It is if society is the one enforcing the requirement to keep someone on my property.

Also, the simple solution is that the government pays the rent only for time after the business files an eviction claim with the court. After that, the ball is in the court’s court.

Society doesn't pay folks to install fire doors or sprinklers even though it makes you have them. It doesn't pay for the requirements for a restaurateur to follow food safety guidelines.

Not analogous to litigating theft.

There is no analogous situation in law or American history in which private loss is put upon the public merely because the public made you go through proper procedures.

The tenant caused your loss and you can't recover it from the people. Any such procedure would entirely break the model whereby landlords select tenants based on the expectations of remuneration. If the entire government could be made to bear the cost upon request of unpaid rent landlords would be substantially less apt to be careful in their selection.

>If the entire government could be made to bear the cost upon request of unpaid rent landlords would be substantially less apt to be careful in their selection.

This would be a good thing, usually people denounce it as “discrimination”. It’s why you “need” a credit card to stay at a decent hotel, it is a credit check by proxy because the hotel operator cannot count on the police to do their job and remove people.

These types of government policies only end up hurting poorer people who have no credit.

If we are going to go out of pocket 10s of billions of dollars per year I'd rather it be in help to keep people in their homes rather than largess paid out to a class of people that by and large are already in the top 10%.