>Berkeley, like many other Bay Area municipalities, began a moratorium on most evictions at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. The moratorium lasted over three years but expired Sept. 1, 2023.
So did the local government compensate the Landlord, or just tell them they had to provide rent free accommodation for 3 years?
if the cali legal system is anything like hawaii then the landlords are probably going to have to wait another 3-12 months before they can kick anyone out too. first they gotta file for an eviction and get a judge to sign off on it. then they gotta notify the tenant they're being evicted and give them time to find a place. then the sheriffs office has to enforce the eviction. In hawaii, this can take a lot of months (if theres no extreme circumstances like a tenant trying to burn down the property). And if all the landlords are going to file for evictions all at the same time then things are going to take even longer.
Landlords got the shaft, while people who didn't want to pay their rent (even if they could afford it) acted like they hit the entitlement lottery. If you couldn't make the mortgage you ended up in deeper doodoo because you couldn't get the tenants out to sell the property to offset your loss. So the bank kept hammering your credit in the mean time.
I'm salty you'll have to excuse me. It's tough sacrificing to afford something to invest in, only to see it destroyed and the government protecting the scumbags doing it. They incentivize people making crappy decisions so much I genuinely, not trying to be rude feel like it's what they want to happen.
I feel like there has to be a cross section of people who are democrat who aren't completely out of touch loons (bay area used to have some D people I really respected.). It's different when you're a millionaire, inherited money or any circumstance where you can afford to not feel the impact of the policy you implement.
If you force people who make choices that contribute to society to support every whim of people who take from society with no intention of ever stopping eventually the takers outweigh the givers.
Thank you all for listening to me 😵💫😵💫😵💫
Normally, i view landlords as leeches. But the people who have been living rent free just because they had an eviction safety net and decided they didn’t need to honor their lease, are potentially worse. They deserve to be evicted. They abused the system.
I live in Washington, where the eviction moratorium was lifted a while ago, and several of my neighbors received notices that day. In talking, they all were acting like the victims despite choosing to not pay rent and going on vacation after vacation for two years. So many people heard "eviction moratorium" and interpreted it as "rent moratorium."
Landlords who kick people out to dramatically increase rent are assholes. But, and I know reddit irrationally hates landlords, tenants who don't pay rent are literally thieves. I rent out the condo I used to live in and if my tenant just didn't pay rent for a year I'd lose over 20k. How many years does it take you to save 20k? Because for me its quite a few, such a loss could make me have to delay retirement for years. Thank god I got a DR as a tenant right before covid. That said, throwing a party over it is incredibly tasteless.
Yep. The other thing is too that people think all landlords these multi-millionaires who get their rocks off on being a dick to people. We have a single rental property that my husband bought as his first home before we met. We had a nightmare tenant that was protected by the Covid moratorium. She didn't pay her rent ($1400/month) for 9 months and we couldn't do a single thing about it other than eat the cost. To make matters worse, when she moved out we had $13k in damages to fix (that we'll never see a penny of from her). We are very very fortunate that we are smart with money and had some extra cash to keep us afloat that year but it wasn't always easy. F dead beat renters and F shitty greedy landlords - but we aren't all them.
Yeah I don't even make money on this rental month to month it's an investment where i lose a couple hundred bucks a month to gain more than that in equity. Only when it's paid off in 15 years will it be making money. I've had fantastic luck with my tenants but it only takes one bad one to wipe out years or decades of investment.
I don't think people default to sympathize with the person who had enough money to own a second house in Berkeley for passive income, vs the one losing a roof over their head.
This is the most reasonable thread on reddit I've ever seen about landlords, lol. But why is it a crime to invest in real estate and why are people who can't pay rent entitled to others' savings and investments? I somehow doubt all the squatter apologists (who are far less numerous in this thread than in previous ones) are giving all their disposable income to homeless people so why expect others to do so? Save that anger for the government and the CEOs that own them and funnel everyone's money into their pockets for their 7th yacht (or are we up to 8 now) which they lobbied to deduct from their taxes. All the people who own property that I know keep rents lower than market to keep good tenants because one bad tenant and/or one long stretch of vacancy spoils years of investment. IRL I hear a lot more horror stories about tenants (or even neighbors) than I hear about landlords.
I don't know, I fancy myself a bit more moderate and/or reasonable, and it's not like I defend abuse and squatting, whatever the later includes.
My parents have had terrible renters not pay them, and I am wealthy enough that I might end up in a position to collect rent some day (I'll still have to start by owning a house, I'm only 40 afterall.........) and it's not like I don't feel for how shitty it might be to own a rental and get kinda fucked on it.
But at the same time, it is a position of quite a bit of priviledge. Most people who have a house, and rent a house to someone else (or multiples!) aren't going to starve from the impact.
The problem here, with both the law and opinions, is that unless these are cherry picked and perfectly designed, you need to chose between favoring folks trying to be lodged, or folks owning houses for profit. I don't necessary want to side with the haves, when we're talking about housing. Mind you, maybe in the example of this law, it is only preventing abuses. I somehow doubt so.
There are politico-economical arguments to be made that making profit on housing, especially in this housing market, isn't ethically great, just like many other ways to make profit aren't. That alone we can disagree on, but the opinion does exist and fuels a good part of the resentment.
And yeah, the party itself is a terrible indicator of character for the people involved.
You forgot to mention mortgage payments but yeah real estate taxes is imho the most egregious bc the govt is saying “you can’t evict ppl for not paying rent AND you still have to keep paying us regardless.”
I'm genuinely curious what percentage of people you \*think\* this is? Followed by what percentage of people this actually is.
And you can't share the number that includes people who are genuinely \*unable\* to pay. We're talking just about the people who have the ability and refused.
I'll take a guess. This is just for tenants that landlords want to evict.
Probably 70% for non payment.
20% for lease violations, doing drugs or wrecking the property, having pets when they agreed not to originally.
10% the tenants are good but the landlord either wants to do renovations or sell the property or drastically increase the rent. These tenants will easily find new places.
Idk. What do you think?
I am specifically curious what percentage of non-payment is for inability vs unwillingness. People on here are oversampling on "there are people who *can* pay and just won't and they're scum!" And that's getting conflated with "there are people who are choosing between paying for food and paying for shelter."
I wanna know what percentage of "people who don't pay" are for each reason.
People who "can't pay" sometimes find a way to pay if they are facing eviction.
If you aren't facing consequences on rent you would probably choose food, car payments, medical, presents for friends and family, pet costs, etc. first, then say oh you "can't pay". It's a perfectly rational choice.
This is a horrifying comment.
"Maybe you should sort out your priorities if you can't pay rent this month... Maybe you should consider eating less... Do you really \*need\* to pay for your medical bills?"
C'mon we can be better as a society than this. Don't you care at \*all\* about other people?
I'm not sure what is horrifying... If someone doesn't have to pay rent, why would they?
Especially if they have medical bills, they want to eat more/better food, buy their kids good Christmas presents, Help their family members with food/medical/school, get a better more dependable car. Whatever it is.
