U.S. Supreme Court allows evictions to resume during pandemic

Here we go, a lot more wealth coming.

Cheering at the idea of Americans being thrown out to live on the street and be homeless. Keeping it classy America!

No, but we own a lot of property and a few apartments and why should my family have to pay for someone that doesn't want to pay or can't pay? We have and run a business, not a charity. We can't put on clothes or feed everyone. If you can't pay then you have to seek shelter somewhere else or go down to city hall.

The U.S. Supreme Court vs the American people. It is has come down to that.

Because if this were true the unvaccinated/unmasked homeless population (as well as the entire Taliban) would have been decimated by COVID by now.

Dude still cant pay rent because of....COVID? come on, man..... 10 million open jobs.

The Biden administration argued that the rise in the delta variant underscored the dangers of resuming evictions in areas of high transmission of COVID-19. But that argument did not win broad support at the high court.

I think some people are taking advantage for sure. There is a huge labor shortage in the US, so jobs are available. A lot of people just don’t want to return to those jobs or pay rent. While I also would love to work or pay rent, that’s not a sustainable or responsible option.

Good. Investors should not be penalized due to dead beats.

I think some people are taking advantage for sure. There is a huge labor shortage in the US, so jobs are available. A lot of people just don’t want to return to those jobs or pay rent. While I also would love to work or pay rent, that’s not a sustainable or responsible option.

Absolutely on point, exactly!

Good. Investors should not be penalized due to dead beats.

Actually, when you make an investment, you run the risk of losing money, as well as making it.

What you mean is, "wealthy people should not be inconvenienced just to keep poor people alive".

the landlord. That's a new one. So any of your tenants not paying rent?

We had one or two in the past and we had to evict them, unfortunately.

How much do they owe? How many properties and tenants do you have? Are you taking court evictions?

They were 3 months behind, as far as properties are concerned, enough. Court evictions, twice.

The minimum wage in New York would make it difficult to pay New York rents. You need $50,000 just to survive. That would be $27 per hour.

You have to be crazy to live in NYC and struggle financially

Looks like the homeless numbers will be increasing.

Well, in California I don't see Newsom or Cuomo doing something to help get these people on their feet and into a job.

More affordable accommodations are the answer.

There are many in the city, the Dems seem to be doing so well with them.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place: I'm friends with a landlord in Southern California and have been with him to do maintenance. It's not easy - and often hazardous - work.

The judgment (opinion) can be read here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf

Overall, I have to agree with the majority, for the simple reason that the wording in the relied on statute is insufficient to authorize the measures being taken, and agreeing to accept such expansive interpretations of the statute by an administrative agency to expand its authority is dangerous to the overall development of the law. Congress has had time, if it so wished, to legislate for such moratoriums, and yet it chose not to do so. The word "other measures" simply cannot excuse this exploitation, and indeed, a common criticisms of the law of the PRC is the inclusion of similar phrases in the language. If a distinguishment is to be made between US law and PRC law, then, the Court must apply a restrictive interpretation to such language, limiting "other measures" to measures that are analogical to the examples already listed rather than a near plenary grant of power is essential and correct.

It may be true that in the past the administration has gotten away with analogical exploitation of the statute. It should not, however, be interpreted as an endorsement by the legislature of such wide-reaching authority. It is that the then landlords presumably did not attempt to challenge the law. Should they have challenged it, the court should rightly have reasoned as it did today. Further, unless it is clear that the key drafter comprehends that the "broad authority contained in the first sentence" can stretch to mean blocking evictions, the law should not be interpreted to include such.

The idea that the "current Congress did not bristle" is somewhat lessened by the fact it chose to expressedly authorize the eviction ban, but with a time limit. The clear message is that it is not the current Congress' will to allow these bans to continue at the discretion of the administrative agency. I do not disagree with the notion that overall the eviction bans seem a justified idea, but the majority is right that the right and duty lies with Congress to take the decision on the issue.

This is hard.

If I'm a property owner I would like to get paid especially if it's my sole source of income.

And if I'm the tenant of course I wouldn't want to be evicted. I will try my best to meet my obligations.

If there's work available it's hard to justify not paying.

Hilarious how the “journalist” repeatedly points out that the court is “conservative”. He doesn’t delve much into the fact that the biden administration was warned back in June yet still failed to submit a bill to the “progressive” Congress to lawfully extend the moratorium.

Another point is once you are evicted it will be very hard to find a new place with that on your record.

I didn't know that info is readily available.

Another reason I wouldn't want to get evicted then

I was about to say that if I have money to get a new place then I wouldn't get evicted in the first place but thought that if it's not hard to get a new place then I would just happily keep my money and just let current owner evict me with thanks for the free stay

Yes, because now you have a mark on your credit history and it will make it harder for you to rent out a place or even buy a home because now you are seen as a risk. The other option would be to have a co-signer that would help based on their credit history and another solution would be to put down a deposit and that can vary from place to place.

Some places will ask for 1st and last months rent as a deposit, others want anywhere from $1500-2000 deposit which for most places is refundable as long as you don't break anything or leave the place in shambles, if so, then the deposit is forfeited

The posters on here seem to think property owners are rich and heartless. If the property owner does not have an income from his/her rental, where does the money for Maintenance, upkeep, taxes and a laundry list of expenses come from? You can bet when a pipe bursts or the toilet clogs, the tenant is on the phone wanting it fixed and the property owner is on the hook to pay. When you can no longer pay, the court/government takes your property and sells it to the highest bidder. You loose permanently but the squatting tenant just moves to another place. When the government bars you from exercising control of your property, they have in effect nationalized it, but still want you to pay tax on it. The British Crown housed troops in the homes of private citizens in American colonies in the 1700s and forced them to provide sustance as well....... this is not much different.

