US states brace for ‘avalanche’ of evictions as federal moratorium ends

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/29/eviction-moratorium-expiration-renters

by headShrinker • 5 years ago

104 183 5 years ago

slownews453• 5 years ago

The US always seems to make simple things far FAR more complicated than needed.

They've created this giant eviction logjam that's making a mess of a lot of things.

Don't want folks evicted? Give poor folks money so they can pay their rent or move to a cheaper place and pay rent etc etc. As it is, folks are trapped in their one location, can't look for work elsewhere etc. Landlords are screwed etc. Courts are going to be jammed up. And now there is going to be a huge and complicated bureaucracy, filled with fraud to try to get money to landlords etc.

mcast• 5 years ago

Good thing the American people got their $600 stimulus to help pay for those last few months of rent! /s

Guest42• 5 years ago

The article mentioned how difficult it is for minimum wage workers to find rentals. I wish it had also included the percentages of workers making minimum wage or less over the last 10 years.

A common counter argument is that people should simply make more but I’d like to see the amounts of those opportunities relative to the people who need them. Also, given today’s rental background checking, I’d claim that the landlords would simply charge more.

slownews453• 5 years ago

Because you can't evict folks landlords are setting totally ridiculous standards to rent from them or not renting.

It's seen as better than getting stuck with someone not paying who you can't evict.

What happened is landords renting to well off people did fine - white collar workers actually did OK during COVID, and folks with money by and large kept paying. Landlords on lower end got screwed by and large (this includes more immigrant / minority landords). Then if you had some property managers etc on payroll you got all sorts of bailout money - so rich got richer.

One group that actually I think was happy was section 8 landlords because section 8 kept paying - so good on them.

JohnTHaller2• 5 years ago

It's oddly hard to get these statistics. The federal minimum wage doesn't apply to many states*. 18 states have no minimum wage or have it set as the federal (only $7.25). Georgia and Wyoming set it LOWER than the federal (only $5.15). Some states are a little over in the $8 range. Both federal and states have different minimums for tipped workers. For example, the federal minimum for tipped workers is $2.13. In NY state it is $8.35. It's $9.35/hr in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester county. And it's $10/hr for tipped workers in NYC.

So "what is minimum wage and how many people make it?" is an annoyingly complex question. One interesting stat is that about 28% of the US workforce makes under $15 an hour.

*EDIT: I meant this as some states have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage, so they don't show up in stats like "how many Americans make the federal minimum wage". Sorry for the poor original phrasing.

alistairSH2• 5 years ago

A financially hobbled working class is a feature, not a bug.

onlyrealcuzzo• 5 years ago

You're suggestions might make sense if US politics was optimized to help poor people, or people most in need - or if this is what Americans in general care about.

It's not.

slownews453• 5 years ago

But why make folks already dealing with a lot of complexity in their lives go through long court processes, do lots of paperwork etc. Poor folks have to be in a database somewhere - give them money and get out of the way?

akmarinov• 5 years ago

Best we can do is cut taxes on the rich and hope it trickles down.

vsareto• 5 years ago

Don't want folks evicted? Give poor folks money so they can pay their rent or move to a cheaper place and pay rent etc etc.

They are literally doing that: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistan...

nostromo2• 5 years ago

The US government likes to give out benefits without paying for them.

Want people to have healthcare? Make employers pay for it!

Want people to stay housed during a pandemic? Make landlords pay for it!

Want affordable housing? Make residential developers pay for it!

Turns out it's a lot easier to spend other people's money than it is to spend your own.

Steltek• 5 years ago

But that's what you get when one party uses extremist methods to prevent the US .gov from spending any money. And then the failure of government to achieve efficient action only further reinforces the extremist philosophy. It's really not hard to see the connection.

pitaj• 5 years ago

Want affordable housing? Make residential developers pay for it!

Simply letting developers build housing would do wonders for affordability.

r00fus3• 5 years ago

Because the alternative (the government fulfills the actual healthcare or housing) would be considered Socialism, which apparently is a really bad thing (according to all the corporate owned opinion).

x3n0ph3n3• 5 years ago

Even when the government is spending tax dollars, they are still spending other people's money.

kube-system• 5 years ago

This is because of a separation of powers. The executive branch can do things now but they do not have the power of the purse: thus the eviction moratorium. Emergency rental assistance money has to come from Congress which is inherently slower.

johncessna5• 5 years ago

As it relates to evictions due to non-payment, i think this is overstated. There are plenty of programs specific to Covid alone, there was the federal money, expanded and extended unemployment, and programs to pay back rent. The NY one, for example, comes with a condition you can't evict due to non-payment for a year.

