Sean Hannity is Not a Charity and Jeff Bezos Could Pay These People's Rent

If the Washington Post is so concerned about these people, perhaps the paper's billionaire owner could cover their rent.

This Washington Post story is bothersome because it could be written about tens of thousands of Americans, but never would be. It would only be written about a prominent conservative like Sean Hannity. Hannity did not do anything wrong. He did not break the law. In fact, he fully complied with the law. But the Washington Post wants to trot out tears and sob stories and portray Hannity as a bad man for evicting people who did not pay their rent.

In Georgia, Hannity bought a number of properties from foreclosure. They had gone into foreclosure because of mismanagement. Hannity managed his properties properly. In fact, to be accurate, Hannity did not manage his properties at all. He hired competent people to manage his properties. And when people got behind on rent, they got evicted.

As an aside, one of his properties is close to me and it is in far better condition than several comparable properties near his.

These people had entered into what is called a contract. A contract declares that they will pay what is called rent to their landlord, Sean Hannity, and in exchange he will allow them to live under his roof. If they stop paying, he stops giving them the right to live under his roof. And guess what! (note the lack of an actual question mark there) Some stopped paying. They did something called breaching the contract.

This may surprise the Washington Post, but Sean Hannity is not a charity. He is running a for-profit business. He no more has an obligation to allow people to live under his roof for free than a restaurant has an obligation to feed a hungry person for free. If the Washington Post is so concerned about these people, perhaps the paper's billionaire owner could cover their rent. But that's not how this works. They just want to smear Hannity.

The Washington Post is not offering to do anything about the human tragedy they are covering even though the Post's owner has far deeper pockets than Hannity. They fixate on the sob stories to portray Hannity as a bad guy. There are always sob stories in landlord-tenant relationships. Evicting someone does not mean you do not feel bad for them. But if you let them all stay and have no money to pay the mortgage on the property, you will lose the whole thing.

There are plenty of organizations in Georgia that help poor people with rent issues. In fact, many of these properties are already low income housing benefiting from government subsidization and they still could not pay. That is not Sean Hannity's problem. This happens every day across the nation. We can feel bad for the people and want to help. There are places you can donate to help people in those situations.

But I bet the overwhelming majority of the liberals smugly nodding along to the story demanding Hannity do something have no actual intention of doing anything themselves. They view it as Hannity's problem. But it is not his problem. He's doing just fine. And that's actually the problem the Washington Post has with all of this. Hannity is doing just fine.

Comments
No. 1-10
Twistedmuser
Twistedmuser

Why shouldn't he aggressively pursue evictions? It's a lengthy process. Waiting just makes it even longer.

Sgt_ Preston
Sgt_ Preston

Sean Hannity is to be applauded for such wise use of his well-earned salary. These "renters" obviously felt they "deserved" to live in those apartments without paying their agreed-upon rent. They have no one but themselves to blame for being booted out of Hannity's buildings. To those who lost their apts, I say, "GET A JOB".

graydo
graydo

Bringing Susan and her active hostility to Christian understanding to this site was a serious mistake.

Dave_A
Dave_A

Keep in mind, there are elements of the Left in CA that want to make evictions criminal.

Yes, they really are out of their mind...

If you don't pay your rent, you have to leave... That's just how it works...

katetex
katetex

if the housing is section 8 (subsidized) they might be trying to rent to new tenants at the market rate rather than the subsidized rate. Just a theory.

Stories