HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Federal judge vacates CDC...

Wed May 5, 2021, 01:25 PM

Federal judge vacates CDC's nationwide eviction moratorium

Last edited Wed May 5, 2021, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Washington Post

A federal judge in Washington D.C. on Wednesday ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention overstepped its legal authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium, a ruling that could potentially affect millions of struggling Americans. U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich’s 20-page order says that the protection, first put in place during the coronavirus pandemic under the Trump administration and now set to run out on June 30, goes too far. “It is the role of the political branches, and not the courts, to assess the merits of policy measures designed to combat the spread of disease, even during a global pandemic,” the order stated.

“The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not.” The Biden administration is expected to appeal the decision. Landlords and property owners have consistently challenged the CDC order, arguing the policy sets an undue financial burden on business owners. “We’ve argued from the beginning that the CDC lacked statutory authority to impose this, and we’ve had multiple courts agree with us on that,” said Luke Wake, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation who has represented landlords in similar cases.

“Today’s decision again vindicates our argument.” Housing advocates, however, argued the new ruling only throws more confusion into an already chaotic policy space. Despite the moratorium, evictions have continued due to loopholes and opposing legal interpretations. According to the Census Bureau, one out of seven renters recently reported they were behind on payments. Following Wednesday’s decision, tenants’ rights advocates called for the Biden administration not only to defend the policy, but step up legal protections that will keep people in their homes.

“While this latest ruling is written more starkly than previous ones, it likely has equally limited application impacting only the plaintiffs who brought the case or, at most, renters in the district court’s jurisdiction,” said Diane Yentel, the president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “The DOJ should immediately appeal and the Biden administration should continue to vigorously defend and enforce the moratorium, at least until emergency rental assistance provided by Congress reaches the renters who need it to remain stably housed.” Within hours of the decision, the Department of Justice indicated it would file a notice of appeal on the D.C. Circuit decision vacating the CDC moratorium and ask for a stay of decision until the appeal is decided.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/05/05/federal-judge-vacates-cdcs-nationwide-eviction-moratorium/



Original article -

In a ruling that could have a tremendous impact on millions of Americans, a federal judge in Washington D.C. on Wednesday ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention overstepped its legal authority when it issued a nationwide eviction moratorium.

U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich’s 20-page order says that the protection, first put in place during the coronavirus pandemic under the Trump administration and now set to run out on June 30, goes too far.

“It is the role of the political branches, and not the courts, to assess the merits of policy measures designed to combat the spread of disease, even during a global pandemic,” the order stated. “The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not.”

Landlords and property owners have consistently challenged the CDC order, arguing the policy sets an undue financial burden on business owners.“We’ve argued from the beginning that the CDC lacked statutory authority to impose this, and we’ve had multiple courts agree with us on that,” said Luke Wake, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation who has represented landlords in similar cases. “Today’s decision again vindicates our argument.”

This story will be updated.

42 replies, 2578 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Federal judge vacates CDC's nationwide eviction moratorium (Original post)
BumRushDaShow May 5 OP
CurtEastPoint May 5 #1
BumRushDaShow May 5 #2
FBaggins May 5 #4
BumRushDaShow May 5 #7
FBaggins May 5 #8
BumRushDaShow May 5 #10
FBaggins May 5 #21
BumRushDaShow May 5 #25
mvd May 5 #22
BumRushDaShow May 5 #34
PSPS May 5 #3
FBaggins May 5 #5
LudwigPastorius May 5 #6
cinematicdiversions May 5 #9
BumRushDaShow May 5 #12
cinematicdiversions May 5 #13
BumRushDaShow May 5 #15
cinematicdiversions May 5 #18
BumRushDaShow May 5 #24
oldsoftie May 5 #28
BumRushDaShow May 5 #33
oldsoftie May 5 #29
Calista241 May 5 #14
OneCrazyDiamond May 5 #11
dsc May 5 #16
NH Ethylene May 5 #40
Historic NY May 5 #17
rdking647 May 5 #19
mvd May 5 #20
hack89 May 5 #23
ripcord May 5 #26
mvd May 5 #30
hack89 May 5 #31
mvd May 5 #32
oldsoftie May 5 #27
ripcord May 5 #35
oldsoftie May 5 #36
ripcord May 5 #37
oldsoftie May 5 #41
Danascot May 5 #38
oldsoftie May 5 #42
madville May 5 #39

Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed May 5, 2021, 01:27 PM

1. From 2003 until 2006, she served as an Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CurtEastPoint (Reply #1)

Wed May 5, 2021, 01:28 PM

2. I'm sure it will be appealed

and they'll try to get a stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #2)

Wed May 5, 2021, 01:43 PM

4. Don't be so sure

That's happened once already and the stay was denied due to the likelihood that the government would lose on appeal.