That's all on top of 'the usual' government assistance, HUD, HEAP, etc.

Some tenants leveraged these programs and they won't be evicted. The ones who saw this as 'free money' and an opportunity to 'fuck those evil landlords' will be.

systemvoltage• 5 years ago

This is just a random comment with no substance but provocating a wide spectrum of responses with no coherent discussion.

analyte1232• 5 years ago

Making it harder to evict drives up rents and worsens the housing crisis by restricting supply (why rent out a home or build units if the government can force you to let people live in it for free for well over a year) and by raising the bar for tenant selection (someone with poor credit or unconventional life history is a far greater risk if it will take months on end to get them out for not paying). I'm not a homeowner or a landlord, so I'm not exactly talking my book here.

omegaworks10• 5 years ago

Making it harder to evict drives up rents and worsens the housing crisis by restricting supply

Restrictive zoning and bespoke, political hurdles against development do far more to restrict supply. I'm not understanding how housing that is in use can be considered supply available for others. Say we make it easier to evict and change nothing else: one family is evicted so another can take the unit. I don't see how that improves anything if the goal is to get both families housed. All it seems to do is enable landlords to play arbitrage and charge the highest possible price.

kristjansson• 5 years ago

Not OP, but literally the next clause in the sentence you quoted articulates how OP thinks barriers to eviction restrict supply

filoleg• 5 years ago

I'm not understanding how housing that is in use can be considered supply available for others.

Well, look at what's happening in Vancouver (and a few other places, but Vancouver is just the most obvious example), and it will easily explain your confusion.

When it becomes too costly and problematic to deal with renting out your property to someone else, people who bought it as an investment will just hold onto it and let it sit empty[0]. It got bad enough, Vancouver ended up introducing a vacant property tax.

0. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/number-of-em...

analyte1232• 5 years ago

I'm mostly thinking about construction or the introduction of vacant homes to the rental market. Maybe "new supply" makes more sense here. Obviously if you had a choice between two jurisdictions to build apartments, all other things being equal you would choose the one that will let you start eviction proceedings after six weeks of non-payment instead of six months. I agree it's not the biggest factor, but there is probably also some interaction between zoning restrictions and tenant-friendly laws: tenant-friendly laws might reduce the political power of multi-family developers by lowering their income and leaving them at the mercy of local courts, making them less able to influence zoning and development hurdles in their favor.

volta838• 5 years ago

I'm not understanding how housing that is in use can be considered supply available for others.

Have you been to the US?

From the amount of homeless and people living in tents and cars, AFAICT the expectation from this society is that people that can't afford rent for whatever reason should just live on the street.

The poor do not deserve a roof.

---

Kind of sarcasm, but kind of true.

hn_throwaway_992• 5 years ago

I have family members that ARE landlords, and your description is totally correct:

1. Family members aren't "rich" by conventional standards, they worked for the government in mid-level jobs their whole lives and are retired.

2. They bought a house they planned to retire to, but then moved when they had issues with it. They planned to sell the house but due to timing issues (construction in the neighborhood) they wanted to wait, so temporarily rented it out.

3. They had bad timing: rented in early 2020, the renter paid 1 month of rent, and never after that. And I looked this guy up, he is a total freeloader, part of the blame is on my family for not better vetting him.

4. But the takeaway for small landlords is the government can basically appropriate your property whenever they want. So we're just left with giant landlords who can manage this risk, and which again leads to less available affordable housing and a further concentration of wealth.

lettergram4• 5 years ago

They aren’t supposed to be able to appropriate your property. We literally have an amendment against that 3rd, 4th and 9th amendments

The Supreme Court refused to weigh in because “it was soon to expire”

qqqwerty2• 5 years ago

The government also allowed for penalty free mortgage forbearance and has allotted significant amounts of money for rental assistance. They may even allow landlords to apply for that assistance on the behalf of their tenants.

