This is another post about the blatant theft of property that has been occurring in this country: the government is forcing property owners to fund their lockdowns by demanding that they provide free housing. The latest in these stories is this one from California.
The homeowner in this case isn’t some “evil” megacorporation. When she moved in with her boyfriend, she decided to rent out her beachfront condo in order to cover the mortgage, tax, and other expenses.
The tenant in this case hasn’t paid rent in over 14 months, and has been subletting the property, and even listing it on AirBNB as a vacation rental, despite the fact that all of that is prohibited by the lease. A new law passed in May says that landlords can only evict tenants if they pose an imminent threat to health or safety, leaving landlords with no recourse or means of collecting any past due rents.
Slate jumps on the bandwagon by claiming “million of tenants will lose ‘their homes'” when the eviction moratorium expires, completely ignoring the fact that the properties aren’t the tenants’ homes in the first place. The Slate article goes on to claim that there is government money available for landlords to be made whole, but many landlords are refusing to accept the money, thereby making the landlords look mean.
The reason why that money is a bad deal for landlords is that, like most government plans, the money comes with strings attached. The deal is that the property owner has to sign a contract accepting the government funds as a complete settlement of ALL monies due. If the tenant moves out and the property has tens of thousands of dollars in damages- too bad. You can’t report the tenant’s history and failure to pay rent to anyone.
I will quote Slate now:
Eviction should not be the solution to every landlord problem, even though that has been an underlying assumption in the United States for a very long time. We are comparing a choice that someone makes to start a business venture with a fundamental right and need for shelter just to exist as a human being—and I think we need to stop equating those two things. (emphasis added)
Do you see what they are claiming? A person has a right to a place to live, even at the expense of someone else. This is communist bullshit. The ultimate goal here is that property owners will be forced to provide free homes to anyone who claims a need.
I simply can’t see how this is NOT a violation of the takings clause. So far, the courts are taking the position that an eviction moratorium doesn’t deprive the property owner of their property because the rent is still due, even though there is no mechanism in place to allow for the collection of rent.
I see no difference between this and requiring a restaurant to feed people on demand. What else do they want for free? This “eliminate rent” movement is the first step towards destroying our economy and replacing it with communism. This is class warfare, pure and simple.
Poor people and minorities are primarily the people who rent homes. Whites and more affluent people own their homes. Race and class are being used to destroy home ownership.