I voted no mainly as there was not a hybrid option in this CapFax vote. This moratorium needs to be updated. There are cases where evictions were begun pre-pandemic that have been caught up in the moratorium. There is really no relief for the property owner as well. Many landlords have mortgages that they will default on. Nothing happens to the renter but the landlord can have lasting impacts. I have no idea how many people are using this moratorium to just not pay rent but anecdotally I have heard of this problem.
I voted no - at least not in its current state. It appears the gov and most states will continue to operate under emergency orders for most if not all of 2021. To govern via executive order for 1 1/2+ years seems a little ridiculous in a democratic society that believes in checks and balances. The legislature needs to legislate. He has super majorities in both.
If the extensions continue to happen what is the metric(s) that the Gov will use to determine when to stop? This should be explained in detail at this point.
CNBC article quoting WHO stating most people will not have the ability to get a vaccine until 2022.
Posing this question as yes/no really doesn’t reflect the issue’s complexity. Not all evictions are based on failure to pay rent and some were in progress before the pandemic; protection from these may not be appropriate or fair to landlords. Landlords, particularly those with few rental units who are directly dependent on them for their own income, merit some level of flexibility and/or financial assistance. Where renters are demonstrably unable to pay rent for pandemic-related reasons, they should be protected from eviction.
One thing to consider is that if he extends it now, he likely will be extending it until Spring unless some meaningful relief comes down from the Feds (unlikely). Could you imagine mass evictions occurring in December/January and the spike of homelessness that would result during an Illinois winter?
Also, landlords: Use your voice, especially to Republican politicians, to push for relief. It’s not just an argument for tenants. If they get to evict everyone, there won’t be a surplus of people waiting to fill those spaces.
“If landlords put people out on the street, who do they think will fill these empty places?”
I’ve read variations of this comment multiple times. Please try to look at this from the landlord’s view. First of all, the majority of people out there thankfully are still employed. There are lots of potentially paying tenants out there. Secondly when a landlord is forced to house a non-paying tenant they are not just losing out on rent. They have to pay for maintenance and often certain utilities. Thirdly, if I were to accept your logic let’s extend it. Are the Hyatt Hotel chains forced to house non-paying guests? Who do they think will fill those empty places? Actually I’m in favor of that last idea.
I voted NO. I’m a landlord. A tenant owes close to $3000. We’ve applied for a grant from the state but haven’t heard anything. Occasionally they get assistance from local organizations but it’s not enough. It’s either going to be a foreclosure or eviction real soon.
I voted yes. To the extent that COVID19 requires a shelter in place response, people need somewhere to stay.
- From the far, far western suburbs - Thursday, Oct 15, 20 @ 2:58 pm:
Seven or eight months of non-payment protections have made it more likely that renters won’t be able to pay whatever amount they’re in arrears. To extend the moratorium another 30 days will only exacerbate the situation.
So…I voted NO. However, there should be some guidelines on how renters will be expected to pay back amounts in arrears. As I said, it’s very unlikely that renters will be able to cough up the full amount owed.
- Nuke The Whales - Thursday, Oct 15, 20 @ 2:59 pm:
A revised order to crack down on those gaming the system (a super-minority to be sure) is needed. More needed: Assistance to rental property owners. We don’t make grocery stores give out free food. We have SNAP.
Voted yes. (I’m a landlord.) I support a more nuanced version than a blanket eviction ban (like if people were mid-eviction before this hit, or if there are other lease violations, like destruction to property). There needs to be more thoughtful policy when the ban expires as well - people who stopped paying rent and dug themselves into a huge hole aren’t going to be able to climb right out of it and they shouldn’t be able to get evicted immediately if they are working toward a payment plan to get caught up.
I voted yes, but as others have noted, there needs to be help on a state (and, ideally, federal) level for landlords who can’t pay mortgages as a result. At least a moratorium on foreclosing rental properties where the landlord would otherwise evict the tenants but can’t. You can tailor that to small landlords (instead of corporate ones) if necessary. And I’d be okay with allowing evictions in process back in March continue, although there’s a case to be made to pause those, too.
But if the only two options were yes and no…then yes. Not so much because it’s sad to see people evicted, but because evicting them will exacerbate the public health crisis.
I voted yes. I do not think that it is appropriate to evict people during a pandemic when most of their options will put them at greater risk as well as the community at whole.
It would also be nice if something could be done for landlords to shield them from their potential downfalls, but being a rent seeker has it’s risks, and lending to a rent seeker has it’s risks too, and those risks are assumed by the rent seeker.
=== I own one rental unit that is currently available for rent===
Voted HELL NO as a landlord the banks not carrying me why am i required to go broke
- Boone's is Back - Thursday, Oct 15, 20 @ 3:22 pm:
Yes- at least until a new stimulus bill is passed.
- Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Oct 15, 20 @ 3:34 pm:
Voted yes. However Governor should have his staff work the problem.
Size it. Are we dealing with a pony or a Percheron? How many evictions are in a normal year? How many were there during the financial crisis? How can you sample landlords to estimate how bad it is getting now?
Is there a way to have expedited hearings to identify where problems are more than non-payment? When the moratorium ends, how do we handle the surge of cases?
The answers may not be elegant. Don’t let the patient bleed out when crude surgery can keep them alive.
No. The moratorium served its emergency purpose for Covid relief. Other renters are taking advantage. Landlords are also suffering with no income coming in and mortgages to pay. They need to start being be able to enforce the terms of their legal contracts or the buildings will be lost to foreclosure. That would affect many renters too, especially in larger multi unit buildings.
Unfortunately I would be against it. While I feel bad for renters who have a tough time, the owners still have bills to pay. Many of them have only one or two properties so they are not exactly in the top 1%. It is tough for everyone but at this time, the owners need the income.
(Sorry for the double post) But what happens when the moratorium ends? Do renters still have to pay the back rent? People that are struggling to come up with money are not going to be able to come up with 6-12 months of back rent. It creates an unfortunate paradox.
Give the renters the free will to do what they feel as necessary and have the state come in and help the people that need it. Create a buffer 30-60 days for landlords to notify the state about their intentions and then the state can come up with accommodations until people get back on their feet.
Work with both renters and landlords in next 60 days to clear (as best that it can be) thru status… to prepare if and when a CARES relief packages for owners… for owners… can be secured so renters can work towards not only staying, but getting themselves on their feet.
Those already in process of eviction, not Covid-related and seen by the courts as such are viewed again in the light of pre-moratorium status.
Lots to unpack, but that’s my “yes” answer… if possible.