For the above reasons. I struggle to be sympathetic to landlords. They were taken care of. And quite frankly, I think they are the least deserving of the assistance. Rent seekers and speculators should be last in line for help. When you buy an expensive house or a hot stock, things like pandemics, wars, and financial shocks are part of the risk profile.

ryandrake• 5 years ago

I'm sympathetic to the bad timing, but that's just part of business. If I decided to do a start-up in 2001, right when the market crashed and funding dried up, well, bad timing--that's unfortunately how it goes. Your family members started a business, and running a business comes with risk. COVID (and the resulting rent moratoriums) was a black-swan event as far as risks go, but black-swan events exist. I'm very risk-averse, which is why I don't hang my shingle out there and start a business. I was once a landlord too, and got kind of screwed so I definitely will steer clear of that risky business in the future.

johncessna5• 5 years ago

Making it harder to evict drives up incidents of bias. The equation is simple. If they pay, they stay. If they don't and I can get them out in 2 weeks and flip the unit, then whatever. Their security covers the month and it's in with the next tenant.

When it's harder to evict people start making judgement calls based on their perceptions. Some of those will be will be good judgment calls, but most won't be based on real data and good tenants will get passed up for bad reasons.

IfOnlyYouKnew• 5 years ago

Yeah, that’s the economics 101 answer. The same textbook will mention, in a footnote, that solving their system of equations will show that, at equilibrium, no company makes a profit.

To be slightly more specific in my criticism, there are plenty of economies with far more protections for tenants, even non-paying ones, and they tend to have similar or lower rates of homelessness.

The effect on tenant selection would also not manifest in the current situation, where it’s a measure used once for a rather rare situation. And even if landlords were to try to avoid such risks, it isn’t clear how that would differ from the status quo? Presumably, they have always chosen the more financially secure tenant when given a choice.

Izikiel43• 5 years ago

This literally happened in Argentina with the new renting law.

# of properties for sale went way up, # of properties for rent is way down, and to get approved for a rent you more or less have to agree to give out your first born son.

anonAndOn• 5 years ago

Oddly, AirBnb may be a winner in this. In many jurisdictions, short-term rentals (<30 days) do not afford the same tenant protections as long-term. I know a few small landlords who are switching their rentals to short-term so that they don't get screwed over again. Long-term rentals in desirable markets are likely to get even more expensive as supply is further reduced.

foota2• 5 years ago

This is true, but the priority in this case was keeping people housed during an unprecedented national health crisis.

cudgy• 5 years ago

Then find them or build them housing, or distribute compensation to landlords temporarily. The government tried to distribute money but the poor implementation of that effort killed it before it started.

Laying the burden on landlords for more than a few weeks is unconscionable and inequitable. I wonder how many small landlords sold or lost previously profitable properties due to their cash flow being decimated.

The long term rental market is damaged; landlords will now be hesitant to rent long term without significant protection like larger deposit requirements or even rent for less time to avoid being susceptible to some of these government actions.

nostromo2• 5 years ago

It still seems crazy to me that the CDC has the authority to interfere with contracts between citizens regarding tenancy.

The right way to deal with this issue is via the lawmaking process. If they want to extend the moratorium, they can do it at anytime, they just have to go through the process.

Retric3• 5 years ago

CDC has extreme powers to do things like indefinitely detain an infectious person or even do large scale quarantines. The tenancy issue is surprisingly mild by comparison.

nate_meurer8• 5 years ago

As earlier commenters here pointed out, the supreme court disagrees, and suggests the CDC won't be allowed to do this again.

Others as well, including the sixth circuit. From https://reason.com/2021/07/26/federal-appeals-court-sneaks-i...:

"The Sixth Circuit's ruling represents the sixth time a lower court has struck down the CDC's moratorium, with most decisions similarly criticizing the near-limitless powers the agency was trying to claim for itself."

duxup4• 5 years ago

As far as the CDC goes they have pretty extensive powers, but they are limited to extreme situations. Having huge population evicted during a serious pandemic or disaster could make things significantly worse.

It's not like the CDC uses these rules all the time.

thaunatos• 5 years ago

I don't believe the CDC has this authority:

On Thursday, the White House confirmed it would let the moratorium expire because the supreme court said it would block additional extensions unless they were authorized by Congress.

