3 ms·

Weighing in on this, I'd say the counterarguments to keeping the moratorium in place are absolutely absurd. I'd like to see hard evidence that "a surge of evic

Weighing in on this, I'd say the counterarguments to keeping the moratorium in place are absolutely absurd. I'd like to see hard evidence that "a surge of evictions could lead to more infections of the coronavirus". I'm happy to see the Supreme Court finally coming out of it's post election turtle shell and doing it's job.

refurb 5y ago
This was the old “interstate commerce” argument - growing extra crops for my own consumption ripples through the supply chain and impacts interstate commerce… basically a CDC power grab. Glad it was struck down.
tehjoker 5y ago
It doesn't make sense that having people have their own space as opposed to crowded homeless shelters, increased density at friends/family's places, or on the streets unable to wash or maintain yourself regularly could lead to disease?
- gillytech 5y ago
  I said I'd like to see hard evidence. When one intends to make a financial proposal at a company, they should expect to furnish evidence that the expenditure would provide some kind of return and that there is a factual basis for the need of whatever it is the money is being spent on.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    > I said I'd like to see hard evidence. ... which we can't get without a live test. And then a localized test wouldn't be enough data. So we need to see massive suffering before we can follow common sense. Meanwhile, billions of dollars in rental assistance remain undispersed.
    - nverno 5y ago
      There must be some data, or at least people knowledgeable about, how often eviction actually leads to homelessness, and how corona has spread amongst homeless. For instance, I was evicted once, but I didn't end up homeless on the street. I would guess this is pretty common for evictions- people have to move someplace cheaper or back in with friends or family temporarily. I think some suffering alleviated now is likely just being postponed in another form (common among social welfare programs imo). The moratorium isn't sustainable in the long run and will discourage people from renting/maintaining property leading to less housing eventually.
- kelnos 5y ago
  Not the OP, but I can't help but somewhat agree with them. I think we should absolutely have eviction moratoriums in place during the pandemic, and I think it kept a lot of people from losing their homes or going into severe financial distress, but it feels like a huge stretch to me that the CDC (or any executive branch agency) should have that authority. This is something that should be enacted by Congress. (Of course, the situation in the Senate makes it likely difficult to get an eviction moratorium passed, so I'm glad in general that it was allowed to stand as long as it has.)
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    I agree with you that this should be a congress thing, but you gotta recognize that our government is currently structured to deflect as much decision making from congress as possible and place responsibility in the hands of opaque "process" and the imperial presidency. It's not gonna happen any other way. The less democratic the system seems, the less people protest.
  - loxias 5y ago
    I 100% agree with you that this should be Congress's job. Unfortunately, the people's branch has been acquiring job security by avoiding power and responsibility for a long time, leaving others to make decisions. Given that's the world as it is (and not the world as written), I think the Center for Disease Control is the least worst option for making edicts about public health. I think it would be worse if another department did it. The only possibly better solution I can think of involves leaving it to states plenary power, but on the other hand a public health emergency crosses state lines and impacts interstate commerce.
- ardit33 5y ago
  vaccines have been available to everyone who wanted it, for months... jobs also are available, so the economic side of the memorandum is moot. At this point, keeping the restrictions would be absurd. not all landlords are big evil corps... half of the rental stock is owned by small ones.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    Being a landlord is essentially an illegitimate way to make money. It's pure parasitism. We should honestly have a permanent moratorium.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      How should people who can't afford to buy a house be housed then?
    - gillytech 5y ago
      I believe that's taking a pretty narrow view of it. So if I own more than one house I must house people for nothing, simply because I have property? How is the maintenance going to be paid? Property tax? Insurance? Amortization? Mortgage? Accounting? I guess I'd have to figure out how to pay for all that but luckily I can live in someone else's house rent free so it wouldn't be too hard.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > not all landlords are big evil corps... half of the rental stock is owned by small ones. Which isn't much better, really. Large companies may have undue, negative influence on society at scale, but individually, it's the small businesses and individuals that screw you over the most. A large company can't afford to casually break the law or generate bad PR, the way a small business can.
LudwigNagasena 5y ago
Why does it even matter how it will impact the life? Why can CDC even decide such a thing? Do you know any other country where a national health agency can ban evictions and intrude into a contract law like that?
farmerstan 5y ago
The number of mortgages in forbearance has dropped to pandemic lows. I think it’s obvious that we don’t need to extend the moratorium at this point. Yes some people might get evicted but definitely many landlords are getting screwed as well.
xg15 5y ago
Sorry, but a "surge of evictions" cannot be a desirable outcome in any situation, coronavirus or not. (Neither can a surge of bancrupt landlords, but that's a separate problem)

refurb 5y ago

This was the old “interstate commerce” argument - growing extra crops for my own consumption ripples through the supply chain and impacts interstate commerce… basically a CDC power grab. Glad it was struck down.

