
The Eviction Ban Worked, but It’s Almost Over - dredmorbius
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-eviction-ban-worked-but-its-almost-over-some-landlords-are-getting-ready
======
macawfish
Thomas Piketty and so many others warned about this. I know what you're going
to say...

"It's the NIMBYs' faults! If they'd just let us build more overleveraged
luxury units to increase supply, everyone would have affordable housing!"

I disagree entirely.

Simply appeasing the demands of the cult of linear supply and demand didn't
cut it before the pandemic and it certainly doesn't cut it now.

So called free market fundamentalists love Milton Friedman until he points out
that without tax generated guaranteed income for poor people, the monetary
system will break down.

Meanwhile, empty units sit and rot, and peoples' lives are on the line.

Billionaires with their "exponentially growing rent extraction without paying
taxes" schemes are literally leeching the economic life of the world dry, and
it's potentially going to get a lot of people killed unless leaders wake up.

------
Pick-A-Hill2019
ODG, I know this comment is making light of a situation (and I promise to make
up for doing so at some point) buuuut from the letter sent out -

[may impact your ability to] ... ' _but_ a house' & 'you have an eviction on
your _renal_ records'.

Maybe it's just me but it speaks volumes about the type of person that would
send out such nasty-o-grams

~~~
HomeDeLaPot
It's very painful when they update those renal records.

------
Bostonian
The government prohibiting a landlord from evicting a tenant for rent non-
payment amounts to a taking of his or her property, and I doubt it is
constitutional. If politicians believe that evictions must be suspended during
a crisis, they should make available loans and grants to tenants who cannot
pay rent because of reduced income.

~~~
danso
The story talks about the CARES Act, which applies to "certain rental
properties with federal assistance or federally related financing",
specifically:

> _rental units in properties: (1) that participate in federal assistance
> programs, (2) are subject to a “federally backed mortgage loan,” or (3) are
> subject to a “federally backed multifamily mortgage loan.”_

[https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11320](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11320)

~~~
juniper_strong
I don't see how that invalidates the original point. Taking a federally backed
mortgage loan doesn't mean the government can now take your private property
for public use, which is what is happening here.

If you personally buy a house using a federally backed mortgage, does that
mean the government can show up and take your house and give it to someone
else without compensating you? You would be OK with that if it was your house?
That doesn't make sense.

This seems like a pretty blatant violation of the takings clause and is likely
unconstitutional.

~~~
fred_is_fred
Fannie Mae buying my mortgage is different than the programs you mentioned.
Often times developers buy and or build properties with below market loans
which do come with some terms - per above. Otherwise it would be a free lunch.

