Ruthless, cruel capitalism: Real estate investors have discovered a new form of eminent domain to force people out of their condominiums. This is important because in recent years investors have been buying an increasing portion of residential properties and then jacking prices up.
The method is fairly simple. Investors buy condos, then takes over the condo board. The board then terminates the condo legal status, changes the rules making it easier to force people out. Then the investor-backed board votes to force people out and screws them in the process by forcing them to accept a price well under market. This is brass knuckles capitalism in action. It is 100% legal. The NYT writes:
An investor-owner took over a condo board, terminated a condo declaration and is now requiring a couple to sell their condo in what one expert called “a private form of eminent domain.”This puts the Fellmans in a situation that many condo owners are facing: a forced sale. “After that, they basically said, ‘you’re out,’” said Ms. Fellman, 50. “It’s one thing if your property’s being taken for public good. But this is strictly for a private investor’s profit. And it’s like, why does their investment have more value and power than us?”Mr. Fellman said that the investor, the Pennsylvania-based Scully Company, never gave him a formal offer before the forced termination plan was filed. .... Since it owned all the other units, it was able to take over majority control of the condo board, and it voted to lower the threshold of owners required to terminate down to 80 percent. Then, in February 2021, the Scully Company voted to terminate the condominium, which meant the Fellmans would be legally obligated to sell their unit to the company.The appraiser the company hired assessed the Fellmans’ unit at $200,000. But its Zestimate — Zillow’s home value estimate tool which takes into account square footage, location and market trends, among other factors — gives the Fellmans’ condo an approximate worth of $323,500.
There you have it. Brass knuckles capitalism forced the Fellmans out of their home and screwed them by making them accept about $123,500 less than it was worth. That is unregulated capitalism in action. The consumer gets shafted, but capitalists love it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the radical right Republican Supreme Court’s war on elections and voting rights: NPR writes:
The roots of the next potential U.S. Supreme Court showdown that could further weaken the Voting Rights Act's protections against racial discrimination can be traced to a handful sentences by Justice Neil Gorsuch. This is what Gorsuch wrote in a 2021 Supreme Court case called Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee:
JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring.I join the Court’s opinion in full, but flag one thing it does not decide. Our cases have assumed—without deciding— that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under §2. See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 60, and n. 8 (1980) (plurality opinion). Lower courts have treated this as an open question. E.g., Washington v. Finlay, 664 F. 2d 913, 926 (CA4 1981). Because no party argues that the plaintiffs lack a cause of action here, and because the existence (or not) of a cause of action does not go to a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, see Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U. S. 143, 150 (2015), this Court need not and does not address that issue today.
For decades, private individuals and groups, who did not represent the federal government, have filed the majority of Section 2 lawsuits that have stopped state and local governments from minimizing the political power of people of color through the redrawing of voting maps and other steps in the elections process.
But that longstanding practice may be coming to an end.
Gorsuch's paragraph of a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, planted the seeds for an unusual argument that has emerged in an Arkansas redistricting case — that private individuals are not allowed to bring Section 2 lawsuits. And the case may soon find its way before the country's highest court.
This will gut another section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Republicans have hated and chafed under that law ever since it was passed. Gutting voting rights is what authoritarian Republicans mean when they talk about “election integrity.” It means elections rigged so that Republicans win and Democrats lose.
For context, in a 2013 decision in the case Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court gutted enforcement provisions. Chief Justice Roberts claimed that the situation had changed and red states no longer cheated in elections. That case held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Roberts lied, plain and simple. That decision empowered and unleashed the current state of laws designed to subvert and win elections for Republicans in red states.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the radical right Republican Christian nationalism’s war on non-heterosexual rights and free speech: A central dogma of Christian nationalism (CN) is seething hate and condemnation of non-heterosexual people. Non-heterosexual sex is sin. An enraged, vengeful Christian God hates sex sin. The CN movement openly wants to oppress and discriminate against non-heterosexuals and other hated groups. Another dogma target is inconvenient fact, true truth and sound reasoning. LGBTQ Nation writes about a twofer that is being offered up by the radical right CN movement to whack the evil sex sinners and inconvenient free speech:
A Florida Republican introduced a bill that would make it easier for religious people to sue those who call them out as homophobic or transphobic, a bill built on a suggestion from Gov. Ron DeSantis (R).
State Rep. Alex Andrade (R) filed H.B. 991 on Tuesday. The bill would make it easier to sue journalists, publications, or social media users for defamation if they accuse someone of racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia. The bill specifically says that publications can’t use truth as a defense when it comes to reporting on people’s anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments by citing the person’s “constitutionally protected religious expression or beliefs” or “a plaintiff’s scientific beliefs.”
Transgender Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic instructor Alejandra Caraballo called the bill “absolutely chilling.”
“If someone calls you a faggot or tranny and you say they discriminated against you, they can now sue you for at least $35k and cite their religious beliefs,” she noted on Twitter. “This would apply to the internet as well. This would empower bigots to target the LGBTQ community with impunity.”
“This applies to the internet as well so if the person is in Florida, you could be liable even if you have never stepped foot in Florida.”
Under current law, someone suing for defamation has to prove that the defamation hurt their reputation, but H.B. 991 would make it so that statements “that the plaintiff has discriminated against another person or group because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity constitutes defamation per se.”
Is it just me, or is there an endless supply of radical right authoritarian cranks and crackpots operating in Florida? I guess this means that DeSantis is running for president in 2024. This affords another glimpse of what the radical right would do to democracy and civil liberties if the authoritarians ever get enough power. Of course, that assumes the radical right CN already does not have enough power, i.e., think of the radical right, CN Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment