But I relied on the law that says if they don’t pay, they get thrown out and I relied that my property would not be taken without just compensation.
Also a response to @spifflog :
Some resources are both finite and are necessities. If existing social systems aren’t getting those necessities to people in an adequate fashion, then it’s our obligation to change that system.
If you’ve chosen to turn a necessity into a profit center for yourself, then being subject to potentially shifting regulations is a risk you’ve accepted as part of that investment.
I’m not allowed to price gouge during states of emergency either.
I’m not arguing that the eviction moratorium was the best or wisest option, but it is the responsibility of the government and in all our best interests to ensure that members of a community have stable places to live.
You also seem to be willfully ignoring differences between your place of residence and a property owned as a business. But I will suggest the following: if there came a time in which large numbers of people were homeless because of lack of affordable housing stock, then I would absolutely expect the government to consider ways to discourage single-family living. And if it meant that those homeowners lose something, so be it. Different people are required to give at different times
As a landlord, there are all sorts of rules and regulations about what you can and cannot do with regards to your property and your tenants (some of which have been noted already). I do not understand why disallowing evictions for a finite period for the good of society is Marxism (can we for once not poison the well with the spooky specter strawman of Marx and Socialism just because someone suggests that you might bear a responsibility to other people in your community?) and obviously beyond the pale, but disallowing access to the building without proper notification for the good of society, or allowing evictions only after [whatever the process required and time periods involved prior to the issue at hand] for the good of society are fine.
What if you rent a room or two in your home, to help make ends meet, and your tenant stops paying rent? Should they be able to continue to live inside your own home, rent free?
Kinda . . . you can’t throw them out tomorrow, you can only throw them out per existing law and regulation. And, those laws and regulations are of course always subject to change. And that’s the risk you took when you started the business.
If I own a business that relies on the fact that people can park on the street nearby, and the government removes those parking spots, then those are my tough cookies.
If I own a business that relies on the ability to drill water on my property, and the government introduces regulations limiting the amount of water I can take from the aquifer, then that’s my shit to deal with.
What is it about real estate that implies to you that it is unregulatable, or that any government action that negatively impacts that financial investment is unjust?
Not all generalizations fit all situations. I am not @Cheesesteak, but I think that landlord-occupied rental situations should absolutely be governed under a different set of rules than other properties. And, in fact, they are in many ways.
I think it’s reasonable to say that those types of landlord/tenant arrangements deserve different scrutiny and different considerations with regards to the topic at hand.
Laws change. You ‘relied’ on the law that said evictions require XYZ, and the law changes to require WXYZ, you don’t get to cry Constitution over it. It may be unfair, uncool, and even illegal, but it isn’t inherently unconstitutional.
How is this any different than saying that people who work in fields we deem necessities should work for free? Nurses, doctors, and farmers are all ones that seem obvious. But we also need an orderly society, so that would add police officers, lawyers, judges, bailiffs, court clerks, etc. to the mix. Should they all work for free?
It further strains credulity to say that the forcible taking of your property is a mere regulation like having to install wheelchair ramps. A regulation is not theft from one to another. Would you argue that the farmer must give his food away for free under the guise that “Yes, the previous regulation allowed you to make money selling food, but when you started a business, you knew that regulations could change, and one of those changes is that you must give away free food.”
It would be laughable and there would be no farmers or landlords. And there is the pesky Fifth Amendment.
If your philosophy of the acceptable treatment of business was allowed to become mainstream, I’d fear for the republic - and I’m not joking.
A President of the US once said “the business of America is business.” Commerce and business is what has made this country function. Regulated commerce but commerce nonetheless. And your belief that once you try and start a business or another enterprise intended to make money and support the economy, employ workers, pay taxes etc., you are subject to having your business run at a loss due to the whims of the most extreme citizens will ensure that no one even makes the attempt.
It’s different because, other than possibly farmers, none of the above represent direct control of a necessary and limited commodity. If we need more court clerks or police officers we can incentivize that. Court clerks are an infinite resource. Housing is not.
You’re really het-up and single-minded about this, and I don’t know that it makes much sense to continue this, but I’ll say that it strains credulity to equate changing an already-regulated aspect of business (landlords are already required to give away housing for free for a period as they evict tenants) as theft. Even if it’s an extreme change. I do not see how changing regulations on landlordship (or on the tools/assets involved in that business) is fundamentally different than changing regulations on any other operating business.
The more that an industry controls the shape of a community, the more the community has a vested interest in adjusting regulations on that business for the good of the community.
