Tag: private property

Supreme Court rejects Michigan family’s claim that county committed ‘home equity theft’ over $2,200 tax debt

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously sided with Isabella County, Michigan, rejecting a family’s claim that local governments must pay homeowners the full fair market value of property seized and sold in tax foreclosures rather than the lower price obtained at public auction.

In the 9-0 decision, the court ruled that under the Fifth Amendment, “the proper baseline under the Takings Clause is the price obtained in a tax sale, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of our country’s history of tax sales.”

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito explained that “neither the Fifth nor the Eighth Amendment requires the government to compensate former owners based on the hypothetical fair market value of their property.”

The high court noted that creating a fair-market-value baseline would impose “unprecedented burdens” on local governments seeking to collect unpaid taxes, making these sales “impractical.”

“Under Pung’s rule, a tax sale to collect $20,000 in delinquent taxes would net the government a $20,000 loss—a loss paid out to the delinquent taxpayer himself,” Alito continued. “The possibility of such a perverse result would render tax sales infeasible as a debt-collection mechanism.”

The ruling comes amid a decade-long legal battle between Isabella County and the Pung family over what they called “home equity theft.” Isabella County foreclosed on the family’s 3,000-square-foot home over a disputed $2,241.93 tax bill stemming from a revoked Principal Residence Exemption, subsequently selling the $194,400 property at auction for just $76,008. Michael Pung, acting as the personal representative of the estate, disputed the bill and brought the legal challenge on behalf of the family.

While the county eventually returned the surplus auction proceeds, the family argued the Constitution required “just compensation” based on the home’s actual worth, rather than a low-ball auction price that destroyed more than $118,000 in equity.

However, the court said on Tuesday it would not “resolve any of Pung’s newfound contentions that the procedure the County followed in seizing and selling his property was unfair.”

The court ultimately vacated and remanded the case, sending it back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reconsider those procedural claims.

Keep reading

Mamdani Rent Freeze Will Effectively Take 40% of NYC Apartments off the Market

On June 25, 2026, the Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) voted 7-1 to set the annual rent adjustment for rent-stabilized apartments at 0% for both one-year and two-year lease renewals commencing October 1, 2026, through September 30, 2027, fulfilling Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s campaign pledge to “freeze the rent.” It is the first time in the board’s history, dating to 1969, that a two-year lease has been frozen at 0%; one-year freezes had occurred three times previously under Mayor de Blasio.

The board also set the hotel and single-room-occupancy (SRO) order at 0% for the same 2026-27 period, extending the freeze to every category the RGB regulates that year, including rooming and lodging houses.

Six of the nine board members were appointed by Mamdani before the vote. Owner representative Christina Smyth resigned hours before the final vote, calling the process predetermined. The lone dissent came from Arpit Gupta, a holdover appointee from former Mayor Eric Adams.

New York City has roughly 2.2 million rental units. Of those, about 1 million are rent-stabilized, close to 40-45% of the total rental stock, depending on the year’s survey, and are subject to annual RGB decisions. Nearly half of those stabilized units are occupied by people born outside the US.

Rent controls of any kind are a classic example of misguided socialist economic policies intended to solve a problem while, in reality, making it worse. Ultimately, suppressing rent increases reduces the number of units available for rent by encouraging landlord exit and tenant lock-in. A rent freeze does not simply cap future increases. It widens the gap between what a rent-stabilized unit can legally charge and what it could command on the open market.

As that gap grows, a landlord’s financial incentive shifts away from continuing to rent the unit and toward selling it to an owner-occupant, converting it to a condominium, combining units, or leaving it vacant rather than re-renting it at below-market rates. Each of these outcomes effectively removes the apartment from the rental market, even though the building itself remains.

Keep reading

A judge decides that property owners in Wainfleet, Ont. deserve to be fined MILLIONS for renting their properties!

Government overreach has once again reared its ugly head in the Township of Wainfleet, Ont. (pop. approximately 7,000). And at least one Ontario judge is OK with this.

Here’s the skinny: Wainfleet council has effectively declared war on landowners who make their properties available for short-term rentals. And the township is fining these residents at least $10,000 per owner per dwelling per day!

