When cases of COVID-19 began to rise in March, governments responded to the crisis by ordering businesses to close. When millions lost their job and were unable to pay the rent, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) responded to that crisis by imposing a moratorium on evictions for non-payment of rent. But the moratorium doesn’t satisfy a growing number of pundits and activists. They are calling for tenants to take the law into their own hands.
While the moratorium has prevented tenants from being evicted, it has not absolved them of the responsibility for paying past due rent. As of December 31, tenants owed an estimated $72 billion in past due rent. It is unlikely that tenants who have fallen far behind in their rent will be able to recover, and they will be facing eviction when the moratorium is lifted. Activists, such as the Houston Tenants Union (HTU), are organizing tenants to take collective action.
The website for HTU states:
We believe that tenants coming together is the best solution to the problems that tenants face today. We have an arsenal of tools that use people power to put pressure on your landlord to give into our demands…. We believe collective direct action by tenants makes a real difference in the lives of people facing landlord abuse and displacement.
That “collective direct action” includes harassing landlords and a “rent strike.” Believing that politicians and the court system are unresponsive to tenants, HTU and their allies want tenants to become vigilantes. Believing that the tenant/landlord relationship is inherently adversarial, they aim to treat landlords with hostility.
The eviction crisis was caused by the government’s lock down and the elimination of economic freedom. But rather than call for economic freedom, activists like HTU want to use extra-legal measures to satisfy their needs and desires. Rather than call for policies that will restore their ability to pay their rent, tenants are resorting to the tactics of a mob.
The tenant/landlord relationship does not have to be adversarial. Like any economic transaction, that relationship can be and should be mutually beneficial. For the relationship to be mutually beneficial, the parties must work together. But when tenants resort to vigilantism, they aren’t trying to find a solution that is beneficial to everyone.