It’s been nine months since Minnesota landlords have been able to evict people for non-payment.
Charity? Well, sure – and an easy one for the State to pay for, since it’s all coming out of the pockets of landlords.
In Democrat parlance, landlords are an easy, cheap villain to demonize in order to rally support among renters. They’ve been the kick toy of both cities’ administrations for decades. The small, private landlord – a working stiff renting out his parents’ old houses or his own investment property – has been treated as a convenient Man in Black for a generation; there are urban non-profiteers who literally cannot refer to these people as anything but “slumlords”.
And the campaign has largely succeeded – both Minneapolis and Saint Paul have done a fine job of zoning, coding and harassing the small landlord out of existence in the Cities (replaced largely with public housing authorities who are, frequently, slumlords, by the way).
So – is the “eviction moratorium” an act of charity, or just another way for the DFL-addled state to help the cities finish extincting the small landlord?
The state’s defense to this lawsuit may help provide some answers to that.
And these cities and citizens wonder why there is so little “affordable” housing. It’s now become a question of affordable to who?!
Between the onerous and seemingly endless regulations, laws and hurdles and Minneapolis’ feckless mayor allowing one under construction to be burned down, why would anyone want to own rental property in this state?!
I’m not expert on inverse condemnation law but I hope the landlords win.
By issuing the moritorium on evictions for non-payment of rent, the state has deprived the landowner of all economically viable use of the property for nine months. It owes them just compensation required the Fifth Amendment as interpreted by Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission.
There is no Virus Exclusion in the Constitution. The government’s motives in condemning the property rights don’t matter. The consequences of ending the moritorium are not the court’s concern. The test is weighing the effect of government regulation on owners’ property rights.
This is the part of cost-benefit analysis that was skipped last March. It’s easy to say “Stay Home” when you’re not paying for it. Let’s see how easy it is when the state has to start paying the cost of Governor Walz unilateral decisions.
.
With the moratorium on evictions, what is the distinction between a small and a large landlord? Neither is getting paid to cover expenses so all will declare bankruptcy and surrender properties to the state which will then “gift” then to its favorite “charities”. THEN, moratorium will be lifted. Wanna bet?
I don’t know how the eviction moratorium is not a takings under the Constitution.
We are back to politicians that can’t see any effects beyond first order. Hmmm, wasn’t there a post on that a week ago?
Mitch – maybe you need another entry tag? 2nd and 3rd Order Effects that no one could have predicted?