The whole system collapses when you nationalize rental property. Besides the vast majority of rental units aren’t owned by wealthy people and corporations. Even the uber rich will get out of the business eventually- because if they stayed in the business they would no longer have any wealth. Dems again show they lack any basic knowledge of economics.

As always, medieval conservatives against the people..

Tell that to all the minorities in blue states that live in the highest poverty rate and for over 60 years what is the record on the Kind and heartfelt Democrats?

No matter what they do, the mismanagement of the country for decades will continue to do irreparable social damages..

California, New York, DC, Philly and Chicago are not run by Republicans.

While China continues to end extreme poverty,

They haven’t not even close and they won’t, the CCP could care less about its poor.

The eviction moratorium was wrong from the beginning. If people cannot pay their rent due to the suffering brought on by this pandemic, I have no problem with the government stepping in to provide assistance. But to screw the landlords out of the rent they receive is pure and simple theft. Those people have to pay mortgages, taxes, insurance and maintenance. Those costs did not stop. This eviction moratorium started under Trump and was wrong then, and is wrong now. The government is there to protect all of its citizens and that includes those who are landlords.

the Supreme Court ruled against it, Biden did it anyway.

So they ruled against it again. Pretty much cut and dried that its not allowed.

America, the land of both opportunity and cruelty. Richest nation in the world and with more people living in poverty than the population of Australia. It is a sad contrast.

The state with the highest liberty levels are red.

Not when it comes to minorities in THE RICHEST STATES. The poverty among blacks is still one of the highest.

From 2017 and now that number has risen.

https://www.bread.org/sites/default/files/african-american-fact-sheet-february-2017.pdf

How much less could the CCP care about its poor?

Less…

You don't need to nationalise housing to build affordable housing which is achieved in many countries including America with housing cooperatives and housing associations and NPO's

If there are people that want to spend the money and build them if they can or want.

Okay. This is, however, irrelevant to the fact that the poverty rate is highest in red states.

No, it’s relevant because the lefts largest constituents the very people that put them in office are run and overseen by the Democrats in the richest States, they claim they’re for equality and for the working man and yet, they haven’t done anything in THEIR communities to help the people, the largest voting block that keeps them in power, that should never be and it’s been like this for 60 years

It’s because they are horrible places where nobody wants to live or invest.

Ever been to Detroit or Baltimore? This is what happens when you vote the left in.

Poverty is being experienced in every state, every city since the outbreak of the pandemic. 40 million can not afford any healthcare. Millions are in line at food banks.

I am aware of that, but the “richest States” are struggling the most especially having all the money and resources, but an open border doesn’t help these food banks at all, in fact, it’s compounding the situation..

They can also be constructed with Federal funds and city funds.

If those counties are notified about it and they agree, why not?

All cities need a very wide range of low earning people otherwise the infrastructure collapses.

No, they don’t, not where I live in neighborhood we don’t.

Development properties can also be constructed with a number of affordable accommodations.

Probably, there are over one million homeless people. It does not benefit society rough sleeping on the streets.

You are right, but once again in cities like LA and the rest of California, they allowed the homeless crisis to get out of control, that is one reason why a lot of my family members decided to leave.

The states with the highest poverty rates are led by republicans.

I am talking about the richest cities, the richest States and the largest Democratic constituency and if you go by that it’s California, New York, these States are the leaders in poverty for the money that they have and this is why millions of people don’t trust the Dems with this infrastructure bill because the money is going to (God knows where) places that are not in these peoples best interest. Nothing will happen, never does, never.

What have republicans done to address this rampant poverty amongst their constituents? Nothing.

Many of them worked in the energy sector, oil and fossil fuel, but this President like with everything he touches ruined that as well.

Irrelevant to poverty rates being so high in red states

But they’re poorer, we are talking about the biggest and richest cities with money and they’re all controlled by Democrats and yet, the homelessness is skyrocketing, why is that? I really don’t trust these people with my money, they spend it on everything except the things they preach to us what they would like to spend it on.

because nobody wants to live or invest in red states.

Hmmmm…

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/23/why-companies-are-fleeing-california.html

None of this is accurate. 

Yes, it is, I’m from California

So, the people who mow the lawns are well compensated. Yeah, that must be accurate. Given you live in Texas, there is a very high likelihood that undocumented immigrants perform the menial tasks in your neighborhood.

I never said they didn’t, I was talking about the richest States with money having a homeless crisis explosion and that shouldn’t be and it’s been like that for 60 years and growing out of control.

None of this changes the fact that your claim about poverty being the worst in the richest states was inaccurate.

It’s very accurate.

.Nice try, but red states have consistently had the highest poverty rates, even when the energy sector was booming before Biden took office.

But they have less money, the blue states have more, they have no excuse..

Nope. We were talking about your incorrect assertion that poverty is worst in blue states.

But it is.

CNBC isn’t a credible source of information.

Financial news source.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/california-continues-to-have-the-highest-poverty-level-in-the-nation/article_45a6e2fc-f9f8-11ea-a19d-cf1649965470.html

There is absolutely no reason for California to have such a poverty rate, close the border, stop wasting money and help the homeless.