The Supreme Court did vote 5-4 to leave the moratorium in place, but this NPR article provides more context:

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who cast the fifth and deciding vote, wrote in a concurring opinion that he voted not to end the eviction program only because it is set to expire on July 31, "and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution" of the funds that Congress appropriated to provide rental assistance to those in need due to the pandemic. He added, however, that in his view Congress would have to pass new and clearer legislation to extend the moratorium past July 31

(https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1003268497/the-supreme-court-...)

It sounds like the Supreme Court would block any renewed attempt to ban evictions, unless Congress was behind the attempt.

duxup4• 5 years ago

I think this is as much "if you want to do this again you need better guidelines / legislation". Rather than "you can't ever do this".

I'm threading the needle here, but that's what SCOTUS does.

coleca• 5 years ago

Several courts agreed that the CDC does not have that authority (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/05/05/federal-j...).

However, the Supreme Court decided to punt and leave the moratorium in place since it is set to expire at the end of the month (https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1003268497/the-supreme-court-...) but warned that further extensions would need to go through Congress.

betterunix27• 5 years ago

Preventing the spread of a deadly disease (basically the job of the CDC) required people to stay home. Evictions stand in direct opposition to that goal; moreover, the economic shock of social distancing requirements would have greatly increased the number of evictions, and thus the moratorium was instated.

This is not rocket science. The question is not, "Did the CDC do the right thing?" or "Did the CDC have the right to do this thing?" but rather, "How long should the CDC be able to impose an emergency mandate like this before we insist on a more democratic approach?"

sneak3• 5 years ago

I think their point was that the answer is a literal "zero seconds".

The CDC should not have the authority to appropriate property, not for a month, not for a minute.

claytongulick• 5 years ago

Under that reasoning, it's difficult to imagine a power the CDC wouldn't be able to justify exerting under the guise of public health.

See how the ICC has been stretched beyond all reason to grant federal powers.

Keep in mind, the Bill of Rights was written during the tail end of the smallpox pandemic which had a 30% mortality rate.

The clear separation and limits on government powers were considered to be a higher priority.

twelve40• 5 years ago

Stay home underscore underscore resonated with the crowds in 2020. Now it's halfway through 2021, and the point many people here seem to be making is that having CDC in any part of the $60 billion dollar 1.5+ year long economic problem that was arbitrarily and forcefully shoved up the ass of one of the free market participants is kind of obscene.

aaomidi• 5 years ago

Have you studied what happened with the Spanish flu and eviction crisis and how millions more people died because of lack of access to proper housing?

post_break• 5 years ago

I just don't understand how the government postponed evictions without paying landlords. Can you just tell people they don't have to work while forcing companies to pay employees? Etc it's just bizarre. I feel for the people who needed these protections, but also recognize the people on the other side of the coin who have mortgages, utilities, etc.

Cshelton• 5 years ago

It's much worse than you realize. Most of these rentals are cash flows that pay the debt service on a loan. Which most of the time is securitized. Those securities are packaged up (sound familiar...?) and sold to investors. Who are these investors you ask? Mostly institutional investors who are responsible for.. your retirement, pensions, etc. So it's not the "rich landlord" that doesn't get his rent money, it's your next door neighbor who is a retired teacher living off the teachers pension.

threatofrain• 5 years ago

How are school districts going to escape their contractual obligations to unions? By going into bankruptcy? Where are you getting this information that school districts may seriously renege on pension contracts?

r00fus3• 5 years ago

We funded the military to the tune of $800B but can't be bothered to keep people from falling into poverty due to inability to work (tenants) or bankruptcy (landlords).

Most other nations had much stronger safety nets than a few one-time payments of a few hundred dollars.

Quite a set of priorities are on display here.

johncessna5• 5 years ago

The US spends more on social programs than it does on the military.

tastyfreeze6• 5 years ago

Military is one of the few jobs the federal government is Constitutionally obligated to perform. As another reply said, we spend more on welfare programs. Programs which the federal government is not Constitutionally permitted to do.

