THE EVICTION BAN 1

The Eviction Ban

Sabrina Rahme

University of New Hampshire

ENGL 401.M2: First-Year Writing

Prof. C.C. Hendricks

April 21, 2021

THE EVICTION BAN 2

History/Introduction

After Covid-19 struck, there was a lot of panic in the world, including in the United

States. It sparked a storm of terror, as not only were the people in danger, but also the systems

that had been established to protect them. One of these systems in question was the renting and

occupying of residential units. Tenants struggled to pay the rent landlord needed, as working

during lockdown was almost out of the question. Landlords had to resort to evicting

lower-income tenants, as providing for them became difficult. Having to act on short notice, on

March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

(FFCRA). This provided additional flexibility for state unemployment insurance agencies and

additional administrative funding to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Coronavirus Aid,

Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law on March 27. It expands

states’ ability to provide unemployment insurance for many workers impacted by the virus,

including for workers who are not ordinarily eligible for unemployment benefits (U.S.

Department of Labor, 2020) After the CARES Act expired, on September 1, 2020, the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an Agency Order titled, “Temporary Halt in

Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19”. This new system was built

off of the same claims as the CARES Act, although it sought to close the loopholes people used

to take advantage of its privileges. It stated that tenants meeting certain criteria can apply for

housing assistance and gain protection from eviction. The Order went into effect on September

4, 2020, and was extended until the current end date of June 30, 2021 (Ann O’Connell, 2021).

However, after the first extension of the ban from December 27, 2020, many were left wondering

if the ban should continue as the previous shock and panic of the pandemic continues to fade.

Some believe this is a turning point for a new way of living, while others are not as keen on the
THE EVICTION BAN 3

prolonged existence of this order. Through researching official articles, reading through personal

entries, and even conducting my own interviews with landlords and tenants, I aim to not only

educate myself on the issue, but to enlighten the reader on the situation. As I believe that the ban

shouldn’t continue, being that was a temporary fix to an issue that needs to be revisited.

Tenants

From the perspective of tenants, this order was made to favor them as before the crisis,

there were some troubling issues. Millions of American families were at risk of eviction each

year. As rent has grown more expensive, wage growth has been much slower in the recent

decades. In 2019, more than 20 million American households were rent-burdened, often paying

more than 30% of their income toward rent. In 2018, lower-income households with minority

residents living below the poverty line and spent more than half their income on housing costs

alone (Brodie & Bowman, 2021). It was only a matter of time until the pandemic hit and the

unemployment rates tripled in many states, such as New Hampshire going from 2.5 percent to

14.7 percent in less than two months (Bates & Lyne, 2020). If nothing was done about this, the

people left homeless would crowd into shelters where the virus would flourish (Brodie &

Bowman, 2021). The situation was becoming more dire as families struggled to pay fees required

of them. When the CDC stepped in with their solution, many tenants were relieved as they were

given a grace period to sign up for financial assistance.

“I do believe it was the correct course of action. If you cannot work, you cannot pay rent,

simple as that. No one should have to lose the place where they live because they’re unable to

work for an income,” says Sarah Waters, a Manchester resident who is currently renting an

apartment. She, like many others, was left jobless as the weeks continued, but she also came to

realize she didn’t meet the requirements for assistance. “When I filed for unemployment, they
THE EVICTION BAN 4

were incredibly vague about why I wasn’t eligible. I kept getting denied with no rhyme or reason

so I had to rely on my boyfriend’s unemployment funds. It was so strange how selective the

system was as a few of my friends weren’t eligible either. (S. Waters, personal communication,

April 19, 2021)” These requirements are stated that the order protects tenants who; Have used

their best efforts to obtain government assistance for housing, are unable to pay their full rent due

to a substantial loss of income, are making their best efforts to make timely partial payments of

rent, and would become homeless or have to move into a shared living setting if they were to be

evicted (Ann O’Connell, 2021), which Ms. Waters filled perfectly.

Another case was with a woman named Emily Brockman, who was behind on her rent,

but thought she was safe due to the CARES Act’s ruling over evictions. She met all the

requirements for financial assistance according to the CARES act, but fell victim to the

ambiguity of the new order’s wording. “Because of the order's wording, which gives local judges

room for interpretation, and pushback from landlords, evictions have continued.” claims

Brockman. One example of these exploited phrases in the order was, “You may be evicted for

reasons other than not paying rent” which led Brockman to take her landlord to court. The judge

ruled in her favor, due to her having met the criteria for assistance but more importantly, being a

single mother with a 5-month-old child. Regrettably, not all of those affected by these new rules

enjoyed the same protections as Ms. Brockman. The eviction ban order was supposedly an

attempt to alter the CARES Act’s actions of not evicting at all. Ultimately, this change resulted in

dire consequences for the tenants who previously believed they were not responsible for paying

their rent as they were now being evicted. Because of this confusion, 20,523 evictions were filed

in the 22 cities monitored by researchers from September 4th to October 17th. I feel the order

gave a false sense of security to tenants as a whole, as they believed the ban would free them of
THE EVICTION BAN 5

all liability. Some tenants didn’t even file for assistance because they didn’t think the pandemic

was going to last as long as it did. Leaving tenants questioning what they were protected from

was irresponsible of the CDC.

