A Stitch in Haste

I blogged a few days ago about how FEMA has, finally, cut off direct funding for Katrina victims to stay in hotels.

Well, at least one hack New York politician (and I ask again — why are displaced people from Louisiana and Mississippi staying in hotels in New York?) has decided that these guests in our city might not be mere "guests" after all:

Charlie King, a lawyer and a Democratic candidate for New York State attorney general, said the evacuees in New York City would be protected by city and state housing laws and could not be thrown out without a formal eviction proceeding, which could take months.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Hotels are not "housing" and hotel guests are not "tenants" and housing laws cannot reasonably be deemed to apply to them.

And how exactly would this hack politician propose enforcing these housing laws? By suing FEMA? By suing the hotels? Or by simply forcing New York City or New York State to start picking up the tab as federal money dries up?

Here we have yet another example of the danger of arguing reductio ad absurdum, namely that your opponent may end up embracing the absurdity. This is an especially likely outcome when dealing with politicians, bureaucrats and special interest "advocates."

Keep in perspective exactly what King is suggesting. These people may be "victims." They may not be (wholly) responsible for their plight. But that doesn't change the fact that they are on the dole. They are receiving taxpayer-subsized handouts that are now stretching into their sixth month.

And yet, we are told, these people not only have "rights," but that have more rights than regular hotel guests who actually pay their way (do you really believe that you are a "tenant" protected by housing laws when you go on vacation and stay in a hotel?).

Using taxpayer money to aid disaster victims is one thing. Elevating victims above taxpayers is something else entirely. And entirely illegitimate.