It's interesting that paying people's rent for them is on the table, but denying rent to the literal rent-seekers isn't. As though ensuring those who collect rent get their rent is more important than keeping people in homes.
do you imagine every tenant's landlord is a literal scrooge mcduck?
my elderly neighbors rent their basement out. should they just be told they don't get paid for a few months?
my retired parents own REITs, and pay their bills with those dividends. if the real estate companies don't get paid, there's no dividends, and then my parents are buying cat food.
pensions and retirement funds across the country rely on rents coming in.
this "just suspend rents" line would be less insane if you'd acknowledge there are trade-offs to it.
Eviction/foreclosure bans have in many places been adopted along with shelter-in-place orders.
> Hard to practice social distancing in a homeless shelter and get access to adequate nutrition, especially if they become overpopulated
Why California’s emergency approach includes the power to seize hotels to rapidly expand shelter capacity (and why SF is in negotiations to buy hotel space for an extended time for that purpose.)
They are simply pausing evictions. So, you lose your job due to the pandemic and as soon as it has improved then you still get kicked out. I don't think that is much relief, especially if there is another wave.
Here is the order:
https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-52...
> Why California’s emergency approach includes the power to seize hotels to rapidly expand shelter capacity (and why SF is in negotiations to buy hotel space for an extended time for that purpose.)
All I've seen is for quarantine sites, not for shelters.