The Eviction Ban Worked, but It’s Almost Over | Hacker News Reader

The Eviction Ban Worked, but It’s Almost Over

propublica.org

11 pointsdredmorbius7 comments

Thomas Piketty and so many others warned about this. I know what you're going to say...

"It's the NIMBYs' faults! If they'd just let us build more overleveraged luxury units to increase supply, everyone would have affordable housing!"

I disagree entirely.

Simply appeasing the demands of the cult of linear supply and demand didn't cut it before the pandemic and it certainly doesn't cut it now.

So called free market fundamentalists love Milton Friedman until he points out that without tax generated guaranteed income for poor people, the monetary system will break down.

Meanwhile, empty units sit and rot, and peoples' lives are on the line.

Billionaires with their "exponentially growing rent extraction without paying taxes" schemes are literally leeching the economic life of the world dry, and it's potentially going to get a lot of people killed unless leaders wake up.

ODG, I know this comment is making light of a situation (and I promise to make up for doing so at some point) buuuut from the letter sent out -

[may impact your ability to] ... ' but a house' & 'you have an eviction on your renal records'.

Maybe it's just me but it speaks volumes about the type of person that would send out such nasty-o-grams

It's very painful when they update those renal records.

The government prohibiting a landlord from evicting a tenant for rent non-payment amounts to a taking of his or her property, and I doubt it is constitutional. If politicians believe that evictions must be suspended during a crisis, they should make available loans and grants to tenants who cannot pay rent because of reduced income.

The story talks about the CARES Act, which applies to "certain rental properties with federal assistance or federally related financing", specifically:

> rental units in properties: (1) that participate in federal assistance programs, (2) are subject to a “federally backed mortgage loan,” or (3) are subject to a “federally backed multifamily mortgage loan.”

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11320

I don't see how that invalidates the original point. Taking a federally backed mortgage loan doesn't mean the government can now take your private property for public use, which is what is happening here.

If you personally buy a house using a federally backed mortgage, does that mean the government can show up and take your house and give it to someone else without compensating you? You would be OK with that if it was your house? That doesn't make sense.

This seems like a pretty blatant violation of the takings clause and is likely unconstitutional.

Fannie Mae buying my mortgage is different than the programs you mentioned. Often times developers buy and or build properties with below market loans which do come with some terms - per above. Otherwise it would be a free lunch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com