https://redstate.com/scotthounsell/2021/05/04/so-long-private-property-we-had-a-good-run-n374251

Yeah, Denver City Council, good job.

As you peruse this insane article, keep in mind that in C*******t countries people may not own property nor their own businesses. Where do the powers that be plan to take us from here? They've done a pretty good job of destroying the small business owners while the large big-box corporations and large companies remained open during this p******c. So, that's a start, eh?

So Long Private Property, We Had a Good Run
By Scott Hounsell | May 04, 2021 6:15 PM ET


(AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)
In 2017, I moved 15 minutes north of my prior home in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles to Santa Clarita. We decided to keep that home as a rental property, so I prepared it for the rental market. While we certainly hoped to be making some money beyond our monthly mortgage/tax/insurance expenses, that amount would not exceed more than a few hundred dollars. After listing the house we received a great deal of interest, most of which we ignored, such as the inquiry from a group of college-aged guys we expected would turn it into a party house, and a single person we believe inevitably would have sublet rooms, creating problems for us.


Imagine my great relief when I found a young couple with three children who were moving in together as they were about to get married. He was a USMC Veteran with a small landscaping business and she was an office assistant. Together they made more than enough to cover the monthly rent. To help them out further, I even lowered the rent in exchange for his promise that he would maintain the yard and spent $100 a month on landscaping for the property, which he was free to landscape as he so desired. That was January. By March we started receiving calls from former neighbors complaining of loud and violent fights, visits from police, and the decline of the condition of the property. Suddenly, the April rent never came. We gave them a break, but the same repeated in May. Reasonably, we asked them to vacate the property and we would release them from their lease, absent any penalty. They refused.

After a very expensive and time-consuming court battle, they vacated the property, but not before doing $30,000 worth of damage, including kicked-in doors throughout the house, broken cabinets, and holes in the walls. The home where my children took their first steps was an absolute disaster. To rec**p our costs I would have had to file another expensive lawsuit, spend months adjudicating it, all for the result of likely not being able to collect a penny. Once I had spent the money to fix the property I was left broke and without any recourse. My property had been destroyed, yet there was nothing criminal or civil law could do to protect my private property. When it came time to rent it again, I made the much more reasonable choice of selling the house and cutting my losses.


The most liberal cities in the country have continued on their march away from private property rights and to some imagined “collective good.” Their class warfare has punished success and the American Dream in exchange for promoting values of which the Soviet Union would be proud. The “rights” of the criminal now outweigh the rights of private property owners. Now, out of Denver comes the latest attack on property owners: Licensing Landlords.

Yes, the Denver City Council has decided that private, fair, and reasonable contracts between two consenting adults require additional government regulation.

From 9News:

A bill that will create the largest licensing program in Denver passed in a unanimous v**e at a city council meeting Monday night.

Rental property owners will now be required to have a license – the requirement goes into effect in a phasing process – multi-family rental property owners have until Jan. 1, 2023, to secure a license and single-family rental property owners have until Jan. 1, 2024.

So again, in Denver, I will be required to obtain a license to enter into a private agreement with another private individual on my own private property. Obviously, the predictable results are already been talked about and enforced, including “safety requirements,” rent control, and other tyrannical limitations. While you’d expect that some sanity would have slowed the council’s extreme power grab, you’d have been wrong. Reasonable amendments were overwhelmingly rejected.

Council member Candi CdeBaca proposed amendments to the bill to include a shorter time frame for implementing the licenses and fee structures that incentivize affordability by charging big and small landlords equally.

The first amendment would have shortened the time frame for landlords to acquire licenses over a period of six month phase. The second amendment changed the application fee to $50 for both small and large landlords, both failed in an 11-1 v**e.

These councilmembers, who likely have a better grasp of the lint in their navels than they do on economics, dismissed reality in their decision. As is the case with many good-intentioned government regulations, its only forte is the impeccable construction quality of the road to hell. The per-unit increased cost of this atrocity for landlords is estimated to run from $50-$500. Of course, landlords will have challenges in passing that cost along to renters as the city will likely resort to rent control measures that prevent them from doing so. Unsurprisingly, government action increases costs.

The fallout from this action will likely lead to a significant sell-off of rental properties in the City of Denver, reducing rental availability. Anyone who can fog a mirror would know that the subsequent reduction in the supply of available rentals will ultimately increase the cost of the available properties. The city will then be forced to further impede on private property rights to “protect” “vulnerable” renters. Again, as is the case when it comes to government, the proposed solution to “problems” is inevitably a more restrictive government.

One thing is for sure: I am not looking to Denver for real estate investment any time soon.