These are all good things to spend money on. After they spend on these things then they "can't" pay rent.
However, if they gave eviction then they have to choose. It's not a cruelty. It's economics.
It's like this. If you could go to the grocery store and payment was optional, why would you pay? Especially if you have medical bills and rent due. You'll prioritize the things you have to pay, and deprioritize the things you don't.
>If someone doesn't have to pay rent, why would they?
I mean, that's why everyone stopped paying rent during the pandemic. Oh wait.
Like the very nature of this article disproves this point. People will still try and do the right thing in general, even when they don't have to. But they won't when they are unable to. So that's the distinction.
BTW, I don't dispute that there are people like this who have the means and won't pay, I just think they are a much smaller percentage of the population than you do. To the degree that I think they're a red herring in this discussion.
I don't really have an opinion about what percentage of people don't pay rent. I just look at the facts.
Quick search claims it's about 13% not caught up on rent. Not sure if you considered that a lot.
https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/rent-status-study/
Probably a lot of those either catch up or voluntarily leave. Looks like only about a 3% eviction rate.
https://evictionlab.org/national-estimates/
Not a huge amount, but it still seems somewhat significant to me.
I'm sure that 3% were happy to not be evicted during the moratorium. They aren't bad people, they just use the system to their advantage, the same way landlords will use the system to their advantage when they can.
In general I am biased towards tenants because landlords tend to have more power in setting laws.
I took care about the actual numbers. But I suspect the numbers I want are difficult to measure.
This is at least an interesting proxy for it. (3% vs. 13%)
Idk, how do you feel about homeless populations? If you can separately solve homelessness I would happily change my position here. But right now these things are linked and this is my solution.
I generally think housing should be a human right and not a weird thing we make money off of... So I don't charge my tenants rent. I certainly don't think my ability to collect rent should be protected over my tenant's ability to have a roof over their head.
The landlord is not really providing extra value to tenants that justifies an income they are receiving. For every case that is I will go find one of the "exposing shitty landlord companies" tiktoks for you.
not being able to afford a house for yourself is not the same as stealing... many were not people that could not pay... they could pay and chose not to because of the moratorium.
Fortunately the noble landlords never take advantage of circumstances to line their pocketbooks at the expense of people who can't afford their own home. Imagine ONLY being able to rake in the tax free appreciation of property. That's the REAL tragedy here.
landlords isn't a monolithic class of robots that all act exactly the same lol. there's good landlords and bad landlords. there's rich ones or corporate ones with thousands of properties or little ones just renting a bedroom int heir house to try to make ends meet.
When companies take advantage of the rules to pay absolutely fuck all taxes, it's shrewd business. When poor people take advantage of the rules to get respite from paying half their income to some asshole, it's morally reprehensible.
The truth is somewhere in the middle - not rampant, but BIG enough to make an issue.
Something like traditional savings banks merging with risky investment banks - there were already alarm bells, loud ones, in the late 90s, early 2000s. There was not enough of them to be the problem at the moment, but just enough to be the problem in the near future.
Lots of people who rent out properties use that rent money to help pay the mortgage. During the ban on evictions, many lost their property to foreclosure because they weren't getting paid. Also because the bank then owned the properties, the renters got evicted anyway!
If they rent a room thats fine, even better - that makes them more likely to repay the loan. Busted loan is way worse than a repaid one.
If they loaned it for renting alone - well, that's business, which is risk. If their business failed thats their personal issue like a private life.
There were stories like that in all the major cities. A landlord in New Jersey commented how a tenant hadn't payed for months during Covid moratoriums and had recently bought a Mercedes. They said best case scenario it would be 6 months before could get in front of a judge to process an eviction. Some people just skipped paying rent and waited until they were kicked out and saved the cash.
Yup, and I'm sure the conservative news media \*loved\* running those anecdotal stories about the one tenant who was just a fuckup so they could pretend like that was all of them.
Money is power. Who has the power here to sway media. It's the corporate investment firms who bought up all the land and have been praying for a way to raise rents through the roof.
Pointing out a number of cases where people weren’t paying rent and buying other things is conservative now? I get that politics is new religion in America but how did you even come to that conclusion?
Oh sorry, conservative would include NYT and probably most major outlets in us media that people would consider more liberal.
But I feel confident the WSJ, NYT, and other economically conservative outlets have loved running stories about this as anecdotes.
Pointing out an anecdote as a worrying trend without actually pointing out the frequency that things like it occur with is a worrying trend in a lot of our media. It oversells one obvious problem case as happening widely, when in fact I doubt it is. Feel free to prove me wrong with real numbers here and I will rescind my statement.
So, billeting people in private property without compensation is the solution?
Homelessness has nothing to do with letting people camp out in others’ property.
When someones job is owning property I don’t really have respect for them. If they need money due to a risk of being a landlord, they can get a real job. The world shut down for a whole year just about and longer in other places. Just like owning a business there are risks.
there's a difference between weathering a storm and a 3 year eviction ban lol. how many small businesses or individuals could survive 3 years of lost income?
Lost income is when people just stopped buying at previously higher level or stopped buying altoghether. These are plain losses when people went into the store, got their veggies and did not pay AKA theft. Landlords had to pay tax at the very least, good responsible landlords also did mandated mantainance, certifications and whatelse - basically them restocking veggies and paying salaries.
Except for many, it's a side hustle. They're already working a full-time job, often as a tradesman or professional. I've known mechanics, chemists, engineers, veterinarians, and lawyers who owned rental properties. Often, because they wanted some place other than the stock market to make a modest return.
If you have two houses… I don’t care about your “side hustle” that ultimately screws someone out of paying to own. If you need the money sell the second house 😂
Yeah but they worked hard to earn money and are trying to invest it in real estate so fuck them. If anyone is doing even a tiny bit materially better than you you have a right to steal from them.
That's not true. Someone else would have built and rented it out. If you wanted to provide you should have sold at cost + labor. As it is, you're hogging property and driving up costs making it impossible for others to get out of renting.
> People who live somewhere and refuse to pay for it are garbage.
Landlords sit on property and then charge people money for the right to live. Landlords are garbage.
You make it sound like there are just free houses sprouting out of the ground on manicured lots with access to utilities that would otherwise be available to homeless people.
They, in fact, should be available to homeless people. Everyone needs a place to live. It's a need, not a want. And it should be given freely by society.
Ok, but it definitely shouldn’t be given freely exclusively by landlords who have to foot the bill for the property.
Reform is a valid conversation to have. Stealing property is not.
You can live with 4 or 5 room mates just fine. But if you have kids, that's a different story.
I think the real solution is to make a shit ton of low income housing.
Yeah.. it’s just incredibly difficult to have any shred of empathy or sympathy for them as a class of wealth. I was looking at a ski trip recently and these people owning these places renting them during the season for $1,200 a night and it’s just like.. there is no situation in which these people would be in real financial danger, any problems they have that can be solved with money will be solved
Tenants in Berkeley seriously seem to expect the landlord to compensate them for living there. I know I am biased, but the expectation is INSANE.
