11 ms·
CDC declares a federal moratorium on evictions [pdf]
- amerine 6y agoGood.
- tenebrisalietum 6y agoWhile helpful, it just seems to postpone the inevitable. If you lost your job due to COVID and submit this declaration, it sounds like the landlord can make you pay the full amount when it expires or kick you out. I guess it gives you time to find another job and get a new place lined up, though.
- aaomidi 6y agoThere's been suggestions to essentially cancel debt with large injections of money into society.
- heavyset_go 6y agoBut that sounds like communism, and we all know that cancelling debt has killed 100 million people or more /s
- chrisco255 6y agoHow does the CDC have any authority over real estate law? This is way beyond its legal statute and not a good thing regardless of your feelings on the matter. This should be unconstitutional if it's not already.
- nkw 6y agoThat would be 42 U.S. Code § 264. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/264 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/264 > This should be unconstitutional if it's not already. Sounds good. I suggest contact your elected representatives to express your support for such an amendment.
- ForHackernews 6y agohttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gives-cdc-authority-to-stop-evictions-during-pandemic/ar-BB18BTug https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gives-cdc-auth... The legal passage cited is this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/70.2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/70.2 > § 70.2 Measures in the event of inadequate local control. > Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection. (emphasis mine) I'm sure this will be challenged in court, but the text as written seems extraordinarily broad. The CDC can do anything they "deem reasonably necessary"!
- chrisco255 6y agoYeah that won't hold up in court. Otherwise the CDC is an unlimited force for tyranny within government.
- aaomidi 6y agoNo court is going to stop a reasonable use of power to stop a public health crisis. The precedent of doing that would be too bad.
- abduhl 6y agoUh oh - over expansive authority being given to the executive branch by the legislature? What could possibly go wrong.
- rmrfrmrf 6y ago...prevention of mass homelessness?
- dcsux 6y agoYou... don't seem to know the meaning of the term "real estate."
- jeffbee 6y agoIt's a bit of a detour from the topic, but in my experience the number of people who understand the term "real estate" even superficially is close to zero.
- chrisco255 6y agoI'm very familiar with landlord-tenant and real estate laws, at least in my home state, and I remain extremely concerned about this extreme interpretation of the CDC's statutory authority.
- anarazel 6y agoThe claim is that it derives from public health emergency powers. Arguing that evicting people increases the infection risk, therefore falling within CDCs powers. But that indeed seems to be stretching things to somewhere around the breaking point. The underlying reg: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19654/temporary-halt-in-residential-evictions-to-prevent-the-further-spread-of-covid-19 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19... The authority seems to be claimed mostly from 42 U.S.C. §264: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html/USCODE-2018-title42-chap6A-subchapII-partG-sec264.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Thorentis 6y agoIf this is allowed to happen, I think we're seeing the new face of government overreach. Last time it was terrorism, ans that saw a whole wave of government powers used in the name of fighting terror. And back then, very few batted an eye. Now, it's fighting disease (corona) being used to justify these things. And, like last time, suggesting this might be too far gets you shouted down for not caring about other people or not taking corona seriously. I wish history would stop repeating itself but I don't think it ever will stop.
- anarazel 6y agoI think this is pretty over the top.
- __blockcipher__ 6y agoWith all due respect, perhaps you haven’t been paying attention. We are heading down a very scary path. And here in America everyone is so desperate to “prove Trump wrong” or whatever their motivation is that they’re ignoring giving any thought to: What if the government shouldn’t have this power? What I find interesting about Sweden is that Tegnell (correctly imo) thought lockdown would make things worse, but that wasn’t how he justified not locking down. He said that Sweden, being a free society, did not have the authority to perform a China-style lockdown. The rest of the “free” world ignored that point. They gave NO thought to whether they had the power to impose these measures. They just succumbed to their fear.
- aaomidi 6y agoCDC is the center of disease control. This means making measures like this to control disease. Human lives > property.
- jMyles 6y agoThe dispute isn't about whether human lives or property are more important; agreement is universal on the former. It's whether a government with such broad, sweeping powers (which aren't among those clearly enumerated) is good for human life.
- aaomidi 6y agoYes. This would go through the judicial system who would make a judgment call on it. Think of it like an executive order, are they always legal? No. Do the courts have a say in them? Yes.
