Millions face eviction as moratorium nears end

[America 1st]

I agree we do not need a new homeless crisis but I also have seen people come in to my shop ask what starting pay is and leave.
I personally know of 6 people that are still collecting unemployment rather than going to get a job.
I personally know 11 companies behind on rent to business landlords bc they cannot get enough work done to pay bills.
These are all real world problems due solely to lockdown nonsense and government over reach in paying people to stay home. It is directly impacting your French fry waiting time and my ability to get materials in a reasonable amount of time

The pandemic was already going to change everything and the government certainly hasn’t always been helpful during the recovery.

Our country’s lack of domestic manufacturing is killing everyone from the wage owners all the way up to the business owners.

 

[BigBucnNole]

Eviction has to go through the courts and can drag out months on end. Something like 2 or 3% were actually delaying rent payments through covid. Reality is there will be a backlog of evictions and landlords will more likely settle something and resume a typical payment schedule versus wasting the time and effort to kick people out.

 

[Cleetus7]

Eviction has to go through the courts and can drag out months on end. Something like 2 or 3% were actually delaying rent payments through covid. Reality is there will be a backlog of evictions and landlords will more likely settle something and resume a typical payment schedule versus wasting the time and effort to kick people out.

Agreed. If we do see any fireworks it will be months down the road due to the court system. You still need a judge's approval to evict.

Agree on the 2nd point also. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Who are landlords gonna get to pay the actual rent? The replacement renter would presumably be in the same income bracket as the previous tenant.

 

[scanodd]

I don't blame the worker. If govt pay is 15 I wouldn't get off my ass for 17.00
Govt is at fault for all of this. Specifically the Biden administration

I'm talking about people who can't pay their rent. How in hell were they paying rent before the government handout?

 

[Rebarcock.]

I'm talking about people who can't pay their rent. How in hell were they paying rent before the government handout?

By working. But now they simply don't wanna work

 

[America 1st]

Agreed. If we do see any fireworks it will be months down the road due to the court system. You still need a judge's approval to evict.

Agree on the 2nd point also. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Who are landlords gonna get to pay the actual rent? The replacement renter would presumably be in the same income bracket as the previous tenant.

Yup.

Pretty silly that people are getting blamed for this when it’s the government who created the issue. It seems only logical that the landlords need the government to rectify the situation they created.

 

[BigBucnNole]

I'm talking about people who can't pay their rent. How in hell were they paying rent before the government handout?

They can pay. If you even put a couple bucks down landlords can’t evict you. Only real option is settlement.

 

[imprimis]

Agreed. If we do see any fireworks it will be months down the road due to the court system. You still need a judge's approval to evict.

Agree on the 2nd point also. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Who are landlords gonna get to pay the actual rent? The replacement renter would presumably be in the same income bracket as the previous tenant.

What does the landlord have to lose? Someone there not paying rent or having to search for a renter who pays? The LL is still having to make the payments. At least with eviction he/she can clean up the property and then start looking for someone who can pay, even if only paying a portion of the expenditures. That's better than nothing.

In Texas, one can be evicted in as little as 30 days including appeals.

 

[scanodd]

I'm talking about people who can't pay their rent. How in hell were they paying rent before the government handout?

Yeah that was a rhetorical question. There are a lot of jobs out there and anyone who wants to work can get a job.

 

[Cleetus7]

What does the landlord have to lose? Someone there not paying rent or having to search for a renter who pays? The LL is still having to make the payments. At least with eviction he/she can clean up the property and then start looking for someone who can pay, even if only paying a portion of the expenditures. That's better than nothing.

In Texas, one can be evicted in as little as 30 days including appeals.

Oh I agree 100%. Just saying that could be in the mind of landlords in areas where it’s lower income. IE Blue States. It will be real in a hurry in red states IMO bc the court system and landlords will be more likely to evict

 

[imprimis]

Oh I agree 100%. Just saying that could be in the mind of landlords in areas where it’s lower income. IE Blue States. It will be real in a hurry in red states IMO bc the court system and landlords will be more likely to evict

There are also people who sold their homes, received payment for said home and are using Wuhan as a reason not to move out. Happening in CA and thus far no court is forcing them out.