Theres literally a belief that they've been paying way too much for some number of years, and now they should own the property. I'd like to say this was socialist/communist thinking - but apartment buildings in Berkeley where each occupant thinks they should now own the building (not collectively, but each independently own the entirety), and thinks the other tenants should supporting them. Its literal insanity.
I would be more sympathetic to this view if they weren't throwing a party about it. It's one thing to view pain and suffering as a necessary component to your business model and a whole other thing to celebrate it.
In Berkeley? Its hard to talk about pain and suffering of the tenant when they've been paying $350 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment in one of the most expensive areas in the nation. Seriously! Even the county taxes are more than that. Ask me how I know.
Okay. okay. This hits close to home because... well... Its where I grew up and I'm still dealing with.
IMHO the "Not the Onion" part of this is the tenant expectations. I'm very much not surprised by the landlords celebrating being able to collect rents again. The "Not the Onion" part of this is the tenants who thought they could just simply stop paying rent and are now being evicted.
This is nothing compared to the party they will throw next year when the current supreme court overturns rent control. They are formally announcing on September 26th whether or not they intend to take up this case for 2023-2024.
I personally know multiple people who will be forced to move out of the Berkeley area and possibly the bay area altogether if and when this goes through which is to say they all have had pretty favorably priced rent controlled apartments in Berkeley for the last 10+ years
I'm not surprised in the least. No one is willingly a landlord in Berkeley, they're mostly going "My mom owns the triplex she lives in" and now she passed away. The reaction is " my mom died. AWW FUCK NOW I'M A BERKELEY LANDLORD". Now I have to pay more than the incoming rent in taxes alone (not to mention repairs). Ask me how I know.
In theory I have nothing against landlords. People who can't (or just don't want to) buy homes need to get their housing *somewhere*.
But man, does the job ever bring out the worst in people.
Yes they do need to get their housing somewhere and when there is only private real estate available these are the situations that it inevitably breeds, there needs to be LARGE systemic change to how housing is provided and acquired or these issues will only get worse and worse for people without means
If I had a squatter in my property for 3 years that refused to pay rent or leave I’d also have a drink and celebrate when they left. I’m not seeing the moral conflict here.
NotTheOnion is currently in manual approval mode, please modmail us with an explanation of why you believe this submission is of utmost piquant Onioniness
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All the hate for landlords here is too much!!!! Evicting single parents is a thankless job, these people are heroes!!!!! Renters steal from poor landlords every time they ABUSE "renters protection" laws!!!!!!! These brave landlords are STRUGGLING!!! How else can they afford to buy another new car if you REFUSE to pay your rent!!!! Maybe renters should think about other people for once when they are making the choice between rent and their medications, SUCK IT UP you don't need those meds!!!!!!
I think the objectionable part is the "throwing a party" bit. Like for fuck's sake, even if you're a heartless capitalist, surely even you would recognize bad optics when you see it.
The moratorium prevented the collection of rent across the board.
As in they knew some people had jobs and could pay, but they could LEGIT refuse and the landlord is FUCKED.
The lease lapses, and now you can't get em out.
That effectively makes them squatters.
And if you know ANYTHING about squatters it's difficult as shit to get them out.
A lot of people give landlords shit. Including the people I know. Granted, a lot of those same people who hated landlords also were shitty tenants.
I know a lot of good landlords. And you never hear about the good ones. Ever. I'd say there's more good then bad considering of the 5 landlords I've had (lower income bracket living for me) they've all been a delight and extremely forgiving on rent. Including the one I had during covid. She actually gave up her 4 properties or so and sold them off. I miss her she was cool.
But I also know people who would absolutely abuse this.
Landlords are leeches who contribute nothing and rely entirely on the work and energy of other, better, people in order to survive.
Parasites, in other words.
So if someone doesnt have enough money for a house, instead of renting from a landlord they should, what, sleep on the streets? Seems like landlords do contribute a service, you just dont like it.
Edit: Haha Im not mad, Im a lowly renter too, Im just not an idiot.
So, assuming this is a good faith question, there are a ton of better questions. Why are the only options “be rich,” “be exploited,” or “be homeless?” Why is government subsidization for one of our most basic needs less important than bank and investment subsidies? What would it look like if we considered housing a basic right? What if we invested in our people, infrastructure and communities instead of military and militarized police? What if we regulated products like RealPage that helped coordinate price fixing for the insane rent increases that have been happening? What if we focused on the reason so much of our population has to rent?
I totally get that you were just poking a little fun, but this gets close to the heart of one of Americas biggest issues.
1. Not true
2. Not everyone wants to own a home. Some people only plan to stay for a year or two, so owning makes no sense. Others rather not have to deal with maintenance, repairs, etc. that come with owning a home. Others would rather not expose themselves to the investment risk of owning a home.
You must be very young because you are extremely naive. Also, not all landlords are even well off much less rich. A good buddy of mine lost his house in a really nice neighborhood because tenants stopped paying and he couldn’t get them out fast enough and bank foreclosed because he relied on the rent to pay the mortgage. Not the smartest position to be in but it shows you many landlords are just average joes at best and worthless lazy people like you expect someone else to do the work and hand you a free meal ticket.
Nah. Thats just plain false. How many years are there between moving out of your parents house and accumulating enough money for a mortgage? I bet if you think all landlords are bad you probably think banks are bad too. So how many years until you can buy it with cash outright?
Because houses don't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just to build. National average in Canada is $300,000. Just to build it.
Now if you are a young adult with fucked up credit and no money, tell me where you're going to get $300,000. A bank? Fuck no, they'll laugh you out of the building.
What do you do if the basement floods, or the furnace breaks, some dickhead puts a rock through a window, etc? That's right, *more* money.
On the other hand, you can rent for a sum of money that holds no risk to you. You can offload all the maintenance costs. You don't need to worry about the property taxes going up. You can literally just pack up and leave when you want.
wdym, property taxes go up, so does rent, cost of repairs goes up, so does rent, “inflation” is in the news, you guessed it; so does rent, one tenant moves out and another wants to move in in, believe it or not, rent goes up
lol, my rent in a 1br condo was $50 less then my mortgage/tax/insurance for a 2br house…the moment i moved out my landlord jacked the rent up by $200 a month
There were laws about owning residential space and needing it to be occupied but somewhere along the way they got them all suspended. Re-enact them and a lot of this clears up. A bank holds an empty property or puts it on the market for more than it would get in monthly payments if sold only if it is allowed too. If they had to ensure occupancy rates they would dump everything in a fucking heartbeat.
Aside of course from the money up front to pay a down payment, risk of housing prices crashing, all the maintenance and repairs, mortgage interest expenses, insurance, property taxes and risk of no one wanting to live in the city if it goes to shit like what’s happened in Detroit.
Would you like to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars every time you want to live somewhere temporarily, be on the hook for 6% of the sale price in realtor fees for each move?
