Eviction Moratorium: Protection or Political Ploy?

21 Jun 2026 · 1 min

Watch on YouTube

0:56

In this brief dialogue, Speaker A raises the prospect of a renewed "scamdemic" and asks whether a future eviction moratorium—if re‑implemented, especially in California—would face landlord opposition as it did during the COVID‑19 pandemic. Speaker B clarifies that the moratorium’s actual legal scope varied by jurisdiction: in Alameda County (Berkeley/Oakland) it barred evictions for any non‑payment of rent, while in Los Angeles it only protected tenants who missed rent due to COVID‑related reasons. The exchange highlights uncertainty about political motives, regional policy differences, and potential landlord pushback if similar measures are attempted again.

Chapters

When we see the new scamdemic, which is coming right now upon all of us, if it gets tried again, it probably will in areas like California because of course control is a feature, not a bug of politics. How do you think an eviction moratorium goes over the next time they try to do it? Do you think the landlords will speak up and push back or are they going to take it in the shorts like they did last time?
So here's what happened that not a lot of people know about. In New York and in California, the moratorium wasn't really what everyone says it was. It wasn't, you're not allowed to evict people for nonpayment of rent, period. That is what it was in Alameda County. That's where Berkeley and Oakland are. That really is what it was. But in LA, it said you can't be evicted if you have a COVID-related reason for not paying your rent.