Federal Judge rules AGAINST CDC on Evictions Moratorium (tenants, mortgages, landlords)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Sarasota/ Bradenton - University Pkwy area
4,612 posts, read 7,527,424 times
Reputation: 6026
Advertisements
A federal judge on Wednesday vacated a nationwide freeze on evictions that was put in place by federal health officials to help cash-strapped renters remain in their homes during the pandemic.
The ruling was a win for a coalition of property owners and realtors, who brought one of several challenges against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) eviction moratorium, which was first enacted under former President Trump and later extended through June.
In a 20-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed by Trump, ruled that the agency exceeded its authority with the temporary ban.
and
A number of eviction freezes enacted by state and local governments will not be affected by Wednesday’s ruling, which concerns only the federal moratorium.
It's a start. Not just non paying tenants either. Hopefully problem tenants can start being evicted as well.
Here problem tenants are being evicted. Not sure about other states. There was a short period of time when the courts were closed while they got Zoom up and running to hear cases, but otherwise, the court was doing its thing.
Here problem tenants are being evicted. Not sure about other states. There was a short period of time when the courts were closed while they got Zoom up and running to hear cases, but otherwise, the court was doing its thing.
Yes, there are any number of reasons for eviction besides non-payment of rent.
I thought evictions were still happening. Wasn't the moratorium just for non-payment of rent?
It depends on where you are. In my area, courts are not hearing any eviction cases for literally any reason. The last eviction (area population of around 8 million) was in March of 2020.
Location: Sarasota/ Bradenton - University Pkwy area
4,612 posts, read 7,527,424 times
Reputation: 6026
U.S. Department of Justice immediately appealed the ruling, and the court issued a temporary stay keeping the moratorium in place until a hearing in the next two weeks.
I understand the theory as to why they originally wanted to help people because of the pandemic, but as often is the case, those who made the decision to put in the freeze did not think things through and consider that the landlords need the rental income in order to pay the mortgages, insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc on those rental properties or they face going out of business. What was supposed to be a short freeze has now lasted over a year.
I understand the theory as to why they originally wanted to help people because of the pandemic
The official reason wasn't about helping people (not financially, at least) as the the CDC has no authority to make an order based on that. Their justification was for public health. They reasoned that if tons of people were evicted, they would move back in with family or into overcrowded homeless shelters, both of which would rapidly increase the spread of the disease, which is (debatably) in their purview.
But now that just about anyone who wants the vaccine can easily get it, it's hard to see for how much longer they can keep that justification up.
Personally I think it never should have been ordered in the first place, or should have been more narrow in scope, but now that the vaccine rollout is doing really well I can't see their reasoning holding up much longer.
The official reason wasn't about helping people (not financially, at least) as the the CDC has no authority to make an order based on that. Their justification was for public health. They reasoned that if tons of people were evicted, they would move back in with family or into overcrowded homeless shelters, both of which would rapidly increase the spread of the disease, which is (debatably) in their purview.
But now that just about anyone who wants the vaccine can easily get it, it's hard to see for how much longer they can keep that justification up.
Personally I think it never should have been ordered in the first place, or should have been more narrow in scope, but now that the vaccine rollout is doing really well I can't see their reasoning holding up much longer.
You would hope this would be enough to uphold the ban. Let the lawyers argue technicalities, not emotion. Of course, the feds will probably see a ruling on public health overturned and then try to reenact it through HUD or some other agency.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
