Tag: private property

How the Federal Government Created the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

If anything symbolizes the American dream, it is homeownership—an asset that is viewed as part of a route from poverty and exclusion to independence and responsibility. However, as detailed in Part I, for over a century, state and federal governments worked to racially segregate American neighborhoods, promoting homeownership for whites while denying it for African-Americans. The result is that decades after discriminatory treatment in housing was outlawed, the homeownership gap between minorities and whites remains large.

Such a shameful condition motivated many well-meaning activists to pressure government housing authorities to expand homeownership opportunities to minority and low-income residents. The left saw this as a way to reduce discrimination and marginalization, solving the problems of past racism. The right saw it as a way to build an “ownership society” and give low-income earners a stake in the American dream, an anti-communist tactic first envisioned by Woodrow Wilson.

From the 1990s to the 2000s, both political parties bent the federal mortgage agencies to their will, continually relaxing underwriting standards to promote homeownership. Along with historically low interest rates, this led to an explosion in subprime lending, which fueled the housing bubble and spread toxic mortgages throughout the financial system. Rather than a failure of the free market, the federal government was directly complicit in the mortgage market’s spectacular ramp-up and eventual collapse.

Keep reading

The Left’s ‘stolen-land’ rhetoric threatens private property

Left-wing “land acknowlegements” could be having real-world consequences for property owners in Canada. And the United States may be next.

It began as a polite ritual. Before meetings or ceremonies, institutions began acknowledging that their buildings sit on land once inhabited by Indigenous peoples: “We recognize this is the unceded territory of the [tribe name].” The practice, with roots in Australia as far back as the 1970s, was picked up in Canada following the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission report and moved quickly from Canada to left-leaning universities, city councils and churches in the 2020s. Many saw it as a mere courtesy. But beneath the symbolism lies deeper political movement that could erode the very foundation of private property.

In Canada, that shift is already underway. A British Columbia Supreme Court ruling this year suggested that even privately owned, fee-simple land might rest on “defective and invalid” title if an Aboriginal title still exists. For a nation built on English common-law property rights, that’s quite a statement. As columnist Kevin Klein warns in the Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa’s silence on the issue is turning Crown land — once considered secure — into “conditional land.” If the Crown’s title is conditional, how long before yours is?

Land acknowledgements may sound harmless, but they prepare the rhetorical ground for these legal arguments. Once governments, universities, and corporations declare publicly that their property sits on “stolen land,” they’ve already accepted the premise that they don’t actually own it. Activists then insist that recognition demands restitution — and suddenly the issue moves from ceremony to court.

That’s what’s happening in Canada, where some judges now treat Indigenous land claims as concurrent with existing titles. For investors, homeowners, and farmers alike, that’s a recipe for uncertainty — and eventually, seizure of land.

The Left insists this is “reconciliation,” not revolution. But the outcome is the same. Private property rights are fundamental to Western liberty. If property is always subject to retroactive moral judgments or undefined shared stewardship, ownership loses to temporary permission.

In the United States, land acknowledgements have also run rapid, typically in the same academic and bureaucratic circles that look askance at capitalism and private property.

None of this means ignoring history or dismissing past injustices, just refusing to let symbolic guilt erode the legal system. Reconciliation should not come at the cost of the rule of law. Governments must make clear that while we honor history, property rights remain absolute under modern law.

The growing unease north of the border is a warning to America: beware the moral language that undermines legal foundations. Today’s “land acknowledgement” may be tomorrow’s title challenge. And once you concede the premise that your land isn’t really yours, it may not be for long.

Keep reading

Democrats’ Bill Would Let Federal Workers Skip Paying Rent During Government Shutdowns

Since the federal government isn’t currently paying its bills during the shutdown, Senate Democrats think federal workers shouldn’t have to either.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D–Hawaii) and 17 of his Democratic Senate colleagues have introduced a bill that would relieve federal workers and contractors from their obligations to pay rent, mortgages, insurance premiums, and student loan payments during shutdowns.

The bill would also stay eviction and foreclosure proceedings for 30 days after a shutdown ends. Anyone who tries to carry out an eviction or foreclosure of a federal worker or contractor during that time would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fines or even jail time.

“Right now, hundreds of thousands of federal workers, federal contractor employees, and their families don’t know whether they’ll be able to pay rent and make ends meet. Our bill will protect these workers and make sure they aren’t harmed during this shutdown,” said Schatz.

To be sure, this bill is mostly signaling.

Politically, Republicans are not going to advance legislation that would reduce pressure on Democrats to vote to reopen the government.

Practically, the protections it would offer federal workers are unnecessary, at least in the housing context.

