Tag: property rights

OUTRAGE IN DC: Court Allows Squatter to Remain in Woman’s Home for MONTHS After Overstaying Airbnb Stay — Homeowner Faces Financial Ruin While System Protects the Trespasser

In yet another stunning example of the nation’s upside-down justice system, a DC court is allowing a squatter to remain inside a woman’s home for nearly a year after overstaying an Airbnb reservation, despite having no lease, no tenancy agreement, and no legal right to occupy the property.

The case has left homeowner Rochanne Douglas trapped in a nightmare that has cost her tens of thousands of dollars and pushed her to the brink, while alleged squatter Shadija Romero continues living inside Douglas’s property with total impunity.

Romero originally booked Douglas’s short-term rental for 32 days, ending on March 29. But after remaining in the home for more than 30 days, just long enough to exploit DC’s tenant-friendly laws, she suddenly declared herself a “resident” and refused to leave, 7News reported.

“I never gave her any tenancy,” said Douglas. “I never gave her a lease.”

From there, the situation spiraled. Douglas:

  • Served a 30-day notice to vacate
  • Called the police repeatedly
  • Sought court intervention
  • Even offered Romero $2,500 just to acknowledge she wasn’t a tenant and get out

Romero signed the agreement, but when her eviction date came on November 15, she refused to leave the property and claimed the arrangement “no longer works for me.”

To make matters worse, when Douglas attempted to enforce her rights, DC Metropolitan Police told her they could do nothing, despite Douglas being legally barred from entering her own home.

Neighbors later reported that Romero and her companions packed their bags, loaded the car, and left the property. Police cleared the home and informed Douglas she could secure it.

Keep reading

Judges Rule Against Property Owners Seeking Compensation for SWAT Team Damage

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Nov. 3 that the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT team is not liable for damage done to a business while chasing a criminal in 2022.

NoHo Printing & Graphics Owner Carlos Pena will ask the full court to rehear the case, his attorneys from the Institute for Justice said in a statement posted to the Institute’s webpage.

A majority ruled that arresting a criminal is an exception to the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. That clause requires the government to compensate the owners of property taken by government action.

In August 2022, a criminal barricaded himself inside the business Pena had owned for 30 years. Police actions resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in damage and lost profits. Pena’s insurance and the city refused to pay, so in July 2023, he sued.

In March 2024, the court ruled against Pena, and he appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Pena vowed to keep up the fight. In an email to The Epoch Times, Pena wrote that the battle is larger than just his business.

“What happened to me isn’t right and sometimes it feels like the deck is stacked against good citizens. I just don’t want anyone else to lose everything they worked for, like I did,” Pena wrote.

Pena and McKinney, Texas, homeowner Vicki Baker both filed claims against their respective cities after police damaged their property.

In Baker’s case, a fugitive high on methamphetamine barricaded himself in her house with a teenage hostage. He eventually released the teen girl, who told police that her kidnapper told her he would not be taken alive.

Keep reading

Consumer Protection Laws: Unconstitutional Controls That Hurt the Very People They Claim to Help

From rent caps to “price-gouging” laws, a new wave of so-called consumer-protection laws is sweeping state capitols. These measures are marketed as compassion in a crisis — or “fairness” in housing — but their substance is the same: command-and-control price fixing that violates the Constitution, tramples private-property rights, and sabotages the free market’s ability to allocate goods and services when people need them most.

Three recent bills illustrate the trend. Alabama’s House Bill 528 (HB528) and Virginia’s House Bill 1301 (HB1301) expand anti-gouging controls to more transactions and longer periods after emergencies. New Jersey’s Assembly Bill 3361 (A3361) imposes rent control on manufactured-home sites. Nebraska’s Legislative Bill 266 (LB266), however, is a rare bright spot, preempting local rent control and affirming property rights. Together, these bills spotlight the central question: Will states defend a constitutional, republican system rooted in liberty and voluntary exchange, or drift toward administrative despotism under the banner of “consumer protection”?

