Covid-19 Eviction Moratorium

[snafu]

49 minutes ago, Koko said:

 

Considering that they just got burned by Biden doing that...

 

Yeah, I don't think the Court is in a good mood when it comes to this current administration.

This decision looks like it's setting them up to blast the CDC bullshit extension.

 

 

[Ann]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

Yeah, I don't think the Court is in a good mood when it comes to this current administration.

This decision looks like it's setting them up to blast the CDC bullshit extension.

 

 

We can only hope.

[Spartacus]

On 8/4/2021 at 4:15 PM, RkFast said:

Im trying to wrap my head around how the same people who are pushing to radically change suburban zoning to allow a ton more rentals (under the guise of "affordable housing") are also basically telling landlords to go F themselves. 

Only joe average landlord is getting screwed

blackrock is getting preferential treatment

[Arm of Harm]

On 8/2/2021 at 1:25 PM, snafu said:

I don’t think the law was written with that in mind. What you describe is more of an opportunity being taken by the big money guys as a result of the legislation. 
 

 

 

What you describe is part of a larger pattern. There are a number of cases where the government creates legislation which demonstrates either:

 

a) stupidity and ignorance, or

b) malignant intent

 

When legislation like that gets passed, are the bad effects intentional? There's no way for us to peer inside a politician's mind, so there's no way to know that for sure. But, we can look at people's actions. If initial legislation causes a bad effect (whether intentional or otherwise), and if no subsequent legislation does anything to fix the problem, it's reasonable to conclude that there's at least a certain amount of malignant intent.

 

A good example of this is the Great Society legislation passed in the 1960s. Families were awarded much larger levels of welfare benefits if the parents were divorced and if the father had no contact with his children. Was this a deliberate attempt to use the government's financial power as a weapon with which to break up poor families, and to remove fathers from the lives of their children? In answering this question it's worth remembering that the federal government allowed the above situation to persist for three decades, not addressing it until the 1990s. Based on that, it's reasonable to conclude that whoever the real decision makers were, they had at least some level of malignant intent.

[snafu]

3 hours ago, Arm of Harm said:

 

What you describe is part of a larger pattern. There are a number of cases where the government creates legislation which demonstrates either:

 

a) stupidity and ignorance, or

b) malignant intent

 

When legislation like that gets passed, are the bad effects intentional? There's no way for us to peer inside a politician's mind, so there's no way to know that for sure. But, we can look at people's actions. If initial legislation causes a bad effect (whether intentional or otherwise), and if no subsequent legislation does anything to fix the problem, it's reasonable to conclude that there's at least a certain amount of malignant intent.

 

A good example of this is the Great Society legislation passed in the 1960s. Families were awarded much larger levels of welfare benefits if the parents were divorced and if the father had no contact with his children. Was this a deliberate attempt to use the government's financial power as a weapon with which to break up poor families, and to remove fathers from the lives of their children? In answering this question it's worth remembering that the federal government allowed the above situation to persist for three decades, not addressing it until the 1990s. Based on that, it's reasonable to conclude that whoever the real decision makers were, they had at least some level of malignant intent.

 

I don't know whether Great Society laws were maliciously intended.  I know that they just suck and haven't achieved their goals -- except to strap minorities to one political party.  Was that intended?  IMO, most laws are well intentioned, but become used by individuals or groups or politicians for sustenance in ways that weren't intended.  

 

This particular NYS law doesn't seem to have malicious intent.  If anything, it wasn't fully thought through and was probably hastily drafted and passed.  It isn't a law that helps tenants or landlords.

 

The law affecting LLs in NYS that WAS written with malicious intent was a few years ago affecting rent stabilized buildings.  That law was a torpedo.

 

 

[Arm of Harm]

22 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I don't know whether Great Society laws were maliciously intended.  I know that they just suck and haven't achieved their goals -- except to strap minorities to one political party.  Was that intended?  IMO, most laws are well intentioned, but become used by individuals or groups or politicians for sustenance in ways that weren't intended.  

 

This particular NYS law doesn't seem to have malicious intent.  If anything, it wasn't fully thought through and was probably hastily drafted and passed.  It isn't a law that helps tenants or landlords.

 

The law affecting LLs in NYS that WAS written with malicious intent was a few years ago affecting rent stabilized buildings.  That law was a torpedo.

 

 

When legislation produces bad effects I try to keep my mind open to both the possibility of ignorance/irresponsibility, and the possibility of malignant intent. I ask myself whether one of these explanations better fits the facts or allows greater accuracy of future predictions.