It would be odd, and indeed irrational, for a landlord to evict an otherwise good tenant if they miss a full rent payment during a government shutdown that will, in all likelihood, end in a few weeks. That’s particularly true given that government workers are guaranteed back pay once a shutdown ends.

Pursuing an eviction in that context would require a landlord to kick out a tenant who’s going to start paying their bills again soon, and instead incur the costs of the eviction itself, turning over the unit, and finding a new tenant.

Clearly, the reasonable thing to do would be for landlords and their current tenants to work out a deal in such circumstances. We have plenty of evidence that that’s what happens even during even more severe economic shocks.

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent shutdowns put a lot of people out of work. Contrary to the predictions of activists, this did not produce a mass wave of evictions—either before or after eviction moratoriums were put in place, and even when promised federal rental assistance was hard to access.

By and large, tenants paid their bills with what funds they had, and landlords worked out deals about how to cover any shortfall.

Keep reading

New Carbon Capture Legislation, Same Old Grift

A bi-partisan Congressional duo is pushing for a massive federal land grab through new carbon capture and storage (CCS) legislation in the U.S. House.

Utah Republican Blake Moore joins forces with California Democrat Jim Costa to sell out private property owners nationwide with the BECCS Advancement Commission Act of 2025.

BECCS stands for “Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage,” and the legislation builds on Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act, adding additional funding for CCS to the billions included in that massive financial debacle.

H.R. 5597 also proposes adding another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. If passed, it will establish a BECCS Advancement Commission in the Department of Agriculture, a nine- or 10-member board comprised of career politicians, lobbyists, and subsidy recipients. (So much for DOGE.)

Assorted Accolades

To date, no other Congressmen have added their names as cosponsors. But the bill has earned plenty of accolades from those who stand to reap billions in federal largess. Some of them include:

  1. Arbor Energy, a carbon capture tech company founded in 2022, cozy with Microsoft, and which has already received $7 million in federal funding.
  2. Elimini, an even more recent startup launched in late 2024 and specializing in BECCS technology, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United Kingdom’s renewable energy giant Drax Group. In other words, it’s a conduit for American tax dollars to a foreign-owned company.
  3. The Carbon Business Council (CBC) is a non-profit association whose members hail from CCS circles. It is involved in Elon Musk’s XPRIZE which, at $100 million, is touted as the “largest incentive prize in history,” and aims to fund development of carbon dioxide removal technology. CBC’s executive director, Ben Rubin, is a frequent speaker at United Nations climate conferences and at the World Economic Forum.

“BECCS is a novel technology uniquely positioned to promote wildfire mitigation, bolster economic development in rural America, and deliver much-needed baseload power as energy demand for data centers and artificial intelligence continues to grow,” stumped Moore as he introduced the bill. “This legislation will help us harness new technology to reduce wildfire risks, create good-paying jobs and keep rural economies like ours growing,” Costa predictably parroted.

Keep reading

You’re On Your Own: Raleigh Police Chief Says She Will Not Put Officers in Harm’s Way to Protect Property

Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown held a press conference on Sunday morning after the mass violence and looting by leftist protesters overnight. Deck-Brown called the mass destruction “disgusting and unacceptable.”

Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown then lectured on white supremacy in front of the looting buildings and said she would not put officers in harms way to protect property.

You’re on your own, suckers!

Keep reading

Greens vote to ABOLISH landlords in bizarre assault on millions of Brits at party’s conference… even though one of their own MPs rents out a home

Green Party members have voted to ‘abolish’ landlords at their autumn conference as they took aim at the nearly three million people in Britain who rent out a home.

A motion passed at the Greens’ gathering in Bournemouth on Sunday committed the left-wing party to ‘seek the effective abolition of private landlordism’.

This would be achieved through punitive regulation and taxes on landlords, including the introduction of rent controls and scrapping of Right to Buy.

Those who let out Airbnbs would have to pay business rates under the Greens’ plans, while there would be double taxation for empty properties.

Party members also backed proposals for a ‘land value tax’ levied on owners not tenants, as well as the imposition of National Insurance on private rents.

In addition, the motion demanded the ending of buy to let mortgages as a means of removing finance for landlords.

It comes as the Greens look to build on their growing strength in major cities, with new leader Zack Polanski claiming they are ‘on track’ to supplant Labour in London.

But the motion could prove awkward for Adrian Ramsay, one of the Greens’ four MPs, who is landlord of a property on Norfolk.

According to his parliamentary register of interests, Mr Ramsay rents out a home he co-owns, which provides rental income of more than £10,000 a year.