Translation: as these daily fines mount, few can afford to pay these enormous sums. And that ultimately means “violators” risk having their properties seized by the township.

This seems like banana republic stuff to say the least.

Meanwhile, one dare not say anything negative about this council on social media. That’s because this council is trying to silence citizens via a lawsuit based on… copyright violation? Indeed, the township claims videos online depict the township’s crest and corporate log, emblems that are being used without consent or approval. Seriously.

It would appear that the Township of Wainfleet likes to carry out its shakedowns away from the public eye and will pursue censorship to ensure that goal if need be. All of which has many residents in the township pondering if Wainfleet is situated in the Dominion of Canada – or the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.

Rebel News interviewed Scott Wilson and Laural Duquette more than a year ago. They head up the Wainfleet Association of Responsible Short-Term Rentals (STR).

Wilson says he is facing a total fine threshold that now totals $175 million. As such, his family risks having their property confiscated by the township given that they are unable to pay those fines.

The township’s heavy-handed tactics are beyond the pale. Granted, Canadians do not enjoy private property rights under the constitution. But the questions arise: what is driving this short-term rental vendetta? What is the harm in a homeowner renting out his or her property? Those are key questions – and questions that deserve answers – except that nobody at the township will come on the record to comment.

And another query arises: what indeed is the unspoken strategy behind the short-term rental jihad? Is this all about Wainfleet councilors embracing a NIMBY initiative when it comes to short-term rentals in their township?

Recently, Wilson and his fellow renters had their day in court fighting these massive fines. It did not go well. Justice James Ramsay in the Superior Court of Justice in Welland ruled in favour of the township. Here are some excerpts from his decision:

  • “There is no evidence of bad faith [by the Township of Wainfleet].”
  • “The penalties are coercive, as opposed to punitive. They are not disproportionate.”
  • “The by-law is not discriminatory. Requiring the owner to own the property for two years before applying for a licence promotes stability of ownership and makes absenteeism by landlords less desirable. Operators who live in the community have a stake in the liveability [sic] of the neighbourhood.”

Justice Ramsay dismissed the application and awarded the Township of Wainfleet partial legal costs totaling $5,000. Then again, given that Wilson is already on the hook for $175 million, five grand amounts to chump change…

Check out our most recent interview with Wilson. While he and his fellow renters may be down, they are not out given they are appealing the decision.

That appeal is scheduled for next January. This story is far from over. Stay tuned.

Keep reading

Sony Playstation Deletes 551 Movies People Already Paid For

Sony delivered a brutal reminder this week that if you don’t own the physical disc, you don’t own the movie.

Even if you paid the full price to purchase the movie, you don’t really own the movie.

Sony has “confirmed a substantial wipeout that will result in over 550 titles being permanently deleted from personal libraries.”

“The list of movies and series that will be pulled from digital spaces is extensive and spans a wide range of prominent blockbusters, indie hits, and critically acclaimed titles that people have previously purchased to watch at home or on the move — but not for much longer,” adds the report.

This includes popular movies such as Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Total Recall, and Rambo: First Blood, along with outright classics such as Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter. Even some TV shows, like American Gods and Versailles, will be yanked.

Here’s Sony’s announcement to all the suckers who purchased these 551 movies and TV series:

As of 1 September, 2026, due to our content licensing arrangements, you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased StudioCanal content and the content will be removed from your video library.

That’s just another way of saying what came out of the fascist World Economic Forum ten years ago: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.”

Listen, I’m not trying to come off as superior here. About ten years ago, I naively decided to go full-digital with my obnoxiously huge movie collection. After converting, I sold my discs. Hundreds of them. Then came the realization that “owning” a digital copy meant nothing of the sort. It also meant that the Woke Gestapo was going into private digitized collections and vandalizing movies, even classics like The French Connection.

I have since rebuilt my physical media collection, but too many of the movies I once owned on Blu-ray are no longer available.

Oh, and it’s not just movies and TV shows anymore. You once owned a copy of computer programs by purchasing a CD. Remember that? Well, today you are forced to rent that program by the month or by the year.

Sony PlayStation also just announced that it will no longer sell physical copies of its games starting in 2028. You will only be allowed to buy a digital copy, which means Sony can censor it, alter it, or remove it any time it wishes.