To take your hypothetical, forcing farmers to give away food would likely result in farmers quitting their jobs, having the opposite of the desired effect. No one is suggesting that.
If landlords find current regulation onerous they can also quit and sell their properties. Probably driving down property values dramatically making more housing available at cheaper rates.
Lack of landlords has never been a problem, nor is it one I am concerned about. Landlords can quit their jobs. Another landlord, or another model will take their place.
We might ask it for a small period in a time of emergency.
Aren’t the landlords also protected under this moratorium from being foreclosed upon? basically - money isn’t moving in either direction - and both can apply for the aid as needed?
So- while I agree in principle that denying landlords thier rent is a dis-service - in this particular scenario they are ALSO protected from having issues due to the loss of income. Of course, there might be followon issues (no rent money, no money for repairs, etc) - but, its not like they are just left in the cold.
As I understand it, that’s not what the Court necessarily decided. They decided that the CDC was an example of improperly delegated power, which is probably a valid conclusion, IMO. Legally speaking, the SCOTUS was probably right in that there should be some sort of statutory provision that clearly grants the power to impose a moratorium on evictions to the CDC.
But that issue aside, imposing a moratorium isn’t an example of government taking property; it is, however, the regulation of what people can do with capital.
Still, you may challenge if W is or is not within the proper regulatory powers the constitution gives the government and/or if it does or not violate a right. Up to the court to rule. We don’t get to just assert it up front.
I am on record in this discussion as seeing the latest decision as more based on “no, this agency is not empowered to go this far”. But I do also acknowledge that stopping a source of income could be seen as a taking — though I make a distinction as mentioned above between a property that is my dwelling and one that is primarily income-generating business, regulatory measures especily those that override contractual obligations must be taken through the properly statuted process.
Yup. Basically, congress needs to do this. The CDC cannot.
From their decision:
It is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the COVID–19 Delta variant. But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends. Cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 582, 585–586 (1952) (concluding that even the Government’s belief that its action “was necessary to avert a national catastrophe” could not overcome a lack of congressional authorization). It is up to Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether the public interest merits further action here.
If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it. The application to vacate stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted.
I wonder if an Executive Order would be enough? The supreme court allowed the internment of Japanese-Americans based only on an executive order.
The CiC issued that (racist) executive order purportedly for the defense of the nation. It’s less clear that the president has the power to issue executive orders to prevent a homelessness crisis, though I am sure good arguments could be made. I’m not saying I like any of this, mind you; just trying to think like a conservative skeptic.
Stepping back a moment. Ultravires is wrong about what landlords are allowed to do, but Whack-a-Mole is wildly wrong in describing the law. Ultravires is making a bad argument and Whack is making a worse one in response.
The question of whether or not this is a “Taking” is not determined, but I would emphatically not be confident that the government could just shrug off that points if it came down to court. SCOTUS didn’t need to look at it, so they didn’t, but that’s not the same as saying it isn’t a legal issue. There’s no reason to declare one argument is correct because the precedent here doesn’t seem to be clear.
The problem is that the government in this case impaired contracts and interfered with a normal commercial relationship to the detriment of one party. Fundamentally, no matter what happens in the abstract, that makes a good prima-facie case that this is a “Taking” if a landlord is indeed financially impaired by the event. A court might or might not accept the argument, but it’s hardly an absurd one under the law.
Well, the Supreme Court literally just said this was allowable. Their only gripe was that the CDC could not do it and it had to be Congress doing it. But they certainly suggested it could be done as long as the proper part of government did it.
So, why am I “wildly wrong?”
Just to be clear, so the court has in no way stated that the moratorium is a violation of the Fifth Amendment?
Searching the Supreme Court’s opinion I see no mention of any constitutional amendment. None. (if they do they are not using that word nor does “fifth” provide any results)
Nor do I find the word “taking” used anywhere in their opinion.
Yes. It is often referred to as “renter’s relief” but the truth is that it benefits both the renter and the landlord. If you are a tenant, there are government programs that you can apply for to help with your rent. The landlord has to get involved too since there are forms that the landlord has to fill out and sign. The tenant gets money to help pay their rent, and the landlord then gets that rent.
If you are a landlord and you haven’t been getting rent, you need to get your tenants signed up. There’s no reason to get to the point where you need to evict for unpaid rent as long as these programs are in place.
Cite: I’m a landlord. One of my tenants has gone through this.
‘Clearly a violation of the Fifth Amendment! We need to allow these deadbeat landlords to be immediately kicked out of their buildings! It’s theft and it’s not fair to the actual owners of those buildings . . . the mortgage company!’