The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent government lockdowns caused widespread destruction as millions of people lost their jobs, businesses, and livelihoods. Beginning in March 2020, the federal government and dozens of states and local agencies barred landlords from evicting tenants, allowing tenants to stay in their homes even if they stopped paying rent.1 In September 2020, the Centers for Disease Control expanded this at the federal level, banning evictions for individual tenants making $99,000 a year or less and couples making $198,000 or less who self-certified that they were struggling financially as a result of COVID-19.2

Many find these bans appealing as the thought of someone losing his home due to loss of income from government-imposed lockdowns is gut-wrenching. Many people supporting the bans do so on the grounds of wanting to prevent such tragedies. But is banning evictions an appropriate solution to such a situation? And what have these eviction bans actually done?

As part of its response to the pandemic, the U.S. government instituted many programs purportedly aimed at helping those who had been harmed by its restrictions. These programs included stimulus checks, unemployment boosters, and interest-free loans. Eviction bans, however, force some people (i.e., landlords) to take on the financial responsibilities of others. Shifts in financial burdens are, unfortunately, common in America, but this is an instance that, as we will see, has been particularly and obviously devastating.

A common error underlying these policies is to focus only on benefits to one set of individuals over a short period of time while ignoring both the consequences to others and the long-term consequences for all. Although calls to “cancel rent” may imply that the government can simply wipe out these costs, or as one news outlet put it, “shield people from the financial fallout of the pandemic,” the burden is actually being shifted to the shoulders of landlords, who are still responsible for their mortgage, property tax, insurance, and other financial obligations.3 By instituting eviction bans, governments, which are supposed to protect rights and enforce contracts, systematically violate the rights of one party to such contracts.

“This has been the biggest trial of my life,” landlord Patricia Bowman told CNN.4 Bowman’s tenant hasn’t paid rent in a year. To cover the mortgage on her rental property, in addition to the mortgage for her own house, Bowman has had to drain her life savings, and she is now at risk of losing her property. As of March 2021, Bowman still had not reclaimed her property because, despite the fact that she obtained an eviction order and judgment for her tenant to pay back all rent owed, U.S. marshals would not serve the eviction until the nationwide ban is lifted.5

Is it fair to violate the rights of people such as Bowman and force them to take on other people’s responsibilities?

In normal circumstances, tenants struggling to pay rent would have to make arrangements with their landlord or find other ways to pay, such as taking out loans, seeking financial aid, or relying on charity. In the wake of the pandemic, many landlords have been willing to work with tenants, recognizing the unique problems resulting from the pandemic and lockdowns. As Noni Richen, president of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco, put it, “Many of us have offered reduced rents, rebates, and payment plans to our renters who are experiencing real financial hardship as a result of the pandemic.”6 But instead of encouraging tenants to seek these options, eviction bans create a perverse incentive for tenants simply not to pay rent.

Threats facing landlords are also harmful to tenants. Sharon Redhead, who owns a brownstone in Brooklyn, told the New York Daily News that while some tenants who have lost their jobs continue to pay rent, others who are still employed have stopped paying altogether.7 The tenants who are choosing not to pay rent are breaching their contracts and devastating Redhead’s finances, leaving her “a broken water heater away from going out of business.”8

What will happen if this continues?

Forcing landlords to cover the bills of nonpaying tenants is unjust. And over time, it will cause problems for all parties involved. As landlords lose their income and are forced to operate at a loss, many will have to sell their properties or make other adjustments, such as raising rent or cutting maintenance costs, in order to stay afloat.9 Moreover, to mitigate the increased risk of nonpaying tenants, landlords will likely raise the bar for future tenants, requiring larger deposits, better credit ratings, and/or higher income.

Eviction bans also prohibit landlords from evicting squatters, with whom they have never signed any contracts. Chao Huai Gao, who owns a home in Queens, New York, worked in nail salons and restaurants for more than twenty years in order to save enough money to buy a house as a rental property. In March 2020, Gao’s tenants moved out—but soon after, he discovered that a squatter had moved in. Due to the eviction bans, he has no way to evict the uninvited “guest.” Gao, who lives in a small, one-room studio with his wife and two daughters, told Reason magazine that he’s “in a state of personal crisis, hemorrhaging money, and consumed with worry about losing his home.”10

A major premise underlying the eviction bans is that tenants and landlords inherently are at odds. Observe the angry rhetoric surrounding the bans in which landlords are depicted as the cause of tenants’ hardships, eager to evict their customers. But this anger is misplaced. Landlords don’t want to throw their customers to the curb. Among their many reasons, finding new tenants is often difficult. As Richen said, “These are our clients, our customers. We don’t want to evict them. And for a small property owner, to evict someone is a very major concern.”11 Further, even under normal circumstances, evicting tenants can be difficult and expensive. Between the fees for filing an eviction order and hiring a lawyer, landlords often don’t recoup their costs.

