3 ms·
The government prohibiting a landlord from evicting a tenant for rent non-payment amounts to a taking of his or her property, and I doubt it is constitutional.
by Bostonian 6y ago
The government prohibiting a landlord from evicting a tenant for rent non-payment amounts to a taking of his or her property, and I doubt it is constitutional. If politicians believe that evictions must be suspended during a crisis, they should make available loans and grants to tenants who cannot pay rent because of reduced income.
- danso 6y agoThe story talks about the CARES Act, which applies to "certain rental properties with federal assistance or federally related financing", specifically: > rental units in properties: (1) that participate in federal assistance programs, (2) are subject to a “federally backed mortgage loan,” or (3) are subject to a “federally backed multifamily mortgage loan.” https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11320 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11320
- juniper_strong 6y agoI don't see how that invalidates the original point. Taking a federally backed mortgage loan doesn't mean the government can now take your private property for public use, which is what is happening here. If you personally buy a house using a federally backed mortgage, does that mean the government can show up and take your house and give it to someone else without compensating you? You would be OK with that if it was your house? That doesn't make sense. This seems like a pretty blatant violation of the takings clause and is likely unconstitutional.
- fred_is_fred 6y agoFannie Mae buying my mortgage is different than the programs you mentioned. Often times developers buy and or build properties with below market loans which do come with some terms - per above. Otherwise it would be a free lunch.