If you own rental property in California, or just want to renovate your own home before moving back in, you may be out of luck. A new bill introduced in the state government would allow the confiscation of your property after just 90 days standing empty.
The issue of homelessness in California is a problem in need of addressing and worthy of creating ideal solutions to remedy. But should that solution to homelessness be resolved by what some might consider to be legislated theft?
Because the recently introduced Senate Bill 1079, if enacted, could force an entity to sell their home to the city or state – at a price essentially determined by the city or state.
. . .
When digging into the bill, it essentially spells out that once a property has been vacant for 90 days, the state can enact what’s known as eminent domain.
What that means is that, regardless of the intentions the company had in mind for the property down the line, after 90 days of it being empty – a city or county can force you to sell them the house.
Democratic State Senator Nancy Skinner introduced this bill in order to combat the homelessness crisis within the state. Senator Skinner said of the bill:
“My bill is designed to give local governments more tools to incentivize those corporations to actually put people in these homes and if they don’t, to enable local governments, nonprofits, affordable housing developers to buy them.”
. . .
What SB1079 has craftily slipped into the bill that the eminent domain that the city of county enacts can force the company to sell the property at a price owner’s may not like ... nowhere in the bill does it say that the company having their hand forced chooses who will assess the price of their own property. I wonder if the body that would assess the property value would also be employed by the city or county?
There's more at the link.
Let's say I decide to renovate my home. I move my family to alternate lodgings, and put most of our belongings into storage, then turn the contractors loose on our house. According to this bill, even if the renovations are ongoing and I plan to move back to the home once they're completed, if they take more than 90 days, California can seize my home without so much as a "by your leave". What's more, the state can set the price for it - even if their price is hundreds of thousands of dollars less than what the market says my property is worth.
Tell me again why anyone would want to live in a state where the politicians are this crazy - and this greedy?
Peter
18 comments:
Anyone suggesting such a thing in my area of Pennsylvania would find themselves festooning a tree. We have lots of snow-birds who spend (roughly) half the year here in PA and half in Florida or somewhere else warm. My next-door neighbor left for Florida in November and will be back in a month or so.
I can't believe California doesn't have some number of snowbirds too.
Peter: BTW, thanks again for your advice regarding the church, I decided to make the move to Rome.
Welcome to the 'worker's paradise'.
I don't believe that if there is active, consistent renovation/activity at the property they would reposes the property.
Susie Q:
I actually believe we landed on the moon over 50 years ago.
But what we believe is irrelevant. In this case, the key activator is "Vacant".
adjective
(of premises) having no fixtures, furniture, or inhabitants; empty.
See? Inhabitants, not workers.
What about extended hospitalization and not just remodeling or repairs? If someone has a major stroke or other medical emergency, and spends 90 days between a hospital and rehab facility, do they come home and find everything they own stolen?
Will they be going after those who own multiple homes, such as celebrities and politicians? Silly plebe! Of course not! The aristocracy is off limits, naturally!
I’ve seen this article elsewhere on the internet. Please note they refer to “corporations”. I suspect this may be aimed at house rental companies or “flipper” companies.
Oddly enough this is precisely why we have a second amendment.
I wonder if, since the State is using the Homeless as soldiers, and, well, we're at war with homelessness, this could be covered under the 3rd Amendment?
A stretch, but considering the stretches the Left has used to justify some of their interpretations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and all the Amendments and such...
And, Scott? This is aimed at the Little People. Those in Charge and Those in Power and Those with Star-Fame are going to be exempt.
I was explaining to the older progeny about "property taxes" when they asked why I was setting aside almost $1K a month. They asked BUT DON'T WE OWN OUR HOUSE?
No. If I don't pay the state every six months, they can come take the house from us.
TAXES SUCK! was their reply.
Heh. Wait until they transfer to the local public school and they let out with "Climate change is stupid" or "Men can't turn into women"!
Laws like this are why we left Califruitopia after I retired.
Never let a crisis go to waste...
Likely this was well-intentioned but I certainly couldn't, with a straight face, tell you that this will be used to take homes from the rich to give to the poor (as intended). Most likely it'll be used to take from the poor to give to the poorer.
You have the right to try, and die.
CA has lots of ways to steal peoples homes. Even an HOA can do it, since they are considered to be a lower level of government.
Watched an HOA do that, had the widow tossed, along with all her stuff, onto the lawn by the sheriffs. They wanted the house, wouldn't accept the back fees. Husband handled the money, and when he died, the wife wasn't aware there was a monthly fee. Original owners, there for 30 years? End of the year, they took the house, even with lots of adverse publicity about it.
Any American who chooses to live in Commiefornia is am imbecile who deserves everything they are getting.
How long before "empty nesters" with unused bedrooms are forced to take in state assigned boarders?
Before I retired, I did contract work in various parts of the country, my primary residence (not in Cali) was left vacant while I worked somewhere else to pay the mortgage.
The Bolsheviks have taken over California, they should just leave the union and elect "Bolshevik Bernie" as dictator for life.
Mark,
"I can't believe California doesn't have some number of snowbirds too."
That's funny.
I see you have never visited the state. It is, like Florida and other warm states, a place where slothful communist idiots can live in shorts, tee shirts and flip flops year round.
They open "homeless shelters" when it gets to 40f.
The warmer the climate (naturally or artificially by .gov intervention), the worse the demographics.
Post a Comment