A crack in the facade?

RaceBannon

https://newsmax.com/newsfront/pandemic-eviction-moratorium/2021/05/05/id/1020224/

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday vacated a nationwide eviction moratorium for rental properties that had been put in place by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide relief for Americans hit economically by the coronavirus pandemic.

District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled that the CDC overstepped its authority by extending the eviction moratorium to all residential properties nationwide.

The ban was implemented as a temporary measure to prevent millions of renters from losing their homes during the pandemic.

It was first included in the March CARES Act passed by Congress under the Trump administration and extended a number of times.

The CDC under the Biden administration was seeking to extend the ban through June 30.

BleachedAnusDawg

I don't think it will do much in most states. Most legislatures have already put in place legislation to extend their moratoriums (in WA it's another 2 years of protections - not an outright ban, but really extends the process and puts safety nets in place for renters) and the federal CARES money is out there now to pay off unpaid rent.

RaceBannon

BleachedAnusDawg said:

I don't think it will do much in most states. Most legislatures have already put in place legislation to extend their moratoriums (in WA it's another 2 years of protections - not an outright ban, but really extends the process and puts safety nets in place for renters) and the federal CARES money is out there now to pay off unpaid rent.

I prefer this local approach to the CDC getting involved in rents. The SD folks eventually face the voters

http://twitter.com/sdut/status/1389820295918211074?s=20

creepycoug

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

BleachedAnusDawg

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

It's been attempted and the courts ruled in favor of Inslee. The emergency powers he's granted are basically unchecked, and the Courts determined that the eviction bans and rent freezes do not constitute a government taking because technically the renters still owe the rent at the end of it all. That, of course, is laughable because the odds of getting that unpaid money are extremely low, but technically the court is right.

I know people directly involved with these legal challenges. They've failed all across the country, not just in WA State.

creepycoug

BleachedAnusDawg said:

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

It's been attempted and the courts ruled in favor of Inslee. The emergency powers he's granted are basically unchecked, and the Courts determined that the eviction bans and rent freezes do not constitute a government taking because technically the renters still owe the rent at the end of it all. That, of course, is laughable because the odds of getting that unpaid money are extremely low, but technically the court is right.

I know people directly involved with these legal challenges. They've failed all across the country, not just in WA State.

Interesting. Worth noting that "taking" is a broad concept, and I think "you'll eventually get your rent" focuses on just one of the many benefits expected to be enjoyed by property owners. Also, if you can't make your loan payments and lose your property, then of course you're being denied the most basic of those rights: to keep owning it.

HHusky

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

Seems like a Constitutional "impairment of contract" argument on the part of the owners would be a winner. It is a direct prohibition the US Constitution places on the States. States can't legislate retroactively with respect to vested contract rights.

BleachedAnusDawg

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

Seems like a Constitutional "impairment of contract" argument on the part of the owners would be a winner.

It's all logical, but the arguments have all been tried and the emergency powers override the legal arguments, according to the courts.

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

It's been attempted and the courts ruled in favor of Inslee. The emergency powers he's granted are basically unchecked, and the Courts determined that the eviction bans and rent freezes do not constitute a government taking because technically the renters still owe the rent at the end of it all. That, of course, is laughable because the odds of getting that unpaid money are extremely low, but technically the court is right.

I know people directly involved with these legal challenges. They've failed all across the country, not just in WA State.

Interesting. Worth noting that "taking" is a broad concept, and I think "you'll eventually get your rent" focuses on just one of the many benefits expected to be enjoyed by property owners. Also, if you can't make your loan payments and lose your property, then of course you're being denied the most basic of those rights: to keep owning it.

True that you could lose your property. But you always have the option to sell. It's not a taking, per the courts.

The contractual impairment argument seems like the strongest one and it still has not been successful. If this challenge doesn't work I don't know what will: https://pacificlegal.org/case/el-papel-v-city-of-seattle/

doogie

any lawyers care to weigh in?

creepycoug

BleachedAnusDawg said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

Seems like a Constitutional "impairment of contract" argument on the part of the owners would be a winner.

It's all logical, but the arguments have all been tried and the emergency powers override the legal arguments, according to the courts.

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

It's been attempted and the courts ruled in favor of Inslee. The emergency powers he's granted are basically unchecked, and the Courts determined that the eviction bans and rent freezes do not constitute a government taking because technically the renters still owe the rent at the end of it all. That, of course, is laughable because the odds of getting that unpaid money are extremely low, but technically the court is right.

I know people directly involved with these legal challenges. They've failed all across the country, not just in WA State.

Interesting. Worth noting that "taking" is a broad concept, and I think "you'll eventually get your rent" focuses on just one of the many benefits expected to be enjoyed by property owners. Also, if you can't make your loan payments and lose your property, then of course you're being denied the most basic of those rights: to keep owning it.

True that you could lose your property. But you always have the option to sell. It's not a taking, per the courts.

