> So, technically the order hasn't impaired the rents owed to the landlords. It hasn't impaired them? Owning an obligation is much worse than owning the cash.

> So, technically the order hasn't impaired the rents owed to the landlords. It hasn't impaired them? Owning an obligation is much worse than owning the cash. If someone didn't pay rent for 9 months, landlords might never see that money. When they could evict, they might only eat 3 months of losses, now they will have 9-12 months of losses. The owners are basically paying "rent" (debt service), so freeloaders can live there. If anything, a chunk of relief money to renters should have been debt vouchers to their landlords that can redeem them for cash from the gov't. The gov't can then get repaid through federal tax returns. (or forgive them as a benefit)