 

[Carlscat]

I believe Blackrock and Blackstone are both buying up homes, but I may be mistaken. I think one spunoff from the other years back, but do the same type of stuff.

While BlackRock is in the game a bit through some mutual funds and their iShares multi-family resy ETF, it’s not nearly a focus like what it is for Blackstone.

 

[America 1st]

 

[CDDP]

 

[CDDP]

 

[America 1st]

But the SCOTUS didn’t rule against it.

They refused to lift an emergency injunction against it. If anything the court upheld the band regardless of Kav’s concurrence.

Describing the situation as living rent free is really doing people against this a disservice by making them look silly since these people are still being billed.

Landlords knew what they were getting into when they decided to invest in the business of providing housing for other people. Acting as if it isn’t the federal government’s job to enforce, or in this case make null, contracts between two parties flies in the face of everything the government was designed to do (provide security & resolve contract disputes).

Using the time that this will take to go back through the courts to buy Congress more time to act is actually ballsy.

 

[Lilburncock]

Sucks for investors but you can’t have millions of homeless people.

Sure you can, maybe you don't have the stomach for it but maybe you are a wussy anyway.

BTW, it won't be millions being evicted, but it will be millions taking crappy jobs to have a roof over their head and eat.

 

[America 1st]

Sure you can, maybe you don't have the stomach for it but maybe you are a wussy anyway.

BTW, it won't be millions being evicted, but it will be millions taking crappy jobs to have a roof over their head and eat.

Sure we could…in theory.

Just like, in theory, folks thought they could defund the police…

Seems like the wussies are those people beholden to corporations & businesses but reasonable minds can agree to disagree.

 

[mrt]

Hang all those people that have become Tyrants and Coup De Tat experts. It's amazing how fast peoples minds get right when they see one of their own with lots of daylight under their feet.

 

[Lilburncock]

Sure we could…in theory.

Just like, in theory, folks thought they could defund the police…

Seems like the wussies are those people beholden to corporations & businesses but reasonable minds can agree to disagree.

There is nothing reasonable on this subject to disagree about.
Some bureaucratic bitch unilaterally decides to shred contracts concerning private property between private citizens.
There is no longer rule of law.

Couple that with the malfeasance on the borders and along with no rules of law there actually is no country.

 

[America 1st]

There is nothing reasonable on this subject to disagree about.
Some bureaucratic bitch unilaterally decides to shred contracts concerning private property between private citizens.
There is no longer rule of law.

Couple that with the malfeasance on the borders and along with no rules of law there actually is no country.

Comparing the moratorium to the border is laughable.

Trump expanded the powers of the CDC to make the moratorium possible to the CDC director not some “bureaucratic bitch”.

The only way rule of law would be lacking in this case is if private contracts somehow became more important than federal law and national emergency declarations.

Suggesting that private property isn’t subject the government regulation is silly. They can regulate how you use your cars, guns, investments, property, ect regardless of what two parties put in a “contract”.

Spoiler

 

[CDDP]

 

[Lilburncock]

Comparing the moratorium to the border is laughable.

Trump expanded the powers of the CDC to make the moratorium possible to the CDC director not some “bureaucratic bitch”.

The only way rule of law would be lacking in this case is if private contracts somehow became more important than federal law and national emergency declarations.

Suggesting that private property isn’t subject the government regulation is silly. They can regulate how you use your cars, guns, investments, property, ect regardless of what two parties put in a “contract”.

Spoiler

View attachment 37230

Thank you for exposing your incredible ignorance.
There is no federal law that allows the CDC director to take such action.

Both the moratorium and the border are clear examples that the powerful have said fcku you, and me.

Don't let your ignorance take you down the road to stupidity.

