6 million renters face eviction in 8 days when a Trump-era ban expires. Biden is poised to let it ha

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think anyone expects anything to be absolutely free. But more reasonable prices and better wages might strike a more equitable balance. That's why I'm a big advocate for wage/price/rent controls, since it can look at the larger picture and determine what is fair for all (or at least the vast majority).

And I think it's worth remembering that rental housing has certain inelasticities that don't apply to other goods and services. It's not like switching grocery stores would mean displacing your family.

Rental housing is prone to market failures in a way that other markets aren't. Anyone who actually thinks that the free market is a good idea should support government regulations on landlords to address market conditions that make the status quo very much not a free market.

 

[Revoltingest]

Anyone who actually thinks that the free market is a good idea should support government regulations on landlords to address market conditions that make the status quo very much not a free market.

It's a very free market. We compete for tenants based upon
price, terms, lease length, unit size, unit quality, location, &
build-outs. Tenants shop around. Landlords compete for them.

Tenants who feel like captives & victims should try landlording.
It'd be an eye opener.

 

[Stevicus]

When evictions are banned, & a tenant stops paying rent
this is effectively free, ie, they get the benefit without paying.

That doesn't address the current issue of
tenants not paying rent, but no eviction possible.

I addressed this point when I wrote about the complacency and torpor within bureaucracies. There was $40 billion allocated to reimburse landlords, but only $4 billion has been distributed thus far. But my point still stands in that no one is advocating or arguing that it be free. We all understand that it costs money, and theoretically, the money has already been allocated. Even the Democrats are on board with reimbursing the landlords.

But the bureaucracy is to blame for sitting on the money. As I said, someone needs to kick some butts.

All such bodies are controlled by politicians.

Ultimately, this is true, although they would presumably get public input as well.

There are always reasons why it never works well.
Some info.
Problem: The reasons are fundamental.
Why Rent Control Doesn’t Work (Ep. 373) - Freakonomics
https://www.cato.org/commentary/problems-price-controls

Regarding economics, one thing to keep in mind is that it's more a study in philosophy and abstract belief. It's a political science, not a natural science.

But yes, it is easy to understand the reasons why some people might oppose rent controls. Greed is a core element of the human psyche, and as I noted above, there are some people who just want more and more and more. They just can't get enough. So, I agree that it's a pretty fundamental reason.

That's relatively easy to understand, even if economists and capitalists try to portray it as something else.

Essentially, their entire argument here is that "rent controls won't work because it's a fact that the rich want to get richer." Anything that hinders the rich from getting richer and/or the poor getting poorer is considered bad for the economy, according to "most economists" (as the person interviewed in the first link expressed it). One can discern a familiar pattern of argumentation and line of reasoning here.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with economics, as a scholarly, academic field. But when people start spouting off about "most economists" and use it to boost conservative dogma, I tend to become skeptical of their arguments.

What would work better is government assistance to those
in need, rather than requiring suppliers to sell at a lower
cost....which doesn't help those most in need at all.

I was just trying to save the government some money. Everyone talks about how much the government spends on stuff, but I'm thinking of ways of making it cheaper so that spending can be reduced.

 

[Revoltingest]

I addressed this point when I wrote about the complacency and torpor within bureaucracies. There was $40 billion allocated to reimburse landlords, but only $4 billion has been distributed thus far. But my point still stands in that no one is advocating or arguing that it be free.

Free rent is nonetheless happening.
And government programs won't make all (if any) landlords whole.

Regarding economics, one thing to keep in mind is that it's more a study in philosophy and abstract belief. It's a political science, not a natural science.

I see it as more psychology.

But yes, it is easy to understand the reasons why some people might oppose rent controls. Greed is a core element of the human psyche, and as I noted above, there are some people who just want more and more and more. They just can't get enough. So, I agree that it's a pretty fundamental reason.

Greed applies to tenants too, who want
more than they're willing to work for.

Essentially, their entire argument here is that "rent controls won't work because it's a fact that the rich want to get richer."

I hope that you really don't see it as so simplistic & glib.
A little reading would reveal different problems is that
rent control inhibits creating new housing.