The contractual impairment argument seems like the strongest one and it still has not been successful. If this challenge doesn't work I don't know what will: https://pacificlegal.org/case/el-papel-v-city-of-seattle/

Eventually they're going to find a judge who's going to cry bullshit on "emergency" powers. Great misdeeds have been done in the name of emergency powers, and we're going on a fucking year and half here pretty soon. The case must be made than you can't fuck 1/2 the population so the other half can be saved for being unprepared. The number of non-institutional investors who are getting bent over by this is LARGE. Anecdotal evidence alert: I personally know many people who have (perhaps foolishly) put 80+ % of their retirement into rentals. These are middle to upper middle class people. Not the global elite OBK and his retard friends hate so much. These are people you and I know.

If people can gather to watch Alabama play football, then it's time for people to pay rent or LEAVE!

Off soap box now.

creepycoug

BleachedAnusDawg said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

Seems like a Constitutional "impairment of contract" argument on the part of the owners would be a winner.

It's all logical, but the arguments have all been tried and the emergency powers override the legal arguments, according to the courts.

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

It's been attempted and the courts ruled in favor of Inslee. The emergency powers he's granted are basically unchecked, and the Courts determined that the eviction bans and rent freezes do not constitute a government taking because technically the renters still owe the rent at the end of it all. That, of course, is laughable because the odds of getting that unpaid money are extremely low, but technically the court is right.

I know people directly involved with these legal challenges. They've failed all across the country, not just in WA State.

Interesting. Worth noting that "taking" is a broad concept, and I think "you'll eventually get your rent" focuses on just one of the many benefits expected to be enjoyed by property owners. Also, if you can't make your loan payments and lose your property, then of course you're being denied the most basic of those rights: to keep owning it.

True that you could lose your property. But you always have the option to sell. It's not a taking, per the courts.

The contractual impairment argument seems like the strongest one and it still has not been successful. If this challenge doesn't work I don't know what will: https://pacificlegal.org/case/el-papel-v-city-of-seattle/

Takings take all forms. When your property has been regulated to the point of worthlessness, then you have a case. Who wants to buy a rental with state-sanctioned squatters living their rent free (lolz) for the foreseeable future?

creepycoug

doogie said:

any lawyers care to weigh in?

BleachedAnusDawg

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

Seems like a Constitutional "impairment of contract" argument on the part of the owners would be a winner.

It's all logical, but the arguments have all been tried and the emergency powers override the legal arguments, according to the courts.

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

It's been attempted and the courts ruled in favor of Inslee. The emergency powers he's granted are basically unchecked, and the Courts determined that the eviction bans and rent freezes do not constitute a government taking because technically the renters still owe the rent at the end of it all. That, of course, is laughable because the odds of getting that unpaid money are extremely low, but technically the court is right.

I know people directly involved with these legal challenges. They've failed all across the country, not just in WA State.

Interesting. Worth noting that "taking" is a broad concept, and I think "you'll eventually get your rent" focuses on just one of the many benefits expected to be enjoyed by property owners. Also, if you can't make your loan payments and lose your property, then of course you're being denied the most basic of those rights: to keep owning it.

True that you could lose your property. But you always have the option to sell. It's not a taking, per the courts.

The contractual impairment argument seems like the strongest one and it still has not been successful. If this challenge doesn't work I don't know what will: https://pacificlegal.org/case/el-papel-v-city-of-seattle/

Takings take all forms. When your property has been regulated to the point of worthlessness, then you have a case. Who wants to buy a rental with state-sanctioned squatters living their rent free (lolz) for the foreseeable future?

Philosophically I totally agree, but the state prohibitions have held up to this point.

RaceBannon

As pointed out, no one who can't pay the rent is going to come up with 12 months once restrictions are lifted

A cluster fuck of malarkey

pawz

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

Seems like a Constitutional "impairment of contract" argument on the part of the owners would be a winner.

It's all logical, but the arguments have all been tried and the emergency powers override the legal arguments, according to the courts.

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

creepycoug said:

I know that real property is inherently a state and county law matter and that few contexts exist for federal pre-emption.

I'm waiting for some group of funded property owners to start paying the real lawyers to think of a constitutional argument to trump (lolz) state laws.

There must be something in the Takings jurisprudence. @HHusky ? Any other lawyers here? Can we? (not should we? you know my thought on it) pre-empt state law on this on a Takings basis? Or is federal Takings law limited only to Federal action? IDK, but somebody does.

It's been attempted and the courts ruled in favor of Inslee. The emergency powers he's granted are basically unchecked, and the Courts determined that the eviction bans and rent freezes do not constitute a government taking because technically the renters still owe the rent at the end of it all. That, of course, is laughable because the odds of getting that unpaid money are extremely low, but technically the court is right.

I know people directly involved with these legal challenges. They've failed all across the country, not just in WA State.

Interesting. Worth noting that "taking" is a broad concept, and I think "you'll eventually get your rent" focuses on just one of the many benefits expected to be enjoyed by property owners. Also, if you can't make your loan payments and lose your property, then of course you're being denied the most basic of those rights: to keep owning it.

True that you could lose your property. But you always have the option to sell. It's not a taking, per the courts.

The contractual impairment argument seems like the strongest one and it still has not been successful. If this challenge doesn't work I don't know what will: https://pacificlegal.org/case/el-papel-v-city-of-seattle/

Takings take all forms. When your property has been regulated to the point of worthlessness, then you have a case. Who wants to buy a rental with state-sanctioned squatters living their rent free (lolz) for the foreseeable future?

Exactly fucking this.

@PurpleBaze