I'm Pretty Sure That There Is A Constitutinal Argument Against Summarily Taking Property And Giving It To Somone Else

 https://x.com/rothmus/status/2059401488695234855?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "The most interesting aspect of Zohran Mamdani’s housing plan is that it doesn’t simply transfer seized properties to the city as that could later be reversed by a future mayor.

Instead, it funnels them directly to NGOs and “community stewards” that are reliably aligned with leftist priorities and unlikely to ever relinquish control. Even tenants who gain temporary possession will soon discover they lack the expertise and resources to manage buildings themselves, forcing them to rely on these permanent third-party intermediaries. This expropriation strategy didn’t start with Mamdani. Democrats laid the groundwork years ago but lacked the nerve to follow through fully. Mamdani is openly commie and has no such hesitation. The play: >impose strict rent controls that make it financially unviable for owners to properly maintain or repair their properties >blame the landlords for the resulting deterioration >label the buildings “chronically neglected” based on your own standards >seize the properties and transfer them to your political allies, the nonprofits, community land trusts, or tenant groups Because the criteria are deliberately vague and subjective, virtually any owner can be targeted. This gives authorities the power to confiscate private property at will. Mamdani’s campaign made this direction explicit. It’s about pursuing “equity” by redistributing housing stock, often framed as taking from wealthier (white) neighborhoods to benefit others. In reality, many of these properties are expected to end up under the control of nonprofits serving the city’s large foreign-born population, all within a framework of permanent “progressive” dominance. TLDR: it’s leftist plunder and pillaging, again."

https://x.com/DanielDiMartino/status/2059468751616053594