Landlords Throw Party to Celebrate Being Able to Evict People Again
The Berkeley Property Owners Association's fall mixer is called "Celebrating the End of the Eviction Moratorium."
A group of Berkeley, California landlords will hold a fun social mixer over cocktails to celebrate their newfound ability to kick people out of their homes for nonpayment of rent, as first reported by Berkeleyside.
The Berkeley Property Owner Association lists a fall mixer on its website on Tuesday, September 12, 530 PM PST. “We will celebrate the end of the Eviction Moratorium and talk about what's upcoming through the end of the year,” the invitation reads. The event advertises one free drink and “a lovely selection of appetizers,” and encourages attendees to “join us around the fire pits, under the heat lamps and stars, enjoying good food, drink, and friends.”
The venue will ironically be held at a space called “Freehouse”, according to its website. Attendees who want to join in can RSVP on their website for $20.
Berkeley’s eviction moratorium lasted from March 2020 to August 31, 2023, according to the city’s Rent Board, during which time tenants could not be legally removed from their homes for nonpayment of rent. Landlords could still evict tenants if they had “Good Cause” under city and state law, which includes health and safety violations. Landlords can still not collect back rent from March 2020 to April 2023 through an eviction lawsuit, according to the Rent Board.
Berkeleyside spoke to one landlord planning to attend the eviction moratorium party who was frustrated that they could not evict a tenant—except that they could evict the tenant, who was allegedly a danger to his roommates—but the landlord found the process of proving a health and safety violation too tedious and chose not to pursue it.
The Berkeley Property Owner Association is a landlord group that shares leadership with a lobbying group called the Berkeley Rental Housing Coalition which advocated against a law banning source of income discrimination against Section 8 tenants and other tenant protections.
The group insists on not being referred to as landlords, however, which they consider “slander.” According to the website, “We politely decline the label "landlord" with its pejorative connotations.” They also bravely denounce feudalism, an economic system which mostly ended 500 years ago, and say that the current system is quite fair to renters.
“Feudalism was an unfair system in which landlords owned and benefited, and tenant farmers worked and suffered. Our society is entirely different today, and the continued use of the legal term ‘landlord’ is slander against our members and all rental owners.” Instead, they prefer to be called “housing providers.”
While most cities’ eviction moratoria elapsed in 2021 and 2022, a handful of cities in California still barred evictions for non-payment into this year. Alameda County’s eviction moratorium expired in May, Oakland’s expired in July. San Francisco’s moratorium also elapsed at the end of August, but only covered tenants who lost income due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In May, Berkeley’s City Council added $200,000 to the city’s Eviction Defense Funds, money which is paid directly to landlords to pay tenants’ rent arrears, but the city expected those funds to be tapped out by the end of June.
I feel like people should really read this part and fully absorb what it means.
It's not that surprising, courts require specific hard evidence. Getting the roommates present to testify may or may not be enough, but it's far more difficult than showing unpaid rent or a hoarding situation.
Oh, boo hoo. A landlord actually having to do work. How awful, this is truly a tragedy of unspoken proportions
Been a landlord for almost 20 years. I've rebuilt some of these houses myself from an auctioned off unlivable disaster to a safe, clean, maintained property. To imply landlords don't work is such a narrow sighted view of reality. I got a glimpse during covid of an eviction moratorium a tenant that had quite a bit of hardship and I worked with her for 5 years pre-covid. Heating oil run out she couldn't afford I filled it out of pocket for her and her family. If she needed flexibility on rent timing I worked with her. When she snuck an untrained dog classified as an emotion support dog that chewed up the house's 70 year old woodwork stairs and balusters. I worked with her. When covid hit and the moratorium was about to go live her lease was up1 month prior. She ceased paying rent and utilities, I was informed I'd have to cover all her expenses during the moratorium. If she hadn't had that lease end right before this moratorium she would've continued staying there for free while I covered her family's entire housing and utilities. In the end my thanks for covering her and enforcing the lease end date was an entire house abandoned and full of trash and pest. Took my wife and I almost 2 months and close to $5000 to clean, repaint, repair/replace that property on top of the maintenance costs. This isn't a black and white situation..
