Yes.
Yes.
Interesting.
I feel for the poor owners. They are all trying to get out, but I’m sorry to say, I feel they’re doomed.
Your property doesn't disappear.
Would've it been better for CDC to stop mortgage foreclosures too? Probably. Would people here still complain of overreach? Probably.
Rental stock doesn’t spring into existence; it comes from private investment, predicated on reliable returns made possible by the laws surrounding rental. Suspending those laws in turn destroys this investment/return equation. No more rental stock.
Similar calculus for wage controls; no more profits - no more jobs/wages.
You can demand whatever you want; you just get to live with the results of your demands, long-term.
Rental housing owners are not.
Elites (such as those who run the CDC) look at rental housing owners as a group, but the impacts are disproportionately borne by those who have the fewest properties - families who are doomed to lose their life-savings.
Real-estate investment trusts, etc., can both outlast family owners, and are usually owned as a fractional portion of people’s portfolio; their failure is not a catastrophic event.
Families losing their inheritance is catastrophic.
Elites extra-legally terminating historical conventions on rental liability are dooming families to poverty, not just “helping” a renter.
Does it matter to me if my landlord is a big real-estate trust or a poor put-upon "family" owner with only two or three spare houses to their name?
Sidenote: you could even argue that big corporate landlords are better for society. In my experience, they tend to be more professional, and more committed to obeying the letter of the law w/r/t to tenants' rights.
People in this thread REALLY should go read about the Irish famine crisis and the 1918 pandemic and see how preventable homelessness made the deaths so much worse.
The legal passage cited is this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/70.2
> § 70.2 Measures in the event of inadequate local control.
> Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.
(emphasis mine)
I'm sure this will be challenged in court, but the text as written seems extraordinarily broad. The CDC can do anything they "deem reasonably necessary"!