6510• 5 years ago

The US gov also has tons of equipment and is decades behind on infrastructure maintenance. It might not be for everyone but the US government could easily employ millions - as they do with the military.

jeffbee• 5 years ago

The federal government has broad emergency powers to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, and for other kinds of emergencies like civil defense etc. The powers are extremely broad with language like "such actions as may be appropriate". You should note that the federal eviction orders side-step some legal issues because they don't absolve tenants of their rents, they just delayed their evictions if they don't pay them. So, technically the order hasn't impaired the rents owed to the landlords.

darkarmani• 5 years ago

So, technically the order hasn't impaired the rents owed to the landlords.

It hasn't impaired them? Owning an obligation is much worse than owning the cash. If someone didn't pay rent for 9 months, landlords might never see that money. When they could evict, they might only eat 3 months of losses, now they will have 9-12 months of losses. The owners are basically paying "rent" (debt service), so freeloaders can live there.

If anything, a chunk of relief money to renters should have been debt vouchers to their landlords that can redeem them for cash from the gov't. The gov't can then get repaid through federal tax returns. (or forgive them as a benefit)

mikem1702• 5 years ago

The federal government has broad emergency powers to prevent the spread of infectious diseases

The supreme court said the CDC exceeded their statutory authority [0]:

As he often does, Kavanaugh wrote to explain why he voted to allow the moratorium to remain in place. On the one hand, he said he agreed with the District Court that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a nationwide moratorium.
But, he said, because the CDC has said it will end the moratorium in a few weeks he would allow it to remain in place. He said the extra weeks will "allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds."
Kavanaugh made clear however, that if the government were to extend the moratorium past July 31, it would need "specific congressional authorization."

So it sounds like the eviction moratorium was illegal.

[0] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/eviction-moratorium-expiring...

njarboe• 5 years ago

California decided to pay peoples' back rent recently. I'd guess the people that made sacrifices to keep paying rent instead of YOLOing it on call options are a bit miffed that they kept paying, but at least the California government is using some of its Fed pandemic money to pay the landlords that were forced to provide free housing.

epicureanideal4• 5 years ago

Yeah, I wish the government would stop pumping up the moral hazard. Basically responsible action is punished and YOLOing is rewarded… until some unknown date when it suddenly isn’t.

flatiron• 5 years ago

If they had paid do the tenants still owe? If they do does the land lord get double the money if they pay or do they owe it back? As a tenant what would stop me from not paying knowing my landlord still gets the check or work out a deal with them that I “don’t pay” and slide them 50% my rent in cash. It’s a tricky thing to tackle!

betterunix27• 5 years ago

The tenants would owe the government, and Congress or whoever could decide how to deal with it after the pandemic ends.

ViViDboarder4• 5 years ago

Lots of people lost income. The government also did things like postponement on mortgages and foreclosure. Are there cases of landlords losing their properties because they couldn’t evict someone during a (hopefully) once in a lifetime public health crisis?

duxup4• 5 years ago

I wonder how this plays out.

Say I'm renting out some units and folks are many months behind... but they can pay for this month, and they are working and so on? Is it worth my time to evict them and get 0? or work something out?

I'm sure plenty of places would go for eviction but we'll see.

betterunix27• 5 years ago

The nature of the current economic recovery incentivizes evictions, as there has been a very strong split between winners and losers (often through no fault of the losers -- reopening has not been evenly distributed across industries). Someone who is not making rent right now is likely to be on the losing ride of the reopening, and any landlord would prefer to get one of the winners as a tenant.

Not saying this is a great thing for a society, but without some form of tenant protection that is probably what landlords will do.

throwawayboise2• 5 years ago

You already don't have the money they are behind so that is essentially a sunk cost.

If they are paying now, I'd try to work out that they pay something extra towards the delinquency. If they can't, they can't. If you evict, that's probably another few months of process time minimum and they'll probably stop paying again once you serve notice.

Owning rental property is an investment, not a guaranteed income. There is investment risk. This is one of the times that the risk became reality.

Bottom line (I say this as a small-time landlord) if they are back to making payments I'd let them finish their lease. At renewal time both parties can decide if they want to continue. Write off any losses; it was a bad year and nobody is really at fault.

duxup4• 5 years ago

Yeah I suspect many, specifically small, landlords as long as they think the person can pay now... just not worth pushing people out.

