Most of these businesses could barely keep up during the best of times; the vast majority of them will never be able to repay a single months missed rent, let alone half a years worth.
Mortgage and eviction deferral have only put off the inevitable; without forgivance or direct cash infusions, they’ll still fail, probably right after the last whisps of political will to fix this disappears.
I don't see the problem, I see restaurants close only to see a new one move in a few months later. Even during good times its a risky business.
> David Ricardo introduced the term “rent” in economics. It means the payment to a factor of production in excess of what is required to keep that factor in its present use. So, for example, if I am paid $150,000 in my current job but I would stay in that job for any salary over $130,000, I am making $20,000 in rent.
Similarly, a landlord charges rent in excess of what it costs to maintain the land and building. Unless I’m misunderstanding Ricardo’s definition, that fits neatly inside of it.
A landlord is not “rent seeking” just by charging rent. For instance they are providing value in the form of risk arbitrage in most cases.
The only case a landlord is purely rent seeking in the economic sense is if they only captured the difference in value of their properties due to external factors.
Similarly, one of the classic examples of ER is wage premiums paid to closed-shop union members: the clearing price for the labor involved is, say, $20, but your union bumps that up to $25; the extra $5 is ER. There is directly substitutable labor that could be acquired at a discount to union labor, but closed-shop rules lock in the extra rents.
If I buy a piece of land a build a house on it and rent it out, I'm adding value to society by creating value.
That consolidation is going to happen anyways. It's inevitable. The only factor is how long it takes for it to happen, and how big the payout will be for small landlords when they finally decide to cash out. There's much more at stake for the renters.
Forcing small landlords into choosing between selling immediately or facing bankruptcy in the near future is morally preferable to putting the burden on renters. The world isn't really a worse place if a landlord has to liquidate their assets at a 150% net profit now instead of 320% in ten years (after accounting for all rent collected and taxes paid).
If they had the capital to afford a commercial property in the first place, this won't be potentially life-ruining. You can't assume the same for a non-chain restaurant or grocer that serves as the owner's livelihood.