In early September, New York extended its eviction moratorium to January 15, 2022. The state’s largest landlord group quickly challenged the law. The group said that the new moratorium made only superficial changes to a previous law that “crumbled” after a Supreme Court ruling. That ruling took issue with a part of the law that allowed tenants to avoid eviction by declaring that the pandemic caused them an economic hardship or would threaten their health. Landlords were prohibited from challenging that declaration, leading to the Court declaring that “no man can be a judge in his own case.” The new moratorium in New York allows landlords to challenge tenant’s claims. All that does is add another layer of red tape and expense upon landlords.
As the housing crisis grows worse, many are looking at manufactured housing as a way to increase low-cost housing. Unfortunately, zoning restrictions often segregate manufactured housing to less desirable locales. If cities experiencing a housing shortage—and that is just about every city in the United States—seriously want to address issue, they must reconsider restrictions on manufactured housing.
Many local politicians in California are resisting efforts to ease the state’s housing crisis, even though the state legislature approved two bills that enable cities to “upzone”—do away with single-family zoning and allow denser development. A state appeals court recently ruled that the city of San Mateo can’t deny permits for a proposed four-story apartment building. The appeals court found that the city’s criteria for new construction “was not sufficiently clear-cut and objective” to satisfy the applicable law. This is true, but the very nature of zoning makes clear-cut and objective criteria impossible. Zoning allows a community to establish whatever criteria it chooses to control development, and that criteria frequently changes based on the prevailing passions of the citizenry.
The city of Ann Arbor, Michigan, recently passed a law that prohibits landlords from showing a leased apartment to prospective tenants until 150 days before the lease expires. Landlords have sued, claiming that there is no “compelling governmental interest served” by the law. A compelling governmental interest isn’t the proper criteria for judging a law. Government’s only proper purpose is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. A law that violates those rights—as the Ann Arbor law does—is immoral and should be struck down on those grounds.