Those of you (such as myself) who were gravely concerned with Trump’s abuses and erosions of Constitutional norms are equally concerned with Biden’s disdain for constitutional rights and rule of law…. right?
Are people struggling with making rent due to job losses from Covid? Yes. Are landlords - the small business people referenced in the article - struggling because they are not receiving rents and thus cannot make mortgage and tax payments and repairs to their properties? Also yes. Are people abusing the moratorium? Also also yes - see below. Is there a handy solution? Nope. It is all, as someone once said, extra-fancy terrible with raisins.
The eviction moratorium is problematic on several levels, business and legal. On a business level, it penalizes the property owners by denying them their primary, if not sole, avenue of relief, to wit, the ability to evict non-paying tenants and then re-rent the units. It also effectively rewards people who are deliberately taking advantage of the moratorium and just not paying their rent, knowing the landlords have no recourse. I have anecdotal evidence from colleagues that this is absolutely the case, as I am sure many of us do.
So people who legitimately cannot pay their rent have relief, bad apples who are taking advantage of the moratorium are in the mix, and property owners are over a barrel. Like I said, no good solution.
From a legal standpoint, I think that this approach is, to put it mildly, deeply problematic. It reminds me of MAD Magazine's Alfred E. Newman, shrugging his shoulders and saying, “What? Me worry?”
The difference between Biden and the Prior Tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Who Shall Not Be Named (“Prior Tenant”) is that Biden knows better. And he got elected on the hope that he would BE better. The Prior Tenant either didn’t know or didn’t give a crap, because he thought he was King and we stopped expecting him to HAVE better angels of his nature, let alone listen to them.
Biden’s approach here is “less than,” for the reasons stated above and in the article quite cogently, and I for one am disappointed. I understand the rationale, but I find it unsavoury and yes, legally untenable.