Tldr, I guess: Evictions are a last resort for people who have had an agreement no longer be met by the other party. Should never have mad a moratorium on that legal process imo, it needed to have flexibility to help both parties not just shoulder 1 party with all the responsibility. The party is in extremely poor taste but I can understand their relief if they have similar tenants they can hopefully divest of after years of what my example held. I wouldn't have been able to do it for 3 years financially or mentally.
The distinction is in the role of being the owner of the property versus the property manager and superintendent.
Landlords that also assume the role of property manager or superintendent for the land or buildings they lease do work.
But their role as owner and collector of rent is divorced from upkeep. The wealthier the landlord, the more removed and absentee they can be from their property. And the reality of that specific dynamic is just shining in the example of this kind of party.
They like to use one case like this as their excuse to kick out a dozen people who are just trying to survive
Yeah that bit caught my eye and tracks perfectly with every landlord I have ever known.
“We prefer to be called ‘housing providers’”
I’ll call you extortionists. Take it or leave it.
Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide concert tickets.
Concerts fundamentally have a limit or capacity. There is no such thing for housing. All current restraints are arbitrarily chosen and we can change them if we want to.
At the root, housing in the US and especially California is a tragedy of the commons where it is in no current owners interests to allow more construction. So all of them have created a homeowners lobby to make new construction illegal.
So you're saying housing has a fundamental limit?
I mean you could say the same about concerts. They have a fundamental limit because the venue refuses to build a bigger space.
We do have bigger venues. But no matter how large the venue, the concert has to be in a venue which has a capacity limit.
No such thing exists for housing.
No. We built our cities wrong, and artificially created a limit. If we were to admit that suburbs are nothing but an economic drain, and rezoned properly to mixed use medium to high density in the cities, and no more suburbs, or tax the suburbs properly and stop subsidizing them, we would have walkable cities with plenty of housing.
Just in Imperial Beach, we could turn these 4 sq miles from being able to support ≈26,000 people to being able to house ≈250,000 which would greatly expand the city's ability to fund badly needed infrastructure. Doing this nationwide would cause a housing crash, and cost many rich people money.
You could say the same about a given venue for a concert, however. The city is the venue for housing
Then you don't understand the difference between a city and a building. Cities are amorphous. Buildings are concrete, sometimes literally.
This only exists because almost every American city makes it illegal, or very difficult to build new housing. It's very hard to extort people when the a proper supply.
Sounds like people are in bed with the government to stop competition
Because of existing landowners.
The vast majority of landowners are not landlords.
stats on this? I would wager that far more land is owned by landlords than not, given the ownership percentages of the rich.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/02/as-national-eviction-ban-expires-a-look-at-who-rents-and-who-owns-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=Most%20rental%20properties%20are%20owned,owning%201.72%20properties%20on%20average.
I mean, just think how many homeowners you know and how many are landlords.
Landleeches also works.
Plz seed, not enough houses
How about home scalpers?
It's price gouging for dwellings.
Landsharks
Completely unrelated question but where can I buy termites, and where can I buy a slingshot, and how many Gees can you subject a termite to without killing it?
Assuming you mean "Gs" but I'm fascinated by what you have in mind for the last bit
No, they meant "Gees"
It's a good question, since termite gees may be different from bee gees.
Yeah but they wanted to know how many before the termites weren't stayin' alive anymore
It's the bees knees for sure
But did they mean "A Gees", or "Bee Gees"?
A gee is Irish slang for vagina
We don't need context, we need answers!
So, how many?
https://www.carolina.com/termites/termites-workers-living-pack-of-25/143734.pr?bvstate=pg:2/ct:r&srsltid=AfmBOophrEzuuU8n2lSs0V7dlnQXzW05gDHHlYSuTPPAfjNUz2OiZJxUHVM
https://www.arbico-organics.com/product/moth-egg-parasites-trichogramma-minutum/caterpillar-control-deciduous-fruit-trees?utm_source=googleshopping&utm_medium=organic&srsltid=AfmBOopzWtgsDuf1d-nzPuNagro4oevX0HAB8Nqv0dbltg59NWN2gqUlMGU
Wouldn't need the slingshot. These things are tiny. Just casually sprinkle some in a dusty/ infrequently cleaned area
Getting a queen may be more difficult
The party is overall shitty I agree with that. I also don’t think people should be able to own more than one home just to get rental income and have someone else pay their mortgage. This depletes the housing supply and takes away wealth building opportunities for families trying to build their own wealth.
