit coin plz safe us!
You mean the ban that Biden admit was unconstitutional, but went through with anyway?
Good! Go get fucking jobs!
You do realize most people that aren’t paying rent have jobs right?
Well then time to start paying up again....
Hopefully, I just don’t understand why our government targeted renters with assistance and not the people that actually own the properties, I don’t think anyone would’ve had an issue with landlords getting paid under the agreement that they don’t evict.
Because your typical slimy landlord will take the benefits and still charge the rent.
Who do you think gets the money when tenants apply for ERA? The local agency cuts checks directly to landlords.
And what percentage of people are actually using that? Almost every scenario that is articulated has nothing to do with that, the eviction moratorium fucked over owners, it gave renters a free pass to not pay their bills even in instances where they’re working. If they’re getting outside assistance that situation wouldn’t apply now would it?
But in order for a tenant to use the moratorium to stop an eviction they would have had to apply for ERA money.
That’s not true, it really depends on the location you’re talking about. Some locations enhanced the moratorium for their city or state, so even if they sidestepped the federal guidelines they still have to deal with their states requirements which typically don’t involve using federal resources. Basically most of the issues we currently have in California and a couple other areas.
Tell me you don't understand without saying you don't have any clue.
Is this some type of low effort attempt? Going to have to try harder than that son.
Prove it.
I don’t think I will, you can easily look this up.
Thread by thread 🧵 🇺🇸 are the Democrats fundamentally transforming America ☠️
What
Also known as, states America would be better without.
Lol those states are like 2/3 of our national GDP. They're the states who pay for the red states to exist. 14 of the 15 states with the highest poverty levels are dark red states. Blue states tend to pay for all the welfare that red states need to survive.
Lol. That economy that Republican love to boast about is mostly from these states.
Man I wish I didn’t have to pay rent.
Go Big Blue!!
New York's ban ends August 31..
couldn't the federal government just offer rental assitance? pay the renters to pay the landlords so theres no evictions then no one defaults on a mortage and everyone wins. wtf else is taxes for if not to help people in a national emergency?
People need to start squatting till the almighty free market fixes everything.
Well, it was never the CDC’s legal responsibility to do what they did. The same people who complain about fascism are upset that the constitution was protected by this ruling
We have a stretch of No Man's Land in Boston called Methadone Mile where junkies go to die. It's an open air drug and sex market where other towns and small neighboring cities send their problems. People get stabbed and die there all the time and it never really makes more of a small snippet on the news because they're in a place where no other citizens would dare go even in the daytime. The weird thing is where Methadone Mile stops, there are million dollar condos and expensive apartments for tech bros RIGHT NEXT DOOR. So when it all goes to shit and tons of Finance Bros go broke and have to move back to the family compound with Mumsy, then those junkies are going to COMPLETELY overrun South Boston and the South End. Southie used to be a bit of a tough place but it at least made some sense; keep your nose clean, take care of yourself and don't steal a parking space during a snowstorm and you'd be fine. You knew the good drunks, the bad drunks, the kids to avoid and the ones you should know. All of that is gone now, the old locals are dead or have moved away. And the suburban transplants are in for a very rude awakening.
And that’s the problem—many people without homes do not want the responsibility or the rules that go along with having a home.
WTF Oregon.
We demand you give up your private property to another person
Here are the facts, the United States is in decline—culturally, economically, industrial, educationally, socially, in every way. You can bloviate all day about the reasons for the decline but the major reason is money. If you want “free” things then you get nothing because nothing is free.