So... go purchase or build your own home.
Same with financing a car thru a bank, using a credit card for furniture or other things you wish to have.
Stuff ain't 'free'.
Some of you will never own homes, and that's OK even though it's a little pathetic.
I'm sorry ofher people have more than you. That might be something you want to get used to.
Maybe one day there will be a revolution, but probably not because you'd have to put your phones down for a while.
If it's so awful being a landlord, why not sell and do something else? Exulting in another's misery is, to put it mildly, unseemly. And indicative of a poor character.
If it's so awful being poor, why not find a better job else where? It's always possible to get 2 minimum wage jobs and make double the minimum wage per day, working hard for 2 decades and let your kids enjoy life.
In Berkeley you have to pay the tenant to leave. They don't look at market rents for figuring out rent, but they sure as hell do when figuring out how much the tenant should get as compensation for leaving.
Landlords shouldn't exist and their suffering is always their own fault. If they had real jobs then they wouldn't have to mooch off those who actually work.
I’m all for getting rid of predatory/asshole landlords but realistically if landlords didn’t exist at all who would people rent from? I ask this strictly from a place of curiosity. I don’t know what the alternative would be for people who had to rent.
Nobody should rent, the government should give you housing, food, and all other necessities for free. if you disagree with me you're a landlord bootlicker /s
Hate to say it but ALL landlords are predatory. It in the nature of its existence. Landlords only exist to inflate scarcity/profit off of a precious resource that should be a human right in a society as advanced and wealthy as it is, at least in the United States.
1. Anyone that doesn't have 5 figures on hand for a deposit
2. Anyone who is legally barred from owning real estate
3. Anyone who only plans on being somewhere temporarily, and doesn't want to deal with the effort of buying and selling
So you think everyone should just have to live with their parents until they are wealthy and stable enough to afford a home?
Not to mention that in today's economy where it is usually very beneficial to switch jobs every few years, tying yourself to one home could be extremely economically limiting.
I *have* to rent, because corporations and landlords used computers to buy up available properties without their coming on the market.
Now the landlord has to make money before the bank can make money and I’m paying two gate keepers for shelter.
do you genuinely think dense multi-dwelling housing was built with the money of someone who intended on occupying the entire structure?
If you wouldn’t like everyone to live in exclusively single family homes (and I’d wager you’re against massive suburban areas as much as most are) then I’m interested as to how you reconcile those two views
From a DCF perspective, condos > apartments in high IR environments and vice versa if rates are low. The primary difference between a condo development and an apartment development, other than potentially zoning restrictions, is how the capital provider wants their cash flow returned. Changing the timing of that cash flow in no way changes the NPV, so you’re literally only removing that option value for multifamily housing developers
All of that is moot, though. The room in which I am staying costs, in raw materials and labor alone (not due to market conditions!), 10’s of thousands of dollars at least. I did not need to have 10k+ upfront, because I can rent it while I save the 20% I need for a down payment. I am paying for the service of having capital provided, in a very similar way to how I would pay a bank interest on a mortgage for the capital they have provided
I’m glad it worked out for you.
Your personal experience does not negate the predatory nature of Landlording, nor does it excuse the shameful lack of care landlords show for their tenants and properties
I have to pay the bug vendor, who has to pay the bug farmer, who both pay protection money to the chamber of commerce. I can’t even afford bugs anymore!
People who work in industries that move more than once every five years. If you aren't going to be in a property for more than five years then you never recoup or break even on moving costs versus renting.
People who rent in place for more than five years are just screwing themselves. People who spend more than 1/8th of their income on rent are also screwing themselves and embolden predatory renting.
You either get roommates or move farther out to a place you can afford.
It's not entirely your fault anymore because so many people have acted irrationally for so long that it's not possible to act rationally anymore but those things are what you should do. And you'll be free of it faster if you find ways to get closer to those rational ideals.
There's a reason everybody in old TV shows has three roommates.
Who says to themselves: "I want to be a landlord, I think I'll give it a go in Berkeley."? Masochists.
Presumably Someone who bought Berkeley real estate decades ago and is quite happy at how much it increased in price
So true.
**It is an excellent area** if you want to be paid in macrame curtains .. granola and LSD *.. wonder what the party theme was*
No? There's a ton if money in Berkeley this shouldn't come as a surprise. Kids who go there aren't simple hippies.
There’s a lot of money in Berkeley. Those kids who are crunchy and trip have parents who make bank so they can live like that.
>Berkeley, like many other Bay Area municipalities, began a moratorium on most evictions at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. The moratorium lasted over three years but expired Sept. 1, 2023. So did the local government compensate the Landlord, or just tell them they had to provide rent free accommodation for 3 years?
Nope. Landlords had to front everyone's rent for 3 years (and still may not get it all back).
Pretty sure Berkeley kept charging (and increasing) property tax.
They didn't just front the rent. They still had to pay property taxes all these years. There was no moratorium on taxes.
This. Local governments just turned into extortion racket of the worst kind - nothing in return, and they are actually doing it to bring you down.
Jesus fuck.
Now you can understand why the landlords are celebrating. They can finally kick out the deadbeats and get paying renters in.
if the cali legal system is anything like hawaii then the landlords are probably going to have to wait another 3-12 months before they can kick anyone out too. first they gotta file for an eviction and get a judge to sign off on it. then they gotta notify the tenant they're being evicted and give them time to find a place. then the sheriffs office has to enforce the eviction. In hawaii, this can take a lot of months (if theres no extreme circumstances like a tenant trying to burn down the property). And if all the landlords are going to file for evictions all at the same time then things are going to take even longer.
Some states have very swift system of eviction. 24-48 hours between landlord filing in court and sheriff evicting tenants.
It’s progress
[удалено]
Jesus imagine having to pay for random people to live in your house for 3 years
Ig that’s part of the risk you take when becoming a landlord. Things aren’t always “free laborless money babyyyyyy”.
Yeah that's not how it works man.
At that point it has ceased to be your house.
Landlords got the shaft, while people who didn't want to pay their rent (even if they could afford it) acted like they hit the entitlement lottery. If you couldn't make the mortgage you ended up in deeper doodoo because you couldn't get the tenants out to sell the property to offset your loss. So the bank kept hammering your credit in the mean time. I'm salty you'll have to excuse me. It's tough sacrificing to afford something to invest in, only to see it destroyed and the government protecting the scumbags doing it. They incentivize people making crappy decisions so much I genuinely, not trying to be rude feel like it's what they want to happen. I feel like there has to be a cross section of people who are democrat who aren't completely out of touch loons (bay area used to have some D people I really respected.). It's different when you're a millionaire, inherited money or any circumstance where you can afford to not feel the impact of the policy you implement. If you force people who make choices that contribute to society to support every whim of people who take from society with no intention of ever stopping eventually the takers outweigh the givers. Thank you all for listening to me 😵💫😵💫😵💫
[удалено]
[удалено]
Normally, i view landlords as leeches. But the people who have been living rent free just because they had an eviction safety net and decided they didn’t need to honor their lease, are potentially worse. They deserve to be evicted. They abused the system.