That being said, this could have been handled better. If tenants could pause rent then the banks should have paused payments on mortgages that qualify as well, or just all mortgages.
My view is that unless you have a heartbeat you can't buy residential property. I'm not entirely against landlords because people want to rent, imagine having to buy everytime you went to a new city or place. But it should be diminishing returns from progressive tax policies that disincentivise multiple properties.
Renting out a home can make sense for other reasons too. I have a friend who moved to the UK for work and is renting out their house in the US for a few years as security in case the game company he got a job with goes under.
There are also people unable to deal with certain aspects of life and rentals give them freedom to live on their own but someone else maintains the property. It is a nice aspect of renting. Roof fails? Not my problem. Sewar issue? Someone else deals with it.
Good point. Do you think there should be any restrictions on who can own and rent these homes? Say only people from the community or state? It seems like there are a lot of foreign investors that buy a ton of homes. Then that rental money just leaves the community.
Foreign investors wouldn't see much returns in buying if this was the case. They'd have drastically less profits and with each property they'd have a higher percentage tax to pay. So by the time they'd get to being a big investment firm that bought up properties on a large scale they'd be paying 80+% of their income in taxes which isn't viable, by design, and the money would be invested elsewhere.
But strictly speaking absolutely no foreign investment funds should be buying up housing stock.
I don't even want a home to build wealth I just want a fucking place to live in that I can build on and work on my hobbies. I couldn't give less of a shit if the value never goes up.
Housing prices don’t need to change to build wealth. You are just keeping your money in your house instead of giving it away to a landlord. Then if you need to move you have all you’ve accumulated instead of nothing.
Housing value on your primary residence going up is actually a bad thing for most owner-occupied properties in most localities. Higher value = higher taxes.
Not in California as much though thanks to prop 13 (which should only apply to owner-occupied properties but doesn't... So there's good and bad).
While it definitely could've been handled better, in the US at least you could pause your mortgage payments for a time. That doesn't stop the property taxes though.
When I signed my mortgage I had to promise not to use those programs, I don't know how legally binding that actually was though.
True but they should have been the same duration in my opinion. The property tax would have been ideal to pause too but wouldn’t that cause more problems for the local community instead of just the big banks?
AFAIK (NAL) any law supersedes a contract. So that doesn’t seem enforceable to me. They may be able to break the contract in that situation, saying you violated it. Then it would need to be handled in court with the bank likely having better lawyers.
Say it is written into the lease that the landlord only has to give one weeks notice for a tenant to move out. Both parties can sign it but the law says 30 days. The police would be called at the end of the week and say the tenant still has 2 weeks.
Yet you can give away certain rights like the right to sue so that may be a bad example.
Yeah I mean I agree that they should've been available for the same time, but I'm betting most landlords weren't really in dire straits enough to use them in the first place.
I think that's why they're easily forgettable as available programs: most people that own never needed to use them.
Yes landlords can be awful scumbags...
But am I supposed to think that people should be able to live rent free despite agreeing to pay rent? Not seeing anyone pointing this "minor" issue out here.
Maybe people could actually pay rent if they were charging reasonable rates and didn't intentionally keep housing scarce. Maybe we could instead stop letting NIMBYs get away with their bullshit.
Landlords do not deserve rent, they shouldn't exist in the first place.
I've seen this sentiment a lot, especially since joining lemmy a few months ago, and I am genuinely confused by it. Could you elaborate on this? I can't comprehend what incentive someone would have to develop property (finance and pay for the actual physical process of constructing a physical place for people to live) if it was a foregone conclusion that they do not deserve to exist, let alone be compensated for it. And don't take this the wrong way, I'm definitely not defending the act of celebrating being able to evict people, so don't interpret my question as being apologist for landlords. I'm just struggling to understand what the alternative would be.
