Renter’s dilemma
The issue of home eviction, which could have serious social and health consequences, turns out to be a crossroads for those with decision-making power.
On the one hand, the economic crisis caused by COVID- 19 has left millions of households without the necessary income to survive. Many families have been struggling with keeping up, including the rent of the home where they reside.
As long as the unemployed received the additional support of $600 a week, everything was relatively good. The issue began to emerge with greater force when this incentive ended at the end of July, after Congress went on vacation without solving the problem.
President Donald Trump has since issued an executive order whose legality is in doubt that authorize an extraordinary payment of $300 week to the unemployed provided they are collecting at least $100 per week in state unemployment benefits. In California, distribution of those benefits is expected to start Sept. 7, but the extra funding isn’t expected to last long.
Thousands of Imperial Valley families depend on this additional financial support (among many others like CalFresh) in order to survive, and without the help of Congress they will hardly be able to keep a roof over their heads.
This could lead to a huge increase in homeless families and at greater risk of exposure to SARSCoV-2, which has killed nearly 300 in Imperial Valley and currently infects more than 750 others.
Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a bill extending the state’s eviction moratorium until next year. The bill, however, requires tenants to prove hardship from COVID-19 and to pay at least a quarter of their monthly rent. Starting in the first months of 2021, tenants will have to start paying the rent owed and, if they ignore it, they can be forced to evict with the authorization of a judge.
Here in the Imperial Valley, the Board of Supervisors has declared an eviction moratorium that applies only to unincorporated areas like Heber, Seeley and Niland. The local city councils have chosen to deny this benefit or have decided to delay the decision.
The dilemma for officials lies in the fact that property owners rely on rent payments to cover their own living and business expenses, including mortgages, taxes and insurance. Taking away the source of income from people who rent their properties could also have a severe blow to the local and regional economy. Simply put, foreclosure on a rental property could have the same net effect on a family as an eviction – it could still leave them with no place to live.
According to the bill signed by the governor, tenants will be able to access a series of resources to overcome the crisis due to non-payment of rent during these months.
Honestly, I’m glad not to be the one who has to make the decisions on this issue. Given limited public resources, extended business closures, stay- at- home orders and other hurdles, the needs are innumerable, and local decision- makers are hard- pressed to plug one hole without opening another. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that they choose to patch bigger leaks than the ones they decide to tolerate.