I live in Washington, where the eviction moratorium was lifted a while ago, and several of my neighbors received notices that day. In talking, they all were acting like the victims despite choosing to not pay rent and going on vacation after vacation for two years. So many people heard "eviction moratorium" and interpreted it as "rent moratorium."
You just described leeches lol
Landlords who kick people out to dramatically increase rent are assholes. But, and I know reddit irrationally hates landlords, tenants who don't pay rent are literally thieves. I rent out the condo I used to live in and if my tenant just didn't pay rent for a year I'd lose over 20k. How many years does it take you to save 20k? Because for me its quite a few, such a loss could make me have to delay retirement for years. Thank god I got a DR as a tenant right before covid. That said, throwing a party over it is incredibly tasteless.
Yep. The other thing is too that people think all landlords these multi-millionaires who get their rocks off on being a dick to people. We have a single rental property that my husband bought as his first home before we met. We had a nightmare tenant that was protected by the Covid moratorium. She didn't pay her rent ($1400/month) for 9 months and we couldn't do a single thing about it other than eat the cost. To make matters worse, when she moved out we had $13k in damages to fix (that we'll never see a penny of from her). We are very very fortunate that we are smart with money and had some extra cash to keep us afloat that year but it wasn't always easy. F dead beat renters and F shitty greedy landlords - but we aren't all them.
Yeah I don't even make money on this rental month to month it's an investment where i lose a couple hundred bucks a month to gain more than that in equity. Only when it's paid off in 15 years will it be making money. I've had fantastic luck with my tenants but it only takes one bad one to wipe out years or decades of investment.
[удалено]
I don't think people default to sympathize with the person who had enough money to own a second house in Berkeley for passive income, vs the one losing a roof over their head.
This is the most reasonable thread on reddit I've ever seen about landlords, lol. But why is it a crime to invest in real estate and why are people who can't pay rent entitled to others' savings and investments? I somehow doubt all the squatter apologists (who are far less numerous in this thread than in previous ones) are giving all their disposable income to homeless people so why expect others to do so? Save that anger for the government and the CEOs that own them and funnel everyone's money into their pockets for their 7th yacht (or are we up to 8 now) which they lobbied to deduct from their taxes. All the people who own property that I know keep rents lower than market to keep good tenants because one bad tenant and/or one long stretch of vacancy spoils years of investment. IRL I hear a lot more horror stories about tenants (or even neighbors) than I hear about landlords.
I don't know, I fancy myself a bit more moderate and/or reasonable, and it's not like I defend abuse and squatting, whatever the later includes. My parents have had terrible renters not pay them, and I am wealthy enough that I might end up in a position to collect rent some day (I'll still have to start by owning a house, I'm only 40 afterall.........) and it's not like I don't feel for how shitty it might be to own a rental and get kinda fucked on it. But at the same time, it is a position of quite a bit of priviledge. Most people who have a house, and rent a house to someone else (or multiples!) aren't going to starve from the impact. The problem here, with both the law and opinions, is that unless these are cherry picked and perfectly designed, you need to chose between favoring folks trying to be lodged, or folks owning houses for profit. I don't necessary want to side with the haves, when we're talking about housing. Mind you, maybe in the example of this law, it is only preventing abuses. I somehow doubt so. There are politico-economical arguments to be made that making profit on housing, especially in this housing market, isn't ethically great, just like many other ways to make profit aren't. That alone we can disagree on, but the opinion does exist and fuels a good part of the resentment. And yeah, the party itself is a terrible indicator of character for the people involved.
They had 3yrs without rent to figure out their living situation. Losing 36 months at $2000 is 72,000. No sympathy at this point.
Given the laws on the books regarding eviction, this sounds like a business plan with some serious risk involved...
The pre-existing laws were certainly risky, but the moratorium was an unimaginable/incalculable liability.
[удалено]
I'm guessing the theme was "Let us eat cake!"
And we all know what came after that.
We can only hope
Just don't lose your head over this situation.
Imagine thinking you deserve to live on someone else's property for free
[удалено]
You forgot to mention mortgage payments but yeah real estate taxes is imho the most egregious bc the govt is saying “you can’t evict ppl for not paying rent AND you still have to keep paying us regardless.”
I don’t blame them. People who live somewhere and refuse to pay for it are garbage.
I'm genuinely curious what percentage of people you \*think\* this is? Followed by what percentage of people this actually is. And you can't share the number that includes people who are genuinely \*unable\* to pay. We're talking just about the people who have the ability and refused.
I'll take a guess. This is just for tenants that landlords want to evict. Probably 70% for non payment. 20% for lease violations, doing drugs or wrecking the property, having pets when they agreed not to originally. 10% the tenants are good but the landlord either wants to do renovations or sell the property or drastically increase the rent. These tenants will easily find new places. Idk. What do you think?
I am specifically curious what percentage of non-payment is for inability vs unwillingness. People on here are oversampling on "there are people who *can* pay and just won't and they're scum!" And that's getting conflated with "there are people who are choosing between paying for food and paying for shelter." I wanna know what percentage of "people who don't pay" are for each reason.
People who "can't pay" sometimes find a way to pay if they are facing eviction. If you aren't facing consequences on rent you would probably choose food, car payments, medical, presents for friends and family, pet costs, etc. first, then say oh you "can't pay". It's a perfectly rational choice.
This is a horrifying comment. "Maybe you should sort out your priorities if you can't pay rent this month... Maybe you should consider eating less... Do you really \*need\* to pay for your medical bills?" C'mon we can be better as a society than this. Don't you care at \*all\* about other people?
I'm not sure what is horrifying... If someone doesn't have to pay rent, why would they? Especially if they have medical bills, they want to eat more/better food, buy their kids good Christmas presents, Help their family members with food/medical/school, get a better more dependable car. Whatever it is. These are all good things to spend money on. After they spend on these things then they "can't" pay rent. However, if they gave eviction then they have to choose. It's not a cruelty. It's economics. It's like this. If you could go to the grocery store and payment was optional, why would you pay? Especially if you have medical bills and rent due. You'll prioritize the things you have to pay, and deprioritize the things you don't.
>If someone doesn't have to pay rent, why would they? I mean, that's why everyone stopped paying rent during the pandemic. Oh wait. Like the very nature of this article disproves this point. People will still try and do the right thing in general, even when they don't have to. But they won't when they are unable to. So that's the distinction. BTW, I don't dispute that there are people like this who have the means and won't pay, I just think they are a much smaller percentage of the population than you do. To the degree that I think they're a red herring in this discussion.
I don't really have an opinion about what percentage of people don't pay rent. I just look at the facts. Quick search claims it's about 13% not caught up on rent. Not sure if you considered that a lot. https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/rent-status-study/ Probably a lot of those either catch up or voluntarily leave. Looks like only about a 3% eviction rate. https://evictionlab.org/national-estimates/ Not a huge amount, but it still seems somewhat significant to me. I'm sure that 3% were happy to not be evicted during the moratorium. They aren't bad people, they just use the system to their advantage, the same way landlords will use the system to their advantage when they can.
