Supreme Court allows cities to ban renting homes to illegal aliens (employment, drug)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Government does that all the time. In most places, you are not allowed to sell a guest house (considered an "accessory dwelling unit") separately from the rest of your property - that is a standard zoning practice.
When I bought my rental property,I knew what the zoning laws were and the property was priced accordingly.
But now the government wants to tell me who I can rent to and who I can not rent to.
Nah. That has to be proven. Greater demand leads to greater supply and jobs building, operating, and maintaining those rentals. Illegals are actually a plus. Look at Texas. They all but bus them in there.
In any case, you are picking the winners and losers. If rents are held down because of lack of demand, owner lose. Stop picking winners and losers. Let the market deal with this.
??? BZZT! The whole point of zoning is to restrict supply and prevent having "too many" rentals. Zoning itself is designed to pick winners and losers, and specifically to ensure that property owners do not lose. Everything I've read says that owner-occupied homes generate more jobs than rentals, because homeowners put FAR money into their homes (improvement etc) than do landlords.
LISTEN TO YOURSELVES! This law takes away our property rights. Why should the government be telling an apartment manager who he can rent to? It's his building. If he wants to rent to criminals, addicts, mentally ill, or illegals, it should be his decision and not the government's.
If property owners should have a 100% to rent to anyone they choose, it follows they have the right to refuse to rent to anyone they choose, including based on religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, etc.
If property owners should have a 100% to rent to anyone they choose, it follows they have the right to refuse to rent to anyone they choose, including based on religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, etc.
Maybe. But the law and the courts say otherwise on that one. This is different. It is saying you CAN NOT rent to certain groups of people. The owner is being told that he may not offer a service that he provides to certain potential customers. I am sure you will see the distinction and how inappropriate your analogy is when you think about it a bit.
??? BZZT! The whole point of zoning is to restrict supply and prevent having "too many" rentals. Zoning itself is designed to pick winners and losers, and specifically to ensure that property owners do not lose. Everything I've read says that owner-occupied homes generate more jobs than rentals, because homeowners put FAR money into their homes (improvement etc) than do landlords.
Who cares? It is not the business of government to be picking the winners and losers. Be true to your principles. Where did you get that screen name? You sound nothing like a free market advocate. You want to regulate the labor market by limiting immigration. Freemkt, my tail!
??? BZZT! The whole point of zoning is to restrict supply and prevent having "too many" rentals. Zoning itself is designed to pick winners and losers, and specifically to ensure that property owners do not lose. Everything I've read says that owner-occupied homes generate more jobs than rentals, because homeowners put FAR money into their homes (improvement etc) than do landlords.
So not only do you not understand free markets, you also do not understand government land use policies.
Interesting that "freemarket" wants to limit competition for rentals.
Shouldn't the free market determine rental rates?
Yes, IF property owners are otherwise free to do what they want with their property. I want to buy a tiny piece of land (50 x 50) and build a tiny house on it, but minimum lot size rules tell property owners they cannot sell me such a property, thereby effectively keeping me captive in the rental market. Othher zoning rules restrict the supply and type of housing which can be built, so the market is already unfree and tilted against me.
Government should provide just compensation to those who suffer economic damages (inflated rent payments) as a result of not enforcing our borders, but as our Constitution was written and ratified by wealthy property owners, I'm not going to win on that issue.
So how about I file a tort claim against you for inflating my rent by renting to illegals? Anyone with the most basic understanding of economics recognizes that you have inflated my rent, the only question left is "how much" and that is a question for the jury to address. In a community which supports making it illegal for landlords to rent to illegals, YOU are not going to win that one.
So not only do you not understand free markets, you also do not understand government land use policies.
Then please enlighten us! I have read a fair number of zoning codes, and can tell you that zoning codes often explicitly show their bias in favor of protecting property values and incumbent property owners.
In practice, on the ground, people generally extend greater deference to property owners as a class (e.g. "the neighbors") than do zoning codes as written. For example, it is standard for zoning codes to allow granting a "variance" to a property, under certain specified conditions. In practice, while a variance applicant might have honorable intentions and a laudable plan for his property, those tasked with the decision whether to grant the variance always consider what future owners of that property might do under the variance; with the result being that few variance requests actually get approved.
Yes, IF property owners are otherwise free to do what they want with their property. I want to buy a tiny piece of land (50 x 50) and build a tiny house on it, but minimum lot size rules tell property owners they cannot sell me such a property, thereby effectively keeping me captive in the rental market. Othher zoning rules restrict the supply and type of housing which can be built, so the market is already unfree and tilted against me.
Government should provide just compensation to those who suffer economic damages (inflated rent payments) as a result of not enforcing our borders, but as our Constitution was written and ratified by wealthy property owners, I'm not going to win on that issue.
So how about I file a tort claim against you for inflating my rent by renting to illegals? Anyone with the most basic understanding of economics recognizes that you have inflated my rent, the only question left is "how much" and that is a question for the jury to address. In a community which supports making it illegal for landlords to rent to illegals, YOU are not going to win that one.
For the sake of honesty, PLEASE change your user name.
Do you even understand the irony of "freemkt" making the above arguement?
And yes, ONE of the MANY purposes of zoning is to protect property values.
But restricting supply of rentals is NOT a purpose of zoning, perhaps a consequence but not a purpose.
Question to OP (or anyone), does the law provide for penalties for property owners that rent to people without the $5 card?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
