The title of the submission matches the title of the article, but the title of the article itself is doing a lot of editorializing here. A more accurate descrip

The title of the submission matches the title of the article, but the title of the article itself is doing a lot of editorializing here. A more accurate description of the situation directly from the article: > Only $1.7 billion of the $46.5 billion Emergency Rental Assistance Program has been distributed by state and local governments Both the landlord and her tenants interviewed in this article do not have the money to rectify this situation, the landlord is stuck without income because of Covid, the tenant is stuck without income because of Covid trying to care for an entire family. Without government assistance, one of those two parties is going to be homeless, period. You will either have landlords suffering a loss of income (sometimes catastrophically) or you will have mass evictions of low-income renters who have no way to afford housing during the pandemic. So the entire point of rent moratoriums was that the government was going to step in and provide resources to people affected, to try and prevent these kinds of no-win situations. That money hasn't appeared, despite being approved by Congress. So now we're having a debate about whether it's more moral to force a landlord with 3 properties to live in her van, or whether it's more moral to force a renter caring for her daughter and autistic son to be homeless. Both of those outcomes are bad. The real story here is, after the government approved $46.5 billion to help prevent situations like this, why only around a tenth of that assistance has actually been distributed to the people who desperately need it.