6 ms·

"I'd also like to point out that the landlords mentioned here have an option that keeps them financially solvent, namely to sell the property." LOL. No prospe

"I'd also like to point out that the landlords mentioned here have an option that keeps them financially solvent, namely to sell the property." LOL. No prospective buyer will be allowed to see the inside of the property. Anyone buying it knows it might be months or years before they can even take possession of the property and inspect whatever state it is in. IF landlords are even able to offload properties occupied by tenants, for sure they are doing that at a huge loss.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Yes, they would do it at a huge loss. That's the risk of having no savings and no stable employement beyond operating a business which has entered a liquidity crisis.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  > That's the risk of having no savings and no stable employement beyond operating a business which has entered a liquidity crisis. A real estate owner shouldn’t be forced to liquidate at below market rates due to unfunded federal mandates.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    That's a "should" statement. Another "should" statement is that no one should rely on the rent from their properties to pay their mortgage. As it stands, it was known to landlords that the CDC has the power, during pandemics, to engage in action such as this one or even more severe. Yet they chose to take on risk, which provides essentially no service to society.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      > As it stands, it was known to landlords that the CDC has the power, during pandemics, to engage in action such as this one or even more severe. This is simply false. They couldn’t have known that, because CDC never had constitutional authority to issue this order in the first place. There is no way this order could survive strict scrutiny test: it is not nearly enough narrowly tailored.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The CDC, and the federal government writ large, has exceptional authority in times of pandemics, including the implementation of actual lockdowns. It is almost certainly legal, and precedent has shown much worse.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Yes, they would do it at a huge loss. That's the risk of having no savings and no stable employement beyond operating a business which has entered a liquidity crisis.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
> That's the risk of having no savings and no stable employement beyond operating a business which has entered a liquidity crisis. A real estate owner shouldn’t be forced to liquidate at below market rates due to unfunded federal mandates.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  That's a "should" statement. Another "should" statement is that no one should rely on the rent from their properties to pay their mortgage. As it stands, it was known to landlords that the CDC has the power, during pandemics, to engage in action such as this one or even more severe. Yet they chose to take on risk, which provides essentially no service to society.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    > As it stands, it was known to landlords that the CDC has the power, during pandemics, to engage in action such as this one or even more severe. This is simply false. They couldn’t have known that, because CDC never had constitutional authority to issue this order in the first place. There is no way this order could survive strict scrutiny test: it is not nearly enough narrowly tailored.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The CDC, and the federal government writ large, has exceptional authority in times of pandemics, including the implementation of actual lockdowns. It is almost certainly legal, and precedent has shown much worse.