Is there an alternative process you are referring to? If so, what is it?
I think it comes down to, should living indoors be a human right or is it ok to let people sleep on the streets if they aren't very good at capitalism?
After that it comes down to how to do it? Perhaps housing should be the governments job and the wealthy can fuck off to the middle of nowhere if they want to own something
The only system I've ever experienced like this was the 4 years I spent on active duty in the USMC. All the basics (food, housing, medical) were provided for as part of the deal. But (and this is a big BUT) that was in exchange for the individual voluntarily giving up the vast majority of their rights and free will by agreeing to live in what can only be described as a dictatorship - and also in exchange for tireless work and unquestioning obedience. I somehow do not believe that the majority of people advocating for government-provided everything would be willing to hold up their end of that kind of expected social contract in exchange. Everything has a 'cost', and by saying that 'the government' should bear that cost, what you are really saying is that the taxpayers should bear that cost.
I guess what I'm saying is: I keep hearing and seeing this sentiment that housing should be an inalienable human right, and I don't have any reason to disagree with that, I'm just asking for someone to explain how that would be feasible or point to an example of a working model of that.
It's been done in other countries to great effect. The UK had a great public housing system and no one would say that was some horrible dictatorship. The only cost was the normal amount of taxes they pay. It's slowly been a bit privatized form what I understand, but provided housing for a majority of the population without complaint for hundreds of years,and still provides for a large part of the population. They even built ones that look pretty nice and not like the public housing people imagine in like Soviet Russia.
I wouldn't call this great. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/28/first-edition-social-housing-uk
That happens in private apartments, too. My old landlord left a huge hole in the wall for almost a year. Others regularly ignore mold. My current one ignored water damage. It's what landlords do.
That plight in the article, like many others, seems to be caused mostly from the steady but gradual defunding of the UK's public services for to long time conservative and Tory control of the government.
So you were able to take advantage of this and "all" you had to do was give up your life for a number of years, potentially forever, and possibly kill people.
I am in no way trying to attack you or your service, but should that be a requirement for everyone? Should we need people to have to do that to live?
I think the entire message of my comment escaped you. Especially the beginning part, the middle part, and the end part. If you re-read what I wrote, the gist is that I've only ever seen one system in the US that does what people are wanting but I don't think that's what they had in mind....and then I follow up with a request for someone to point to a working model for how they are expecting it to work.
Your comment...is just an attack on my personal experience that I cited as a reference. It's offensive. Your comment comes across as unnecessarily hostile. I am not sure if it's because you didn't understand what I was getting at, or if you just wanted to be intentionally argumentative.
Access to shelter is a human right, but access to a rental property requires an agreement between the tenant and the property owner.
Where does the boogeyman capitalism figure into upholding your end of the bargain? If you're unable to work, there's an (admittedly minimal for a Western nation) safety net in place and countless charities willing to assist. You still have to contribute to society. Working isn't the only way.
The part where the threat of homelessness is coercive.
For food there is a shitty safety net here. For rent, it is abysmal. It's incredibly difficult to get help with rent, so saying there is countless charities willing to assist is grossly misleading. Social workers always recommend paying rent instead of food for this very reason.
Being unable to work isn't the only problem. There are next to no places in the U.S. where the minimum wage will cover the rent of a 1bd apartment. Landlords shouldn't exist in the first place, they are just leeches.
Well foxes and rabbits and blue jays don't have capitalism or government, but if they don't put in some work to eat and get shelter, then they won't survive either. That isn't a "threat," that's a physical truth of the universe that has existed for millennia. Nothing is achieved without work and input.
That's not a good world. We shouldn't seek to emulate it. We are higher beings than other animals, and we should act as such. We have more than enough for everybody to have shelter and safety, yet we instead choose a system that prevents all from having it.
I never said otherwise.