- jMyles 6y agoIf you are suggesting that justice and security can arise from executive orders being tested in court on the basis of efficacy alone, rather than being attributable to a specific enumerated power, then I view this as a very naive and privileged view. If the "necessary and proper" clause subsumes the entire limitation on power in Washington DC, it is the most disadvantaged in society who will suffer for it. No matter how good a decision Congress or POTUS might want to make, I prefer that they be strictly restrained. The idea of "the united States of America" as the default political unit (rather than more localized decision-making) is a relic of an age without the kind of communication technology we have today. I am especially cautious at agencies like CDC, which have blundered their way through some important decision-making, being given expanded powers at a time when more local agencies are capable of consuming precisely the same wealth of information.
- aaomidi 6y agoUnfortunately with a split congress nothing is going to be done. Which is why CDC waited to see where the talks are going and realized that they can't wait too long. At some point lives become more important than political process.
- m0zg 6y agoWho's going to declare a "moratorium" on mortgage payments though? Last I checked it's still due every month.
- ilarum 6y agoIt is not a moratorium on rent payments. Just on evictions.
- mcdirty 6y agoI'm sure folks are going to pay their rents on time... Just sure of it /sic
- munk-a 6y agoWhen people are able to do the right thing they tend to - there isn't a need to be pessimistic about humanity in general.
- axaxs 6y agoserious question... what's the difference? If people can't pay, and can't get evicted, is it not equivalent?
- wmf 6y agoWhen you get evicted on Jan 1st you'll owe even more than you do now!
- bagacrap 6y agohow it affects your credit score?
- munk-a 6y agoProbably terribly - but in the US your credit score isn't federally managed so they'd need to nationalize Equifax or try and force business practices to do anything about credit scores.
- walterbell 6y agoIf federal CDC has authority over state evictions, does federal also have authority over state lockdowns, reopening and choice of essential business?
- nkw 6y agoAn argument could be made both that it does and does not. I would probably say no if I was the judge deciding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption
- jeffbee 6y agoThe surgeon general and the secretary of HHS, acting together, not the CDC, have broad powers to do pretty much anything under 46 USC 264. The idea that you seem to entertain, that these powers would extend to forcing states to _not_ take anti-disease measures, seems like it would fail in court.
- __blockcipher__ 6y agoIf they can force them to take the measures, they could just as easily argue that the measures (say, lockdown) actually worsen the problem and thus use the same logic to force people not to lockdown. I’d rather live in a society where we can’t be forced to submit to any health mandates. But I’m definitely in the minority.
- aaomidi 6y agoYou're welcome to go live in rural areas where no one is going to bother what you do there. But when you live in a society then there are certain rules on how to interact with said society. Individualism doesn't work when the pandemic is communal. Your freedom ends when your threat to my life begins.
- __blockcipher__ 6y agoHow fascinating that we've never taken that approach to Influenza or any of the other dozens of entire classes of virus that can cause mortality. The response to COVID-19 has been entirely divorced from reality. Unfortunately only a minority actually read the research and understand that.
- __blockcipher__ 6y agoThis is absolutely absurd. And the fact that they justify it as to stop spread of COVID-19 is even more bizarre. The government imposed this mortality-inducing and economically destructive lockdown, if they want to prevent evictions they need to pay the landlords what they’re owed. Reparations. —- While I’m at it, a reminder that with COVID-19 we abandoned the critical pathological vs physiological distinction and define COVID-19 as “rt-PCR-positive for SARS-2” in the absence of any symptoms, which is just wrong. “Asymptomatic COVID-19” is an oxymoron, no symptoms means no disease. “Pre-symptomatic COVID-19” makes sense, but not asymptomatic. You can have HIV without AIDS. Your skin can be colonized with C. Acnes without acne. But if you are PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 they call that COVID-19. The above absurd definition of COVID-19 is how the death count is being inflated. Died of a motorcycle accident in Orange County? COVID death. 2 month old infant born with intestines outside of body? COVID death. George Floyd? COVID death (he was PCR-positive). All 3 of those examples are real examples, not ones I made up. We’re going to look back at this as the first example of worldwide collective delusion (except Sweden). Dutch tulip bulb mania across the entire globe.