Landlords

From the perspective of landlords, the CDC’s order was a fair law to make. According to

The Eviction Lab at Princeton University, before the pandemic, an average of 3.6 million

evictions are filed each year in courts throughout the United States. Once Covid-19 struck

however, evictions came to a grinding halt. When the CARES Act passed, it became illegal to

evict tenants receiving federal assistance. Once it expired, the CDC issued a new moratorium,

preventing all property owners from evicting renters for non-payment of rent and temporarily

prohibited new and previously filed evictions from occurring. The ruling doesn't apply to

eviction freezes or rent-assistance programs instituted at the state and local levels, where many

officials have stepped in on behalf of renters. Designed to protect renters, these moratoriums do

little to protect small property owners (VerHelst, 2021) Over time, the law began infringing on

their ability to maintain their buildings. An example of a flaw in the order was the protection of

tenants from eviction, whether they can meet the requirements for financial support or not. This

can leave the landlords in a stasis where they don’t receive rent at all, yet they cannot evict.

Landlords needed to cut back on amenities and services such as cleaning or garbage collection,

or imposed additional fees on existing renters. Also because of the extension, some landlords

were forced to take their rental properties off the market or convert them to other uses, such as

condos. Many landlords imposed stricter credit or income requirements for prospective renters

out of fear that they will be stuck with non-paying tenants they can’t evict. (Simpson, 2021)

“Even though the majority of my tenants were now back at their respective jobs, earning their
THE EVICTION BAN 6

normal wage, they seemed to choose not to pay rent…” states Debbie Valente, president of the

New Hampshire Property Owners Association and a landlord herself,

“The ban had gone too far as it now allowed for a lack of accountability on the side of the

tenant. The programs which eluded to assisting the landlords if the tenant was unable to pay their

rent were impossible to navigate without the tenants’ assistance. Now, because of the ban, there

was no motivation for the tenants to follow through and fill out the required paperwork for the

landlord to be reimbursed…” (D. Valente, personal communication, April 10, 2021)

I feel it’s unfair for landlords to be grouped together and seen as parasites. Not all

landlords were given the same opportunities as some corrupt landlords who are the few that

represent the masses. Not many people realize that about 22.1 million rental properties are

owned by mom-and-pop landlords, which are investors who own 10 or fewer properties and

often start by living in one of these units. These people own more than half of the properties in

the U.S. and about 30 percent of them are considered low to moderate income households. These

people are unable to protect themselves without being labeled as corrupt or greedy, which leaves

them devastated by the effects of pandemic (VerHelst, 2021).

Conclusion

When cycling through the information and interviewing these people, I realized that the order

was never meant to stay in place for this long. Because of the blanket effect this order made,

people tried to take advantage of it from both sides, which really damaged the people who truly

needed the help. Many people would say that if the order continued its stay, they could just alter

it to fix the problems to accommodate the people affected, but to that I say then why not let the

world fade back to its original state? This order has taught a lesson to the CDC and anyone above

that the laws of economics cannot be swept away by the stroke of a pen. The government can
THE EVICTION BAN 7

only shift the burdens of the pandemic from one group to another, but it cannot make those

burdens vanish. (Simpson, 2021) It was morally unjust to let the people take advantage of the bill

and throw money at a problem that is now calming down. The economy needs to recover from

the financial shift caused by the pandemic, including the staggering increase of prices for goods

and services. This eviction ban needs to disappear if we are going to move on from this crisis.
THE EVICTION BAN 8

References

Ann O’Connell, A. (2021, April 08). Emergency bans on evictions and other tenant

protections related to coronavirus. Retrieved April 11, 2021, from

https://www.nolo.com/evictions-ban

Bates, J., & Lyne, B. (2020). Putting Possession on Ice. Judicial Review, 25(2), 171–173.

https://doi-org.unh.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/10854681.2020.1773130

Brodie, J., & Bowman, L. (2021, January 22). Opinion: The eviction ban should remain in

effect long after the pandemic is over. Retrieved March 16, 2021, from

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/22/opinions/eviction-moratorium-reform-covid-19-brodie-b

owman/index.html

Simpson, S. (2021, January 07). Landlords should not have to work for free. Retrieved

March 16, 2021, from

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/532750-landlords-should-not-have-to-work-for-free

Swenson, K. (2020). Renters thought a CDC order protected them from eviction. then

landlords found loopholes.

https://search-proquest-com.unh.idm.oclc.org/docview/2454521112?pq-origsite=primo

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (2020). Unemployment insurance relief during

covid-19 outbreak. Retrieved April 20, 2021, from

https://www.dol.gov/coronavirus/unemployment-insurance#:~:text=Under%20the%20CA

RES%20Act%20states,December%2031%2C%202020
THE EVICTION BAN 9

Valente, D. (2021, April 10). Personal interview [Personal interview].

VerHelst, M. (2021, March 05). Mom-And-Pop landlords 'HELPLESS,' hurt under eviction

moratoriums. Retrieved April 21, 2021, from

https://patch.com/us/across-america/mom-pop-landlords-helpless-hurt-under-eviction-mora

toriums

Waters, S. (2021, April 10). Personal interview [Personal interview].