ApolloFortyNine2• 5 years ago

Just remember this if in the future it's revealed people are letting their homes sit empty instead of renting them out. (when waiting for the right time to sell or any other reason)

Renting is often risky even in good years, one bad tenant can't lose years of profit simply by not paying rent and leaving. If they don't trash the place, it'll need emptied before the next tenant moves in (cost). Then it's possible they do trash the place. And then it's possible they get mad and truly destroy the place (run the pipes). Generally people in these situations don't have money, so good luck getting it back in court. And there's countless stories before covid of people who knew how to play the game in certain areas and delay evictions for months.

Now on top of all those normal risks, you have to worry about the government handing out a year of free rent and not allowing you to evict someone.

Unless I find a renter who is literally a family friend, I don't believe I'd ever rent out a property I own.

ladyattis• 5 years ago

I think some cities are going to get ugly. Like I wouldn't be surprised LA will have a big rise in crime or a riot or two. I think without a social safety net on rentals (both sides to be honest) we're going to see Hoovervilles at a scale not seen in a long time. Probably worse imo.

spaetzleesser2• 5 years ago

In times like these you can see that some things are just fundamentally wrong with our economic system. On the one hand upper incomes have done extremely well during COVID with stock market and housing going up like crazy. And on the other hand you have a lot of lower income people lose jobs and now also places to live through no fault of their own. 2008 with it a bailouts has already taught me that the upper class will twist the rules to their advantage and COVID repeats the same thing.

Reminds me a little of 2003. The big defense companies had posters in the metro touting their patriotism while taking in record profits, paying 30 million dollar CEO paychecks and receiving big tax cuts. And that while in Iraq low paid soldiers were injured and dying for an ill conceived war.

I guess the old saying to never let a good crisis go to waste is very true.

RHSeeger• 5 years ago

To be fair, it's not quite as clear cut as that, either. There are people in the upper incomes with a $500,000 mortgage and suddenly no jobs to pay it.

spaetzleesser2• 5 years ago

Sure. Some people with upper incomes got hit hard but from what I know the vast majority are low income.

austincheney• 5 years ago

I wonder if anybody used this eviction moratorium as an excuse to stop paying rent and instead save to become a home owner.

mrfusion2• 5 years ago

I never can tell when the media is exaggerating anymore.

cletus• 5 years ago

All over the Internet you'll see these predictions of doom and gloom as the moratorium on evictions and foreclosures ends. I honestly just don't buy it.

For one you have a certain number of actors who haven't paid their rent or mortgage simply because they haven't had to. This doesn't erase previous obligations but such people may be willing to walk away for other reasons or may attempt to negotiate with the owner or bank for a lower overall payment because that's better than the alternative.

For another, people still have to live somewhere. If anything you'll see the effect of this as a lowering of rents, which have otherwise soared. Residential landlords are generally less willing than commercial property owners to keep property vacant for extended periods to maintain the illusion of "market rate".

Lastly, unemployment is low and there's a lot of upward pressure on wages. This is not the environment where lots of people suddenly go homeless. This isn't the Great Depression. This isn't even 2008.

There are a lot of people who missed out on the spike in housing prices who are now rationalizing that result as this being a bubble about to burst.

Also, people who haven't been through this before have unrealistic views of the likelihood of actual doom and gloom scenarios. It happens less often than you think. If nothing else, governments have shown themselves more willing to intervene (for better or for worse) to stave off negative outcomes.

This just isn't a big deal.

aksss3• 5 years ago

All while there is a continuing incentive for news organizations and elements of governments to keep people in a near-constant state of worry and uncertainty about something/anything.

ransom15382• 5 years ago

If you have tenants that are not paying: approach them. Explain to them (not in writing) that you can no longer make payments due to lack of rent - and the bank could foreclose and seize the home. Offer to pay them 2X monthly rent cash to sign a contract to leave the place clean in 30 days plus free rent. Have a lawyer draw up paperwork (~$500/2hrs) and explain you and the tenant agreed to the terms.

Once the place is vacant sell the property or re-rent with short term rentals.

kyleee• 5 years ago

How do you enforce if they still don't leave after 30 days?

ransom15382• 5 years ago

They wont get the money - and you are in the same position. So you lost nothing. It wont work all the time. But it is hard for tenants to resist all that cash.

US states brace for ‘avalanche’ of evictions as federal moratorium ends

Related Stories