New York City is considering a law that would prohibit landlords from considering most criminal convictions while screening prospective tenants. One ex-convict told a reporter, “Just think of the worst thing you’ve ever done, and suppose someone held that against you for the rest of your life.” Context matters. There is a huge difference between shoplifting a candy bar and armed robbery. Actions have consequences, and some evils have severe and long-term consequences. Justice demands that we treat people as they deserve based on their words and actions. Certainly, individuals can change their behavior, but landlords should be free to determine what they will accept and what they won’t. Some may reject a person with any kind of felony conviction, while others may be more lenient. Forcing landlords to ignore virtually any type of criminal conviction prohibits them from making rational decisions. And that is a gross injustice.
At The Hill, Adam Thierer writes a compelling piece that accurately notes that attacks on Big Tech are fundamentally an attack on property rights and free speech. With both Progressives and conservatives calling for more government regulation of companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google, anyone who values freedom should be concerned. Thierer is particularly critical of conservatives, writing,
Even if one accepts the notion that social media platforms discriminate against conservative speakers or viewpoints, will freshly empowered bureaucrats really help them push private platform content moderation decisions in a more pro-conservative direction? The administrative state historically has not been the friend of conservative viewpoints, and regulators are not suddenly going to become more sympathetic to them.
A former chair of the board of the Tacoma Housing Authority offers four suggestions to address the city’s low-income housing shortage. One idea is to recruit for-profit builders. He notes that the top ten builders of housing for low-income households built more than 20,000 units last year, but non in Washington. He suspects that government has erected barriers that discourage the builders. While this is likely, the author also suggests that government’s use inclusionary zoning to force developers to include housing for low-income families in their projects. On one hand he suggests moving controls and restrictions on developers. On the other hand, he suggests imposing new controls and restrictions on developers. With this type of thinking, it is not surprising that the housing shortage isn’t being resolved.