Protecting Property and Contract Rights

America’s Founders understood what modern lawmakers too often forget: Price controls are a form of compelled exchange that violates liberty. The U.S. Constitution safeguards that liberty in multiple places:

  • Fifth Amendment: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Price ceilings that force owners to sell below market value are regulatory takings in substance, if not in name.
  • Article I, Section 10: “No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” When a legislature dictates the permissible price, term, or escalation of a private lease or service, it impairs the parties’ agreed-upon obligations.
  • Ninth and 10th Amendments: The people retain unenumerated rights, and powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. These clauses limit government; they do not license it to control every transaction.
  • 14th Amendment (due process and equal protection): Arbitrary economic edicts that single out owners for special burdens invite due-process and equal-protection concerns.

Consumer-protection statutes also collide with first principles. The Declaration of Independence identifies unalienable rights — life, liberty, and property — and charges government to secure them. Free exchange is a peaceful exercise of those rights, and upholds one’s pursuit of happiness. Substituting bureaucratic fiat for voluntary exchange undermines the moral basis of self-government.

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

Miami Beach’s Silent Crisis: How Greed, Corruption, And Indifference Are Destroying Lives Behind Closed Doors

In Miami Beach, we have a problem most residents never see until it is too late. What is happening to Robert Kraft, known to many as Raven, is not just one man’s story. It is a warning to every homeowner and resident in this city.

Raven has run eight miles every single day along Ocean Drive for nearly fifty years. His daily run has become part of the soul of Miami Beach. Now, after decades of calling this city home, he faces foreclosure. Not because he refused to pay. Not because of financial irresponsibility. But because bad actors inside a broken system have found ways to exploit local enforcement gaps, city oversight failures, and association loopholes for personal profit.

It started as a legitimate repair issue. Structural problems led to court intervention. A Special Master, David Swilley, was appointed to oversee the building at 326 Ocean Drive. That is where the real abuse began. Instead of protecting residents, Swilley and his associates took complete control of the building’s finances, levied inflated assessments, misapplied payments, and took out high-interest loans without owner approval. Many of those loans appear to be linked to entities associated directly with Swilley.

There has been no functioning board. Residents have no vote. Notices are delivered late or not at all. Accounting records are opaque. Personal information was improperly exposed. Violations of the Florida Condominium Act and consumer protection laws are piling up. While residents are being financially squeezed and forced out, those in control continue collecting legal fees, management fees, and pocketing the proceeds of a manufactured financial crisis.

This is not mismanagement. This is exploitation.

The most outrageous part is not just the conduct of those running this building. It is the silence and failure of the city that allowed this to happen. Miami Beach’s local officials have known for years how these games work. They know certain properties get selective code enforcement. They know who receives special treatment with permits and inspections. They know when court-appointed agents abuse their authority, hide behind court orders, and strip residents of their homes one lien at a time. They know, and they do nothing. Why? Because too many of them are controlled by the same consultants and insiders who thrive off this system.

The city has building officials, inspectors, and lawyers on staff who could have flagged this behavior years ago. But instead, they looked the other way while residents like Raven were left to fend for themselves.

Keep reading

DOE cancels $4.9B loan for energy project Illinois lawmaker calls a ‘scam’

The U.S. Department of Energy has canceled $4.9 billion in federal loans for the Grain Belt Express, a proposed multistate transmission line that faced pushback from Illinois landowners over concerns about property rights and eminent domain.

State Rep. Chris Miller, R-Oakland, praised the DOE’s decision and called the project a “scam” driven by global investors and green energy lobbyists.

“This is a huge win for taxpayers in Illinois and across the United States,” Miller said in an interview. “It was an assault on property rights, on the livelihoods of Illinois farmers, and I’m proud to stand with my constituents against this scam.”

The 800-mile Grain Belt Express aimed to carry wind power from Kansas eastward but drew rural backlash over eminent domain, including opposition at a 2024 Meade County Kansas Corporation Commission hearing where resident Barbra Parker spoke.