From the principle author of our Constitution:

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that d******n which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, wh**ever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which p***es itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence (inference?) will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments

From the principle author of our Constitution:

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that d******n which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, wh**ever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which p***es itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence (inference?) will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments

You have a lot more patience to respond to the morons than I have. I've decided to not waste any more time on trying to explain something to people who will never change their opinion even in the face of evidence that shows they are wrong. This one is another h**er of America. Why do they continue to live in a place for which they have such h**e?

https://redstate.com/scotthounsell/2021/05/04/so-long-private-property-we-had-a-good-run-n374251

Yeah, Denver City Council, good job.

As you peruse this insane article, keep in mind that in C*******t countries people may not own property nor their own businesses. Where do the powers that be, plan to take us from here? They've done a pretty good job of destroying the small business owners while the large big-box corporations and large companies remained open during this p******c. So, that's a start, eh?

So Long Private Property, We Had a Good Run
By Scott Hounsell | May 04, 2021, 6:15 PM ET


(AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)
In 2017, I moved 15 minutes north of my prior home in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles to Santa Clarita. We decided to keep that home as a rental property, so I prepared it for the rental market. While we certainly hoped to be making some money beyond our monthly mortgage/tax/insurance expenses, that amount would not exceed more than a few hundred dollars. After listing the house we received a great deal of interest, most of which we ignored, such as the inquiry from a group of college-aged guys we expected would turn it into a party house, and a single person we believe inevitably would have sublet rooms, creating problems for us.


Imagine my great relief when I found a young couple with three children who were moving in together as they were about to get married. He was a USMC Veteran with a small landscaping business and she was an office assistant. Together they made more than enough to cover the monthly rent. To help them out further, I even lowered the rent in exchange for his promise that he would maintain the yard and spent $100 a month on landscaping for the property, which he was free to landscape as he so desired. That was January. By March we started receiving calls from former neighbors complaining of loud and violent fights, visits from police, and the decline of the condition of the property. Suddenly, the April rent never came. We gave them a break, but the same repeated in May. Reasonably, we asked them to vacate the property and we would release them from their lease, absent any penalty. They refused.

After a very expensive and time-consuming court battle, they vacated the property, but not before doing $30,000 worth of damage, including kicked-in doors throughout the house, broken cabinets, and holes in the walls. The home where my children took their first steps was an absolute disaster. To rec**p our costs I would have had to file another expensive lawsuit, spend months adjudicating it, all for the result of likely not being able to collect a penny. Once I had spent the money to fix the property I was left broke and without any recourse. My property had been destroyed, yet there was nothing criminal or civil law could do to protect my private property. When it came time to rent it again, I made the much more reasonable choice of selling the house and cutting my losses.


The most liberal cities in the country have continued on their march away from private property rights and to some imagined “collective good.” Their class warfare has punished success and the American Dream in exchange for promoting values of which the Soviet Union would be proud. The “rights” of the criminal now outweigh the rights of private property owners. Now, out of Denver comes the latest attack on property owners: Licensing Landlords.

Yes, the Denver City Council has decided that private, fair, and reasonable contracts between two consenting adults require additional government regulation.

From 9News:

A bill that will create the largest licensing program in Denver passed in a unanimous v**e at a city council meeting Monday night.

Rental property owners will now be required to have a license – the requirement goes into effect in a phasing process – multi-family rental property owners have until Jan. 1, 2023, to secure a license and single-family rental property owners have until Jan. 1, 2024.

So again, in Denver, I will be required to obtain a license to enter into a private agreement with another private individual on my own private property. Obviously, the predictable results are already been talked about and enforced, including “safety requirements,” rent control, and other tyrannical limitations. While you’d expect that some sanity would have slowed the council’s extreme power grab, you’d have been wrong. Reasonable amendments were overwhelmingly rejected.

Councilmember Candi CdeBaca proposed amendments to the bill to include a shorter time frame for implementing the licenses and fee structures that incentivize affordability by charging big and small landlords equally.

The first amendment would have shortened the time frame for landlords to acquire licenses over a period of six months phase. The second amendment changed the application fee to $50 for both small and large landlords, both failed in an 11-1 v**e.

These councilmembers, who likely have a better grasp of the lint in their navels than they do on economics, dismissed reality in their decision. As is the case with many good-intentioned government regulations, its only forte is the impeccable construction quality of the road to hell. The per-unit increased cost of this atrocity for landlords is estimated to run from $50-$500. Of course, landlords will have challenges in passing that cost along to renters as the city will likely resort to renting control measures that prevent them from doing so. Unsurprisingly, government action increases costs.

The fallout from this action will likely lead to a significant sell-off of rental properties in the City of Denver, reducing rental availability. Anyone who can fog a mirror would know that the subsequent reduction in the supply of available rentals will ultimately increase the cost of the available properties. The city will then be forced to further impede on private property rights to “protect” “vulnerable” renters. Again, as is the case when it comes to government, the proposed solution to “problems” is inevitably a more restrictive government.

