The Supreme Court refused to weigh in because “it was soon to expire”
Feel the pain of 2A advocates. Or 14A (P&I) advocates. Or 10A advocates. Or..
The nature of government/authority is they will always creatively push the boundaries of what they can permissibly do. There are amendments that are considered "second-class" and even worse. If nobody defends it, it will not enforce itself.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/23/thoughts-on-the-sixth-c...
I never considered the 3rd amendment to be a protection against that but I can see how soldiers randomly living in your home could be seen as government appropriation
What happened here is that the government changed the rules (i.e. risk / reward profile) of a well-established market overnight with very little recourse for the players involved. It would be like the government removing FDIC insurance on savings accounts during a bank crisis.
Maybe necessary, but hard to argue it was fair.
My whole point is the government changed the rules in the middle of the game. Certainly bad tenants are always a risk, but not bad tenants that the government forces you to house for over a year.
What you're doing is like telling businesses that get nationalized by corrupt regimes "hey, business comes with risk". But my whole point is, eventually, nobody can accept those risks, so people choose not do to business, which actually makes things worse for everyone.
For the above reasons. I struggle to be sympathetic to landlords. They were taken care of. And quite frankly, I think they are the least deserving of the assistance. Rent seekers and speculators should be last in line for help. When you buy an expensive house or a hot stock, things like pandemics, wars, and financial shocks are part of the risk profile.
After 6 months she agreed she was going to start paying (September 2020). She had a job, she had stimulus and she was buying nice TVs and stuff.
She never started paying again. The “government said she didn’t need to”.
My friends parents owe taxes, had to make repairs, have to pay insurance. They are out at least ten thousand dollars. At the same time, they are out of work.
What are they supposed to do? Sell to black rock, who are getting free funds from the FED (ie their taxes)?
https://strangesounds.org/2021/07/blackrock-is-buying-up-us-...
Landowners are typically nice, small time people who are renting out an old home. They take care of everything the renter doesn’t want to and in return receive a fee. The landlord takes all the risk.
You’re basically saying “bankrupt the grandma and grandpa, because young people would rather buy meme stocks or TVs than pay rent” that’s not all cases, but the government did give out thousands in free money for the unemployed. The dominos by me in a rural community is offering $25/hr + tips and can’t find people to work. There are job openings everywhere and I think people can make it work.
There’s not a great solution, but saying the landlord is on the hook when the government is supposed to represent everyone is not reasonable.
I thought there was federal relief coming for landlords.
1. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/15/many-states-have-given-out-u...
Source? The clause in NY's ERAP says you can't evict them without a good reason, which is really no change to a normal eviction. What's protected against is a landlord collecting the money and then evicting the tenant anyway. Going forward, if the tenant fails to pay, comply with the lease, or anything else that would normally incur an eviction, the landlord is free to start the eviction process.
I don't think 'most landlords' would refuse that deal. Additionally, again, based off of NY's program, this isn't really something the landlords sign up for. It's tenant initiated. A landlord can fill out the application on behalf of the tenant, but the tenant still needs to make attestations and provide information the landlord most likely doesn't have.
And the eviction moratorium does not remove the financial responsibility for past due rent. They can use threat of eviction after the the moratorium expires to force the tenant to pay past due rent. And if that doesn't work they can take the tenant to court. And as mentioned in my original comment, there will likely be financial assistance.
And to reiterate, I have zero sympathy for landlords who are essentially engaging in rent seeking and speculation (whether they realize it or not). If grandma and grandpa loose all of their money speculating on bitcoin, I will have zero sympathy for them. It is no different if they loose it all speculating on real estate. If they can't handle they downsides they should have put their money in a safer investment.
If you feel that way, you should also be opposed to the moratorium. Those people were speculating they’d still have jobs (according to the fed, people’s greatest single asset). And they lost it. There should be no sympathy?
I’m in agreement there. Let’s just let individuals figure it out and I think all would be better off. At least better than the law not being applied evenly.
So, why aren't these people investing in such an obvious gold rush as you are making it to be.
The devil is in details. There is a some underlying theme in your comments that people just wake up one day and realize they're magically owning home, which they can rent. Wisdom is in understanding that this is just another business, you pay for what you use. The provider takes a profit.
If you don't want things this way there are other systems to try(communism), your country doesn't seem to like them. In fact you guys have fought wars over the last century against it.
You got what you asked for. What are you complaining about now?
If the rent being charged is in excess of market value, there is indisputably a surplus profit being pocketed by the owner, which thereby cancels any contribution back to society (quite the opposite, in fact, since the profit is directly off of the backs of tenants, who are typically not land / property owners).
However - even if the landlord is charging market rate, rent-seeking is still going on when the value of the property has appreciated (say, the whole neighborhood’s property values have gone up) and the owner is charging tenants in excess of what the owner is actually paying (which was negotiated at the time of purchase, when the value was lower) in order to make a profit where the owner has not contributed at least the same amount of value.
Since both of these tend to be the typical case in the landlord-tenant relationship - property value goes up, landlord accordingly raises rent in order to profit off of unearned income (which it is, at least according to US tax law), landlords are absolutely rent-seeking rent-seekers.
And while I sympathize with the plight of the retired granny and grampa landlords whose fatal flaw was trusting their no good, criminal-minded tenants too much - that does not hold a candle to the plight of the millions of working class Americans who will be sleeping in their cars because they didn’t have the foresight to become homeowners.
(sincerely curious)
That said, I don’t think that’s typically allowed on a second home.
1. Family members aren't "rich" by conventional standards, they worked for the government in mid-level jobs their whole lives and are retired.
2. They bought a house they planned to retire to, but then moved when they had issues with it. They planned to sell the house but due to timing issues (construction in the neighborhood) they wanted to wait, so temporarily rented it out.
3. They had bad timing: rented in early 2020, the renter paid 1 month of rent, and never after that. And I looked this guy up, he is a total freeloader, part of the blame is on my family for not better vetting him.
4. But the takeaway for small landlords is the government can basically appropriate your property whenever they want. So we're just left with giant landlords who can manage this risk, and which again leads to less available affordable housing and a further concentration of wealth.