Candidate<\/em><\/strong>: \u201c<\/em>I think you\u2019ll like the consistently deferential approach I take on this sort of issue. As I said at a recent Town Hall, I\u2019m for trusting decisionmakers to draw their own lines. So here I say, \u2018Trust landlords.\u2019 I\u2019m not personally pro-eviction or anti-eviction. But landlords\u2019 eviction decisions are not going to improve just because the government dictates how they should be made.\u201d<\/p>\n Candidate<\/em><\/strong>: \u201cI respect and support those with pro-tenant religious beliefs, even though I don\u2019t think that\u2019s what the Bible says. But they may not use their private beliefs as a political weapon against a landlord\u2019s freedom to choose what to do with his own building.\u201d<\/p>\n Reporter<\/em><\/strong>: \u201cHere\u2019s a tough one for you: Suppose a particular landlord has already made a choice. He has invited a tenant in, clearly agreeing to shelter her for nine months, but later he changes his mind. Can he just kick the tenant out in the sixth month, even though she has no other place to go? Suppose it\u2019s winter, even.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Candidate<\/em><\/strong>: \u201c<\/em>I would trust that landlord to make the right decision.\u201d<\/p>\n Reporter<\/em><\/strong>: \u201cOK, but what if that landlord has a discriminatory motive? What if he has discovered in the sixth month of occupancy that the tenant has Down Syndrome, for example? Can she just be put out on the street, where she\u2019s really not capable of surviving until the weather gets warmer in a few months?\u201d<\/p>\n Candidate<\/em><\/strong>: \u201c<\/em>I\u2019m against all discrimination, but we have to trust the landlord on this. The building is their private property. We can\u2019t interfere with total control of one\u2019s own building, even if the owner chooses to draw a line with which we may disagree.\u201d<\/p>\n Reporter<\/em><\/strong>: \u201cIn late 2019, there was an article entitled \u201cReconsidering tenant pain\u201d <\/a>in the Journal of Medical Ethics<\/em>. The article concluded that a tenant may have settled in and feel quite pained by an eviction after just 12 weeks of occupancy. The authors\u2019 research showed, in their own words, \u201cOverall, the evidence, and a balanced reading of that evidence, points towards an immediate and unreflective pain experience . . . from as early as 12 weeks.\u201d<\/span> Do you think that, after she\u2019s been living there 12 weeks, landlords should hire a doctor to give the tenant some sort of pain killer before evicting her? One of the two co-authors of the article is strongly pro-eviction, by the way, but he still supports their joint conclusion about tenant pain.\u201d<\/p>\n Candidate<\/em><\/strong>: \u201c<\/em>The provision of a pre-eviction pain killer is something that a landlord might want to consider, if they wish. But it\u2019s up to them, not me, to draw that line. It\u2019s all a matter of trust, you see. I trust landlords to do what\u2019s right.\u201d<\/p>\n Reporter<\/em><\/strong>: \u201cIt looks like you, like your party, are against tenants\u2019 rights at any stage of occupancy, but what if it\u2019s the second to last day of the ninth month of the occupancy, so the tenant is going to move out tomorrow. Can the landlord refuse to wait and just hire a tough guy to grab her and toss her out today? What if she holds on, and the tough guy has to pull her out piece by piece?\u201d<\/p>\n Candidate<\/em><\/strong>: \u201c<\/em>Your questions are getting pretty outrageous. Let me ask you one. Do you own a building with a room available for occupancy? If not, I don\u2019t see how you even have a right to speak on this issue. It\u2019s a basic American legal principle that we only trust the testimony, and then the decision, of somebody with a personal interest in a case. That\u2019s why I say we should trust the landlord.\u201d<\/p>\n Reporter<\/em><\/strong>: \u201cSorry. I\u2019m not very up on our law. I thought I had heard that neither party should be the sole judge of a case — and that when rights are in conflict, that\u2019s exactly when we need to find an outside perspective to mediate between them. Thanks for straightening me out on that.\u201d<\/p>\n A version of this satire was first published on <\/em>March 2, 2020 by MercatorNet<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n ============================<\/p>\n See more of our posts from Richard Stith:<\/p>\n When \u201cChoice\u201d Itself Hurts the Quality of Life\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n Open Letter to Fellow Human Rights Activists<\/a><\/p>\n A Friendly Approach<\/a><\/p>\n The Mirror-Image Counterpart of the Selfish Society<\/a><\/p>\n Equal Concern for Each Human Being, Not for Each Human Issue<\/a><\/p>\n Life-Affirming Doctors<\/a><\/p>\n Oppressors of Women Scapegoat Fetuses to Preserve Patriarchy<\/a><\/p>\n Most of his writings can be found here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Satire by Richard Stith Reporter: \u201cI am so grateful for your willingness to answer a few questions about the eviction controversy. As I\u2019m sure you know, in response to the \u201cMy Building, My Choice!\u201d campaign, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development has proposed rules to make it easier for landlords to evict tenants…. <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/1-blog-house-300x225.jpg\")
Reporter<\/em><\/strong>: \u201cWhat do you tell people who believe that God wants them to protect tenants from unjust eviction?\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/1-blog-Stith.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n