Ugh....that seems enuf for now.

 

[Stevicus]

It's a very free market. We compete for tenants based upon
price, terms, lease length, unit size, unit quality, location, &
build-outs. Tenants shop around. Landlords compete for them.

Tenants who feel like captives & victims should try landlording.
It'd be an eye opener.

My dad had a rental house for several years, but I got the impression that it was more of a headache than anything else. He had some good tenants, but there were a few who were unreliable and flaky when it came to paying the rent. So, I guess when you have good tenants, it works well, but if you have bad tenants, not so much.

But not all landlords are the same either. When one gets to meet and deal directly with the owner, it's a far different situation than some corporate setting where one doesn't even know who the actual owner is.

 

[Kooky]

But not all landlords are the same either. When one gets to meet and deal directly with the owner, it's a far different situation than some corporate setting where one doesn't even know who the actual owner is.

Yea, corporations tend to take greater care to actually follow the laws-as-written.

 

[Revoltingest]

My dad had a rental house for several years, but I got the impression that it was more of a headache than anything else. He had some good tenants, but there were a few who were unreliable and flaky when it came to paying the rent. So, I guess when you have good tenants, it works well, but if you have bad tenants, not so much.

I look it things more broadly, having had many tenants
simultaneously. They good ones subsidize the bad ones
is one way to view it...suggesting that good tenants ought
not tolerate tenants who cause losses.

But not all landlords are the same either. When one gets to meet and deal directly with the owner, it's a far different situation than some corporate setting where one doesn't even know who the actual owner is.

You'd be surprised. Dealing with brokers/agents are generally
easier for a tenant than with owners. Brokers are more emotionally
detached, & more professional, since leasing is what they do.
Owners....we're a more diverse bunch. The horror stories I know
all involve owners screwing up their own situation. As a fee
manager, I loathed owners getting involved with the tenants
I leased too, particularly residential.

 

[Stevicus]

Free rent is nonetheless happening.
And government programs won't make all (if any) landlords whole.

In theory, the government is supposedly trying. At least, according to the article, all of the politicians quoted are saying they want that money distributed and they're quite upset that it's being held up by the states. It's the state governments that seem to be the problem here.

I see it as more psychology.

I see it as a branch of political science - which itself can include elements of psychology, sociology, and philosophy. Strictly speaking, whenever people talk about a country's "economic system," they're really talking about a "political system." Without a political system, there is no economic system.

Greed applies to tenants too, who want
more than they're willing to work for.

Sure, although the apparent greed of the little people is really small potatoes, low level stuff. The greed of the bigshots and the superwealthy has a far greater effect on society at large.

I hope that you really don't see it as so simplistic & glib.
A little reading would reveal different problems is that
rent control inhibits creating new housing.

Ugh....that seems enuf for now.

Well, I'll admit I have a certain colorful way of summing things up. I'm familiar with the standard arguments in favor of free market economics, as well as the arguments against socialism.

As for the argument that rent control would inhibit the creation of new housing, I'm not sure if that's something we need to worry about in the short-term. According to this site, Housing Inventory Estimate: Vacant Housing Units in the United States (EVACANTUSQ176N) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org), it appears that there are approximately 15.6 million vacant housing units presently in the U.S. With that many empty domiciles going unused, why should anyone have to go homeless?

So, I think of all these empty homes, and all the homeless on the streets or about to be made homeless and wonder - what's the problem with moving these people into the empty homes which aren't being used anyway? Then it hits me. The people who own all these empty homes want more money than people can afford, so they'd rather just let them sit empty. No matter what kind of spin one puts on it, this is the bottom line. It's not the government setting the prices.

 

[Revoltingest]

I
As for the argument that rent control would inhibit the creation of new housing, I'm not sure if that's something we need to worry about in the short-term.

It's about good public policy, not worry or paying attention to just
one time frame. Both short & long term exist. Ignore the latter at
your peril....housing supply would suffer.

According to this site, Housing Inventory Estimate: Vacant Housing Units in the United States (EVACANTUSQ176N) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org), it appears that there are approximately 15.6 million vacant housing units presently in the U.S. With that many empty domiciles going unused, why should anyone have to go homeless?

