The problem, I think, is the blanket assumption of no difference between professional landlords and those who are not. Which is to say, if your activities as a

The problem, I think, is the blanket assumption of no difference between professional landlords and those who are not. Which is to say, if your activities as a landlord bring in more than a small fraction of your income, or actually constitute any part of your day job at all, then you are running it like a business. As with any business concern, you should have planned for and assembled a contingency fund to cover just such an interruption of cash flow. And like any business, if you cannot run it efficiently and effectively enough to survive without having the losses socialized away, your business should be allowed to fail such that its valuable parts can be picked up and recapitalized by others who are better at the business. But if you have no landlording activities as your day job, and this income only mildly supplements your other income that has nothing to do with landlording, then you are not running it like a business. You are much, much closer to your renters in nature, and should be provided much the same assistance. What this assistance presents itself as is not something I have the gumption to slap on the table and set in stone, but _should_ include things like either direct waiving (forgiveness) of mortgages by the banks or the mortgages being paid for during the no-eviction period.