Tag: property rights

Proposed L.A. Ordinance Would Require Airbnb Hosts To Get Police Permission To Operate

Los Angeles Airbnb hosts would need permission from the police to do business under an ordinance being considered by the Los Angeles City Council.

A “responsible hotel” ordinance that earned the unanimous support of the council Tuesday would require hotel and short-term rental operators to obtain a police permit each year to do business. Getting that permit, in turn, would require a criminal background check, the payment of fees totaling hundreds of dollars, and possibly submitting fingerprints to the police.

The new regulations come as part of a “compromise” between hotel owners and the hotel workers union Unite Here Local 11, which has been engaged in strikes against individual hotels over this past year.

One of the union’s demands had been that hotel owners support an initiative the union placed on the Los Angeles city ballot in March 2024 that, if passed, would require hotels to give vacant rooms to the homeless.

In exchange for the passage of Tuesday’s ordinance, the union has agreed to pull that initiative from the ballot.

The bulk of the Responsible Hotel Ordinance layers additional regulations on new hotel developments.

It requires that city planning officials, before issuing permits for new hotels, study how the new hotel’s employees will impact housing, public transit, and child care services.

Per the ordinance, city planning officials will also have to produce findings on whether the new hotel is hiring from the surrounding neighborhood as a means of reducing additional traffic, whether it’s agreed to support nearby small businesses, whether it encourages its employees to ride transit or bike to work, and whether the hotel will negatively impact affordable and rent-controlled housing.

Keep reading

Can an Unconstitutional Law Force You To Sell Your Home to a Private Investor?

Can the law force you to sell your home to other property owners? What if that law was declared unconstitutional after you agreed to be bound by legislation in place at the time? Those questions, along with the security of private property, are at stake in a case before the Arizona Supreme Court.

In 2018, Jie Cao and Haining Xia purchased a condominium at Dorsey Place in Tempe, Arizona. Over time, PFP Dorsey, an investment company, acquired 90 of the 96 units in the complex. According to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that applied to the complex, owners were subject to state regulations regarding condominiums, and each unit had one vote within the association. That meant that PFP Dorsey controlled 90 out of 96 votes.

At the time, Arizona law (Section 33-1228) allowed an 80 percent supermajority (later increased to 95 percent) to terminate a condominium agreement and to “provide that all the common elements and units of the condominium shall be sold following termination.” PFP Dorsey exercised its votes to force the remaining individual owners to sell their units to the investment company.

Outraged, Jie Cao and Haining Xia sued.

“Defenders of Arizona’s law say it’s necessary to prevent the ‘holdout problem’—property owners who supposedly strategically refuse to sell at market price to compel extra compensation. In theory, such holdouts hinder economic development projects and their alleged trickle‐​down effects,” comment Anastasia P. Boden and Nathaniel Lawson of the Cato Institute. “The fact that some people would rather see private property go to a supposed ‘better use’ can’t justify confiscating it. The Founders were very worried that private interests might coopt government power for their own ends.”

Keep reading

Phoenix Allows NFL to Determine What Residents Can Display on Their Property During Super Bowl

The Arizona-based Goldwater Institute (GI) has called out the city of Phoenix for imposing free speech restrictions on residents in a “Special Promotional and Civic Event Area” (Clean Zone) leading up to and through the 2023 Super Bowl.

“By delegating unfettered censorship power to private entities, the city of Phoenix has launched a blatant attack on its own citizens’ free speech rights under both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution. It’s simple: Phoenicians shouldn’t need to ask the NFL for permission to communicate with the public on their own private property,” said GI Staff Attorney John Thorpe in a statement emailed to The Arizona Sun Times.

The Sun Times reached out to the city of Phoenix for additional comments but did not hear back.

Thorpe sent a letter Tuesday to the city regarding this issue. He explained that under Resolution 22073, passed by the city, all temporary signage in the Clean Zone “not authorized by the NFL or the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee” (ASBHC) are restricted. According to Thorpe, these restrictions cover nearly all of downtown Phoenix and will be in effect until February 19th, 2023.

The city of Phoenix states that the final day to get any temporary sign applications approved is December 15th.

