Unless you're suggesting that tenants should be able to live in someone else's property for free (at which point it effectively ceases to be the original owner's property) or you're referring to some wider societal problems that lead to rents being too high/tenants being too poor then I'm not really sure what problem you're referring to.

This is the old fantasy that 'landlords' (one of the most inaccurate words in the English language) lounge around extracting money from the peasants living in their properties. This mom and pop rentier idea is specious, but that is exactly what the big global corporations who are hoovering up North American properties are doing this year, under a Democrat controlled administration.

Small landlords are losing not only their rental properties and their homes and are up to their eyeballs in debts in many cases.

> This mom and pop rentier idea is specious

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. >40% of all rentals are owned by individuals, and if you take large multi-unit apartments out of the equation that rises to >72% - that's your "mom and pop" rentals, which by most judgements would take it from the realm of specious and put it smack dab in the realm of the common.

It's quite common for retirees to own outright or invest in rental property - evenly grandfather, who never made more than $10/hr working at a lumberyard for his entire life owned some rentals in his retirement.

Those are the people who are actually hurt by eviction moratoriums.

That was the point I as attempting to make - mom and pops are not rentier layabouts and work hard to provide rental accommodation and keep it up to spec.

What does the current administration have to do with any of this?

Greedy corporations are the problem and they’ve been doing since before the current Pres.

A Democrat controlled administration should be looking out for renters, not big global corps