- jMyles 6y agoEven Sweden failed to engage in the common sense risk-stratification that experts have called for. They didn't even isolate nursing homes.
- __blockcipher__ 6y agoSweden failed with that part, yes. But what they got right was not locking down. Universal lockdown, ignoring constitutional rights for a second, increases the proportion of at-risk individuals who must get sick before herd immunity is reached. If you have a population of 100 people, the HIT is 20% (assume homogenous mixing), of which half your population is high-risk and half is low-risk, you can enforce universal lockdown and end up with 10 high-risk and 10 low-risk infections, or you can encourage just the at-risk to isolate and end up with like 18 low-risk and 2 high-risk. It should be self evident which course is better. Unfortunately the world has been tricked into viewing “herd immunity” as a dirty word as opposed to an emergent phenomenom.
- 6y ago
- FandangoRanger 6y agoA lot of people online thing this means they're living rent-free, it's going to be surprising to them when they are on the hook for thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in back rent. Reddit is celebrating, very few people seem to understand that this means they should still save their rent money.
- Guy2020 6y agoThe US has collapsed. We can't ignore the reality anymore. Prepare accordingly.
- syspec 6y agoWhat do you suggest?
- vb6sp6 6y agobitcoin if you like cyberpunk, gasoline if you like madmax, and toilet paper if you have no preference
- Guy2020 6y agoI suggest seeking peace with God and abandoning all hope of being gratified by the material world.
- vb6sp6 6y agoI suggest not being such an edgelord. The problems may simply themselves when we all live in reality
- munk-a 6y agoDo what I did and emigrate to Canada about ten years ago. We're being really polite about it but we're building a wall, also you guys are going to pay for it.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoIs this a new order, or did the CDC declare this sometime within the past few days to past few weeks? Surprisingly, the PDF contains no date, beyond OMB expiration date.
- nkw 6y agoThis appears to be part of the CDC's 9/4/2020 order. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19654/temporary-halt-in-residential-evictions-to-prevent-the-further-spread-of-covid-19 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19...
- djanogo 6y agoWhat about taxes and utilities that landlord has to pay to city/county?
- AlexTWithBeard 6y agoI believe the landlord also has a duty to maintain the house in habitable condition, no matter whether the rent is paid or not. What an irony!
- thereisnospork 6y ago“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from [being evicted from their homes]"
- tibbydudeza 6y agoThey can't stop the nearly 200K mostly unnecessary deaths due Covid-19 and the shambolic response which is their actual job but now want to regulate the rental market ???. How about mandating masks bloody idiots.
- alextheparrot 6y ago> I further understand that fees, penalties, or interest for not paying rent or making a housing payment on time as required by my tenancy, lease agreement, or similar contract may still be charged or collected. This part seems like an odd choice, if we're already amending the rental contract in terms of timeliness, it seems odd to double-down on late-payment fees.
- ashtonkem 6y agoEven without fees, very few people stand any chance of paying back late rent and avoiding eviction. All this will do is trigger a bunch of evictions once the election is over and it’ll have less of a political impact. As is, this order only delays the pain, it doesn’t alleviate it.
- LudwigNagasena 6y agoIt seems like a right measure, but it also seem like something a federal agency should not be able to do. At most it should be a recommendation to states.
- aaomidi 6y agoNo. The CDC should be given full permissions to do what it needs to do to prevent a public health crisis. They are the center of disease control. Part of control means this.
- jMyles 6y agoAre there any limitations that you'd see fit to impose on a government that claims domain over such a large area? What if this were a world government decision? Is that still OK?
- aaomidi 6y agoWe have a court system to decide if these decisions fall into the public health crisis prevention. Would this pass the bar? Certainly. We have historical evidence that homelessness during a pandemic significantly increases death and spread of disease.
- billions 6y agoCan you be more creative than having one single entity make the decision for every single person? How about we leverage multiple brains from many walks of life come up with ideas, you know, like in this forum
- aaomidi 6y agoCDC isn't a single entity. CDC is made up by the world's best scientists who have an understanding of past pandemics and how homelessness significantly increased the deaths and infectivity. Someone commented with links about this as well. Why do you think CDC is a single entity?
- cbsmith 6y agoThis was from two weeks ago, right? I'm not sure I'm following the significance today.