One thing is for sure: I am not looking to Denver for real estate investment any time soon.

https://redstate.com/scotthounsell/2021/05/04/so-long-private-property-we-had-a-good-run-n374251

Yeah, Denver City Council, good job.

As you peruse this insane article, keep in mind that in C*******t countries people may not own property nor their own businesses. Where do the powers that be plan to take us from here? They've done a pretty good job of destroying the small business owners while the large big-box corporations and large companies remained open during this p******c. So, that's a start, eh?

So Long Private Property, We Had a Good Run
By Scott Hounsell | May 04, 2021 6:15 PM ET


(AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)
In 2017, I moved 15 minutes north of my prior home in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles to Santa Clarita. We decided to keep that home as a rental property, so I prepared it for the rental market. While we certainly hoped to be making some money beyond our monthly mortgage/tax/insurance expenses, that amount would not exceed more than a few hundred dollars. After listing the house we received a great deal of interest, most of which we ignored, such as the inquiry from a group of college-aged guys we expected would turn it into a party house, and a single person we believe inevitably would have sublet rooms, creating problems for us.


Imagine my great relief when I found a young couple with three children who were moving in together as they were about to get married. He was a USMC Veteran with a small landscaping business and she was an office assistant. Together they made more than enough to cover the monthly rent. To help them out further, I even lowered the rent in exchange for his promise that he would maintain the yard and spent $100 a month on landscaping for the property, which he was free to landscape as he so desired. That was January. By March we started receiving calls from former neighbors complaining of loud and violent fights, visits from police, and the decline of the condition of the property. Suddenly, the April rent never came. We gave them a break, but the same repeated in May. Reasonably, we asked them to vacate the property and we would release them from their lease, absent any penalty. They refused.

After a very expensive and time-consuming court battle, they vacated the property, but not before doing $30,000 worth of damage, including kicked-in doors throughout the house, broken cabinets, and holes in the walls. The home where my children took their first steps was an absolute disaster. To rec**p our costs I would have had to file another expensive lawsuit, spend months adjudicating it, all for the result of likely not being able to collect a penny. Once I had spent the money to fix the property I was left broke and without any recourse. My property had been destroyed, yet there was nothing criminal or civil law could do to protect my private property. When it came time to rent it again, I made the much more reasonable choice of selling the house and cutting my losses.


The most liberal cities in the country have continued on their march away from private property rights and to some imagined “collective good.” Their class warfare has punished success and the American Dream in exchange for promoting values of which the Soviet Union would be proud. The “rights” of the criminal now outweigh the rights of private property owners. Now, out of Denver comes the latest attack on property owners: Licensing Landlords.

Yes, the Denver City Council has decided that private, fair, and reasonable contracts between two consenting adults require additional government regulation.

From 9News:

A bill that will create the largest licensing program in Denver passed in a unanimous v**e at a city council meeting Monday night.

Rental property owners will now be required to have a license – the requirement goes into effect in a phasing process – multi-family rental property owners have until Jan. 1, 2023, to secure a license and single-family rental property owners have until Jan. 1, 2024.

So again, in Denver, I will be required to obtain a license to enter into a private agreement with another private individual on my own private property. Obviously, the predictable results are already been talked about and enforced, including “safety requirements,” rent control, and other tyrannical limitations. While you’d expect that some sanity would have slowed the council’s extreme power grab, you’d have been wrong. Reasonable amendments were overwhelmingly rejected.

Council member Candi CdeBaca proposed amendments to the bill to include a shorter time frame for implementing the licenses and fee structures that incentivize affordability by charging big and small landlords equally.

The first amendment would have shortened the time frame for landlords to acquire licenses over a period of six month phase. The second amendment changed the application fee to $50 for both small and large landlords, both failed in an 11-1 v**e.

These councilmembers, who likely have a better grasp of the lint in their navels than they do on economics, dismissed reality in their decision. As is the case with many good-intentioned government regulations, its only forte is the impeccable construction quality of the road to hell. The per-unit increased cost of this atrocity for landlords is estimated to run from $50-$500. Of course, landlords will have challenges in passing that cost along to renters as the city will likely resort to rent control measures that prevent them from doing so. Unsurprisingly, government action increases costs.

The fallout from this action will likely lead to a significant sell-off of rental properties in the City of Denver, reducing rental availability. Anyone who can fog a mirror would know that the subsequent reduction in the supply of available rentals will ultimately increase the cost of the available properties. The city will then be forced to further impede on private property rights to “protect” “vulnerable” renters. Again, as is the case when it comes to government, the proposed solution to “problems” is inevitably a more restrictive government.

One thing is for sure: I am not looking to Denver for real estate investment any time soon.