If a movie or TV show, song, or novel means a lot to you, buy the physical copy or risk not only having your copy censored or removed, but also risk it disappearing forever — like Song of the South or The Path to 9/11 — for political reasons.

Keep reading

NYC Landlord BLASTS Zohran Mamdani With Truth After Commie Rent Freeze Affects Millions

A New York City landlord, Jude Jean Paul Bernard, has gone viral on IG after tearing into Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his commie voters who backed his rent‑freeze agenda, calling the policy “socialism at its best.” Mamdani had celebrated the Rent Guidelines Board’s 7–1 vote to freeze rents on both one‑ and two‑year leases for roughly one million rent‑stabilized apartments with a social‑media clip from his kitchen freezer, telling more than two million affected residents “your rent’s gonna be frozen next year.”

In his response video, Bernard opens by sarcastically trolling by congratulating renters for “doing it” and “getting the rent frozen” for the next two years, before warning that the victory is not what they think it is. “Now, that doesn’t mean that expenses have gone down,” he tells the audience, listing taxes, insurance, water and energy as costs that have not fallen even as revenues are capped by the city.

“If we were struggling to make the numbers before, I’m not sure how we’re going to fix that boiler, fix that broken elevator, and do all those things that you tenants deserve,” Bernard continues, arguing that the freeze leaves owners without cash to maintain buildings. He goes on to note that “the same city that just passed this rent freeze has also said that they will be taking distressed properties from bad landlords,” suggesting that officials are setting up a scenario where owners are first starved of income and then punished for failing to keep up with repairs. “So, you don’t have the money to fix the properties, but if we don’t fix the properties, you guys are going to take it away,” Bernard says, capping his monologue with the line, “I love it (sarcasm). Socialism at its best!”

Social media users responded all over the country by calling out the freeze as a “Marxist” and “communist” agenda and presents Bernard’s video as proof that freezing rents for more than two million residents is already backfiring on the city’s housing stock and private ownership. Bernard’s warning dovetails with broader landlord and trade‑group complaints that the freeze, while politically popular with commies, will mean deferred maintenance, more “distressed” buildings and potential foreclosures as operating costs outpace frozen rents.

Keep reading

Billionaire Hypocrites Preach ‘Communism for Landlords’ From Their $30M Hamptons Mansions

In what has become a tiresome ritual among the ultra-wealthy, a hedge fund titan and his socialite wife are bankrolling efforts to impose socialist housing policies on New Yorkers while enjoying the fruits of capitalism from multimillion-dollar properties. Bobby and Carola Jain have funneled tens of millions into initiatives that push “decommodification” of housing and universal schemes, all while residing in luxury that most New Yorkers can only dream of.

This is not mere inconsistency. It is the predictable outcome of a worldview that demands others sacrifice for the collective good while exempting the enlightened elite. The Jains’ patronage of think tanks and policy shops aligned with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani reveals a deeper truth about modern progressivism: it thrives on the rhetoric of equality even as its architects insulate themselves from the consequences.

Bobby Jain built his fortune through high-stakes finance, rising at Credit Suisse before serving as co-chief investment officer at Millennium Management. He launched his own hedge fund, Jain Global, with an impressive $5.3 billion in commitments. After modest results, the fund returned capital to outside investors and now manages money primarily for Millennium.

Keep reading

Homeowners furious after Ontario government threatens to seize portions of backyards

In sleepy Burlington, Ont., eight homeowners are fighting to save their backyards from the clutches of the Government of Ontario (the Ministry of Transportation to be precise.)

The homeowners face losing about two-thirds of their backyards. And they must also incur the costs of moving any infrastructure that stands in the way. This would include everything from backyard patios and storage sheds to even a swimming pool.

As to why the MTO is acting in such a fashion, this remains a mysterious question.

The crux of the matter is that the eight homes back onto the Queen Elizabeth Way highway. The current boundary is marked by a chain-link fence. As well, a few metres away from the chain-link fence stands a stone wall. One wouldn’t even realize there is a major highway on the other side of that stone wall unless this fact was brought to one’s attention.

