How does the CDC have any authority over real estate law? This is way beyond its legal statute and not a good thing regardless of your feelings on the matter. This should be unconstitutional if it's not already.
The underlying reg: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19...
The authority seems to be claimed mostly from 42 U.S.C. §264: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html...
What if the government shouldn’t have this power?
What I find interesting about Sweden is that Tegnell (correctly imo) thought lockdown would make things worse, but that wasn’t how he justified not locking down. He said that Sweden, being a free society, did not have the authority to perform a China-style lockdown.
The rest of the “free” world ignored that point. They gave NO thought to whether they had the power to impose these measures. They just succumbed to their fear.
I don't think this is particularly likely to hold up (except by court cases becoming moot before the judicial process concludes); I think it's unlikely to have enough of an effect to make a meaningful measure; I think there should have been another relief bill quite a while ago.
> The rest of the “free” world ignored that point. They gave NO thought to whether they had the power to impose these measures. They just succumbed to their fear.
There was a lot of adjusting the strictness over time in a lot of places. Including repealing measures that were though to have gone to far outside of a very short time period.
The places that haven't locked down aren't looking good.
Really? Sweden looks great. South Dakota looks great. Not sure what data you're looking at.
> Yes, I am desperate trying to prove Trump wrong by not putting a temporary ~3 month Trump administration regulation on the same level as all the post 9/11 measures. Absolutely.
We've been locked down for half a year. Maybe you don't live in California but it's still full draconian lockdown here, and our state guidelines are crafted such that it is literally impossible for us to re-open.
My point about the Trump thing, not to de-rail, is that the Democrats want to "prove him wrong" for "minimizing" the virus, and they seem to think that locking down indefinitely and torching the economy / public health will make it look like Trump's fault and help them win. That's just my theory. But note that the problem here psychologically is far worse than just partisan politics, it's a defect in the way humans evaluate risk and particularly it's a problem with a globally connected world. Social media allows mind viruses to spread like crazy, and COVID-19 is the deadliest mind virus we've ever encountered. As far as the physical SARS-2 virus, it's pretty wimpy for people under the age of 70.
They have higher death rates than their neighboring countries. While the economic outcome doesn't appear to be better than the surrounding countries.
> South Dakota looks great.
https://covidtracking.com/data/state/south-dakota
Look at the hospitalizations. No, they're not doing good. They actually have one of the highest infection rates. And as you can see the deaths are increasing too.
> We've been locked down for half a year. Maybe you don't live in California but it's still full draconian lockdown here, and our state guidelines are crafted such that it is literally impossible for us to re-open.
I do live in CA. The last time the state started to reopen, with looser guidelines, the infection rates grew substantially. Deaths/day stayed pretty high for a long time, and is only slowly shrinking.
Also, how does that apply to my comment upthread?
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
There are only 12 states doing better on a death rate perspective than South Dakota. And they've been 5 times more effective at preventing deaths than New York.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...
I would say if they get a spike almost 6 months after literally never shutting down anything, they've done extremely well either way.
No state should care about infection rates among healthy populations. That's normal and expected and necessary to reach herd immunity. Hospitalizations would be alarming but hospitalizations have plummeted nationwide even as case counts have risen.
We are already well within range of an ordinary flu season as far as excess deaths goes: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Also, draconian? What? In SF restaurants with outside seating are open and populated. State and national parks are largely open (unless closed due to fire / smoke hazard). A lot of stores are open for indoor shopping.
> Why doesn't the government have more power to shut things down so we can save my 99 year old grandma on life support from being taken from us in her prime?
Seriously. I know too many people that simultaneously denounce any sign of dictatorial government, but then can't praise loud enough any governor that shuts down their entire state.
> This should be unconstitutional if it's not already.
Sounds good. I suggest contact your elected representatives to express your support for such an amendment.
The legal passage cited is this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/70.2
> § 70.2 Measures in the event of inadequate local control.
> Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.
(emphasis mine)
I'm sure this will be challenged in court, but the text as written seems extraordinarily broad. The CDC can do anything they "deem reasonably necessary"!
Yes.
Yes.
Interesting.
I feel for the poor owners. They are all trying to get out, but I’m sorry to say, I feel they’re doomed.
Your property doesn't disappear.
Would've it been better for CDC to stop mortgage foreclosures too? Probably. Would people here still complain of overreach? Probably.
Rental stock doesn’t spring into existence; it comes from private investment, predicated on reliable returns made possible by the laws surrounding rental. Suspending those laws in turn destroys this investment/return equation. No more rental stock.
Similar calculus for wage controls; no more profits - no more jobs/wages.
You can demand whatever you want; you just get to live with the results of your demands, long-term.
Rental housing owners are not.
Elites (such as those who run the CDC) look at rental housing owners as a group, but the impacts are disproportionately borne by those who have the fewest properties - families who are doomed to lose their life-savings.
Real-estate investment trusts, etc., can both outlast family owners, and are usually owned as a fractional portion of people’s portfolio; their failure is not a catastrophic event.
Families losing their inheritance is catastrophic.
Elites extra-legally terminating historical conventions on rental liability are dooming families to poverty, not just “helping” a renter.
Does it matter to me if my landlord is a big real-estate trust or a poor put-upon "family" owner with only two or three spare houses to their name?
Sidenote: you could even argue that big corporate landlords are better for society. In my experience, they tend to be more professional, and more committed to obeying the letter of the law w/r/t to tenants' rights.
People in this thread REALLY should go read about the Irish famine crisis and the 1918 pandemic and see how preventable homelessness made the deaths so much worse.
The precedent of doing that would be too bad.
Human lives > property.
It's whether a government with such broad, sweeping powers (which aren't among those clearly enumerated) is good for human life.
Think of it like an executive order, are they always legal? No. Do the courts have a say in them? Yes.
If the "necessary and proper" clause subsumes the entire limitation on power in Washington DC, it is the most disadvantaged in society who will suffer for it.
No matter how good a decision Congress or POTUS might want to make, I prefer that they be strictly restrained.
The idea of "the united States of America" as the default political unit (rather than more localized decision-making) is a relic of an age without the kind of communication technology we have today. I am especially cautious at agencies like CDC, which have blundered their way through some important decision-making, being given expanded powers at a time when more local agencies are capable of consuming precisely the same wealth of information.
Which is why CDC waited to see where the talks are going and realized that they can't wait too long.
At some point lives become more important than political process.