Vacant housing is owned by someone, who won't just give
it away to the needy. Often a homeowner has defaulted,
& then a lengthy foreclosure, recovery, & sale process
begins. Why so long? It's the law. So vacant housing
can pile up during a burst housing bubble.
BTW, the stage is set for another burst. Can't say when
it will occur because the triggers aren't predictable. But
there's been much highly leveraged borrowing that has
greatly inflated prices.
To anyone planning on buying a home, I urge caution.

 

[WalterTrull]

I live in Florida and I just heard on the evening news that many millions of dollars was given to Florida to pay landlords to not evict. It was said that less the 2% of that money has been paid out. It can't just be graft. Can it? If it's politics, I don't understand. Can anyone explain??

 

[Kooky]

I live in Florida and I just heard on the evening news that many millions of dollars was given to Florida to pay landlords to not evict. It was said that less the 2% of that money has been paid out. It can't just be graft. Can it? If it's politics, I don't understand. Can anyone explain??

One possible factor may be this: In order to not have that money disappear in landlords' pockets, you'd have to find out which landlords need the money, how much they are owed, and then pay them accordingly. This requires not only accurate records of who is renting to whom, but also the (paid, educated) manpower to connect disparate data points between different departments, cities, districts etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

One possible factor may be this: In order to not have that money disappear in landlords' pockets, you'd have to....

To "disappear in landlords' pockets" is the goal.
It's to reimburse them for rent not received due to federal
policy preventing evictions. It's not need based...it's for
government imposing its own responsibility on landlords.

BTW, the money doesn't just "disappear". It gets used
for things like maintenance, loan payments, property
taxes, income taxes, payroll, management fees, &
owner income.

 

[Jainarayan]

Why do certain people believe they deserve to live in places they can not afford?

That’s an ignorant comment because it’s just very possible that when they rented it they had a good paying job but lost it due to covid. Not that I know anyone like that... oh wait, I do... me!

 

[Aštra’el]

it’s just very possible that when they rented it they had a good paying job but lost it due to covid. Not that I know anyone like that... oh wait, I do... me!

That sucks dude. A lot of people insist on living at a very expensive location that they can no longer afford, but isn’t it possible to relocate to somewhere much cheaper temporarily? Maybe not always, but in many cases, yes.

 

[Jainarayan]

That sucks dude. A lot of people insist on living at a very expensive location that they can no longer afford, but isn’t it possible to relocate to somewhere much cheaper temporarily? Maybe not always, but in many cases, yes.

Do you have any idea the costs involved in moving a household? We’re not talking about the tv ads for Comcast where a couple of friends carry a sofa and a couple of boxes to a new apartment. We’re generally talking about a family of four or five... husband, wife, two or three kids.

Rents, whether a house, condo unit or apartment are in the $2,000 range... here anyway. There is a 1 1/2 month security deposit plus the first month’s rent. $5,000 before even moving in. Movers typically charge upwards of $2,000-$2,500. A person who has lost their job, is maybe getting 1/3 of the salary as unemployment, has already gone through their savings to live on. So you see, it’s not quite that simple.

 

[Stevicus]

Latest update. It seems CDC has extended the eviction ban in areas of high infection.

CDC Issues New Eviction Moratorium After Liberal Criticism (msn.com)

(Bloomberg) -- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention extended a ban evictions in areas of the country with substantial and high transmission of coronavirus on Tuesday, after a firestorm of criticism from Democrats following the lapse of a previous moratorium on Saturday.

“The emergence of the delta variant has led to a rapid acceleration of community transmission in the United States, putting more Americans at increased risk, especially if they are unvaccinated,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in a statement. “This moratorium is the right thing to do to keep people in their homes and out of congregate settings where Covid-19 spreads.”

The CDC said the new ban, which will be in place until Oct. 3, would allow more time for the federal government and states to enact a rental assistance program that’s suffered bureaucratic delays and for more Americans to be vaccinated against the virus.

An increase in evictions, Walensky said, “could increase the likelihood of new spikes in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Such mass evictions and the attendant public health consequences would be very difficult to reverse.”