 

[America 1st]

Thank you for exposing your incredible ignorance.
There is no federal law that allows the CDC director to take such action.

Both the moratorium and the border are clear examples that the powerful have said fcku you, and me.

Don't let your ignorance take you down the road to stupidity.

There doesn’t need to be a federal law that grants that power to the director of the CDC explicitly.

The president has that authority under the Stanford Act. He is allowed to delegate that authority to the CDC director until Congress or the SCOTUS says otherwise (which they haven’t to date).

Don’t let yore ignorance continue to take you down the road to stupidity.

Most importantly:



Edit to add:

Its 42 U.S.C. 5201 or simply put the “miscellaneous” section of the Stanford Act.

 

[Lilburncock]

There doesn’t need to be a federal law that grants that power to the director of the CDC explicitly.

The president has that authority under the Stanford Act. He is allowed to delegate that authority to the CDC director until Congress or the SCOTUS says otherwise (which they haven’t to date).

Don’t let yore ignorance continue to take you down the road to stupidity.

Most importantly:

View attachment 37236

Edit to add:

Its 42 U.S.C. 5201 or simply put the “miscellaneous” section of the Stanford Act.

And you are too stupid to know the SC has already said the CDC director does not have the authority.

Maybe not stupid, but definitely ignorant.

 

[America 1st]

And you are too stupid to know the SC has already said the CDC director does not have the authority.

Maybe not stupid, but definitely ignorant.

They really didn’t though.

The SC didn’t lift the moratorium. Kav’s concurrence doesn’t override his vote to maintain the moratorium.

They might overrule the moratorium in the future in a separate case but until that point the moratorium is federal policy and legal.

 

[Lilburncock]

They really didn’t though.

The SC didn’t lift the moratorium. Kav’s concurrence doesn’t override his vote to maintain the moratorium.

They might overrule the moratorium in the future in a separate case but until that point the moratorium is federal policy and

It's clearly not legal.

The SC in an effort to be nonconfrontational gave Xiden the perfect face saving out. However in another clear example of his inability to lead he is too dense to understand it.

This may help you.

"The basic legal issue is whether the CDC has the authority in the midst of a public health crises to impose a pause on evictions, under existing federal law that dates to 1944.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled in May the CDC exceeded its power under that law, a decision Bagley called “measured and sensible.”

In June, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the moratorium to remain in place through the end of July, even though one justice in the majority, Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that he believed CDC lacked authority to order it. Extending the moratorium any further, Kavanaugh wrote, would be possible only with “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation)."

 

[CDDP]

An astonishing thing happened this week in Washington that didn’t get much critical coverage from a media establishment loath to criticize President Biden. At the behest of congressional Democrats, Biden flouted the Constitution and broke his oath of office by issuing a ban on evictions that he and his advisers know to be illegal.

By “ban on evictions” I mean the president issued a blatantly unconstitutional decree that renters all across America don’t have to pay rent. If landlords try to evict tenants for not paying rent, they could face criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment.


The eviction moratorium is one of the most important stories of the COVID-19 lockdowns but also one of the least covered, partly because its effects are so diffuse and partly because the left doesn’t want to draw undue attention to its evisceration of property rights under the guise of public health.

But the way all this has gone down illustrates a deeply disturbing reality about the Democrats running the pandemic response in Washington: They’re lawless, and as the pandemic drags on, they’re becoming bolder about it.

The background here is that a nationwide ban on evictions, first instituted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last September under President Trump and renewed under Biden, expired on Saturday. Since then, Democrats in Congress have been agitating for an extension of the ban despite a determination by the U.S. Supreme Court in June that the CDC has no legal authority to do that, as anyone with a passing familiarity of the U.S. Constitution could tell you.......

 

[Lilburncock]

An astonishing thing happened this week in Washington that didn’t get much critical coverage from a media establishment loath to criticize President Biden. At the behest of congressional Democrats, Biden flouted the Constitution and broke his oath of office by issuing a ban on evictions that he and his advisers know to be illegal.