This ordinance has allegedly caused trouble for one Phoenician business and property owner, Bramley Paulin. The GI represents Paulin in this situation and shared that he reached out to potential partners about leasing and advertising but was rejected because of the city’s restrictions.

Aside from the aforementioned free speech violations, Thorpe argued that the city is also improperly delegating its government power. As established in Industrial Commission v C D Pipeline, the government “may not delegate its authority to private persons over whom [it] has no supervision or control.” Therefore, the city violates this by giving private entities, the NFL and ASBHC, regulation over private citizens’ free speech. Additionally, the city’s ordinance may violate the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Gift Clause.

Keep reading

NYC Landlords May Soon Be Banned From Performing Background Checks on Prospective Tenants

Landlords in New York City may soon be prohibited from conducting criminal background checks on prospective tenants under a new piece of legislation under review by city lawmakers.

The legislation, called the “Fair Chance for Housing Act,” would even prohibit landlords from performing background checks on prospective tenants convicted of murder and other violent crimes, according to the New York Post. 

Reportedly, the legislation does not prohibit landlords from checking New York’s sex offender registry for prospective tenants, but the current language leaves landlords “vulnerable” to renting their properties to sex offenders who committed crimes in other states because out-of-state sex offender registries are not outlined in the legislation.

And, the bill does not affect New York City Housing Authority complexes, as they are required by federal law to carry out background checks. The bill also excludes homeowners renting out single rooms.

Keep reading

Cities Sidestep Property Rights With This One Trick

The world needs creative problem solvers. But small-business owner Jeremy Sark was not impressed when city officials in Mauldin, S.C. used out-of-the-box thinking to sidestep the state constitution and jeopardize his livelihood.

People have a right to use their property in safe, reasonable ways. And if the government wants to revoke that freedom, it must meet two conditions: It must ensure that the interference serves a public use, and it must provide just compensation before destroying someone’s business. Yet Mauldin plans to shut down Sark’s U-Haul rental franchise, which opened in 2013, without honoring either constitutional protection.

Instead of compensating Sark through eminent domain or following other normal procedures, the city simply declared his business illegal with a gimmick called “amortization.” The scheme is basically retroactive zoning.

Normally, regulators establish rules in advance and grandfather in safe, reasonable, preexisting enterprises. But amortization flips the process upside down. It allows cities to adopt rules after the fact, and then pick and choose which businesses can stay open.

Typically, enterprises marked for elimination get a grace period to prepare for the setback. Governments claim the delayed enforcement counts as compensation. But even in slow-motion, the hit does permanent damage once it arrives.

Entrepreneurs who launch and grow legitimate businesses suddenly find themselves out of bounds. They follow the rules, but the rules change. It’s like moving the goalposts after a kicker attempts a field goal. Or redefining words after a debater sits down. Or altering documents after a notary public stamps them.

One day a business is legal, and the next day it is not. And all the owner can do is watch the clock wind down.

Keep reading

Gov’t to Steal Elderly Man’s House Over $573K They Fined Him for Working on Car in His Back Yard

Dan Alstatt is a retired 83-year-old from California who may spend the rest of his life “homeless and penniless” because government claims what you can and can’t do with your own property. Alstatt never harmed anyone, nor did he destroy or other wise harm anyone else’s property, but these facts are irrelevant to the state who claims Alstatt owes them $573,000 for using his private property the way he wanted.

Alstatt worked on old cars in his own yard and according to the city of Sacramento, this is illegal. When Alstatt disputed the city’s claim, the city then told Alstatt he owed them money. Now, Alstatt is worried that the state will come and seize his home because he cannot afford to pay the ridiculously high fines.

According to an article in the SacBee, Alstatt’s nightmare began in 2014 when he brought a van into his backyard to fix them — a code enforcement penalty — according to the local government.

He also had at least five other vehicles on the property, some of which he inherited when his brother died, he said. A neighbor complained, and the city cited him, claiming all the vehicles appeared to be inoperable. It also issued violations for other backyard items — car parts, generators, propane tanks and fruit that had fallen off his orange and grapefruit trees. Altstatt has since removed the inoperable vehicles and other items.

