'a person may not be deprived of property by the government without “due process of law,” or fair procedures'

I'm obviously not a Constitutional Scholar but how does this a) deprive people of property (it's just taxing empty ones) and b) not come under 'due process of law' (will be voted on by the public)?

Also can't see how it falls under "eminent domain" since the Government isn't seizing these properties - you can still have an empty property, you just can't do it consequence-free.

This proposal is the equivalent of "there's x% unemployment, and 100,000 open jobs. If you insist on not filling those jobs, we'll tax you"

There might be numerous reasons for the vacancy, but malice, where homeowners are possibly price gouging the rental market for greed, is pretty much the only reason that justifies government interference. Everything else is the government imposing what one does with their private property, which is overstepping it's jurisdiction, especially when the property's use is fully compliant with decades old law

Ownership is a collective phenomenon. There is no such thing as private property. No matter what it's called or how it works, ownership is always embedded in a network of relationships and social and political transactions.

The myopic view that it's all about the owner is wrong to the point of narcissism.

It's never just about the owner. It's about the web of relationships in which these transactions and claims happen, and the effects they have on the rest of the web.

This might be a "philosophical, rhetorical" take on ownership, but by US law, it means something VERY specific, and grants very specific rights to owners, and prohibits those rights to non-owners.

>There is no such thing as private property

This isn't true from the perspective of the legal system and isn't true from the natural law framework on which US common law is based.

> but malice, where homeowners are possibly price gouging the rental market for greed, is pretty much the only reason that justifies government interference.

to you.

> Everything else is the government imposing what one does with their private property

But they already do that with "decades old law" - e.g. you (probably) can't run a brothel from your private property in LA. Why is this such a different restriction?

> Why is this such a different restriction

I'm a little confused why this question would arise. Use of property, private or otherwise, for illegal use is, well, illegal. Your example cleanly falls under the illegal classification.

I would like to note that the city council is penalizing private property owners under the assumption of malice, and not in good faith. They've unburdened themselves from proving malice, which is a sneaky encroachment of jurisdiction that they aren't entitled to.