The MP for Waveney Valley has previously defended being a landlord, posting on social media in August: ‘I co-own a property with my ex-wife, which we used to live in. 

‘I don’t make a profit from it as I have kept the rent below market rate. I don’t intend to be a landlord long-term.’

The motion passed by Green members on Sunday stated: ‘The private rental sector has failed, it is a vehicle for wealth extraction, funnelling money from renters to the landlord class.

‘This motion makes it clear Green Party policy is to seek the effective abolition of private landlordism and our support for building council housing.’

It added: ‘The Green Party believes the existence of private landlords adds no positive value to the economy or society, that the relationship between landlord and tenant is inherently and intrinsically extractive and exploitative.’

Carla Denyer, Green MP for Bristol Central, said: ‘While the motion to confidence had an eye-catching name, it does not actually ‘abolish’ landlords.

‘It does however address the housing crisis, empowers tenants and improves their wellbeing.

‘It contains a range of policies which, over time, would reduce the proportion of the housing market that is privately rented, and increase the proportion of socially rented homes.’

Mr Polanski, who was elected Green leader last month, has been dubbed an ‘eco-populist’ and is aiming to replace Labour on the Left of British politics.

He told The Guardian this weekend:  ‘I think it’s already happening. It’s happening at defection level.

‘Just last month in Barking and Dagenham, we welcome three new councillors to the party. It’s also happening right across England and Wales.

‘At local council elections, there was a stunning victory recently in Brighton, where the Labour vote completely collapsed and the Green vote rocketed.

‘Reform are still a worry, yes, and the fact that they’re polling even reasonably in London is a real threat, I think, to anyone who’s a progressive voice.

‘But absolutely, the plan has always been to replace Labour at the electoral level, starting at the local level, and I think we’re on track to do that.’

Keep reading

Local Tyrants: How Property Rights of Farmers in Battleground States are Victimized by Zoning Boards

A new report spearheaded by the Private Property Rights Institute (PPRI) has profiled different farmers in the battleground states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, highlighting the stories of how zoning boards have prevented them from properly utilizing their land to stay afloat.

In an age of Biden-driven inflation, domination of the farming industry by ruthless Big Ag and a myriad of other economic challenges, these farmers have also had to deal with the mandates of zoning boards restricting their ability to develop their land as they see fit.

Bob Wackernagel, a third-generation farmer in Michigan, has watched community-based farming slowly die off in Michigan. At the age of 60, he reports being the youngest farmer in his area. To make ends meet and preserve his family’s way of life, Wackernagel leased approximately 100 acres for solar development upon the most arid portion of his farmland. As a result, he has received attacks from township officials.

“I use the ground that returns me the least investment back on my crops … I’ve replanted two or three times a season on that land, because of poor soil quality… They act like it’s their land … They don’t have to pay the property taxes; they don’t have to farm it,” Wackernagel said.

Dwight Ely, a seventh-generation farmer from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, can trace his roots on his family’s land back to the 1800s. He raises livestock and operates a meat-processing business with massive and growing energy costs. Ely invested in solar panels years ago to help bring down his energy bill to manageable levels.

“Sure, it helped this generation for sure … big savings… absolutely, it helped to continue the generational thing for sure,” he said. “We pay that thing off, and it’s been nothing but awesome … It’s just been a gift that keeps giving,” Ely said.

Ely worked with neighbors to add fencing, plant trees and make sure his solar panels did not cause blight within his rural area. However, his hopes to expand his solar fleet as part of a business expansion plan that would have provided value to the community were stymied by the local zoning board.

“Some little guy sitting up at a little office at the township building says… he wants to make it hard. That’s the ridiculous part,” he said.

Two local officials in Pennsylvania and Michigan – Leoni Township Supervisor Howard Linnabary and Bradford County Commissioner Doug McLinko – believe that misinformation and a poor understanding of property rights are causing barriers that result in bureaucratic pushback against solar panels.

Keep reading

How Weed Surveillance Drones Destroyed the Lives of These Californians

The drone hovered low, whirring like a giant bug above the lush, green northern California fields. Its camera was trained on the curved roof of an aging dome home. Inside, Keni Meyer, a petite, ponytailed 54-year-old, didn’t know her property was under surveillance again. But the Sonoma County authorities were taking another step in a harassment campaign, ostensibly aimed at unpermitted cannabis grows.

Drone photos of the property spurred the county to allege a series of building code violations. Those citations drew Meyer into a doomed six-year fight to save her property, as Sonoma’s covert cannabis surveillance operation warped into an attack on less affluent residents. For dozens if not hundreds of people, a crackdown on unlicensed cannabis crops has led to six-figure fines, foreclosures, and evictions. The result has been tears and devastation—even for folks, such as Meyer, who did not grow cannabis at all.