The move shows the extent to which the spread of the delta variant has upended the Biden administration’s agenda. President Joe Biden earlier said the CDC announcement was expected, but warned that the new ban would face legal challenges and may be found unconstitutional.

Biden said he hoped the measure would buy time for the administration and states to dole out money from a $47 billion rental assistance program that has languished since Congress approved it late last year. The new moratorium “is likely to face obstacles,” he said at the White House, given indications by a majority of justices on the Supreme Court that the CDC’s expired ban wasn’t legal.

He said his administration has been urging states and localities to more quickly distribute the billions of dollars Congress provided to help struggling renters and landlords.

“I’ve sought out constitutional scholars to determine what is the best possibility that would come from executive action or the CDC’s judgment -- what could they do that was most likely to pass muster constitutionally?” Biden said. “The bulk of the constitutional scholarship says it’s not likely to pass constitutional muster, number one. But there are several key scholars who say that it may and it’s worth the effort.”

The new moratorium will cover about 80% of U.S. counties and 90% of renters, a person familiar with the matter said.

Progressive Anger
Progressives were angered when the White House called for Congress to act on an extension of the previous moratorium on Thursday, just two days before it expired. And one liberal Democrat, Representative Mondaire Jones of New York, criticized Biden’s rollout of the latest ban.

“It is odd, I think, to raise issues about the constitutionality of your own executive action shortly before making that executive action,” he said, predicting that lawyers for landlords who challenge the moratorium would cite Biden’s words in their court filings.

“That is not the behavior, that is not the commentary of someone who is actually trying to help people,” Jones said. “And it’s really frustrating to hear that kind of language come from the president of the United States.”

But the move to issue a new eviction moratorium was applauded by other Democratic lawmakers and housing advocates. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it a day of “extraordinary relief” and said the new ban “will provide time for the money allocated by Congress to flow, as it helps to stop the spread of the virus due the delta variant and protects families and landlords.”

The executive director of the activist group MoveOn.org, Rahna Epting, said pressure from progressive lawmakers had forced the Biden administration to act. She cited Representative Cori Bush of Missouri, who slept on the steps of the Capitol for several nights beginning on Friday to protest the expiration of the previous ban.

“She showed us the urgency and the substance of this and how it will affect millions of people. This could have quietly gone into the night if she had not organized and protested,” Epting said.

Legal Arguments
The Biden White House faced days of harsh criticism from its own party for the lapse in the eviction moratorium on July 31. Advocates said millions of Americans potentially could be forced from their homes as Covid-19 cases surged.

The White House spent days trying to explain the legal reasoning behind an initial CDC decision that it couldn’t issue another extension and sent top officials to Capitol Hill, including Vice President Kamala Harris and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, to answer lawmakers’ questions.

Earlier Tuesday, Yellen faced considerable anger from House Democrats, who demanded the administration take immediate action to extend the ban on evictions, according to multiple people who participated in the call.

Yellen stressed that the administration was focused on getting states and localities to more quickly distribute the rental assistance Congress has already approved.

Biden said that “at a minimum” litigation over the new moratorium “will give some additional time while we’re getting that $45 billion out to people who are, in fact, behind in the rent and don’t have the money.”

 

[Stevicus]

Federal judge cites 'gamesmanship' in CDC's eviction freeze renewal - UPI.com

Aug. 9 (UPI) -- A federal judge on Monday said the Biden administration is engaging in "gamesmanship" by reinstating an eviction moratorium despite knowing the Supreme Court would likely strike it down.

U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich made the remark during a hearing in Washington in which landlords and real estate brokers were seeking to have the COVID-19 moratorium overturned, Politico and The Hill reported.

In an exchange with Justice Department attorney Brian Netter, Friedrich asked why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention re-imposed the eviction moratorium last week even after its director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, had stated the previous extension ending on July 31 would be the final one.

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote last month to let that extension stand, but conservative Justice Brent Kavanaugh indicated he only joined the majority because of the CDC's assurance that it would not extend the moratorium beyond that date.

Because of that caveat, the Biden administration initially resisted seeking to extend the moratorium, but eventually did so anyway after coming under pressure by progressive Democrats.