It's been mostly Trump judges so far, but there's little reason to believe that the DC Circuit (let alone the Supreme Court) will disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #4)

Wed May 5, 2021, 01:49 PM

7. I expect the argument would come down to "Public Health"

who the "trusted authority" would be with respect to that, and how broad that mandate is.

I.e., if the U.S. was suddenly faced with an Ebola pandemic, what would the "reasonable" response be with respect to halting a spread (by whatever means are available).

It may be something that Congress would need to do with respect to updating existing Public Health law(s).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #7)

Wed May 5, 2021, 01:55 PM

8. Your last sentence is the correct one.

The courts don't appear to even be looking at what the appropriate public policy should be. It's entirely a question of who has the authority to make policy in that area. State legislatures and Congress have acted in similar ways to restrict evictions during the pandemic and the courts don't seem interested in weighing in on that. They certainly could do so again in the event of another pandemic (or resurgence of the current one).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #8)

Wed May 5, 2021, 02:02 PM

10. The one caveat between state vs federal

is what qualifies as "federal" ("interstate commerce" ), meaning that because state borders are not "closed", then something that impacts one state, pandemic wise, could impact all and thus a "uniform response" is needed. This would be different from say, the response to a "natural disaster", which is usually "localized".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #10)

Wed May 5, 2021, 03:08 PM

21. Sure... but that's an argument between Congress and the various state legislatures

Not the CDC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #21)

Wed May 5, 2021, 03:21 PM

25. Well the Public Health laws are federal

and apparently the dispute is about scope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #2)

Wed May 5, 2021, 03:15 PM

22. Biden administration is on it right now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mvd (Reply #22)

Wed May 5, 2021, 03:59 PM

34. Finally got chance to update the OP

And saw that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed May 5, 2021, 01:34 PM

3. She's another of trump's appointments

"Trump nominated Friedrich to the D.C. federal bench in June after Republicans prevented Obama’s choice from taking the seat during the blockade they put up against judicial nominees in the last year of his term."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #3)

Wed May 5, 2021, 01:44 PM

5. But she's ruling against a Trump policy

Which says something

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed May 5, 2021, 01:46 PM

6. Not to worry,...


Congressional Democrats can make it law. (If it's OK with Manchin!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed May 5, 2021, 01:56 PM

9. Honestly it is time for us to move foward.

forward. Much of the Distortion in the housing markets can be linked to this order. It can't go on forever and it helps corporate landlords prey on small individual landlords.

Time to pull the bandaid off and move forward. I agree with reversing this Trump Era policy. Unintended consequences and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cinematicdiversions (Reply #9)

Wed May 5, 2021, 02:05 PM

12. No it doesn't have to "go on forever"

There was not only a pandemic but an economic collapse due to the pandemic, and it was exasperated by the actions and inactions of the previous administration.

One of the intentions of the "American Rescue Plan" was to stave off things like evictions until such time as the economy gets back on its feet and people could regain their jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #12)

Wed May 5, 2021, 02:10 PM

13. Alas the side effects are becoming worse than the cure.

The longer this artificial bias in the housing market continues the worse it will be when it is finally ended.

We cause less pain and disruption ending it now then waiting an additional six months or a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cinematicdiversions (Reply #13)

Wed May 5, 2021, 02:36 PM

15. That's a RW talking point

There is no "artificial bias". The people impacted by this are literally our lowest classes of this society, many of whom were were working multiple minimum wage jobs in the very occupations most hit by the pandemic, because those places were also the ones that fostered the highest spread of the virus.

Perhaps the gentrifiers trying to make million dollar condos out of $40K row houses that they suddenly want to call "Towne Homes®" think it is "artificial bias", but the people who were the bartenders and wait staff and dishwashers and short order cooks and hotel maids and office janitors, let alone anyone else in any hospitality and travel and theme park/resort industry, are the ones most impacted. They are apparently relegated to being "invisible" people to some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #15)

Wed May 5, 2021, 02:45 PM

18. I have no idea if it is a talking point or not. I do know it seems to be factual.

There is no practical difference to a renter owing 8500 in back rent and owing 12,500 in back rent. Neither will ever be paid.

