Actually preventing a flood of evictions could avoid a permanent and drastic reduction in rent rates and preserve long term revenue from rent. The government is

Actually preventing a flood of evictions could avoid a permanent and drastic reduction in rent rates and preserve long term revenue from rent. The government is the only market actor that can prevent an irrational firesale that leaves everyone worse off. Your argument focuses on long term building of new units. But a systematic reduction of rent by 20% would be a bigger disincentive than even 100% effective vacancy rate that is temporary and can be planned for (Further, it is likely that evictions would produce mass vacancy anyway). For example, right now in NYC, landlords are offering 6 month free rent rather than dropping rent. They don’t want to lock in a permanent reduction of revenue by sending market signals of rent reductions. The government could also ban mortgage foreclosures for the landlords or offer some assistance but given the balance sheets of many large Landord and property managers they probably don’t need it. The thing is, why do landlords think evictions are the solution. Who are they going to rent to when they flood the market all at the same time? As far as this measure being a taking, it almost certainly is not a taking that would require compensation. First, the government has broad discretion to use its police powers to protect citizens, especially from a pandemic. So even if they burned down the building or seized them permanently there is probably little the 5th amendment would require. Second, even if this isn’t an exercise of police powers, this measure is temporary not a permanent seizure of the property. Owners still retain equity in the building and land and further still have a legal claim to unpaid rent. Only one right to enforcement is delayed.