3 ms·
I agree that if the government halts evictions, then the government should foot the bill, however it is known that the government does have the ability to force
by xnyan 5y ago
I agree that if the government halts evictions, then the government should foot the bill, however it is known that the government does have the ability to force private entities to provide critical services (for example, emergency room services) at the cost of the provider. Right or wrong, there’s plenty of historical evidence that this is a real risk for providers of housing and needs to be considered when making decisions about housing investments.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> I agree that if the government halts evictions, then the government should foot the bill, however it is known that the government does have the ability to force private entities to provide critical services (for example, emergency room services) at the cost of the provider. Is there? Your one example js weaker than you seem to think. For emergency room services, the law requires that for Medicare-participating hospitals. That's practically equivalent to a general requirement, but its legally distinct, and landlords don’t have a practical necessity to sell their services to the government as well as other customers.
- beerandt 5y agoEven there, there's almost always a mechanism for the state to reimburse the the hospital for unpaid emergent care. And it's (generally) only mandatory when the patients condition is emergent, and the hospital is only required to stabilize them before discharging them. Not treat them indefinitely, or even treat/test for every presenting symptom they might have at the time. Most states have similar eviction laws, giving renters 7-14 days to move out. After that, it's no longer an emergent condition.