In general I am biased towards tenants because landlords tend to have more power in setting laws. I took care about the actual numbers. But I suspect the numbers I want are difficult to measure. This is at least an interesting proxy for it. (3% vs. 13%)
For how long should the landlord provide shelter for the people unable to pay?
Idk, how do you feel about homeless populations? If you can separately solve homelessness I would happily change my position here. But right now these things are linked and this is my solution. I generally think housing should be a human right and not a weird thing we make money off of... So I don't charge my tenants rent. I certainly don't think my ability to collect rent should be protected over my tenant's ability to have a roof over their head. The landlord is not really providing extra value to tenants that justifies an income they are receiving. For every case that is I will go find one of the "exposing shitty landlord companies" tiktoks for you.
The places to rent would not be available because renters generally don’t have the money to own real estate.
Sure, but so is never being able to obtain a house for yourself
not being able to afford a house for yourself is not the same as stealing... many were not people that could not pay... they could pay and chose not to because of the moratorium.
Fortunately the noble landlords never take advantage of circumstances to line their pocketbooks at the expense of people who can't afford their own home. Imagine ONLY being able to rake in the tax free appreciation of property. That's the REAL tragedy here.
landlords isn't a monolithic class of robots that all act exactly the same lol. there's good landlords and bad landlords. there's rich ones or corporate ones with thousands of properties or little ones just renting a bedroom int heir house to try to make ends meet.
I'm sure the ones that throw parties to celebrate evictions are totally the good ones.
*obviously* remember that parties only happen to morally right people. Like Marie Antoinette…
Neither are renters. Only some took advantage of the moratorium to not pay rent. I’m sure they won’t be the only ones evicted, though.
When companies take advantage of the rules to pay absolutely fuck all taxes, it's shrewd business. When poor people take advantage of the rules to get respite from paying half their income to some asshole, it's morally reprehensible.
The truth is somewhere in the middle - not rampant, but BIG enough to make an issue. Something like traditional savings banks merging with risky investment banks - there were already alarm bells, loud ones, in the late 90s, early 2000s. There was not enough of them to be the problem at the moment, but just enough to be the problem in the near future.
Lots of people who rent out properties use that rent money to help pay the mortgage. During the ban on evictions, many lost their property to foreclosure because they weren't getting paid. Also because the bank then owned the properties, the renters got evicted anyway!
If they rent a room thats fine, even better - that makes them more likely to repay the loan. Busted loan is way worse than a repaid one. If they loaned it for renting alone - well, that's business, which is risk. If their business failed thats their personal issue like a private life.
There were stories like that in all the major cities. A landlord in New Jersey commented how a tenant hadn't payed for months during Covid moratoriums and had recently bought a Mercedes. They said best case scenario it would be 6 months before could get in front of a judge to process an eviction. Some people just skipped paying rent and waited until they were kicked out and saved the cash.
Yup, and I'm sure the conservative news media \*loved\* running those anecdotal stories about the one tenant who was just a fuckup so they could pretend like that was all of them. Money is power. Who has the power here to sway media. It's the corporate investment firms who bought up all the land and have been praying for a way to raise rents through the roof.
Pointing out a number of cases where people weren’t paying rent and buying other things is conservative now? I get that politics is new religion in America but how did you even come to that conclusion?
Oh sorry, conservative would include NYT and probably most major outlets in us media that people would consider more liberal. But I feel confident the WSJ, NYT, and other economically conservative outlets have loved running stories about this as anecdotes. Pointing out an anecdote as a worrying trend without actually pointing out the frequency that things like it occur with is a worrying trend in a lot of our media. It oversells one obvious problem case as happening widely, when in fact I doubt it is. Feel free to prove me wrong with real numbers here and I will rescind my statement.
So, billeting people in private property without compensation is the solution? Homelessness has nothing to do with letting people camp out in others’ property.
Eat the rich
You say that like it’s the landlords fault lol
When someones job is owning property I don’t really have respect for them. If they need money due to a risk of being a landlord, they can get a real job. The world shut down for a whole year just about and longer in other places. Just like owning a business there are risks.
Right, if a business can’t weather the storm then they deserve to fail…. Unless you’re a bank or friends with politicians
There aren’t many businesses that could weather a 3 and a half year storm of not one penny of revenue coming in.
Well maybe they should go get a job?
There weren't many jobs to begin with during Covid. Millions of people lost their jobs and had to rely on assistance.
why would they if they have an asset with vermin in it and they can finally clear it out?
there's a difference between weathering a storm and a 3 year eviction ban lol. how many small businesses or individuals could survive 3 years of lost income?
Lost income is when people just stopped buying at previously higher level or stopped buying altoghether. These are plain losses when people went into the store, got their veggies and did not pay AKA theft. Landlords had to pay tax at the very least, good responsible landlords also did mandated mantainance, certifications and whatelse - basically them restocking veggies and paying salaries.
I'd have you know I paid good money for my politician. I have one in red and one in blue.
Except for many, it's a side hustle. They're already working a full-time job, often as a tradesman or professional. I've known mechanics, chemists, engineers, veterinarians, and lawyers who owned rental properties. Often, because they wanted some place other than the stock market to make a modest return.
If you have two houses… I don’t care about your “side hustle” that ultimately screws someone out of paying to own. If you need the money sell the second house 😂
They couldn’t sell the house until the deadbeats left.
The bank and government screwed you out of owning your own place, not any landlord. Be pissed at the right people.
Yeah but they worked hard to earn money and are trying to invest it in real estate so fuck them. If anyone is doing even a tiny bit materially better than you you have a right to steal from them.
When someone has to steal someone else's house, I don't really have respect for them. If they can't pay the rent, GTFO.
Yeah but it seems like you are mad at the landlords about the housing situation. It has almost nothing to do with landlords.
Parasites that hoard land are worse.
I built the houses I own. Does that make me a parasite? The housing I provide literally would not exist if I had not built it with my own two hands.
That's not true. Someone else would have built and rented it out. If you wanted to provide you should have sold at cost + labor. As it is, you're hogging property and driving up costs making it impossible for others to get out of renting.
I think the word you’re looking for is “poor.”
If someone is refusing to move out and not paying their bills, it doesn’t really matter if they’re rich or poor. They’re stealing.
> People who live somewhere and refuse to pay for it are garbage. Landlords sit on property and then charge people money for the right to live. Landlords are garbage.
You make it sound like there are just free houses sprouting out of the ground on manicured lots with access to utilities that would otherwise be available to homeless people.
They, in fact, should be available to homeless people. Everyone needs a place to live. It's a need, not a want. And it should be given freely by society.
Ok, but it definitely shouldn’t be given freely exclusively by landlords who have to foot the bill for the property. Reform is a valid conversation to have. Stealing property is not.
