Should eviction bans without government compensation count as

[lfromnj]

?

I think its obviously a slam dunk argument at SCOTUS after yesterday's decision and unlike yesterday's decision it has an even better argument. The government is trying to prevent someone going homeless and using your property for this purpose and not allowing you to access your own property.

[Person Man]

I think it should be done by Eminent Domain but don't think it would be abuse of Eminent Domain. This isn't the same as the government forcing the sale of a house so that a mall parking lot could be built, for example.

[lfromnj]

I think it should be done by Eminent Domain but don't think it would be abuse of Eminent Domain. This isn't the same as the government forcing the sale of a house so that a mall parking lot could be built, for example.

Yes, that's what I meant, Eminent domain is allowed but it still means fairly compensating the property owner . If one is renting a property they basically have 0 to very limited access to their property which is a fair part of the contract. However when one side doesn't uphold the contract and give payment one is being forced to stop access their property in exchange for nothing at the time.

[AGA]

Yes, which is why landlords deserve reparations.

[Person Man]

Yes, which is why landlords deserve reparations.

Were the eligible for the PPP program?

[AGA]

Yes, which is why landlords deserve reparations.

Were the eligible for the PPP program?

I don't think so.

[Donerail]

An eviction ban? Sure. But I'm not aware of any such thing in the US.

[dead0man]

An eviction ban? Sure. But I'm not aware of any such thing in the US.

today, June 24th, it was announced Biden's CDC is extending the evictions moratorium

many cities had them too



I abused it too.  I haven't made a house payment for well over a year, despite never being out of a job and we refinanced as part of starting it up again.  Paid off ALL debts....and I mean all, first time in my life since I was 16 that I am, except for the house, 100% debt free, my credit score is amazing right now.  When we start making house payments again in Aug they will be 40% less than they were (though it turned it back into a 30 year loan, but we'll be making bigger payments, thus destroying the principal early and often) because of much lower interest rates than when we first bought the house.

[lfromnj]

https://www.rentseattle.com/blog/seattles-winter-eviction-ban-seattle-apartment-managers-weigh-in

Also certain  areas are banning evictions during Winter Months even in the future.

[John Dule]

Yes. And more generally, a government that not only refuses to protect its people's property rights but even provides aid to the thieves is practically non-functional.

[MarkD]

I think its obviously a slam dunk argument at SCOTUS after yesterday's decision and unlike yesterday's decision it has an even better argument. The government is trying to prevent someone going homeless and using your property for this purpose and not allowing you to access your own property.

First of all, I am pretty skeptical about that recent decision you're referring to, just like for over 25 years I have been pretty skeptical about Dolan v. City of Tigard, (1994). In order for me to accept that decisions like these -- and what you are suggesting in terms of eviction bans -- are correct interpretations of the Takings Clause, I would need to see some historic evidence that, in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted, it was commonly understood by most people that the Takings Clause would address a broader range of property rights than just for an owner to be compensated when his/her property gets confiscated. Did Joseph Story suggest that the Takings Clause would address how properties could be regulated (in his classic Commentaries on the Constitution)? Lacking any evidence that the Takings Clause was originally understood to address even more than what that Clause says -- it merely addresses the confiscation of property -- I will stick to a text-based interpretation of that Clause and I would not support the SCOTUS for getting imaginative in the past and becoming even more imaginative now.

[nclib]

If they share the same living space, then maybe. Otherwise no.

[AGA]

https://www.rentseattle.com/blog/seattles-winter-eviction-ban-seattle-apartment-managers-weigh-in

Also certain  areas are banning evictions during Winter Months even in the future.

I would imagine that it will become more difficult to get a lease in the future with landlords requiring higher credit scores and down payments, maybe even a rise in rent.