A pretty huge problem.. a rental contract is between the property owner and the tenant. If the government cancels obligation for one of the two parties, the contract is void. A better question would be why the government is entitled to fuck around with property they dont own and contracts they are not party to? Looks like thievery by any other measure.. and another attempt to fuck with peoples incomes even more than the lockdowns.
It's worse than that. They aren't canceling the obligation, they are just delaying your right to evict someone for non-payment, and since the state lets tenants sue landlords if the landlord evicts them without court approval/local law enforcement there is no recourse.
I'm a landlord in a blue area. Thankfully none of my tenants have tried anything, but if they did they'd still owe the rent. They have to keep trying to push back the date on these programs because if I managed to survive my tenant not paying rent for three months at say 1k a month, the tenant still owes me 3k at the end or I'm kicking them out and taking whatever other measures I need to recoup that cost. They created a catch-22, I honestly believe just out of sheer ignorance originally, where they have to either bankrupt property owners or see mass evictions that only the state is allowed to manage. Now, obviously maliciously, they are making the calculation that property owners/landlords going bankrupt won't bother their voters, since their voters aren't the type of people smart enough to invest their money. This also helps them by crippling the easiest point of entry for wealth generation among the middle class.
My view is, if people arent paying rent then they arent tenants - they are trespassers on property that is not theirs, and nor are they visitors of anyone paying rent either. If people can be expelled from businesses for no reason and arrested by police if they refuse to leave, you as a property owner surely have the same recourse as the owner of any other business property.
Or otherwise throw away all trespass laws as well, including the precious 'capital riot/armed insurrection/attempted overthrow' charges as well which all seem to hinge around the claim of illegal trespass, despite camera evidence showing police waving the crowd to enter.
You are dead right in that Omar telling people they can steal what they dont want to pay for (shop goods, clothes, and now housing) is music to the ears of the sort of people that listen to her.
Your view is logical, practical and correct. Thusly the exact opposite is the reality.
It is nearly impossible to get deadbeats out of your properties without losing your shirt.
Brings up a question. How does the government have the authority to interfere with a mortgage contract. You might be able to argue that a state does, but the federal government's powers are enumerated. It has to be specifically authorized in the constitution. Rent payments are definitely not interstate commerce. I guess we have a lot of legislators that don't understand the law.
The government is telling you what you can and can't do with your own property.
A pretty huge problem.. a rental contract is between the property owner and the tenant. If the government cancels obligation for one of the two parties, the contract is void. A better question would be why the government is entitled to fuck around with property they dont own and contracts they are not party to? Looks like thievery by any other measure.. and another attempt to fuck with peoples incomes even more than the lockdowns.
Marriage is a contract and the government has been inserting itself into it for years now.
It's worse than that. They aren't canceling the obligation, they are just delaying your right to evict someone for non-payment, and since the state lets tenants sue landlords if the landlord evicts them without court approval/local law enforcement there is no recourse.
I'm a landlord in a blue area. Thankfully none of my tenants have tried anything, but if they did they'd still owe the rent. They have to keep trying to push back the date on these programs because if I managed to survive my tenant not paying rent for three months at say 1k a month, the tenant still owes me 3k at the end or I'm kicking them out and taking whatever other measures I need to recoup that cost. They created a catch-22, I honestly believe just out of sheer ignorance originally, where they have to either bankrupt property owners or see mass evictions that only the state is allowed to manage. Now, obviously maliciously, they are making the calculation that property owners/landlords going bankrupt won't bother their voters, since their voters aren't the type of people smart enough to invest their money. This also helps them by crippling the easiest point of entry for wealth generation among the middle class.
My view is, if people arent paying rent then they arent tenants - they are trespassers on property that is not theirs, and nor are they visitors of anyone paying rent either. If people can be expelled from businesses for no reason and arrested by police if they refuse to leave, you as a property owner surely have the same recourse as the owner of any other business property.
Or otherwise throw away all trespass laws as well, including the precious 'capital riot/armed insurrection/attempted overthrow' charges as well which all seem to hinge around the claim of illegal trespass, despite camera evidence showing police waving the crowd to enter.
You are dead right in that Omar telling people they can steal what they dont want to pay for (shop goods, clothes, and now housing) is music to the ears of the sort of people that listen to her.
Your view is logical, practical and correct. Thusly the exact opposite is the reality. It is nearly impossible to get deadbeats out of your properties without losing your shirt.
Brings up a question. How does the government have the authority to interfere with a mortgage contract. You might be able to argue that a state does, but the federal government's powers are enumerated. It has to be specifically authorized in the constitution. Rent payments are definitely not interstate commerce. I guess we have a lot of legislators that don't understand the law.
Don't they already?...