Eviction notice

Landlords have bills, too

REPORTS out of Washington said the U.S. Supreme Court has ended the ban on evictions, “removing protections for millions of Americans who have not been able to make rent payments.” That’s certainly one way to put it.

Here’s another way: The United States Supreme Court will allow landlords to collect rent again, and they can again begin paying their own bills, avoiding bankruptcy, and perhaps even upgrading (or just upkeep) their properties—properties they may have mortgages on.

We suppose the landlord has gotten an unfortunate reputation because of bad sitcoms over the years. Certainly there are absent ones, uncaring ones, even unpleasant ones. There are certainly unpleasant renters as well. And even some of the most left-leaning media outlets have reported over the last year about those renters-from-hell who have taken advantage of the moratorium on evictions.

Those keeping up with these things say upwards of 3.5 million people in the country tell the authorities that they “face eviction” in the next two months. Another way to say that is: Upwards of 3.5 million people haven’t been paying rent for nigh on a year. Or more. Even though the country has opened up again, and jobs are plentiful.

We imagine that “face eviction” isn’t the same as actual eviction, and that many renters and owners will reason together, with a large assist from government aid, billions of which are still waiting to be spent on rent.

The papers say a coalition of realestate trade groups in the South challenged the latest extension of the moratorium by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which brings us to the first question: Why is the CDC in charge of rent policy? The CDC should have more important things to do just now.

Which gave the Supreme Court all the ammo it needed to punt away from the real issue.

“It is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the covid-19 Delta variant,” the court wrote. “But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends . . . . It is up to Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether the public interest merits further action here.”

And: “If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it.”

And if Congress does? The case will end up before the nation’s highest court again, and probably end with another non-answer answer. A moratorium might be necessary during a national emergency (and when the economy shut down in 2020, that was one heck of an emergency) so that millions aren’t thrown into the streets. But once the economic emergency is over, shouldn’t owners of property be allowed to pursue happiness, too? We read that phrase somewhere.

The liberals on the court—three of them— dissented, saying that more than 90 percent of the nation’s counties were “experiencing high transmission rates” of the virus. Yes, but 90 percent of the counties are not experiencing high unemployment rates. The nation is learning to do business during the pandemic. With vaccines and masks, sure, but business just the same.

THE BIDEN administration has called on state and local officials to “move more aggressively” in handing out billions in rental assistance. Congress—note the subject of this sentence—approved more than $46 billion in rental assistance to help during the shutdown. But just more than 10 percent of that amount has actually been distributed.

To distribute more of it would mean that renters would be safe in their apartments. And owners would be safe from bankruptcy court.

Something else the government can do: Advertise. Word has it that a large portion of renters, and even some owners, have no idea that the government help is out there. That’s a failure of PR.

As has been noted in this column before, not every owner of every apartment is a faceless real-estate company from back East. A lot of these owners are mom-and-pop types who initially looked to these dwellings as investments or extra income. Last year they were told to deal with the loss of this money as best they could. But their bills didn’t stop coming in the mail.

There’s money to fix this. And considering what the federal government is planning on spending this year, $46 billion is a rounding error.

Maybe the court’s decision will speed things along. Court rulings often do.