I thought you were an attorney.
You should know better.
Loads of regulations exist around tenant/landlords and it is NOT the same thing as letting someone flop in your spare bedroom.
Tenant/landlords is a contractual arrangement. Something the government definitely regulates.
Yes, and see, that’s my name on the deed. My house. I had a contractual arrangement with this guy that he could stay there IF he paid me $X per month. He failed to pay. He is in breach, so I get the house back. The feds say I can’t because we the public will be harmed with homeless people on the street. They are denying me use of my property for a public purpose. A 5th amendment taking…pretty easy from a legal perspective.
Where do you get the idea that because the government regulates landlord/tenant relationships that it can just rob me of my property?
I got no such idea because they never robbed you of your property.
So I can walk back into it and use it?
Are you an attorney IRL?
Are you going to answer the question or just insult me? How is it not a taking if my name is on the deed, but I can’t use my property because of a government regulation forbidding me from enforcing a legal contract?
No taking happened.
Period.
As the landlord you still own the property and you still have accrued the debt of your tenants. Further, the government tried to compensate owners. That they sucked at it is a different discussion.
No. Taking. Happened. None.
As an attorney you surely know the government regulates all sorts of contracts. Tenant/landlord contracts are heavily regulated across the country (there has been no shortage of slumlords). Has been so for decades.
So, again, what was taken? (delayed does not equal taken)
You keep saying that no taking happened. It is my property. I can’t walk through the front door because of a government rule. The lease was legal. The lessee didn’t pay. I can’t throw him out. Of my house. The government has deprived me of all economic value of my property.
Sure, the government can pass rules and regulations about the contracts. They can say I can’t racially discriminate, for example. But they cannot, under the Fifth Amendment deprive me of economic use of my property without just compensation.
And a promise that the tenants have to apply for the program and maybe get my money down the road is not compensation.
Delay? Try taking a case of beer out of your local store and tell them that your wife might apply for a program and maybe they will see their money months from now and see if a court thinks that the store owner was “compensated” for the beer.
ETA: I mean, is the tenant’s promise as good as money like in Dumb and Dumber with the IOUs?
What was taken?
My house. I can’t use it because of a government rule.
It’s still your house. You own it. The tenants still owe you rent.
Eviction of tenants has been regulated for a long, long time. Nothing new there.
A government rule that you should have been well aware of before you rented your place. Even if you were not still one you are beholden to.
It doesn’t work that way. The tenants owed me rent on the first of each month, not some day when (never) they decide to pay. That was right there in the contract.
Under your theory, the government could restrict my use of my property for 70 years under the theory that I could sell it when I was 80. One of the bundle of sticks of property rights is that I can use it for economic benefit or otherwise…now, today, not at some undetermined time in the future.
Just my state but,
In general a landlord does not have the right to enter the residential rental premises without consent of the tenant or a judgment from the Superior Court of New Jersey.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjA18CZi93yAhV7QTABHeTMCkAQFnoECAIQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.state.nj.us%2Fdca%2Fdivisions%2Fcodes%2Fpublications%2Fpdf_lti%2Fright_of_entry.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0A7lXrziPGdMxId6CJiSiV
But the government says I can’t get that judgment that I am legally entitled to under state contract law. It is a taking.
So, you’re just going to ignore the part where you can’t walk through the front door of an occupied apartment without consent because of a government rule . . . that has nothing to do with the moratorium?
It is not “my theory.”
Tenant/landlord relations may be complicated but it is also law with a lengthy history and well established.
No. What I am saying is that if he doesn’t pay, I can enforce my contract in NJ and have him evicted for non-payment. The feds have denied me that right. They let him live there for free. That is a taking.
They have delayed his payment. The cost of living there continues to accrue and he owes you that money.
That is not a taking.
That wasn’t the deal! He pays on the first of the month. He is not paying the first of this month or the last year and a half. I am keeping him at my own expense for public benefit. The public owes me money. Basic civics.
Does your bank or car note holder just let you pay whenever you want with the promise that they will get their money at some point? Of course not. Contract law requires timely payments and a property owner has a right to that, not some vague promise down the road.