THE COVID-19 EVICTION BAN: WHO IS IT REALLY PROTECTING?

The COVID-19 Eviction Ban: Who is it Really Protecting?

Sabrina Rahme

University of New Hampshire

ENGL 401.M2: First-Year Writing

Prof. C.C. Hendricks

April 21, 2021

THE COVID-19 EVICTION BAN: WHO IS IT REALLY PROTECTING? 2

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, such as 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. These issues spiraled out of control until a declaration was made to temporarily

halt evictions. Some thought this is a turning point for a new way of living, while others are not

as keen on the prolonged existence of this order[MOU1] , believing that the order was robbing

people of their rights to evict and making it more difficult to gain financial stability. Through

researching news articles[MOU2] , reading through personal entries by government officials and

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

educate myself on the issue, but to find out what would be the best option. I seek to explain why

this order is insufficient for the points it claims to cover.

Having to act on short notice, on March 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law The

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This 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 from 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 could [MOU3] apply for housing assistance
THE COVID-19 EVICTION BAN: WHO IS IT REALLY PROTECTING? 3

and gain protection from eviction. The Order went into effect on September 4, 2020 and was to

stay that way until it expired December 27, 2020. However, they extended the Order’s deadline

to June 30, 2021 because the rental assistance had not been distributed yet and the virus was still

upon us[s4] (Ann O’Connell, 2021). Though the first extension was justified, to keep extending it

would mean bringing no attention to the areas it lacks and the people it negatively affects. The

first that comes to mind are the people it claims to protect, the tenants.

From the perspective of tenants, the Order prevented them from becoming homeless and opened

public eyes to the idea of how many households were struggling before the pandemic. Millions

of American families were at risk of eviction each year before the pandemic struck as eviction is

a quick way to get rid of tenants who could not or would not pay rent. 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 (Brodie & Bowman, 2021). When the pandemic hit, 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. If nothing were 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. One of these individuals being Sarah Waters, a

Manchester resident who is currently renting an apartment who states, “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,” She, like
THE COVID-19 EVICTION BAN: WHO IS IT REALLY PROTECTING? 4

many others, was left jobless as the weeks continued, but she also came to realize she didn’t meet

the requirements for assistance as according to Ms. Waters, “When I filed for unemployment,

they 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 were not 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). Waters met these criteria perfectly yet

when she reached out to ask why she was not eligible, she was greeted with no response. The

lack of communication between the financial programs and the masses left people disconnected,

having them put a lot of time into fixing issues that should have been disclosed in a more helpful

manner. Finding assistance with getting assistance was difficult as the only ways they would find

out these problems was through asking others about how they got on the system or going to the

landlord of their buildings, which did not help if the landlord was dead set on wanting them gone

(Casey, 2021).

Ms. Waters was one example of a tenant who was not taken care of by the Order when she really

needed it. If they struggled to help someone in her position, imagine what it was like for

someone in a more dire situation. An example of this would be 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
THE COVID-19 EVICTION BAN: WHO IS IT REALLY PROTECTING? 5

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” (Swenson, 2020), which led Brockman to

take her landlord to court because they utilize the wording to evict her for other claims even

though rent was the main contributor to why they wanted her gone. 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 tenants who

previously believed they were not responsible for paying their rent eventually getting evicted on

new grounds they were not aware of or did not pay attention to. Because of this confusion,

20,523 evictions were filed in the twenty-two cities monitored by researchers from September

4th to October 17th. I feel the order gave a false sense of security to tenants, as they believed the

ban would free them of all liability. Some tenants even put the money that was supposedly

supposed to go to their rent on goods and services as the inflation rates of bought items were

going through the roof. Some did not even file for assistance because they did not 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 as the Order should have addressed how some

programs were not meeting expectations (Swenson, 2020).

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

The Eviction Lab at Princeton University (2020), before the pandemic, an average of 3.6 million
THE COVID-19 EVICTION BAN: WHO IS IT REALLY PROTECTING? 6

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 (VerHelst, 2021). Designed to protect tenants, these

moratoriums do little to protect small property owners: The ruling does not apply to eviction

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

officials have stepped in on behalf of renters.

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 left landlords in a stasis when tenants didn’t meet

the requirements for assistance, yet they refused to pay rent. Landlords would not receive rent

from the renters and the state refused to pay back the missed rental payments because the tenants

were not listed under financial aid, this would lead to no payment at all. Because of this,

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.

It does not seem like an issue, but unlike apartments, condos imply splitting ownership of the

building from the landlord, making a massive economic impact as rental payments go down and

so does the amount of affordable housing. Many landlords imposed stricter credit or income

requirements for prospective renters out of fear that they will be stuck with non-paying tenants

they cannot evict. (Simpson, 2021) “Even though the majority of my tenants were now back at

their respective jobs, earning their normal wage, they seemed to choose not to pay rent.” states
THE COVID-19 EVICTION BAN: WHO IS IT REALLY PROTECTING? 7

Debbie Valente (2021), 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 alluded 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).

There is a common misconception of Landlords always making more than their tenants and

being grouped with higher income property owners. However, 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 (VerHelst, 2021). 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.

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, 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? By finally letting the order reach its deadline, we will have learned
THE COVID-19 EVICTION BAN: WHO IS IT REALLY PROTECTING? 8

from the areas where the order fell short and provided improvements to current systems that

needed updates anyway. By giving financial assistance to struggling households and limiting

eviction to more severe. Without keeping this flawed order in place. 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, they need to use the issues brought up by the Order, such as failing financial

programs and inability to spend government funding as a stepping stone to alter the existing laws

instead of continuing to apply a temporary fix. According to Simpson (2021), “The government

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

burdens vanish.” It was morally unjust to let the people take advantage of the bill, such as tenants

using the money for luxury items instead of rent and landlords finding alternative ways to use

eviction without violating the Order to get renters off their properties. They expected landlords to

accept less funding and provided little assistance to tenants who may not know how the systems

work. 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 COVID-19 EVICTION BAN: WHO IS IT REALLY PROTECTING? 9

References

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

related to coronavirus. NOLO, 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. CNN Opinion, Retrieved March 16, 2021, from

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

bowman/index.html

Casey, M. (2021, March 30). States struggle to get rent relief to tenants amid pandemic. AP

NEWS. Retrieved May 7, 2021, from

https://apnews.com/article/pandemics-new-york-andrew-cuomo-coronavirus-pandemic-u

s-news-bfbf0744510d50a1e173247ee5f9ba1b.

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

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. Global News stream,

https://search-proquest-com.unh.idm.oclc.org/docview/2454521112?pq-origsite=primo
THE COVID-19 EVICTION BAN: WHO IS IT REALLY PROTECTING? 10

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (2020). Unemployment insurance relief during covid-19

outbreak. Retrieved April 20, 2021, from Department of Labor Website:

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

ARES%20Act%20states,December%2031%2C%202020

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-mo

ratoriums