Private industries that regularly fail ought to instead be nationalized, especially ones that deal with basic necessities. The government should be building housing on a massive scale, and selling it at low cost to families, individuals for personal use only, non profit co-ops, etc. Hundreds of thousands of new apartment units ought to be built by the government as prefab units that are manufactured in pieces in factories and then shipped off for assembly at location. Basically, lego-ify housing. Such a solution would benefit greatly from economies of scale, and would go such a long way towards fixing the problem. This would take quite a lot of rezoning, but nothing impossible.
Capitalism works on the assumption that there is competition, but that's not really possible with housing. You can't realistically just move to a different place overnight every day to get the best deal, there are limits for how many residences exist in an area, etc. Housing is physically tied to land use, which means there essentially is no competition. As a result landlords price gouge, price fix, and charge thousands of dollars for single bedroom units that are run down and in need of repair. Government doesn't work on the notion of competition. If the law says that X housing units are to be built in city Y, then it's going to happen, all without a profit motive.
The government exists to maintain the stability and well-being of our country, so it has a responsibility to develop property to fix the housing crisis, and to replace the utter failure that is landlords. The people who actually build housing, the construction laborers, city planners, etc, they all are doing actual work and deserve compensation. Landlords don't do that, owning is not a job and should not have a wage.
A society with landlords has failed at one of the most basic tasks. Housing is a human right, it should be easily accessible to everyone.
Landlords provide no value to anything. I'll let Adam Smith, the father of capitalism say it:
That doesn't remotely answer OPs question
So who deserves the rent? The government ? That's even worse taxes are damn too high why do you think neighborhoods are being gentrified? Real Estate Investment Companies and banks are buying all of the properties and land. I used to be homeless thanks to these jabronis
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Neighborhoods become too expensive to live in, and so minorities get forced out.
Amd that shouldn't be legal.
Your username makes me hungry... now I want pizza.
Honest question...if land lords don't exist, and you can't afford a house, where do you propose we get housing from?
I answered this a little lower down:
https://lemmy.world/comment/3402724
Landlords are leeches. They make people pay for a basic human right.
Brain powered down, cool
Parasites prefer to be called "Sharing friends"
and I prefer to call them Guillotine entertainment providers
If that's a reference to the French revolution... then you may want to read up about the French revolution.
it's not, it's a reference to fuck the rich.
The Coup - "The Guillotine"
I... I thought this was satire...
You mean it's not?
Thought it was an onion article. Yup
no
It's like calling blackmailers "privacy providers".
Landlords provide no benefit to society, outlaw them
Hey guys, we all hate landlords. A lot. The phrase that immediately comes to mind is "scum-sucking weasels." But let's not go overboard with the violent language, OK?
Skin and fry them I say!
If you fry them then skin them it becomes a tasty treat.
Rents due, rentoid.
Thanks for saying that, but also, you're interrupting one hell of a circle-jerk.
So I noticed. And far be it from me to interrupt such a thorough group hand-insemination effort! Just don't want things to get... ahem... out of hand.
Coming soon: the end of the guillotine moratorium.
(This is happening worldwide.
In Canada the average rent
for a 1bdrmis now over $2k5 years ago I paid 800 for a 2 bdrm.
You're lucky to rent a room for that now.
That's why.)
Respectfully, the average rent for all new leases is over $2000, not explicitly 1 bdrm, which should on average be lower than $2000.
Aside from the fact that you're advocating mass murder, it's worth pointing out that the guillotine's association with executing wealthy nobles is largely fictional.
that can change
A much more likely scenario is just a repeat of the aptly-named Reign of Terror.
Wealthy elites are running a reign of terror right now, have been for centuries, If we can't reason with them (which has been tried, and failed) then there's only one option left.
The "Reign of Terror" is so called because the revolutionary government literally adopted "terror" (as in murdering people who disagreed with them) as an official government policy.
Yes, kind of like how things are now.
Um, no.
Are you familiar with the american police? Their brutality upholds the status quo. They and the elites they serve deserve to be terrorized.
Yes. I'm also familiar with the history of the French Revolution and why it's not an example to be followed.
