I don’t quite get it.
What I understand here is that the city supervisors created an ordinance that allows people to essentially live free for two years, with the landlords footing the costs. Then a district judge found the ordinance unconstitutional.
But the article goes on to discuss the ordinance as if it is in full effect? What did I miss?
If the city got a stay of the court’s decision pending appeal, then the ordinance is still in effect.