By “ban on evictions” I mean the president issued a blatantly unconstitutional decree that renters all across America don’t have to pay rent. If landlords try to evict tenants for not paying rent, they could face criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment.


The eviction moratorium is one of the most important stories of the COVID-19 lockdowns but also one of the least covered, partly because its effects are so diffuse and partly because the left doesn’t want to draw undue attention to its evisceration of property rights under the guise of public health.

But the way all this has gone down illustrates a deeply disturbing reality about the Democrats running the pandemic response in Washington: They’re lawless, and as the pandemic drags on, they’re becoming bolder about it.

The background here is that a nationwide ban on evictions, first instituted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last September under President Trump and renewed under Biden, expired on Saturday. Since then, Democrats in Congress have been agitating for an extension of the ban despite a determination by the U.S. Supreme Court in June that the CDC has no legal authority to do that, as anyone with a passing familiarity of the U.S. Constitution could tell you.......

Got damn you get it!

 

[CDDP]

Got damn you get it!

I still have a feeling Kavanagh and Roberts fuck us tho.

 

[America 1st]

It's clearly not legal.

The SC in an effort to be nonconfrontational gave Xiden the perfect face saving out. However in another clear example of his inability to lead he is too dense to understand it.

This may help you.

"The basic legal issue is whether the CDC has the authority in the midst of a public health crises to impose a pause on evictions, under existing federal law that dates to 1944.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled in May the CDC exceeded its power under that law, a decision Bagley called “measured and sensible.”

In June, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the moratorium to remain in place through the end of July, even though one justice in the majority, Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that he believed CDC lacked authority to order it. Extending the moratorium any further, Kavanaugh wrote, would be possible only with “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation)."

Thanks for supporting my argument that it is legal until otherwise ruled.

Kav’s can say whatever he wants. It’s the vote that matters.

I don’t even personally support the moratorium but people acting like it’s outlandish and blatantly illegal are being obtuse.

I hate Biden as much as anyone, and nobody loves Trump more than me, but this isn’t Biden’s doing or the CDC director by themselves.

 

[America 1st]

I still have a feeling Kavanagh and Roberts fuck us tho.

As long as Congress is considering leg on the issue Kav’s vote will be uncertain until otherwise cast.

 

[America 1st]

Different law than I figured they would use to justify but the rest of the arguments have come down just as I’ve explained.

The previous court ruling issued no guidance and the administration is pursuing a different argument this time around.

The judge overseeing the case described it as “gamesmanship”. It’s an accurate description and attempting to do something gives them the cover of saying that the courts, that are republican in nature, put these people back on the streets. Solid politics regardless of anyone’s personal opinion on the moratorium itself.

Judge mulls blocking Biden’s new eviction ban

Biden let a previous moratorium expire at the end of July but revived the restrictions after he came came under pressure from liberal lawmakers and activists.

www.politico.com

 

[America 1st]

 

[America 1st]

 

[Jayhacker]

My son sent me an article about a landlord who was renting his house to a couple with kids.
They haven't had to pay the $1K monthly rent for the last 12 months. The landlord owns a construction company and offered both of them jobs in his company and they both refused the offer. Bidens fkn world!!

 

[sanction]

Millions of landlords still gonna get fucked.

Wealth redistribution.

 

[jkbone]

Agreed. If we do see any fireworks it will be months down the road due to the court system. You still need a judge's approval to evict.

Agree on the 2nd point also. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Who are landlords gonna get to pay the actual rent? The replacement renter would presumably be in the same income bracket as the previous tenant.

Here in Tampa you could get so much more in rent compared to before the pandemic. Along with getting them to pay a huge chunk of the lease , if not all of it, upfront.

 

[jkbone]

Millions of landlords still gonna get fucked.

Wealth redistribution.

Banks are trying to squeeze out the investors and have for years. Just try to get a loan on a rental and see how much red tape there is now

 

[America 1st]

Spot on.


Give him ammo to pack.