In June, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of three other Sonoma County residents. The suit says the authorities’ “runaway spying operation” violates constitutional protections against unlawful searches. Officials, the lawsuit charges, deployed a fleet of high-powered drones that could hover at 50 feet and capture high-quality video footage with precision zoom cameras, all while concealing the surveillance from residents, the media, and local oversight bodies.

To the ACLU, this isn’t ultimately about codes, or even cannabis. It’s about the right to privacy.

“We all have the right to live a private life at home without having to worry about a government drone flying overhead and watching us without a warrant or our knowledge,” says Matt Cagle, an attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. “Sonoma County’s drone program demonstrates how technology further disrupts the power balance between governments and people, making it easy for agencies to warrantlessly sift through people’s private affairs at scale and levy charges and fines that upend lives and livelihoods. At the same time, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media.”

The lawsuit adds: “Never before has the government been able to deploy, at its convenience, an inexpensive and unobtrusive floating camera, controlled from afar, to surreptitiously monitor and record scenes from above a person’s private property.”

Drive around Sonoma today, and you’ll see plenty of housing that’s ramshackle and almost certainly unpermitted, with many egregious apparent violations. Many residents continue to erect out-buildings without permits, partly because the process is expensive and partly because many of them resent having to deal with Permit Sonoma as a point of principle: It violates their DIY ethos and their sense of rugged frontier freedom.

Keep reading

91-Year-Old Pennsylvania Woman With Dementia Loses $247,000 Home Over a $14,000 Tax Debt

In yet another example of what is colloquially known as home equity theft, a 91-year-old Pennsylvania woman has lost her home—and all of its worth—over a small tax debt. But the case just outside of Philadelphia is a particularly vivid illustration of a predatory and gruesome practice that the Supreme Court broadly ruled unconstitutional in 2023.

In 2020, Gloria Gaynor (not the disco queen) forewent her yearly trip to the tax office during COVID-19, recounted Jackie Davis, her daughter, to the local ABC affiliate for its excellent report on the story. Gaynor’s faculties noticeably declined around then, according to Davis. Even still, the Upper Darby resident returned in 2021 to pay her property taxes, her attorney said, under the impression that the pause in enforcement meant the government would apply her money toward the previous year. Instead, it went to 2021, and her debt from 2020 remained intact.

As these things go, it continued to grow. Her $3,500 bill ultimately reached $14,419 with penalties, interest, and fees. The government sold that debt to a real estate firm, the CJD Group, which then acquired the deed to the home.

The rub is that the home is worth over 17 times that. Yet Gaynor—who had nearly paid off the mortgage—will not see a dime in equity, despite that she owed the government $232,000 less than what the home is ultimately worth.

Regular Reason readers may be familiar with Tyler v. Hennepin County, the 2023 Supreme Court case that ruled home equity theft illegal. The plaintiff, 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler, fell behind on her property taxes after some unsettling neighborhood incidents prompted her move from her Minneapolis condominium to a retirement home. She subsequently struggled to pay both her rent and her property taxes. So the local government seized the condo, sold it for $40,000, and kept the $25,000 in excess of her tax debt, which included steep penalties, interest, and fees.

“A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.”

It was a good decision. But Gaynor’s plight highlights one way governments are getting around it: by selling properties for the value of the debt—instead of putting it on the market or selling it at auction—so that there is no excess equity to speak of.

That doesn’t mean, of course, the equity doesn’t exist. It does. It is just now in the hands of a private company, as opposed to the elderly woman who spent the last 25 or so years paying off the mortgage, and nearly finishing.

Keep reading

“Above the Law” Landlord: Letitia James Caught Violating New York’s Rent Stabilization Laws

New York State Attorney General Letitia James, long claiming to be a public champion of tenants’ rights, has herself been in violation of New York City’s rent stabilization laws for more than two decades.

Since purchasing a four-story apartment building at 296 Lafayette Avenue in Brooklyn in 2001, James has failed to register the property with the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) as required for rent-stabilized buildings.

By failing to register, she denied her tenants the protections of rent stabilization, while collecting rents above the legally regulated amounts for 24 years.

New York City’s housing code is based on its “Rent Stabilization Law of 1969,” which was designed to shield tenants from large rent raises, unlawful deregulation, and eviction abuses.

It sets yearly allowable rent increases, typically at around 3% per year. The law applies to qualifying buildings and requires landlords to register with DHCR and file annual reports on tenants, rents, and lease terms.

Keep reading