“The current plan would place it approximately 150 feet from my front door. Over the years, through that very door, have walked my grandfather, my father, my grandmother, my mother, myself, and now my daughter Kate — four generations of farmers and ranchers,” said Parker. “So I’m asking Invenergy to work with me on possibly adjusting the route or considering micrositing alternatives. I’m asking that the commission oversee and ensure that micrositing is used.”

Micrositing in wind energy means fine-tuning turbine placement to boost output and reduce environmental impact.

Supporters say the Grain Belt Express would improve grid reliability, deliver lower-cost clean energy to major population centers and generate economic activity along its route.

In 2023, when the ICC approved the project, Mark Denzler, president and CEO of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association said in a news release, “This project will deliver billions in energy cost savings. Energy infrastructure investment is key to ensuring our region maintains our traditional energy cost advantage and manufacturing competitiveness.”

Miller criticized the project as a costly green energy push that threatens farmland and drives up electric bills.

Keep reading

A SWAT Team Destroyed an Innocent Woman’s House. The Supreme Court Won’t Hear Her Case.

The Supreme Court last month declined to hear a case from an elderly woman whose house was destroyed by a SWAT team, leaving open the question of whether or not innocent people are constitutionally entitled to compensation when law enforcement lays waste to their property in pursuit of public safety.

In July 2020, while chasing a fugitive, police arrived at Vicki Baker’s home in McKinney, Texas. They threw dozens of tear gas grenades inside, used explosives to break the front and garage doors, and drove a tank through her backyard fence, although Baker’s daughter, Deanna Cook, had supplied them with a key to the home, a garage door opener, and the back gate code.

The suspect, Wesley Little, had previously worked for Baker as a handyman and barricaded himself inside her home while on the run from police. He had kidnapped a teenage girl, whom he released after the cops arrived. But Little himself refused to exit, prompting law enforcement to ravage the house. (He ultimately killed himself.)

Baker, who was in Montana when her house was destroyed, never contested that police acted in the best interest of the community when it sought to extract Little from her home. She took issue, however, with the subsequent response from the government, which refused to compensate her for the more than $50,000 in damages. Her homeowners insurance likewise declined to pay, as many policies explicitly do not cover damage caused by the government.

“I’ve lost everything,” she told me in 2021. “I’ve lost my chance to sell my house. I’ve lost my chance to retire without fear of how I’m going to make my regular bills.” Baker, who was undergoing treatment for stage 3 breast cancer when we spoke, had been preparing to retire with her husband in Montana. After the house was ruined, a buyer predictably withdrew. The government said she did not qualify as a “victim.”

She is not the only person with such a story. At the core of the case and those like hers is whether or not the Constitution legally obligates the government to repay people who are not suspected of criminal wrongdoing but whose property is nevertheless destroyed by police in an attempt to protect the community. The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment promises that private property cannot be taken for public use “without just compensation,” though some lower courts have ruled that actions taken by police in stories like these operate under an exception to that rule.

Keep reading

‘Wildly Off-Base’: New Push for Supreme Court to Reverse Case That Allows Property Confiscation

Ruling denied ‘the core protections of individual citizens.’

The U.S. Supreme Court bizarrely ruled in 2005, in the Kelo case, that a government could take privately owned property from one owner to give it to another, just, well, just because.

That original ruling came down to dollars and cents, when the city of New London, New York, used eminent domain to confiscate a home belonging to Susan Kelo to give it to Pfizer for one of its business operations.

She sued, but the Supreme Court said a procedure to use eminent domain “to transfer land from private owner to another private owner” did not violate the Constitution.

Actually, the authority vested in eminent domain would be for purposes of taking property to build a highway, or some similar public benefit.

That New London scheme actually failed, as the company was unable to obtain financing for its plans, and the site remained an undeveloped empty lot.

The move already has prompted 47 states to strengthen their own eminent domain laws, and now it’s time for the national precedent to be reversed, according to constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution, but has represented members in court.

He said that one case, Kelo, “has long stood out for me as wildly off-base and wrongly decided.”

He explained, “There is now a petition before the Supreme Court that would allow it to reconsider this pernicious precedent. The court should grant review in Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency precisely for that purpose,” he explained.

