A landlord who is 'out on the street' because they are no longer getting the rent from their investment property is in no different or worse a position than a worker who becomes homeless because they no longer have a job. A landlord with no back-up plan when rent doesn't come in is someone who made a very large and risky investment but did not consider the possible downside to that investment, and should be punished for their poor investment no differently than someone who takes out a loan to buy a risky stock.
I don't think that tenants have an indelible right to live where they are forever, and a land owner has the right to charge what they see fit for rent, but in these types of extenuating circumstances it would be shameful if landlords did not carry some if not the majority of the burden for their risky decisions.
That isn’t at all how it works much of the time. A lot of people rent their basements out because they can’t afford not to. And what do you think happens to the tenant when the landlord fails, regardless of circumstances, and loses their property? If you help the landlord in these extenuating circumstances, both landlord and tenant may keep their homes. If you favor the tenant at the expense of the landlord then both are likely to end up homeless, which makes no sense.
Why all landlords? Business arguably is also ruining the world and people’s lives, should all business owners also give their assets away for free in these trying times?
It’s a pure numbers game. There are less landlords than renters, so even if every landlord became homeless (unlikely), the consequences would still be orders of magnitude less damaging than if everyone was evicted.
I'm not okay with anyone being on the street. Lots of people are losing their jobs and homes, and landlords shouldn't have any special protection from that effect than anyone else does.
