This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
âAll animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.â
- George Orwell, Animal Farm
MeanwhileâŚMay12th - Save the dateâŚ
What sense does it make to evict people now? Millions are unemployed & unable to rent. How will landlord gain? Itâs not as though a new tenant will show up. His revenues just will continue to decline
Iâm a landlord. Fortunately I donât have to service a mortgage and could go without the income generated. A hardship, yes, but doable. But what about those who do and canât? There doesnât seem to be a good answer. At least not from this government.
The article is rather poorly written - the ban is specifically only something that applies to Federally supported housing (how much of that is the rental housing stock? Percent of �).
I can see a legitimate point of confusion since the article itself doesnât focus well at all.
Hi! To find out what I can do, say @discobot display help.
The second paragraph says that this is more than one quarter of housing nationwide. Donât complain about the poor writing if the issue is your poor reading.
Is anyone surprised that big corporations are taking advantage of people even now? This is just one more place where itâs happening, and itâs the greedy ones that are doing it, like hedge funds and real estate. They could be more like @bodie1 when possible, and our government could shore up the people instead of giving big tax breaks to the wealthy and an unaccountable slush fund to corporations. Itâs just another way that Iâm being disappointed by Americans in all thisâŚbetween corporate greed and assholes protesting having to stay at home and be safe itâs depressing.
Outstanding post.
The fact that the financial records case even made it to the SCOTUS is, to me, a very bad sign.
Kavanaugh will deliver for Trump just like what he did for the WI GOP vote-in-person caseâŚ
Kavanaugh wrote for the majority,âExtending the date by which ballots may be cast by voters â not just received by the municipal clerks but cast by voters â for an additional six days after the scheduled election day fundamentally alters the nature of the election.â
Prior to all of this in CA a savvy tenant could stretch it out to 6 months of rent free living. The landlord will end up with judgement in their favor that is uncollectible.
That being said, In CA even if a landlord were to try to start eviction process they cannot as the courts are not processing them for the duration.
I donât have a clue about other states.
Your headline is deceiving. The story says it is 4 states, which is wrong, but there are 50 states in the union so not everyone is doing it.
The next time the D House is asked to vote a new law providing funds for the COVID response, one of the many items it needs to add to that law would be provisions that stop this particular abuse. Forfeiture by the landlord of the property he attempted to evict people from seems a fitting penalty to me, but other remedies might work just as well.
Guillotines were invented for very similar reasonsâŚ
The season of wickedness.
" Despite Federal Ban, Landlords Are Still Moving to Evict People During the Pandemic"
" USAA Grabs Coronavirus Checks From Military Families
The bank, one of the nationâs largest, has told customers it would use the $1,200-per-person payments to offset existing debts."
No, it is poorly written.
Let me quote
CARES Act banned eviction filings for all federally backed rental units nationwide, more than a quarter of the total.
Itâs quite unclear, a quarter of what total? All rental units. All federally âbackedâ (which is a muddy term - what counts as âfederally backedâ - no clue from that article although one presumes probably federally guaranteed mortgages) The headline and most of the text uses broad brush text to imply a broad sweep of application.
The article is poorly written and muddy. Doubtless the law as well.
however, some sources are rather clearer:
A: No. Tenant protections (i.e. eviction limitations) under Article 4024 apply specifically to properties with a federally backed mortgage or participation in one of various federal programs (including Section 8 vouchers and Section 42 tax credits) covered by the Violence Against Womenâs Act or the Rural Voucher Program. For conventional properties not tied to a federal program, they would only be included if they have a federally backed mortgage. That would apply to any loan from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two lending behemoths in the multifamily space, in addition to federal agencies like FHA and HUD. A property with debt held by a private lender (such as a pension fund) or without a federally backed mortgage would not covered by the tenant protections in Article 4024.
Given the article itself evokes confusion, it would be good practice to cite at least some of this.
A quarter of all rental units. Itâs really not hard.
What was hard is the reporting, since there is (as the article points out) no national database of eviction suits. So Pro Publica had to go to every state/local docket to find eviction suits, and cross-reference against databases of either federal programs or reports of federally backed mortgages (which are AFAIK not directly available except for companies filing public financial statements). They then picked out a few representative ones of those from whose spokespeople theyâd been able to get comments. (Because one of the rules of reporting is that you want to give subjects of articles a chance to comment on the record.) Theyâve done all that, while doing all their other coverage, in the time since the CARES act was signed.
Already exists it is called adverse possession.
I can guess the surnames of the four major petitioners to kick people to the curb during a pandemic.