“Ultimately, I think people should be allowed to do what they want with their property,” Rodgers said.
The judge, however, did not agree.
there are no sweeter words
That judge is a hero!
I don’t know enough about legal precedents or the housing situation in BC to comment on the merits of the particular policy being litigated, but I feel it’s self-evident that restricting what people can do with their property is, in general, a bad thing. Such restrictions are often necessary to prevent some other, even worse outcome and that may be the case here, but why would you cheer this part of the article in isolation?
Who was the hack lawyer who led this case?? They argue the act amounts to expropriation but then make no argument that expropriation is illegal. Like the argument could be made that this infringes on life liberty and security of the person and/or that there exists a right to enjoyment of property in the unwritten constitution, but no. I doubt any appeal court is even gonna hear this case nevermind rule in their favour