The problem is that the small time landlord is forced to sell his house. The new owners whether corporate landlords or private homeowners will have no interest in renting the property out to the local population.

Look at the unintended consequences to the draconian rental rules in Seattle. All that has done is eliminate rental properties within city limits even further reducing the housing stock for low-income workers. You don't need a finance degree to see that train coming down the tracks.

When the game of musical chairs finally stops, the problem may not be are their affordable rentals for the working poor. The issue could easily be are there rentals at all.

Eliminating the current rental stock through severe interference in the market may feel good now but is has fairly negative fallout for those exact people we a purporting to help. This policy only seems to assist Reits and corporations who can easily afford to ride out the squeeze.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cinematicdiversions (Reply #18)

Wed May 5, 2021, 03:20 PM

24. The "facts" are that there were rental assistance funds included in multiple stimulus bills

some of which have been designated towards compensating the landlords.

So there is no "seems to be". You have to look at what was passed in the $1.9 trillion relief package (and previous COVID-related appropriations), the latest of which was this - https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/fact-sheet-the-american-rescue-plan-will-deliver-immediate-economic-relief-to-families

FACT SHEET: The American Rescue Plan Will Deliver Immediate Economic Relief to Families

March 18, 2021

(snip)

Homeowner Assistance Fund

As the economic fallout from the COVID-19 crisis took form, millions of Americans were faced with the pressures of having to decide between making mortgage payments and other essential obligations. This was especially true for the low-income communities and communities of color who bore the brunt of this crisis. Across the country, one in 10 homeowners with a mortgage are behind on payments. The law takes immediate steps to help Americans stay in their homes and keep a roof over their heads.

The American Rescue Plan provides nearly $10 billion for states, territories, and Tribes to provide relief for our country’s most vulnerable homeowners. This includes:

  • A minimum of $50 million for each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico;
  • $30 million for the territories of Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
  • An explicit mandate to prioritize socially disadvantaged households;


  • The law prioritizes those homeowners that have experienced the greatest hardships, leveraging local and national income indicators to maximize intended impact. Applicable funding uses include delinquent mortgage payments, allowing Americans across the country to take a step in the right direction toward household stabilization. These necessary actions will minimize foreclosures in the coming months, alleviate emergency shelter capacity, and mitigate potential COVID-19 infections.

    Emergency Rental Assistance

    An underlying consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic is that household stability is not just a financial security issue, but also a health concern. As the country entered the throes of the crisis, many cities and states began creating or expanding rental assistance programs to support at-risk households. The December appropriations bill provided $25 billion of federal relief to be administered by the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program for disbursement to existing state and local government programs. The American Rescue Plan nearly doubles the initial funding to expand the reach and impact of the existing ERA program, taking additional steps to mitigate the financial harm caused by the pandemic and keeping Americans safe as the country addresses the virus.

    The American Rescue Plan provides $21.6 billion for states, territories, and local governments to assist households that are unable to pay rent and utilities due to the COVID-19 crisis. This includes:

  • A minimum of $152 million for each state and the District of Columbia;
  • $305 million for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa;
  • $2.5 billion for payments to “high-need grantees,” locations with an urgent need for assistance when factoring conditions such as change in employment, concentration of very low-income renters, and rental market costs


  • As a result of the American Rescue Plan, states and localities across the country will be better armed to provide relief and assistance to those vulnerable households. The new funding will leverage existing program structures, allowing for money to be disbursed quickly and efficiently to on the ground emergency programs, and ensuring this country’s hardest-hit families to receive their equitable share of relief.


    What happens with evictions - and like what he have had here in Philly, that were about to start up again and were slammed by our City Council (and the actions were halted at the moment) were what the call "Sheriff sales" of homes that were tax delinquent.

    What history has shown is that when you have large areas of housing stock bought up by speculators WITHOUT some kind of oversight and community input, is that they gentrify the neighborhoods, so that few who currently live there, can no longer do so.

    The whole point of features of that "Rescue Plan" was to stabilize the economy, which includes housing (both single and multi-family dwellings, whether owned or rented).

    The "problems" that you cite for Seattle, which also seems to apply to other "tech-focused" locations like San Francisco, is an issue that is unique to those locations. It was always a "problem" in places like NYC, which had instituted "rent control" many years ago and other regulation. I.e., the east coast has "been there done that" and the west coast is going to have to deal with their relatively recent transformation.

