Then go to court counselor. You apparently have a view that can upend decades of tenant/landlord law, not to mention contract law.
Good luck.
Please cite for me these “decades” of tenant/landlord law that allows a tenant to simply not pay, or “delay” payments with an unenforceable promise to pay sometime?
Also, I don’t have to go to court. Others did and won.
This is a HUGE area of law.
First Google hit:
Which would suggest it is NOT “your place” such that you can toss them at a whim.
You are just giving me the cite for what the CDC recently did which the Supreme Court has held to be unconstitutional.
But you are saying that basic landlord/tenant law, because there are government regulations there, allows the government carte blanche to say that the tenant doesn’t have to pay (ever or at least on time) and can stay. The Supreme Court said no way, and it seems pretty basic that you have a right to your house like I do mine, and the Fifth Amendment protects that.
I said no such thing.
In fact, the court only said the CDC could not make such rules. The Supreme Court said Congress could.
So, their issue is not the rule but who makes it.
If congress makes it then they are cool with it.
I’m sorry. You said that the government can say that they can just promise to pay at some indefinite time in the future, stay in the home, based on “decades” of precedent.
I made an edit when you posted…please re-read the post just above your last post.
Ah, yes, I missed it. From SCOTUS:
Despite the CDC’s determination that landlords
should bear a significant financial cost of the pandemic,
many landlords have modest means. And preventing them
from evicting tenants who breach their leases intrudes on
one of the most fundamental elements of property ownership—the right to exclude. See Loretto v. Teleprompter
Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 435 (1982).
The case cited was one that held that requiring landlords to install CATV receivers on the rooftops was a taking. If Congress does pass a law, it will require just compensation. As it should.
Congress already provided a compensation.
As others have noted, it didn’t. It allows the tenants, if they take the initiative, to apply for funds. It pays nothing to the landlords.
It pays the landlords, not the tenants. But the tenants need to apply for it.
The corruption otherwise would be rampant.
Correct. My bad. But that is not compensation, is it? I owe you money, but you only get paid if I apply for it and no law requires me to apply for it, and you can’t throw me out anyways.
Well, if I was a tenant not paying you I think it would be in my interests to see that you get paid so I do not owe you in the future.
I’m not saying you, but the general you. You haven’t paid me the $1k/mo for the last 15 months. You owe me $15k. I’m pretty upset because I saw you having a cookout for the 4th of July. In short, you (the general you) is out as soon as I can throw you out. And you know that.
But as a tenant, you (general) are judgment proof so it makes no sense for me to even pay a filing fee to get an uncollectable judgment.
And again, as a landlord, I didn’t sign up to be a charitable giver. This is benefitting the public. If I am to keeping this person under my charge, then the public (the government) should be sending me rent payments on the first of the month.
Why am I being put out and others are not? It is benefitting the public not to have these people homeless. Why am I the one suffering?
Screw over a few hundred landlords or turn out tens of thousands of people onto the streets to be homeless?
Hmmm…decisions, decisions.
“Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?”
Philosophically? Because you control the housing (a limited and required resource), and as such have a responsibility to the welfare of the community that those who are not landlords do not have. Basic civics.
And, you are “the public” as well, so you may suffer some, but you also benefit from not having these people homeless.
Why? Why does a landlord have this responsibility?
What about a farmer? There are hungry citizens. Why don’t we have the hungry just walk on the farm, and into the local grocery store and take what they need? Isn’t that better than having the hungry walking around? Basic civics.
What about Walmart? There are citizens that don’t have the clothes that they should? Why shouldn’t they be able to walk into Walmart and just take what they need? Basic civics.
There are limits to all of this, that’s why. I mentioned up thread that I have a blue collar relative that is mortgaged to the hilt to buy a duplex to try and put his kids though college in 15 years, and he hasn’t seen a dime in 18 months. He’s seen nice cars and all kinds of recycled boxes from TVs and laptops, but strangely, he sees no rent check. And he knows he never will.
Basic civics apply to all, not just those with their hand out.
What philosophy is this? Is it from Karl Marx? So I pay for the housing with my money and I therefore owe it to let a stranger stay in my house for free because he needs one?
Lets assume we make the same amount of money and you bought a nice boat and I invested in real estate. Why do I have to aid the poor and you do not?
Did someone put a gun to your head to offer your property up as a money making venture? THAT is why you don’t get to live in it anymore, because you started a housing business.
The moment you decide to metaphorically hang up your shingle and offer something publicly in exchange for money is the moment you stop being 100% in charge of what happens.