By way of background, the eight homes in question were constructed some 70 years ago. And for seven decades the current boundary existed without controversy. But the MTO is now maintaining that the land in question has always belonged to the government and that the province is simply reclaiming land that has always been government property.

But again, what is the ostensible policy reason for this boundary extension? And why now?

This relatively little patch of land surely cannot be used to extend the highway, nor construct a railway line – the typical reasons for land expropriation by the government, or, in this case, land reclamation.

Rebel News ventured out to Burlington to interview the affected homeowners who have indeed lawyered up and are not bending the knee without a fight. They are also very concerned that in the expanded boundary area, homeless people might set up encampments, which would seriously impact their quality of life.

We also reached out to the media relations department of the MTO. Our queries included:

1. The existing boundary has been in place for some 70 years. Why is the MTO now wanting to extend the boundary?

2. What is the purpose given that there is not enough land in question for any sort of extension of the Queen Elizabeth Way (which is situated on the other side of the backyards)?

3. I understand the residents will not be compensated for the loss of this land. Why is that the case?

Our queries were not even acknowledged, which, alas, is standard business procedure when it comes to the communications strategy of the Doug “For the People” Ford Progressive Conservatives.

In the meantime, this baffling boundary dispute appears to be headed to a court of law. Stay tuned.

Keep reading

New Yorkers Are Starting to Realize Just How Crazy Mamdani’s Housing Scheme Really Is

They voted for him, and so they have him, but that doesn’t mean that even New Yorkers are thrilled to see the systematic destruction of what was once the greatest city in the world. More of them voted for the young, handsome, dynamic candidate than for the sleazy retread corruptocrat Andrew Cuomo or the clownish Curtis Sliwa, but that doesn’t mean that New Yorkers are collectively ready to don Mao jackets and start singing the praises of the five-year plan. Mamdani’s audacious scheme to socialize New York City housing is already coming in for severe criticism.

One sign that some New Yorkers are aware of what Mamdani is really all about was an unsigned editorial in the New York Post on Monday. The Post Editorial Board wrote that Mamdani’s “‘Block by Block’ plan to build 200,000 subsidized apartments entails a lot of handwaving, magical thinking and reliance on ‘responsible stewards’ . . who have been failing to manage the real-estate portfolios they already have.” Mamdani promises that “if ‘community land trusts, nonprofits or even the tenants themselves’ control the city’s housing stock, these miracle-workers will ‘expand New Yorkers’ access to safe, stable, and affordable homes.’”

However, the Post points out that “programs that do all this are so old and tired that Mamdani’s Gen Z policy experts appear never to have heard of them, maybe because the experiments had already failed when they were building fantasy housing projects out of Legos.”

Indeed. If socialists learned from experience, there would be no more socialists. There is system on the planet that has been tried so many times and failed just as many times, and yet constantly gains new young adherents who don’t know how bad socialist regimes really have been, or would care if they did know, because in their youthful arrogance, they’re sure they’re going to do right this time what their elders kept doing wrong. Mamdani is going to be the world’s first socialist to build a society. Sure, and he is also going to sprout wings and fly to Mars.

Mamdani announced, of course, that he planned to seize rental properties from landlords who have not maintained them properly — in the judgment of none other than Mamdani and his cronies. He then intends to hand over ownership of those properties to “community land trusts” and “non-profits.”

Oh yeah, that’ll fix everything. As foredoomed as this idea is as any sort of real solution to New York’s housing problems, it has long been high on Mamdani’s to-do list. Intifada on the Hudson: The Selling of Zohran Mamdani shows how he has made socialized housing schemes a centerpiece of his program ever since he entered politics. “People often ask,” Mamdani wrote on Dec. 3, 2020, “what socialists mean when we say we want to ‘decommodify’ housing. Basically, we want to move away from a situation where most people access housing by purchasing it on the market & toward a situation where the state guarantees high-quality housing to all.”

Keep reading

Oklahoma Homeowner Charged with MANSLAUGHTER After Gunning Down Squatter Who Took Over One of His Houses

An Oklahoma homeowner earlier this month took deadly action against a lazy squatter and now faces a serious threat to his freedom.

As KOCO reported, 59-year-old Timothy Smith was arrested by police and charged with first-degree manslaughter after fatally shooting 42-year-old Justin King, who had taken over one of his homes in Oklahoma City.

