Legislators in New York are considering a “just cause” eviction bill that opponents have labeled Lease for Life. The bill would prohibit landlords from evicting a tenant as long as the tenant pays the rent, isn’t intentionally damaging the property, and isn’t subletting or violating the lease. The bill would also subject most rental housing in the state to rent control. Asking a tenant to move to provide housing for an ailing parent would not be allowed. Asking an obnoxious and difficult tenant to move would be prohibited. In other words, the tenant can stay as long as he wants, regardless of the owner’s desires. This proposal allegedly protects “tenants’ rights.” It is, however, a flagrant violation of the landlord’s rights.
A couple in Columbus, Ohio built a terraced garden with retaining walls on the steep hill in front of their home. The city responded by citing them for conducting landscaping without the approval of the city’s Historic Resources Commission. The couple is facing fines that could be as much as $900,000! Historic preservation ordinances give immense and arbitrary powers to the public officials who enforce such laws. Those powers include deciding what landscaping is acceptable and what landscaping is not. If city officials truly want to preserve that which is historical, they would do well to begin preserving individual rights, including the right to use one’s property as one deems best.
The Andrews family wanted to build forty homes on sixteen acres that they have owned for fifty years. The city of Mentor, Ohio, however, had different plans. When the family sought to have the land rezoned, the city council voted against them and did not explain why it denied rezoning when it had previously done so for similar developments. The family sued Mentor. A federal district court ruled against the family because they had failed “to negate potential explanations for the City’s decision.” In other words, the family was supposed to guess at the city’s reasons for the denial and then refute them. This shifts the burden of proof to the property owner. The Pacific Legal Foundation took the case and a court of appeals ruled that the family’s suit could proceed.