“Many of us expressed outrage at the actions of the city leaders of New London, Connecticut, when they used eminent domain to seize the property of citizens against their will to give it to the Pfizer corporation,” he said. “This anger grew with the inexplicable decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London to uphold the abusive action. After all the pain that the city caused its own residents and the $80 million it spent to buy and bulldoze the property, it came to nothing. Pfizer later announced that it was closing the facility — leaving the city worse off than when it began.”

He said the new case involves New York developer Bryan Bowers who challenged the decision of a county redevelopment agency to condemn his property and then give it to another developer to use as a private parking lot.

Turley noted that Justice Chase, shortly after the Bill of Rights was written, explained the injustice.

Keep reading

What Happens When FEMA Buys Your House?

It’s been a rough hurricane season. Between them, Hurricanes Helene and Milton have devastated many communities throughout the southeast. Rebuilding what was lost will take years. 

But as devastating as these storms have been, they are sadly not unique. Property damage from storms and flooding is on the rise. Storms resulting in over a billion dollars in damages have become more frequent in recent years. 

The prospect of repeatedly having to rebuild properties in storm-prone areas has led some governments to pursue an unusual solution to the problem: buy the properties themselves. Some local governments, in partnership with federal agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have developed programs that use disaster relief funds to purchase homes in flood- or storm-prone areas. This isn’t the only way, or even the best way, to reduce the destruction from increasingly severe natural catastrophes. But the idea is that keeping such vulnerable properties vacant will save money in the long run because they won’t need to be continually rebuilt after storms.

Such buyouts are hardly ideal and can lead to some perverse situations. In 2021, an NPR investigation revealed that HUD was selling homes in flood-prone areas to unsuspecting buyers even as it was buying out homes in the same neighborhoods under a flood mitigation program. While not ideal, in a world where government disaster relief is a given, a voluntary buyout program could make fiscal sense in some circumstances. Voluntary buyout programs have been implemented in over a thousand counties and have been used to relocate almost 50,000 households throughout the country. 

The situation is very different when the buyout ceases to be voluntary. A little-known provision in the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993 authorizes local governments to implement a mandatory buyout program for flood-prone areas. So far, just three localities—Cedar Rapids in Iowa, Minot in North Dakota, and Harris County in Texas—have adopted a mandatory buyout program. The Harris County program is the largest of the three and is expected to forcibly purchase 585 households and 390 businesses by 2026 and turn the land into green space.  

Keep reading

The Rule of Law and Property Rights

Respect for the rule of law cannot simply mean a moral obligation to obey legislation. History is replete with too many examples of tyrannical legislation for that notion to pass muster. But if the rule of law does not mean obeying whatever legislators enact, what does it mean?

Murray Rothbard argued that this question must be answered by reference to ethical guidelines, which he constructed around the concepts of self-ownership and property rights. Rothbard conceptualized property rights as inalienable and absolute natural rights. Seen in that light, eminent domain legislation is unethical and unjust. The example of New York illustrates the significance of this point, as explained by the Institute for Justice:

“In New York, eminent domain gives the government the power to take your property, even if you don’t want to sell. But under the Fifth Amendment, eminent domain must be for a ‘public use,’ which traditionally meant projects like roads or bridges. Meanwhile, the government must pay the owners ‘just compensation’ for their property.

“Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted federal protection against unconstitutional eminent domain when it handed down its decision in Kelo v. New London in 2005. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the definition of ‘public use’ to include private economic development. In other words, local governments can condemn homes and businesses and transfer them to new owners if government officials think that the new owners will produce more taxes or jobs with the land.

“As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned in her dissent: ‘The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.’”

South Africa has gone even further with its expropriation laws, by providing in its constitution that “public purpose” can include anti-racism, equity and protection of “vulnerable groups.”

“In terms of section 25(4)(a) of the Constitution ‘public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources.’ Section 25 (8) further states that the state may take ‘legislative steps and other measures … in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination.’”

Keep reading