An Oakland couple was recently forced to pay $6,582 in order to reoccupy their own home. The military couple had been renting the house while stationed in Washington, D.C. An Oakland ordinance, passed in January of this year, requires landlords to pay tenants a “relocation” fee if the landlord wants to end a lease for the purpose of reoccupying the property.
According to Reason.com,
The intention of the Oakland rental ordinance—giving renters a break in the midst of a severe housing shortage—is noble, says Meriem Hubbard of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm representing the Ballingers. The problem, she says, is that it unfairly shifts the burden for addressing this shortage onto property owners who played no role in creating it.
The Pacific Legal Foundation has done a lot of good work in defending property rights, but calling the Oakland ordinance a noble idea is worse than mistaken. It concedes the premise underlying the ordinance.
The ordinance is founded on the premise that some individuals should be forced to sacrifice for the alleged benefit of others. In this case, certain landlords must pay tenants up to $12,000 merely because they want to live in their own home.
Claiming that this “noble” ordinance is unfair is irrelevant. If some must sacrifice for others, it is inevitable that some–those who will be forced to sacrifice–will be treated unfairly. In truth, there is nothing noble about the ordinance. It is nothing more than legalized thuggery.
While a moral argument is unlikely to be sufficient to win in court, conceding moral premises is worse than ineffective. It amounts to saying that the law is good, but it goes “too far.” It implies that forcing landlords to pay a lesser amount would be fair.
Legal arguments are certainly necessary in court. But adding moral arguments adds a powerful component. Conceding moral premises gives that power to one’s opponents.