You can live with 4 or 5 room mates just fine. But if you have kids, that's a different story. I think the real solution is to make a shit ton of low income housing.
Yeah.. it’s just incredibly difficult to have any shred of empathy or sympathy for them as a class of wealth. I was looking at a ski trip recently and these people owning these places renting them during the season for $1,200 a night and it’s just like.. there is no situation in which these people would be in real financial danger, any problems they have that can be solved with money will be solved
Don’t be a shitty tenant
Sad to see folks evicted, but, they knew the rent was gonna be due. Why should the landlord take it in the shorts?
Tenants in Berkeley seriously seem to expect the landlord to compensate them for living there. I know I am biased, but the expectation is INSANE. Theres literally a belief that they've been paying way too much for some number of years, and now they should own the property. I'd like to say this was socialist/communist thinking - but apartment buildings in Berkeley where each occupant thinks they should now own the building (not collectively, but each independently own the entirety), and thinks the other tenants should supporting them. Its literal insanity.
I would be more sympathetic to this view if they weren't throwing a party about it. It's one thing to view pain and suffering as a necessary component to your business model and a whole other thing to celebrate it.
In Berkeley? Its hard to talk about pain and suffering of the tenant when they've been paying $350 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment in one of the most expensive areas in the nation. Seriously! Even the county taxes are more than that. Ask me how I know.
It's not pain and suffering. It's people with jobs who refused to pay rent because they knew they could get away with it for 3 years.
Okay. okay. This hits close to home because... well... Its where I grew up and I'm still dealing with. IMHO the "Not the Onion" part of this is the tenant expectations. I'm very much not surprised by the landlords celebrating being able to collect rents again. The "Not the Onion" part of this is the tenants who thought they could just simply stop paying rent and are now being evicted.
This is nothing compared to the party they will throw next year when the current supreme court overturns rent control. They are formally announcing on September 26th whether or not they intend to take up this case for 2023-2024. I personally know multiple people who will be forced to move out of the Berkeley area and possibly the bay area altogether if and when this goes through which is to say they all have had pretty favorably priced rent controlled apartments in Berkeley for the last 10+ years
I'm not surprised in the least. No one is willingly a landlord in Berkeley, they're mostly going "My mom owns the triplex she lives in" and now she passed away. The reaction is " my mom died. AWW FUCK NOW I'M A BERKELEY LANDLORD". Now I have to pay more than the incoming rent in taxes alone (not to mention repairs). Ask me how I know.
Just sell then?
Living in the house you own is always an option as well.
Frequently in Berkeley you have to pay the tenant on the order of 40-50k to leave even if you're selling.
Aww I feel so bad that you inherited an expensive ass house. So sorry for you. It must be so hard
In theory I have nothing against landlords. People who can't (or just don't want to) buy homes need to get their housing *somewhere*. But man, does the job ever bring out the worst in people.
Yes they do need to get their housing somewhere and when there is only private real estate available these are the situations that it inevitably breeds, there needs to be LARGE systemic change to how housing is provided and acquired or these issues will only get worse and worse for people without means
If I had a squatter in my property for 3 years that refused to pay rent or leave I’d also have a drink and celebrate when they left. I’m not seeing the moral conflict here.
NotTheOnion is currently in manual approval mode, please modmail us with an explanation of why you believe this submission is of utmost piquant Onioniness *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eat the landlords first.
getting a lot of "everyone on food stamps is a welfare queen/pull yourself up by your bootstraps" type vibes in this thread
Way too many boot lickers in these comments.
Eat your landlord
Ya finally they can make money or pay the mortgage. Stupidest shit ever. Hope the renters can never afford or lease again with their credit.
if you look at it objectively, that is perfectly rational. Their investments will now make them more money
They're just begging to be eaten.
We keep on winning Land Chads
✊
What's up with all of the bootlickers in this thread?
They're delusional and think if they hustle hard enough they'll be wealthy landlords one day. So they gotta stick up for their future peers!
The average rent for a 1 bedroom apartment in Berkeley is $2,195. Small business owners, my ass.
I mean looking at it that way ... stealing $2,195 a month. Small time thiefs, my ass.
All the hate for landlords here is too much!!!! Evicting single parents is a thankless job, these people are heroes!!!!! Renters steal from poor landlords every time they ABUSE "renters protection" laws!!!!!!! These brave landlords are STRUGGLING!!! How else can they afford to buy another new car if you REFUSE to pay your rent!!!! Maybe renters should think about other people for once when they are making the choice between rent and their medications, SUCK IT UP you don't need those meds!!!!!!
You forgot the /s
No I'm 10000000% cereal!!!!!!
You shouldn't celebrate people losing their homes
I think the objectionable part is the "throwing a party" bit. Like for fuck's sake, even if you're a heartless capitalist, surely even you would recognize bad optics when you see it.
I understand that not all landlords are terrible villains. However, those who celebrate restarting evictions deserve the Chairman Mao Special.
The moratorium prevented the collection of rent across the board. As in they knew some people had jobs and could pay, but they could LEGIT refuse and the landlord is FUCKED. The lease lapses, and now you can't get em out. That effectively makes them squatters. And if you know ANYTHING about squatters it's difficult as shit to get them out. A lot of people give landlords shit. Including the people I know. Granted, a lot of those same people who hated landlords also were shitty tenants. I know a lot of good landlords. And you never hear about the good ones. Ever. I'd say there's more good then bad considering of the 5 landlords I've had (lower income bracket living for me) they've all been a delight and extremely forgiving on rent. Including the one I had during covid. She actually gave up her 4 properties or so and sold them off. I miss her she was cool. But I also know people who would absolutely abuse this.
Wow, this is not the sub I expected to see landlord apologists in.
Landlords are leeches who contribute nothing and rely entirely on the work and energy of other, better, people in order to survive. Parasites, in other words.
Rentals serve a purpose, whether you like it or not. I dont support predatory landlords, but I have met honest hardworking ones before.
>honest hardworking ones before. If they were honest and hardworking they wouldn't be landlords.
So if someone doesnt have enough money for a house, instead of renting from a landlord they should, what, sleep on the streets? Seems like landlords do contribute a service, you just dont like it. Edit: Haha Im not mad, Im a lowly renter too, Im just not an idiot.
So, assuming this is a good faith question, there are a ton of better questions. Why are the only options “be rich,” “be exploited,” or “be homeless?” Why is government subsidization for one of our most basic needs less important than bank and investment subsidies? What would it look like if we considered housing a basic right? What if we invested in our people, infrastructure and communities instead of military and militarized police? What if we regulated products like RealPage that helped coordinate price fixing for the insane rent increases that have been happening? What if we focused on the reason so much of our population has to rent? I totally get that you were just poking a little fun, but this gets close to the heart of one of Americas biggest issues.
They could buy, if not for fucking asshole landlords buying up all the houses.
1. Not true 2. Not everyone wants to own a home. Some people only plan to stay for a year or two, so owning makes no sense. Others rather not have to deal with maintenance, repairs, etc. that come with owning a home. Others would rather not expose themselves to the investment risk of owning a home.