Normalizing political violence inevitably, and sometimes literally, will blow up in your face. Just ask Robespierre.
Do you think we can make things better by being nice and civil to the people currently doing the oppression? Or do you just like things the way they are and want nothing to change?
What I think it that normalizing political violence is extremely dangerous. That it will inevitably be turned back against the very people who advocate for it. And that people who advocate for it must have slept through history class.
What a well thought out response from someone who thinks things are just fine, apparently.
One could say that by making housing unaffordable, by making groceries unaffordable, and by privatizing healthcare, mass murder is already being committed.
Observing and stating what is an obviously exaggerated result is hardly advocating.
But, yes, I do believe the likes of people who put profit over lives deserve the worst.
Not advocating. I wouldn't be sad if it happened. But, definitely not advocating.
Then, it must be smally factual.
My kingdom for an intelligent response.
100% Land Value Tax pleaseeee, way better than guillotines
There, fixed it
Landlords are leeches on society. Play the stockmarket if you want to make money, don’t (continue to) make housing a source of gross profit.
invests in REITs
That's a bargain for a bunch of agitators to come in and stir up trouble. I'm just saying.
I wonder if there's any service that can 'fake' the $20 for a little while...
Listen up everybody, they prefer being called "housing providers" instead of landlords now.
If I lived nearby I'd organize a bunch of people to buy tickets to their event and ruin it.
I was thinking the same thing. Or organize an event adjacent to it for tenants and play obnoxious music loudly enough to ruin their refined evening, but not so loudly as to violate noise ordinances. Perhaps if the landleeches... I'm sorry, that is pejorative... Property goblins saw all of their income slaves gathering in the same place they would understand that they are far outnumbered. And hell, make a city-wide tenants union while at the party. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenants_union
Fuck this world dude.
Why? Because leaches did want to pay rent? Rents due, rentoid.
They're gathering a bunch of people who are destroying society in the same place, you say?
One free drink, but you gotta pay what a drink at the bar costs to get in lmao.
Imagine a meteor landing on this party at peak attendance.
Stop, I can only be so erect
"Kill your masters" T-shirts and bumper stickers are already a thing. I wonder how long it'll take to see similar stuff for landlords.
You might be able to find something similar on ebay. I bet Dead Kennedys sold some "Let's Lynch the Landlord" tee-shirts in the 80s.
I think I'll stick to "leeches"
There is a way to get rid of landlord’s insane unearned income without a violent revolution, while also making our cities more lovely places to love.
A 100% tax on the value of land, redistributed as UBI and government services. Basically the people become the landlords.
So Landlords are united and fighting to get us homeless Lets organize against them !
Housing Providers should provide houses to the Unhoused.
Yes, you should be always able to evict people from your property no matter the reason.
Tenant is dating a black person and you don’t like black people? Kick them out! It’s your property!
Literally yes. If that was the case, the landlord would be totally insane and be hurting his income. As long as the tenant pays and behaves properly I bet the landlord prefers money to personal views.
Idk what to tell you. If you see neither the flaws in that logic nor the consequences, you're either too far gone for me to teach you, or you're just trolling.
Yeah fuck contracts!
The moratorium already did that.
Yeah well the thing about contracts is that they rely on the government to enforce them, and the sovereign has always been free to abdicate such enforcement.
That's why racial restrictive covenants were first found illegal, even though there is no state action in the covenant itself.
State and local governments are explicitly denied that power by the federal Constitution.
There is no Constitutional right to have the government enforce your contract. I'm not talking about formation and performance, I'm talking about enforcement. The Contracts Clause has nothing to do with enforcement by the courts.
The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is enumerated in the First Amendment
The Contracts Clause prohibits states from passing laws to prevent one of the parties to a contract from enforcing their rights in court, which is exactly what the moratorium did.
Like it or not this helps to increase housing availability and therefore lower prices for rent
If you truly believe that, I have a mountain chalet in Florida to sell you.
Rent isn't ridiculously high because of lack of supply, it's primarily because of landlord greed. They're even using software designed to help them set the highest rents they can possibly get away with
Let me know how your economic theory takes off.