Commiefornia Democrats ramp up assaults against property owners and push bill to force

California landlords, get out while you can.

Yesterday, Jeff Charles at RedState reported that Democrat lawmaker from San Francisco, Matt Haney, had recently introduced a bill that would prohibit landlords from enacting “blanket pet bans” in regards to their properties. Here are the details, according to a press release from Haney’s office:

AB 2216 will require landlords to have reasonable reason(s) for not allowing a pet in a rental unit and only allows landlords to ask about pet ownership after a tenant’s application has been approved.

Seems like the fact that a pet is, by its very nature, a beast, would be reason enough—everyone expects pet ownership to come with less-than-pleasant smells, “accidents” indoors, and, at best pet wear-and-tear, at worst, total destruction. Secondly, you’d think that in a “free” country, a property owner wouldn’t need to make a case to the government on why he/she conducts personal business affairs in the manner of his/her choosing. (If I were a landlord, I sure wouldn’t want the headache of a tenant with an animal.)

Haney suggests that because landlords have the freedom to keep renters with pets from their properties, there is a “lack of pet friendly housing” which in turn, is causing renters to hide their pets from their landlords—but naturally, the solution for the Democrat lawmaker is to assault the freedom of the person being victimized, not the dishonest renter.

Haney’s announcement also includes this little blurb:

‘Like it or not humans have pets, they always have and they always will,’ said Haney. ‘Blanket no companion pet policies are causing landlords to miss out on good tenants who get rejected without even getting a chance to apply for a place to live. The current system is bad for everyone.’

No, it’s not bad for the landlords and homeowners, otherwise they would have adopted pro-pet policies. That’s the beautiful thing about capitalism—there’s tremendous incentive to meet the demands of the market. But furthermore, who does Haney think he is telling property owners what’s best for their situations and their private property? And, why does Haney think it’s his business to make sure landlords don’t “miss out on good tenants”? Because news flash: IT’S NOT.

In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels go to war against the idea of private property ownership, and although they write that “the abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism” their idea of property revolution is certainly the most unethical, because it seeks to strip the middle class, or the “bourgeois” of their property:

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your [middle class] property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

…

You must, therefore, confess that by ‘individual’ you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

…

Of course, in the beginning, this [revolution] cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property….

Plainspeak like “swept out of the way” and “despotic inroads” is quite an affront though, even to uninformed leftist voters in California, so the state’s communist lawmakers are getting creative.

Marx would be beaming… and licking his chops.

Image generated by AI.