tehjoker 5y ago

It doesn't make sense that having people have their own space as opposed to crowded homeless shelters, increased density at friends/family's places, or on the streets unable to wash or maintain yourself regularly could lead to disease?

gillytech 5y ago
I said I'd like to see hard evidence. When one intends to make a financial proposal at a company, they should expect to furnish evidence that the expenditure would provide some kind of return and that there is a factual basis for the need of whatever it is the money is being spent on.
- klyrs 5y ago
  > I said I'd like to see hard evidence. ... which we can't get without a live test. And then a localized test wouldn't be enough data. So we need to see massive suffering before we can follow common sense. Meanwhile, billions of dollars in rental assistance remain undispersed.
  - nverno 5y ago
    There must be some data, or at least people knowledgeable about, how often eviction actually leads to homelessness, and how corona has spread amongst homeless. For instance, I was evicted once, but I didn't end up homeless on the street. I would guess this is pretty common for evictions- people have to move someplace cheaper or back in with friends or family temporarily. I think some suffering alleviated now is likely just being postponed in another form (common among social welfare programs imo). The moratorium isn't sustainable in the long run and will discourage people from renting/maintaining property leading to less housing eventually.
kelnos 5y ago
Not the OP, but I can't help but somewhat agree with them. I think we should absolutely have eviction moratoriums in place during the pandemic, and I think it kept a lot of people from losing their homes or going into severe financial distress, but it feels like a huge stretch to me that the CDC (or any executive branch agency) should have that authority. This is something that should be enacted by Congress. (Of course, the situation in the Senate makes it likely difficult to get an eviction moratorium passed, so I'm glad in general that it was allowed to stand as long as it has.)
- tehjoker 5y ago
  I agree with you that this should be a congress thing, but you gotta recognize that our government is currently structured to deflect as much decision making from congress as possible and place responsibility in the hands of opaque "process" and the imperial presidency. It's not gonna happen any other way. The less democratic the system seems, the less people protest.
- loxias 5y ago
  I 100% agree with you that this should be Congress's job. Unfortunately, the people's branch has been acquiring job security by avoiding power and responsibility for a long time, leaving others to make decisions. Given that's the world as it is (and not the world as written), I think the Center for Disease Control is the least worst option for making edicts about public health. I think it would be worse if another department did it. The only possibly better solution I can think of involves leaving it to states plenary power, but on the other hand a public health emergency crosses state lines and impacts interstate commerce.
ardit33 5y ago
vaccines have been available to everyone who wanted it, for months... jobs also are available, so the economic side of the memorandum is moot. At this point, keeping the restrictions would be absurd. not all landlords are big evil corps... half of the rental stock is owned by small ones.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  Being a landlord is essentially an illegitimate way to make money. It's pure parasitism. We should honestly have a permanent moratorium.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    How should people who can't afford to buy a house be housed then?
  - gillytech 5y ago
    I believe that's taking a pretty narrow view of it. So if I own more than one house I must house people for nothing, simply because I have property? How is the maintenance going to be paid? Property tax? Insurance? Amortization? Mortgage? Accounting? I guess I'd have to figure out how to pay for all that but luckily I can live in someone else's house rent free so it wouldn't be too hard.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > not all landlords are big evil corps... half of the rental stock is owned by small ones. Which isn't much better, really. Large companies may have undue, negative influence on society at scale, but individually, it's the small businesses and individuals that screw you over the most. A large company can't afford to casually break the law or generate bad PR, the way a small business can.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

Why does it even matter how it will impact the life? Why can CDC even decide such a thing? Do you know any other country where a national health agency can ban evictions and intrude into a contract law like that?

farmerstan 5y ago

The number of mortgages in forbearance has dropped to pandemic lows. I think it’s obvious that we don’t need to extend the moratorium at this point. Yes some people might get evicted but definitely many landlords are getting screwed as well.

xg15 5y ago

Sorry, but a "surge of evictions" cannot be a desirable outcome in any situation, coronavirus or not. (Neither can a surge of bancrupt landlords, but that's a separate problem)