A crack in the facade?
Comments
-
-
Philosophically I totally agree, but the state prohibitions have held up to this point.creepycoug said:
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?BleachedAnusDawg said:
It's all logical, but the arguments have all been tried and the emergency powers override the legal arguments, according to the courts.HHusky said:
Seems like a Constitutional "impairment of contract" argument on the part of the owners would be a winner.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.
True that you could lose your property. But you always have the option to sell. It's not a taking, per the courts.creepycoug said:
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.BleachedAnusDawg said:
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.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.
I know people directly involved with these legal challenges. They've failed all across the country, not just in WA State.
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/
-
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 -
Exactly fucking this.creepycoug said:
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?BleachedAnusDawg said:
It's all logical, but the arguments have all been tried and the emergency powers override the legal arguments, according to the courts.HHusky said:
Seems like a Constitutional "impairment of contract" argument on the part of the owners would be a winner.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.
True that you could lose your property. But you always have the option to sell. It's not a taking, per the courts.creepycoug said:
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.BleachedAnusDawg said:
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.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.
I know people directly involved with these legal challenges. They've failed all across the country, not just in WA State.
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/
@PurpleBaze