KOCO revealed that Smith discovered King was living on the property and went to confront him on May 1. When Smith arrived, he stumbled upon the squatter having carnal relations with a female in one of the home’s bedrooms.

Smith claims he shot King in self-defense after the squatter took a step toward him.

The squatter died one week later.

From KOCO:

Smith, who was not living in the home at the time, said he entered with a gun and confronted King when he found him in the back bedroom with a woman.

When he ordered King to leave, Smith claimed that King stepped toward him, so he aimed at the area of the squatter and pulled the trigger, per court records cited by KOCO.

He hit King in the neck, and he was taken to the hospital. He died a week later on May 8.

Smith was initially arrested on charges of assault and battery with a deadly weapon. He was then charged with first-degree manslaughter after King died in the hospital.

Criminal defense attorney Ed Blau told KOCO that the self-defense claim in this case may not apply because Smith was not living in the home at the time of the shooting.

“There’s no death penalty for squatting in the state of Oklahoma. You can’t just take a gun in and shoot somebody,” Blau explained.

Blau added that while Oklahoma’s Castle Doctrine allows homeowners to defend their primary residence against intruders, the law is different for a vacant home.

“If a trespasser or a burglar breaks in or comes into the home that you live in and you’re there, you can pretty much shoot them or do whatever you want to with them,” Blau told KOCO. “And because of the Castle Doctrine here in Oklahoma, in a situation like this, an abandoned house, it’s much different.”

“You can’t go in, put yourself in a situation and say, ‘This is my house, so I felt I had the right to shoot him.’”

Keep reading

Mamdani’s Housing Program Follows the Socialist Playbook: Create the Crisis, Seize the Property

“When necessary, we will take aggressive legal action to remove negligent owners and property managers. And for buildings that have suffered chronic neglect, we will work to transfer ownership to responsible stewards,” said New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, explaining how the city plans to seize private property and transfer it to “stewards that include community land trusts, non-profits, or even the tenants themselves.”

The good news is he will not be taking property from all landlords, only the ones he decides are bad. “Through our new citywide campaign, Fix the City, we will focus on the worst landlords in New York City.”

Mamdani does not seem troubled by the fact that his proposal appears to violate the Fifth Amendment, which states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Even before being elected, he announced that he would be seizing private property. As a candidate, Mamdani declared: “We will use every single tool at our disposal, including seizing buildings from slumlords, to ensure that each and every New Yorker is given what is their right, a safe place to call their home.”

Now, as mayor, he is moving to act on it. On May 27, Mamdani unveiled his 112-page “Block by Block” housing plan in Gowanus. The enforcement mechanism involves the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development will launch a “Fix the City” initiative to conduct roof-to-cellar inspections in targeted buildings and aggressively use the 7A Program, through which the city can initiate legal action to remove negligent owners and property managers from day-to-day management.

The plan also has Housing Preservation and Development collaborating with other agencies and borough district attorneys to pursue criminal charges against property owners.

What Mamdani is proposing is a textbook Austrian economics interventionism cascade. Austrian economics, the discipline in which the author of this article is educated, holds that rather than solving problems and making life better for citizens, government intervention generally exacerbates problems, making them worse, more widespread, and increasingly difficult to resolve. Each resulting distortion is used to justify the next intervention, which in turn causes the problem to get worse, necessitating more government intervention, making things worse…until all properties fall under state control.

The landlord crisis Mamdani claims to be solving was created by the very rent control policies his administration is now doubling down on.

The methodology for creating a crisis that allows the state to seize property begins with artificial rent controls such as freezes and rent ceilings. Below-market rates destroy the landlord’s incentive to maintain and invest in property. When rents fall below a certain level, the landlord may not even be able to afford repairs and maintenance.

The rational economic response for a landlord who is forced to rent at rates below operating costs is to defer maintenance. The building deteriorates. The landlord becomes, by definition, a “bad landlord,” not from malice but from economic necessity created by the policy itself.

The city then uses the deterioration it caused as the legal and moral pretext to seize or transfer the property. The government manufactured the problem and now presents itself as the solution.

Keep reading