On September 4, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an order halting residential evictions until the end of the year for the purpose of slowing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. In practical terms, this order will be economically devastating to countless landlords and property owners. In moral terms, it represents an attack on the right to property.
The order does not absolve renters from paying rent, and landlords may demand full payment for all unpaid rents and fees incurred during the moratorium. However, a tenant could refuse to pay rent for a period of four months, vacate the property at the expiration of the order, and the landlord would have little or no recourse for recovering the lost income. Further, it is unlikely that a tenant who becomes severely delinquent in paying rent will be able to make full payment at a later date.
Even if the tenant makes partial payments during the moratorium, and then pays any remaining balance in January, the property owner must still make mortgage payments, pay for insurance and property taxes, and maintain the property. And he must do this without the income that figured into his budgeting and planning. Untold numbers of landlords will be unable to meet their financial obligations because of this moratorium. They will join the ranks of the unseen victims of the pandemic. And, if the moratorium is extended, the devastation will be amplified.
Morally, the moratorium is an abrogation of property rights. The right to property means the freedom to create, use, keep, and trade material values. It means the freedom to sell products and services to willing buyers on terms and conditions that each finds acceptable.
In the context of rental housing, landlords and tenants agree to the rent that will be paid, as well as the fees and consequences of late payments or non-payment. The rental agreement is a contract that establishes the terms and conditions of the trade. The moratorium renders that agreement meaningless.
The moratorium forces terms and conditions upon the property owner without his input or agreement. His own desires, judgement, and values are irrelevant.
The CDC claims that the moratorium is intended to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus. But like the lockdown, the order makes no distinction between those who are infected and those who are not. The order, like the lockdown, applies to everyone, regardless of their individual context and circumstances.
If stopping or slowing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is the goal, then the only principled policy is to identify those who are actually infected, isolate them, and trace their contacts. If this had been the government’s policy from the beginning of the pandemic, statewide lockdowns would have been unnecessary. If this had been the government’s policy, the massive loss of jobs—and inability to pay rent—would not have occurred.
Test, isolate, and trace was the policy that Taiwan implemented on January 1. The nation of twenty-four million people has had only seven deaths from COVID-19. And Taiwan did not have to destroy its economy to contain the virus. Test, isolate, and trace is both practical and moral.
That our government has failed miserably in its response to the pandemic has become abundantly clear. In addition to the growing death toll, tens of millions were forced into unemployment, and countless businesses were destroyed.
We must demand better from our government. We must demand that, rather than issue mandates, prohibitions, and moratoria, the government protect our freedom to produce and trade.