How would you argue that they are not hurt by it?
Also, seems like this is largely being paid for with pandemic-related federal aid money, which I think had restrictions on how it can be used, unlike tax revenue.
The mass evictions have already been prevented, spending the money now will not retroactively change history. are you saying this will prevent future evictions?
>Also, seems like this is largely being paid for with pandemic-related federal aid money, which I think had restrictions on how it can be used, unlike tax revenue.
I don't see how the money coming from federal aid changes the cost to the tax payers? The money is either spent at the taxpayers expense or not.
No, they have not, because the eviction moratoriums were expiring, which allows landlords to start evicting now. You don't think the rent was just forgiven, do you? The law only stopped evictions, it didn't go and change all the rental contracts and force anything to be forgiven. It's still owed, and landlords can pursue tenants for the balance, they can add liens and garnish income whether an eviction happens or not. So there is a big overhang of unpaid rent that is going to be burning through people's credit histories, their future income, and their future ability to not be evicted or find housing elsewhere. The existence of that debt has nothing to do with whether the tenant is evicted -- it is owed even after eviction -- it can't just be ignored because there was a temporary moratorium on evictions.
One could argue (I would disagree) that taxpayers are hurt by this, but taxpayers and people who paid rent are not the same group.