Evictions Will Kill People. Stop Them. Now.
I was talking this evening with a friend who works at DeKalb Medical Center. He’s thinking about quitting. He’s talking about it openly. He’s laughing a bit, but I can hear the tension, the frustration, and the fear.
Seven years ago, my mother found herself waiting in a state of dysfunction at Grady Memorial’s emergency room for more than 24 hours for care, a moment that radically altered my life. I’ve been an advocate for public healthcare and indigent care ever since, and I have been watching the transformation of Grady’s emergency department since in a state of wonder.
Consider, then, my heartbreak when a sewage pipe burst in December, throwing the entire emergency ecosystem of metro Atlanta into disarray. For the first time in forever, Grady’s emergency room went on diversion — the hospital of last resort became the hospital of no resort. Other hospitals have had to pick up the slack, like Emory Midtown, Atlanta Medical Center … and DeKalb Medical.
Patients have been regularly waiting for emergency room beds in the waiting areas of hospitals around Atlanta in ways that were unusual at best, at unthinkable at worst, for months. That’s DeKalb Medical today, right now. And that’s before COVID-19 begins to fill beds in earnest.
“There’s nothing I can do about this,” he said. “I may need to get out of the way.”
I was on a conference call with homelessness care providers this afternoon. We’re trying to plan out how to address this novel coronavirus for symptomatic cases who are unhoused or living in shelters with dozens of other people.
Ironically, years of problems with tuberculosis at Peachtree and Pine created a testing regime that can be modified to screen for COVID-19 symptoms. People who have symptoms will be sent to the hospital for testing.
But, there are no dedicated vehicles yet to transport people from shelters to the hospital for testing yet. A request has been made for funding to cover that cost. The system is going to borrow some vans until they get it, with allowances made for Lysol after the fact.
Grady has one patient under observation for COVID-19. That patient, we were told, is homeless.
None of the local hospitals can do the testing themselves yet. All the tests are sent to the state, with a turnaround time of two to three days. Grady will get testing capabilities in a week or so, we were told. They will be able to process six tests an hour.
Whoever is supplying Grady with hand sanitizer — and I will find out who — has jacked the price up threefold.
Homeless patients who test negative can be sent back to a shelter, but those who have the disease will be sent instead to isolate in hotel rooms — the same protocol the state follows with tuberculosis positives. One assumes that those who require more intense isolation or hospitalization will be sent to Camp Covid, Hard Labor Creek State Park.
I am … concerned.
From time to time, I lay down a marker on these pages. These are my apprehensions, my best guesses, my suppositions. Here’s one.
Homelessness had already been rising in Atlanta. The average two-bedroom in the city is around $1450 a month, while more than 300,000 households in metro Atlanta — one household in seven — earn $21,000 a year or less. One out of 16 households in the city faced an eviction last year.
People at the bottom of the income ladder simply cannot take time off of work, either for sickness or to avoid sickness, without being paid. Without some relief for this, those homeless shelter counts aren’t just going to climb; they’re going to explode. And the emergency system here, which is already fraying at the edges, will simply break.
Evictions across metro Atlanta must stop. Now. All of them. There must be no risk of homelessness created by refraining from work, or people are going to die.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Gubernatorial state of emergencies keep gas prices in check. Could they be applied to hand sanitorizer, ro to direct hand sanitizer distriubtion?
Eviction is the action of last resort, speaking from the owner/landlord point of view. The legal process favors the weaker party, the tenant, so they must be done in strict accordance to the law or the Judge will toss it out and one must start over.
Tying eviction to COVID-19 is a stretch because any family undergoing the sort of financial stress that may bring about eviction is already at risk. For example, the tenant may be working two jobs (exposed to many people), or perhaps they have a health issue keeping them from paying rent.
It is a hard thing to throw someone out of their home – And yet, without rent payments the landlord may lose their property.
I am weighing the potential of foreclosure against the increased chances of people getting killed. At a death rate of 2.5 to 3.5 percent of infected cases, one has to ask if the landlord’s loss — something that a foreclosure hearing is likely to take into account — is a greater consequence than a one-in-30 chance of death.
I may be mistaken, but I don’t think Georgia foreclosures don’t require, and may not even allow for a hearing, with respect to foreclosure adhering to process.
I do believe you’re right that many landlords don’t seek eviction as a preferred resolution. It can be costly, incl. lost rent, time-consuming, etc. Otoh, the legal process gives landlords dominance in critical ways.
I’ll admit that I had not thought of evictions resulting from lost wages due to economic shutdown. That is certainly a problem.
And just because folks are financially insecure doesn’t meant that they shouldn’t be accorded understanding when their meager security blanket is pulled out from under them. Btw, the rate of financial insecurity (being able to manage financial shocks) is way higher than it should be, and includes ranges of folks who may not be at risk under regular circumstances.
That said, I’m going to advocate for a solution that helps landlords and tenants. Stop the evictions, and stop foreclosures. When there is a certified statement or evidence of job loss/furlough/illness/care for ill/all that.
The ultimate loss on this would be borne by banks, obv, but it would be quantifiable in terms of lost interest income, and their should be enough reserves to withstand in the short run. But they should get aid on this as well, if that’s the policy. We already know bank bailouts get done, and I think it may even be easier to provide that backstop on the financial end than to try to give direct benefits to landlords or tenants. I imagine this could include other players like mortgage insurance companies as well.
I’m just spitballing here, but we are having a major economic shutdown. And it’s because we don’t want folks to die. So we all are making sacrifices, and that may be one of the most interesting parts of the scenario. Besides from the unruly and antisocial competition for resources, folks are making sacrifices in the interest of public health. If everyone up and down the transactional chain is making sacrifices, it could work and just be a short-term hiatus of activity, almost like the economy is taking a sick month. But if there are banks out there that usurp their power, or landlords who may do so even if the bank is forgiving, then it doesn’t work, and people get sick and some will die. Thus I tend to think we’re either all in on the public health and saving people, or all out. If we’re all in, we should stop all negative economic consequences for those who certify of the circumstances, and this should also include debt penalties, credit reporting, etc. It will all require a massive re-adjustment when the shutdown lifts, but I believe that’s eminently possible, and preferable to just being irresponsible about people dying.
And apparently, the U.K. and Italy are in fact finding ways to offer mortgage and other debt suspension.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51817947
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51814481
I suppose this means we could at least in theory do this and avoid the trickle-down evictions. Btw (asked facetiously) why do costs trickle down so much quicker and easier than benefits?