I have not read anything like that. All that I have heard is that they are planning to extend the non-eviction status for people who rent a house/apartment that is financed through a government program. This would prevent people from being evicted, not cause it to happen. It sounds like the kind of thing that you might hear someplace like CNN ? Are you saying that people would be evicted due to not paying their rent/mortgage payments, or that they would have to be evicted and moved because of the riots, @Lon Tanner ? Please explain your thread more explicitly.
Okay, I found information about the possible upcoming evictions. What they are saying is that because of the $600 weekly unemployment benefits being lowered, that some people will soon be losing their homes. I can see that this is is a possibility if people have not been paying their rent because there were safe from eviction. If that stops keeping people in their homes even without paying their rent, then they would either have to catch up on the late rent or be evicted. From what I have read, this is only effective if a person is renting a house that is federally financed; so if the renter is renting a house/apartment that is not federally financed, then they have been able to be evicted all of this time. This is a short video, and shows the latest charts on which states are apt to have people evicted. I don’t know how they determined this chart; but if it is correct, then there will definitely be people who are going to have to be moving somewhere, or working out an agreement with their landlord. Having a rental house sitting empty is not a good thing either, because people will break in, vandalize the property, and even camp out in the empty house.
We have a similar situation here in Maine. Because our winters can be brutal, electric companies are not generally allowed to shut someone's electricity off for non-payment during the winter months. Some people take advantage of that, making no payments whatsoever, then they can't possibly catch up by spring when the shut-offs are allowed. Had people been trying to pay their rent, and let's not pretend that there are no avenues for people to earn a living, then they will be so far behind that another stimulus check isn't going to do it. In some parts of the country, that can be devastating. My next-door neighbor abandoned his house, apparently leaving it to the mortgage company, after his wife died. He is a senior and moved into an apartment building here in town that caters to seniors, although it's not an assisted living facility. Empty for one winter, I can see that the roof is starting to cave in on the porch, which connects to the house, and I suspect that squirrels are living there now.
I can empathize with both sides of this dilemma. If I owned rental property I damn sure would be counting on that rent for my income. If I was a renter and was out of work due to this pandemic I damn sure would not deserve to be out in the street due to no fault of my own. I do not believe the crap that most or even a large percentage of people are abusing or scamming for the 600 bucks, sure some are, but the millions that need and properly use it should not be tossed into the same basket. The feds need to empower the states and then local authorities to properly distribute this aid. One size does not fit all and locals have a much better feel than the feds.
Rental income is sometimes a person's sole income. I know people who bought several houses here in town, as an investment, and their primary income is from the rent of these houses. When people are allowed to live there for nothing, the landlord retains all of the expenses but with none of the income. I agree that someone who is out of work due to a government-mandated shut-down should not be made homeless, but it should be up to the state to pay their rent or provide for alternative housing, and not the responsibility of the landlord to forgive it. Otherwise, the state should not mandate what it cannot afford.
I agree with this, @Peter Renfro . Neither side of the situation is a good one, and it is something that none of us are responsible for the pandemic happening, in any case. I do think that there needs to be an adjustment on the amounts of unemployment income given to people. People who earn a smaller amount of pay, would normally get a smaller amount of unemployment compensation than someone earning a larger salary. Why should someone laid off from McDonald’s get the same $600 a week as someone who was laid off from Boeing, or some other large corporation where they were making a much higher wage, and have a lot higher expenses committed to each month ? If this were taken care of by each state, just like they do the regular unemployment income, then it would be a lot more equitable.
I have to assume that "being evicted" is not only affecting renters. Plenty of home owners with mortgages are unable to make those payments as well.
In the meantime, the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles is authorizing the city to shut off water and power service to properties hosting large house parties. Link
Yes there probably are, but that is a completely different subject. I have looked at several sources. There was a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions in the CARE act. That had an expiration date of June 2020. It does have a caveat that it can be extended. I have not found anything as to the current status. I think it is mostly a state by state policy. The CARES act only covered government backed loans. Ok I found something, looks like it expires 8/31 https://www.usa.gov/foreclosure
Why is it a different subject? The topic of the thread is evictions, not the CARES act. If you don't pay your mortgage you can be evicted, same as a renter not paying rent.