 

It’s also worth considering the pressures and incentives a politician encounters. The biggest responsibility a typical politician has is fund raising, followed by campaigning and maintaining a good relationship with the media. Congress is essentially two large committees, and the primary effect of a committee is to insulate its members from accountability. There is no reason to assume members of Congress read the majority of legislation they pass. That would not be a productive use of their time.

 

But obviously someone is writing said legislation, and financially incentivizing members of Congress to pass it. To the extent people like that are able to financially influence politicians, said politicians become little more than well-compensated spokespeople. So it’s then worth asking whether the people paying/financially incentivizing politicians have good intent. And that’s a very interesting question. 

[Ann]

12 minutes ago, Arm of Harm said:

When legislation produces bad effects I try to keep my mind open to both the possibility of ignorance/irresponsibility, and the possibility of malignant intent. I ask myself whether one of these explanations better fits the facts or allows greater accuracy of future predictions.

 

It’s also worth considering the pressures and incentives a politician encounters. The biggest responsibility a typical politician has is fund raising, followed by campaigning and maintaining a good relationship with the media. Congress is essentially two large committees, and the primary effect of a committee is to insulate its members from accountability. There is no reason to assume members of Congress read the majority of legislation they pass. That would not be a productive use of their time.

 

But obviously someone is writing said legislation, and financially incentivizing members of Congress to pass it. To the extent people like that are able to financially influence politicians, said politicians become little more than well-compensated spokespeople. So it’s then worth asking whether the people paying/financially incentivizing politicians have good intent. And that’s a very interesting question. 

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"... that might be true, but over and over and over again? At some point, it must be malicious intent, but by who and when? 

Also, "just do something" seldom ends with good results. 

[Ann]

AP put this out with no other details:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal appeals court rejects landlords’ bid to block CDC eviction moratorium; appeal to Supreme Court likely.

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

AP put this out with no other details:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal appeals court rejects landlords’ bid to block CDC eviction moratorium; appeal to Supreme Court likely.

 

How much you want to bet that someone on the Appeals Court got a phone call to let this case through.

The only way that gets up to the Supremes is if the LLs lose.

 

[B-Man]

 

 

GOOD: As Eviction Moratorium Case Returns to SCOTUS, Landlords Use Biden’s Words Against Him.

 

 

 

 

[snafu]

6-3 Supes knock down Biden’s CDC moratorium for a second time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/us/eviction-moratorium-ends.html

 

[Ann]

 

 

https://twitter.com/SeanLangille/status/1431065075901685768

[Ann]

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1431070502047584260

 

[KD in CA]

It won't do any of us any good to have lots of people booted from their homes, BUT, that doesn't change one iota the horrible abuse of authority that transpired in this case.   The 'liberal justices' are an embarrassment to the principals this country was founded on.

[snafu]

Justice Breyer has a good point. And he should show that graph TO CONGRESS.

 

….and when the Court uses the phrase “strains credulity” they’re just being polite. I usually substitute the words “big pile of horseshit”.

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

12 hours ago, Ann said:

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1431070502047584260

 

 

It is SO not the court's responsibility to adjudicate cased based on hypotheticals of public health policy instead of the law.

 

Breyer's an asshole.

[IDBillzFan]

A play in two acts.

 

Act I:
 

 

Act II:

 

 

[Ann]

3 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

A play in two acts.

 

Act I:
 

 

Act II:

 

 

Before she was sworn in, Hochul said NYS as a whole had distributed 4% of the money they had and her administration was gonna try real hard to get that cash ($2.4 BILLION)  to those eligible. 
 

[snafu]

5 hours ago, Ann said:

Before she was sworn in, Hochul said NYS as a whole had distributed 4% of the money they had and her administration was gonna try real hard to get that cash ($2.4 BILLION)  to those eligible. 
 

She’s going to have a hard time doing it. The State passed a bad law that’s got too many strings attached. The legislature wayyy overreached in favor of Tenants (no surprise). AND they wrote a law that was half struck down by the Supreme Court only about 10 days ago.  
 

She really should try to get the Legislature to repeal that piece of garbage and write something that’s fair to both parties.

 

 

 

[Fansince88]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

She’s going to have a hard time doing it. The State passed a bad law that’s got too many strings attached. The legislature wayyy overreached in favor of Tenants (no surprise). AND they wrote a law that was half struck down by the Supreme Court only about 10 days ago.  
 

She really should try to get the Legislature to repeal that piece of garbage and write something that’s fair to both parties.

 

 

 

Yes, something that says, we were given money to give to the people that rent their houses out and have not gotten paid and need to pay their taxes.