The new open-door policy
It’s on the way, and don’t expect to like it much:
[A]s more and more residential properties revert to banks who hold the mortgages, and as more and more of these banks are owned by the federal government, I see in the road ahead a tipping point at which our government will become residential landlord to millions in fact. After all, people need to live somewhere, and houses left empty fall apart and lose their value more quickly than houses which are occupied. The compromise of renting out the millions of empty houses will be the only real option for the government to protect their “investment” in these structures, with the toothsome fringe benefit that the government will have even more purview over the people who live in those houses. Remember that a landlord has a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the property owners they represent, and if you read your residential lease carefully, you will see that at any time, the landlord or property maintenance can legally enter your residence for any reason which may involve concern for proper mechanical or systems operation in your apartment/house. I’m not saying the powers that be would have their landlords and ladies misuse that right to enter a private residence, but I’m also saying that until the powers that be have an actual face, name and mailing address, I’m not going to ascribe to them the moral high ground when it comes to respecting the right to privacy of every American citizen. Call me cynical.
At the very least, expect them to look in the kitchen. And don’t expect Congress to come to your assistance, unless you’re running an abortion clinic on the premises: this is the one aspect of the right to privacy they seem to cherish.
McGehee »
25 January 2009 · 12:57 pm
I’d say it. They already have other agents of theirs do so, even without the landlord-tenant thing being involved.
One of the reasons I was a bit radical on opposing gun control during the 1990s was the way the ATF was conducting no-knock raids based on scant cause. There are drug-legalization proponents aplenty who will say the same of the DEA, and I don’t entirely disagree with them.
And I won’t even mention the IRS (until after April 15).
Tatyana »
25 January 2009 · 2:06 pm
Correct, except he overlook another aspect: government is a faceless entity that’s not interested in protecting its investment.
The clerks and bureaucrats are getting their salaries and benefits no matter what. They can care less if the houses are falling into disrepair; all they interested in is control. For an example of the way government will manage its real estate holdings look at the so called “projects”.
It’s a life in prison, with prison rules and prison hierarchies – only the head of that hierarchy is a committee of various government officials, on whose benevolence you’ll have to depend for the roof above your head.
fillyjonk »
25 January 2009 · 4:03 pm
My father often said that the greatest failing he could see with Communism was that people did not own their property, and thus, had no motivation to keep it up (or even avoid damaging it).
Is there anywhere in this country where “The Projects” are not dangerous hellholes? My main experience in hearing about them were the Detroit and Chicago news stories, which tended to be fairly hair-raising.
Brian J. »
25 January 2009 · 7:48 pm
I have made this point myself to my beautiful wife.
She thought, probably correctly, that I am a crackpot for thinking it.