    So the hope of all of this was to let the money flow to the states, let them get set up to get the applications in and processed for payments/reimbursements, and then start lifting the moratoriums. The American Rescue Plan wasn't signed into law until March 11, 2021 so it takes some time to get the process up and running and the money flowing to those landlords and tenants who need the funds.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #24)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 03:31 PM

    28. And you have to have the cooperation of the tenant to get anything. Good luck with that.

    Me providing a judgement in my favor from the court with the amounts listed should be good enough.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to oldsoftie (Reply #28)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 03:55 PM

    33. And this is what a number of both municipal departments and non-profits are doing

    I.e., working with tenants and landlords to broker agreements that will include use of the funds from the various relief/stimulus bills. Most if not all have some kind of municipal/county point of contact and/or call center to get questions answered and start the process, so that all parties can get the proper paperwork completed and filed, and money can get to those landlords.

    Who wants to be kicked out into the streets (tenants/home owners) or have their properties seized for non-payment of mortgages/taxes (landlords and home owners)? I mean seriously?

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to cinematicdiversions (Reply #18)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 03:34 PM

    29. I had to sell to another business name. The moratorium only applies to non pmt of rent.

    So I sold to another business & filed for possession by new owner.
    Sometimes you just have to find ways around bad policy.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to cinematicdiversions (Reply #9)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 02:23 PM

    14. I agree. Small time landlords are hurting big time.

    And unless we want to support another bailout for larger landlords and mortgage banks, they need to have some certainty of collecting rent on the property they own. Not to even mention the economic calamity associated with a housing market collapse.

    Renters have had a full year to recover, the vaccine is out and available to nearly everyone, at some point, society has to move on. Should there be a couple month ramp up? I could see that as a reasonable compromise.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 02:03 PM

    11. He couldn't even get this right.

    Worst blowhard in history.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 02:42 PM

    16. This was bad policy and frankly it appears it might be bad law

    Only landlords with very deep pockets could survive a now year long moratorium on eviction. The correct policy here would have been to either have a moratorium on both evictions and mortgages of rental properties or better having the government pay the rent of workers who lost jobs/hours due to the pandemic directly to the landlords. But by having landlords in the best case scenario floating a year long, interest free loan to their tenets and in the more likely case wind up getting screwed out of several months rent, meant that landlords that don't have massive cash reserves were going to wind up losing their properties and be replaced by landlords with cash reserves (that is massive companies).

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to dsc (Reply #16)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 06:24 PM

    40. Totally agree. I don't understand how this is legal.

    Landlords are being forced to provide a service/product for which they may never be paid. Not only do they have to continue to pay their own mortgages & taxes, but they have legal obligations for upkeep of the properties.

    How is this any different than ordering grocery stores to give away food? Gas stations to just let people take the gas for free?

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 02:42 PM

    17. Are the landlords getting any relief at all?

    Speaking with my assessor we have some plaza's (tax write-offs) with only one business. Normally the tax load is carried by all the tenants equally,since the pandemic he's been sued numerous times by owners looking for tax relief. The place was in the hole even before the pandemic.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 02:48 PM

    19. i have to agree with the judge

    unless the government will pay the rent for any potential evictees the government really cant interfere in a private contract pandemic or not.

    landlords still have to pay the mortgage and taxes.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 03:05 PM

    20. The pandemic is still far from over. It is dangerous to displace..

    the poor right now. Unless you can pay the rent and aren’t, we need to figure out a way to let people stay in place.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to mvd (Reply #20)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 03:20 PM

    23. Then you need a way to get money to the landlords

    Or they are going to loose their property.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to hack89 (Reply #23)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 03:25 PM

    26. Small time landlords in the red

    They are taking money out of savings and retirement just to keep afloat and the chances are that they will never get all that money back. Without providing aid to landlords I can see where this was ruled unconstitutional.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to hack89 (Reply #23)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 03:42 PM

    30. My focus in on the health crisis first

    Yes we can take a look at landlords and their situations. But it not the time to send poor at risk people out.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to mvd (Reply #30)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 03:45 PM

    31. Many landlords are retired and relatively poor

    They depend on rents to live. They should have equal standing as their tenants.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 03:48 PM

    32. I'm sure there is a way to help both

    Keep the moratorium but add extra help that covers all.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 03:28 PM

    27. I said the CDC had no basis for this from the start. About time.

    I've been lucky & dealt with my bad ones, but i know some landlords who are hurting. And their tenants are NOT.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to oldsoftie (Reply #27)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 03:59 PM

    35. I was surprised to hear that many renters don't think they will owe back rent

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ripcord (Reply #35)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 04:17 PM

    36. They'll likely just leave as soon as time runs out

    Yes, they'll have a judgement against them, but a lot of smaller landlords dont research history if someone shows up with cash. Which they'll have.

    The last straw for me was when the tenant bought a new car after 6mo of no rent.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to oldsoftie (Reply #36)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 04:27 PM

    37. The problem is that the eviction moratorium became an eviction ban

    Tenants were supposed to file an affidavit saying they couldn't pay rent because of covid-19 but people who hadn't filed that affidavit and those who hadn't lost their jobs but just didn't want to pay rent were protected. In California people who bought homes couldn't get the previous owners evicted even after they took hundreds of thousands of dollars for the sale of the house.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ripcord (Reply #37)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 06:36 PM

    41. I saw that story. They finally did get that guy out

    I would've probably gotten in a little trouble with that one. They spent a million bucks or close to it and couldnt take possession. But thats also CA. It wouldnt have happened in GA, I'll tell you that.
    To make matters worse, what that guy did wasnt even covered under the moratorium! It was for rent problems & that guy wasnt a renter!

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 04:57 PM

    38. Article on small landlords from the WP a couple days ago:

    The Battle for 1042 Cutler Street

    SCHENECTADY, N.Y. — The landlord had highlighted the first of the month on his office calendar and marked it as “Pay Day,” but now the first had come and gone, the one-week grace period was ending, and for the 13th consecutive month, Romeo Budhoo had collected less than half of his total rent. “Time to try begging for it,” he said, and he grabbed his booklet of receipts and walked out to his car.

    He drove through the low-income neighborhoods of Schenectady, stopping at a half-dozen small homes that accounted for most of his income and all of his family’s savings. He cajoled $75 in cash from a laid-off hairdresser who owed him more than $7,000. “Thanks for at least trying to work with me,” he wrote on the rental receipt. He collected $200 from a renter who was $1,600 behind. “I’ll come back tomorrow,” Budhoo said, and then he continued up the street to his oldest property, a three-story home that had helped lift him into the middle class and was now sending him closer to bankruptcy.

    In the covid economy of 2021, the federal government has created an ongoing grace period for renters until at least July, banning all evictions in an effort to hold back a historic housing crisis that is already underway. More than 8 million rental properties across the country are behind on payments by an average of $5,600, according to census data. Nearly half of those rental properties are owned not by banks or big corporations but instead by what the government classifies as “small landlords” — people who manage their own rentals and depend on them for basic income, and who are now trapped between tenants who can’t pay and their own mounting bills for insurance, mortgages and property tax. According to government estimates, a third of small landlords are at risk of bankruptcy or foreclosure as the pandemic continues into its second year.

    For Budhoo, the essence of his problems came down to one house: 1042 Cutler St., a three-story square box built in 1901, with faded green siding and fresh graffiti spray-painted on the windows. The house had been sold four times out of foreclosure, condemned by the city, and scheduled for demolition when Budhoo first saw it after immigrating to New York from Guyana in the early 2000s. He’d worked at a nearby pick-and-pack warehouse for $8 an hour and saved up a small down payment toward a $79,000 purchase price. He’d rewired the electricity, gutted the plumbing, installed granite countertops, and begun renting it out for up to $950 per month. Gradually those profits had paid for more distressed properties, for his daughter’s college degree, and for a small home of his own where her diploma now hung above the entryway. He’d spent two decades growing his business on the first of each month until the pandemic hit Upstate New York.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/01/landlord-tenant-eviction-moratorium-pandemic/

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Danascot (Reply #38)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 06:40 PM

    42. And THIS man shows how the American Dream DOES work

    but you have to bust your ass. Even though he's being sabotaged by the system. The richest man I ever knew did the same starting in the 70s. Drove a cab, barely spoke English; and ended up with 85M in property

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

    Wed May 5, 2021, 05:51 PM

    39. Gonna have to pull the bandaid off at some point.

    In addition to being a financial disaster for millions of small landlords this is also part of the reason the housing shortage is fueling rapid price and rent increases. The eventual correction is not going to be painless.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

    Reply to this thread