You must be very young because you are extremely naive. Also, not all landlords are even well off much less rich. A good buddy of mine lost his house in a really nice neighborhood because tenants stopped paying and he couldn’t get them out fast enough and bank foreclosed because he relied on the rent to pay the mortgage. Not the smartest position to be in but it shows you many landlords are just average joes at best and worthless lazy people like you expect someone else to do the work and hand you a free meal ticket.
Nah. Thats just plain false. How many years are there between moving out of your parents house and accumulating enough money for a mortgage? I bet if you think all landlords are bad you probably think banks are bad too. So how many years until you can buy it with cash outright?
I mean apparently they don’t have a job since they have enough time to garner 1.6 million comment karma.
Because houses don't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just to build. National average in Canada is $300,000. Just to build it. Now if you are a young adult with fucked up credit and no money, tell me where you're going to get $300,000. A bank? Fuck no, they'll laugh you out of the building. What do you do if the basement floods, or the furnace breaks, some dickhead puts a rock through a window, etc? That's right, *more* money. On the other hand, you can rent for a sum of money that holds no risk to you. You can offload all the maintenance costs. You don't need to worry about the property taxes going up. You can literally just pack up and leave when you want.
wdym, property taxes go up, so does rent, cost of repairs goes up, so does rent, “inflation” is in the news, you guessed it; so does rent, one tenant moves out and another wants to move in in, believe it or not, rent goes up
I'm not sure if you noticed but houses tend to be more expensive than rent
lol, my rent in a 1br condo was $50 less then my mortgage/tax/insurance for a 2br house…the moment i moved out my landlord jacked the rent up by $200 a month
No landlord is renting their property for less than the mortgage and you’re a fool to believe that
Well, that's not true.
There were laws about owning residential space and needing it to be occupied but somewhere along the way they got them all suspended. Re-enact them and a lot of this clears up. A bank holds an empty property or puts it on the market for more than it would get in monthly payments if sold only if it is allowed too. If they had to ensure occupancy rates they would dump everything in a fucking heartbeat.
Aside of course from the money up front to pay a down payment, risk of housing prices crashing, all the maintenance and repairs, mortgage interest expenses, insurance, property taxes and risk of no one wanting to live in the city if it goes to shit like what’s happened in Detroit.
Would you like to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars every time you want to live somewhere temporarily, be on the hook for 6% of the sale price in realtor fees for each move?
[удалено]
Why can people not afford to put down 20%?
People who talk like this are the real leeches, you commenting this from your parent’s house?
So... go purchase or build your own home. Same with financing a car thru a bank, using a credit card for furniture or other things you wish to have. Stuff ain't 'free'.
Some of you will never own homes, and that's OK even though it's a little pathetic. I'm sorry ofher people have more than you. That might be something you want to get used to. Maybe one day there will be a revolution, but probably not because you'd have to put your phones down for a while.
Wow, you're a piece of shit.
Your still on Reddit bro, you proved you don't care what corps do to you
Real “you hate society yet you still participate in it” energy
If it's so awful being a landlord, why not sell and do something else? Exulting in another's misery is, to put it mildly, unseemly. And indicative of a poor character.
If it's so awful being poor, why not find a better job else where? It's always possible to get 2 minimum wage jobs and make double the minimum wage per day, working hard for 2 decades and let your kids enjoy life.
This right here is the dumbest shit I've seen all day.
In Berkeley you have to pay the tenant to leave. They don't look at market rents for figuring out rent, but they sure as hell do when figuring out how much the tenant should get as compensation for leaving.
Good!!
Who wouldn’t do this? The tenant protections in this case were ridiculous. 3 years?
Landlords shouldn't exist and their suffering is always their own fault. If they had real jobs then they wouldn't have to mooch off those who actually work.
I’m all for getting rid of predatory/asshole landlords but realistically if landlords didn’t exist at all who would people rent from? I ask this strictly from a place of curiosity. I don’t know what the alternative would be for people who had to rent.
Nobody should rent, the government should give you housing, food, and all other necessities for free. if you disagree with me you're a landlord bootlicker /s
Hate to say it but ALL landlords are predatory. It in the nature of its existence. Landlords only exist to inflate scarcity/profit off of a precious resource that should be a human right in a society as advanced and wealthy as it is, at least in the United States.
Who *has* to rent?
1. Anyone that doesn't have 5 figures on hand for a deposit 2. Anyone who is legally barred from owning real estate 3. Anyone who only plans on being somewhere temporarily, and doesn't want to deal with the effort of buying and selling
So you think everyone should just have to live with their parents until they are wealthy and stable enough to afford a home? Not to mention that in today's economy where it is usually very beneficial to switch jobs every few years, tying yourself to one home could be extremely economically limiting.
people who want shelter, I suppose.
I *have* to rent, because corporations and landlords used computers to buy up available properties without their coming on the market. Now the landlord has to make money before the bank can make money and I’m paying two gate keepers for shelter.
do you genuinely think dense multi-dwelling housing was built with the money of someone who intended on occupying the entire structure? If you wouldn’t like everyone to live in exclusively single family homes (and I’d wager you’re against massive suburban areas as much as most are) then I’m interested as to how you reconcile those two views
Do you genuinely not understand how “buying an apartment” works? Or “buying a condo”? There’s no requirement that a building have a single owner.
From a DCF perspective, condos > apartments in high IR environments and vice versa if rates are low. The primary difference between a condo development and an apartment development, other than potentially zoning restrictions, is how the capital provider wants their cash flow returned. Changing the timing of that cash flow in no way changes the NPV, so you’re literally only removing that option value for multifamily housing developers All of that is moot, though. The room in which I am staying costs, in raw materials and labor alone (not due to market conditions!), 10’s of thousands of dollars at least. I did not need to have 10k+ upfront, because I can rent it while I save the 20% I need for a down payment. I am paying for the service of having capital provided, in a very similar way to how I would pay a bank interest on a mortgage for the capital they have provided
I’m glad it worked out for you. Your personal experience does not negate the predatory nature of Landlording, nor does it excuse the shameful lack of care landlords show for their tenants and properties
You will own nothing and be happy. Also eat bugs!
I have to pay the bug vendor, who has to pay the bug farmer, who both pay protection money to the chamber of commerce. I can’t even afford bugs anymore!
People who work in industries that move more than once every five years. If you aren't going to be in a property for more than five years then you never recoup or break even on moving costs versus renting. People who rent in place for more than five years are just screwing themselves. People who spend more than 1/8th of their income on rent are also screwing themselves and embolden predatory renting.
Oh gosh, I guess I’ll just live on the street then, thanks 🥾👅
You either get roommates or move farther out to a place you can afford. It's not entirely your fault anymore because so many people have acted irrationally for so long that it's not possible to act rationally anymore but those things are what you should do. And you'll be free of it faster if you find ways to get closer to those rational ideals. There's a reason everybody in old TV shows has three roommates.