"Given that this order is almost identical to the CDC's earlier order, at least the effect of it, it's really hard in light of the Supreme Court's decision, and the Sixth Circuit's decision, in light of statements the administration has made both before and after the Supreme Court decision, to conclude that there's not a degree of gamesmanship going on," Friedrich, an appointee of President Donald Trump, told Netter.

Attorneys for the property owners, led by the Alabama Association of Realtors, accused the administration of bad faith in backtracking on the eviction moratorium, which they say is costing their members $13 billion per month.

But Justice Department lawyers said the latest renewal of the CDC's freeze is more targeted to areas of the country experiencing surging COVID-19 caseloads due to the emergence of the highly contagious Delta variant -- new development that has changed the course of the pandemic.

"We're in a new chapter in this pandemic," Netter said. "The new, or extended, moratorium is a reflection of the updated public health situation."

Friedrich responded by saying, "You say we're in a new chapter, but we're also in a new chapter with many more people vaccinated."

The article mentioned that the judge mentioned in this article is a Trump appointee.

 

[Stevicus]

Las Vegas Landlord Reportedly Shot 3 Tenants, Killing 2, to Avoid Eviction Process (msn.com)

A Las Vegas landlord in Nevada reportedly shot three tenants, killing two that were women, to avoid an eviction process after an argument occurred over unpaid rent, the Associated Press reported.

In court, Chief Deputy District Attorney Tim Fattig said homeowner Arnoldo Lozano-Sanchez, 78, "wanted to handle it, quote-unquote, 'his way.'" Police arrived at Lozano-Sanchez's property early Tuesday and found one woman dead outside and the other female tenant dead in a bedroom.

A male tenant was shot nine times by Lozano-Sanchez and he remains hospitalized in critical condition. Now, Lozano-Sanchez is jailed without bail per the judge's decision as he awaits arraignment. He faces murder and attempted murder charges.

Another tenant, Carlos Lopez, was named in a police report and was in the home during the shooting but did not get shot, Fattig said.

"The surviving roommate heard and saw the defendant enter into another bedroom in the house, and he heard cries for help from the occupants and thereafter heard the defendant shoot them," Fattig detailed to the judge. "He also saw the defendant exit that bedroom, smiling."

For more reporting from the Associated Press, see below.

Lozano-Sanchez told a witness that "he didn't want to go through the eviction process," Fattig said Wednesday.

He "made statements about the victims not paying rent and that he was certainly upset about it," Fattig said.

Police reported arriving at his small home to find the wounded man stumbling out the front door.

He is expected to survive, police said.

Lozano-Sanchez refused to speak with police after his arrest. A police report obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal said he told a witness, Adria Ortega, several days ago that he was angry about his tenants not paying rent.

"Ortega suggested Lozano go to court to evict the people living inside his home. Lozano Sanchez told the witness he would 'handle it his way,'" the report said.

Lopez told police that he saw Lozano-Sanchez go into a bedroom where a woman pleaded for her life, multiple gunshots were fired and the wounded man ran out.

The names of the victims, all in their 50s, were not immediately released.

Sarah Hawkins, a deputy public defender representing Lozano-Sanchez, protested that reading a police arrest statement in court did not amount to evidence. She lost a bid to have him freed on $10,000 bail and house arrest.

The judge set Lozano-Sanchez's next court date for Monday.

Police say they had no immediate information linking the rent dispute with a nationwide eviction moratorium that expired last week but was reinstated for areas with high transmission of COVID-19, including Nevada.

The modified ban from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention faces legal challenges and lasts until Oct 3.

Fattig told the judge that Lozano-Sanchez asked a neighbor to help him dispose of the gun, but police found it in a nearby bush.

 

[Revoltingest]

Las Vegas Landlord Reportedly Shot 3 Tenants, Killing 2, to Avoid Eviction Process (msn.com)

It’s called an “extra-judicial proceeding”.

 

[Kooky]

It’s called an “extra-judicial proceeding”.

Was that statement supposed to be funny? Because it's really not - in fact, I find it in very poor taste.