Did Gov. Newsom make the right call extending the eviction moratorium?
Gov. Gavin Newsom decided to extend the states eviction moratorium to Sept. 30, just days before it was set to expire. The moratorium blocks landlords from evicting tenants from non-payment of rent and is the fourth such extension in the state since the start of the pandemic. Newsoms extension also increases the amount of rent relief for low-income tenants. One of the reasons given for the extension was giving state agencies more time to distribute rent relief. Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), who led the effort to extend the moratorium, said the extension is key to making sure that more people dont lose the safety net helping them keep their home.  Advertisement  Landlord groups strongly opposed the extension because they argue they lost out on vast amounts of rental income throughout the pandemic. Q: Did Gov. James Hamilton, UC San Diego  NO: The crisis phase of the pandemic is thankfully behind us. Its time to admit that the challenges some people are still facing with unemployment, debt, and paying their rent are long-term problems. An eviction moratorium is not a long-term solution. A functioning rental market requires landlords and tenants to be able to make legal commitments to each other. Landlords must be allowed to try to limit their losses if tenants dont honor their commitments. Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health  NO: While I certainly dont want to see anyone facing financial challenges lose their home as a result of COVID-19, the relief and eviction prohibition should be based on need instead of just a blanket immunity. There are renters who have worked throughout the pandemic and have the same financial ability to pay their rent as they did before the pandemic. Its important to remember that some owners of rental properties are facing their own financial challenges due to the pandemic and they should not be penalized either. Norm Miller, University of San Diego  NO: Years ago, Milton Friedman suggested we utilize a negative income tax rather than a myriad of overlapping programs. Now we understand why, with unemployment and stimulus checks and overlapping moratoriums, we clearly have a lack of coordination or scrutiny as to whether everyone deserves an eviction moratorium. There are far too many controls being imposed on the real estate market, and this added risk will only force up required returns and rents in the long run, making rent even less affordable. Advertisement  Jamie Moraga, IntelliSolutions  NO: Instead of setting a fixed date for all, it should be gradually phased out and include repayment plans. Any federal, state and local rental assistance should be streamlined to make the application process easier and for payments to be made quicker to landlords for past due rent. Both tenants and landlords, especially mom-and-pop landlords, are suffering. Exceptions to the eviction moratorium should be made on a case-by-case basis. David Ely, San Diego State University  YES: The distribution of funds for rental assistance has been so slow that relatively few low-income tenants have been able to resolve back-rent situations. More time is needed to distribute the allocated funds to address the eviction risk of eligible renters who experienced declines in income during the pandemic and for small landlords who have been unable to collect back rent and are financially struggling. The plan signed by the governor should encourage greater participation. Advertisement  Ray Major, SANDAG  YES: If only because the state has distributed only $61.6 million of the $1.4 billion  less than 5 percent  of the monies they allocated to rental relief. It is by no fault of the tenants or the landlords that the money hasnt been distributed. The fault lies in the complex process the state created. Two additional months to get back rents paid to landlords and to keep tenants from losing their homes seems reasonable. Reginald Jones, Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation  YES: Given budget provision to pay landlords all back rent, the extension is reasonable. A rapid payment system is necessary. Large property holders could perhaps carry non-payments. Small, independent ones are burdened. Though the CARES Act required federal lenders to provide 12 months forbearance, it excluded state or local banks or credit unions. Landlords with mortgages held by these are more like their tenants than not. Relief must be expedient for both tenants and landlords. Advertisement  Lynn Reaser, Point Loma Nazarene University  NO: California should not go beyond the federal governments extension to July 31, which the Biden administration has said would be the last. California and its local governments should streamline procedures and accelerate the distribution of rental assistance funds, as the administration requests. Exceptions could be made, but the continuing broad-based extension of eviction moratoriums has imposed its own harm on rental-unit owners, who now also need relief in paying for mortgages, taxes and maintenance. Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research  NO: As well-intentioned it may be, unintended consequences of the policies create more problems than they solve. The moratoriums placed burdens solely on landlords, perpetuating financial hardships they already faced. With complicated rules and severe penalties if not strictly followed, only 10 percent of state funding has been distributed since September. More reasonable policies could protect those truly struggling from pandemic-related hardships, while landlords would not lose investment income and not dissuade tenants from paying owed rent. Advertisement  Phil Blair, Manpower  NO: The extension was excessive. For most Californians the throes of the pandemic are over. Schools are back in session for the summer and we have exceeded the goal vaccination rate. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are available now throughout the state. There have been very generous unemployment benefit extensions, generous weekly supplements, generous per-child payments, and family general federal and state payments. Thousands of private citizens own rental units for which they have not been paid rent or been able to evict non-paying tenants. Meanwhile their monthly mortgage payments on the units are due. Enough is enough. Gary London, London Moeder Advisors  NO: This extension sends a terrible signal to the private market, and ultimately will serve as a discouragement to private investment into the housing market in California. All levels of local and state government deserve most of the blame for our housing shortage. It is patently unfair to put the burden on the private sector. The vast preponderance of rental properties are held by small investors and ownership groups. They have been as hard hit by the pandemic as anyone, and deserve consideration and parity. Notably, the pandemic has greatly receded. People are getting jobs and wage increases. Those in need of assistance have access through other government programs. Advertisement  Alan Gin, University of San Diego  YES: Extending the eviction moratorium is necessary to prevent an increase in homelessness. While the economy has come back and the unemployment rate has fallen from pandemic peaks, it still has a way to go to hit pre-shutdown levels. Workers at the lower end of the income distribution were hit the hardest and still need help. With the state increasing reimbursements for delinquent rent to 100 percent, landlords will be made whole. The state though needs to speed up the reimbursement process. Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates  Not participating this week. Advertisement  Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth  YES: The main problem is that the relief funds destined for needy tenants have not been distributed in time to apply to overdue rent. This moratorium on evictions is necessary to provide adequate time to distribute the earmarked funds. Acknowledging both sides, the measure also prevents new local moratoriums until March 2022 that would worsen the situation for owners who have been required to pay their mortgages during the same time period. Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Twitter: @PhillipMolnar