To be clear, none of the vehicles could be seen as they were in his back yard behind a privacy fence and the front of Alstatt’s home is well kept and maintained. Absolutely no one is being harmed or was ever harmed by Alstatt working on vehicles but the state still pursued the case.

Despite the fact that Alstatt has since removed all the “violations,” the city still claims he owes them over a half million dollars. He appealed their fines but lost that appeal this month.

Alstatt argued that the fines totaling over a half million dollars were “excessive” and violate his Eighth Amendment right to be free from “excessive fines imposed.” The city claimed that Alstatt’s accusations of excessive fines for working on vehicles in his own back yard were “unfounded and unsupported.”

Alstatt also accused the city of using code enforcement as a predatory means to collect revenue which will render him “homeless and penniless.” The city also claimed this was unfounded.

Imagine the type of mental gymnastics it takes for a city code enforcer to think that fining a retiree $573,000 for working on a van in his back yard is not “excessive” or “predatory.”

Nevertheless, the court took Alstatt’s claims, threw them out, and used them as an opportunity to mock him in their dismissal of his appeal.

Keep reading

Houston Says Businesses Must Install Surveillance Cameras and Cops Can View Footage Without a Warrant

Houston mandates spying outside bars and other businesses. Officials in Houston, Texas, have voted to require an array of businesses—including bars, convenience stores, and strip clubs—to install surveillance cameras and make footage from them readily available to police. The dystopian move is a transparently unconstitutional attempt by city leaders to circumvent Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

To access video from the cameras, police officers will not need a warrant.

The rules apply to all Houston bars, convenience stores, game rooms, nightclubs, or sexually-oriented businesses.

Owners of these establishments must install (on their own dime) surveillance cameras in outdoor areas “providing video coverage from the exterior of the building to the property line.” Businesses must keep these cameras running 24 hours a day, and store camera footage for at least 30 days.

If surveillance footage is requested by the Houston Police Department, businesses must turn it over within 72 hours. Failure to comply would mean fines of $500 per day.

The Houston City Council approved this privacy-killing measure on Wednesday by a vote of 15–1.

“Their vote demonstrated a willingness to push aside constitutional protections and subject Houstonians to overbroad police searches,” said Savannah Kumar of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. “But a city cannot override the Constitution. We are here to help you protect your rights. If the police come knocking on your door, tell them to get a warrant, whether it’s your home or your business.”

The measure is set to take effect in 90 days.

“In addition to trampling on the Fourth Amendment rights of business owners, Houston’s new law also infringes on property rights,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Jared McClain. “This ordinance unfairly saddles certain businesses with thousands of dollars in new expenses to install high-definition surveillance cameras and to archive their footage so it’s available for police on demand.”

Keep reading

Family Kicked Off Their Own Property, Fined for Living Sustainably As Politicians Ignore Them

There is no question that 2020 was one of the most difficult years in American history. As the government shut down the economy, driving unemployment to record levels and forcing businesses to close their doors forever, tens of millions of Americans found themselves in dire straits. To deal with the unprecedented hard times, some folks like Tim Leslie and his family began to get creative, buying property and homesteading. However, because the land of the free is but a fleeting memory in this country, government officials did all they could to thwart it.

We first reported on the Leslie family last year after Tim lost his job due to the pandemic. With no other options in mind, he bought a plot of land in Polk County, parked an RV on it and began to live off the land. On the property, Leslie has chickens, goats, and a vegetable garden for his wife and their two kids, 9-year-old Knox and 18-month-old Daisy.

The family planned on building their “forever home” on the property where they would retire. Unfortunately, however, that has yet to happen. TFTP has been keeping up with Leslie over the last year and they keep hitting speed bump after speed bump.

As we reported at the time, after he was fired, Leslie took his life savings — draining his pension and 401(k) — and bought the property in Polk County. The purchase took place in November of 2020.

The family’s dreams of homesteading on their own property came to a grinding halt, however, and has morphed into a nightmare thanks to the intrusive and utterly cruel nature of the state. They were kicked off their property just days before Christmas.

Keep reading