When the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute filed a lawsuit against the city, they stated, “This law, along with the closure of the court system, would allow renters to live rent-free from March 2020 to potentially September and beyond. . . . Property owners would have no legal recourse to recoup unpaid rent. Small owners are particularly hit hard by renters who cannot pay.”12 In response, Dean Preston—a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who led the efforts to enact the eviction bans—replied that these landlords should “be ashamed of themselves” for attempting to “displace people” and “push forward mass evictions.”13

Why is it shameful for landlords to expect payment in return for the properties they rent?

Landlords offer housing to tenants through their own effort and ingenuity, at their own expense and risk. Greta Arceneaux, for example, was a young mother in the middle of a divorce, working a low-paying secretary job. Dreaming of a better life, Arceneaux obtained a loan from a bank, tore down her existing home on a tract of land in Los Angeles, and built a five-unit complex to live in and rent out. Her plan worked. As years went by, Arceneaux saved enough to buy a new home of her own, to send her kids to college, and to save for retirement, enjoying the middle-class life she had dreamed of. Arceneaux’s risk, effort, and courage have benefitted her—and her tenants.14 That’s why they engage in win-win transactions in the first place.

Landlords make it possible for individuals who can’t or don’t want to buy a home to live in one affordably. Both landlords and tenants freely choose to engage with one another. Both parties mutually agree to the terms of a lease and, under normal circumstances, have legal protection to enforce these agreements. Evictions serve as a last recourse, when tenants violate leases, damage property, stop paying rent, or engage in criminal activity. Banning evictions means violating the property rights of landlords. The government’s proper role in this context is to uphold and enforce contracts, not to arbitrarily violate the rights of one party.

Banning #evictions means violating the property rights of landlords. The government’s proper role in this context is to uphold and enforce contracts, not to arbitrarily violate the rights of one party.
Click To Tweet

1. Annie Nova, “CDC Issues Sweeping Temporary Halt on Evictions. Here’s What That Means for Renters,” September 2, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/02/heres-what-the-cdcs-nationwide-eviction-ban-means-for-renters.html.

2. Nova, “CDC Issues Sweeping Temporary Halt on Evictions.”

3. Devin Fehely, “East Bay Renters Lose Home Despite Statewide Eviction Moratorium,” CBS, April 30, 2021.

4. Anna Bahney, “Unpaid Rent Is Piling Up. Landlords Can’t Hold On Forever,” CNN, February 27, 2021, https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/09/success/eviction-moratorium-landlord-plans/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=fbCNN&utm_content=2021-02-27T19:33:14&fbclid=IwAR3I-_dED2IK63YZ5w9Me77cTNHMgHXDGqyXXM31ScUW1ZjoSblHXgB06bU.

5. Bahney, “Unpaid Rent Is Piling Up. Landlords Can’t Hold on Forever.”

6. Noni Richen, “Even in Times of Crisis, Politicians Don’t Miss an Opportunity to Stick It to Landlords!,” Apartment Owners Association of California Inc. Newsletter, August 1, 2020.

7. Michael Gartland, “NYC Small Landlords Say New Eviction Moratorium Gives Tenants Excuse to Skip Rent,” NY Daily News, January 10, 2021, https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-eviction-moratorium-covid-landlords-tenants-foreclosure-20210111-ubph4grdcjd65actdujugfoydu-story.html.

8. Gartland, “NYC Small Landlords Say New Eviction Moratorium Gives Tenants Excuse to Skip Rent.”

9. Diane Olick, “Some Landlords Sell Properties as CDC Extends Eviction Ban,” CNBC, March 29, 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/29/covid-eviction-ban-forces-some-landlords-to-sell-properties.html; Karah Rucke, “Tenants Owe $17,000 in Rent, Landlord Sells with Renters inside at Significant Loss,” Your Central Valley, February 26, 2021, https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/tenants-owe-17000-in-rent-landlord-sells-with-renters-inside-at-significant-loss/.

10. Jim Epstein, “The Victims of the Eviction Moratorium,” Reason, February 23, 2021, https://reason.com/video/2021/02/23/the-victims-of-the-eviction-moratorium/.

11. Laura Wenus, “Tenants and Landlords Alike Begin April Fearful of Coronavirus Fallout,” San Francisco Public Press, April 3, 2020, https://www.sfpublicpress.org/tenants-and-landlords-alike-begin-april-fearful-of-coronavirus-fallout/.

12. Joe Fitzgeald Rodrigues, “Landlords Sue to Block San Francisco’s Eviction Moratorium,” KQED, June 29, 2020, https://www.kqed.org/news/11826617/landlords-sue-to-overturn-san-franciscos-eviction-moratorium.

13. Rodrigues, “Landlords Sue to Block San Francisco’s Eviction Moratorium.”

14. Abby Vesoulis, “How Eviction Moratoriums Are Hurting Small Landlords—and Why That’s Bad for the Future of Affordable Housing,” Time, June 11, 2020, https://time.com/5846383/coronavirus-small-landlords/.

Return to Top
You have loader more free article(s) this month   |   Already a subscriber? Log in

Thank you for reading
The Objective Standard

Enjoy unlimited access to The Objective Standard for less than $5 per month
See Options
  Already a subscriber? Log in

Pin It on Pinterest