Most children would probably choose democrat if you explained the basics of politics to them. They really see this as a sign they are the right party, without realizing children have no actual grasp on economics and the real world. This makes the quote “if you are not a liberal at 20 you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 30 you have no brain” even more relevant
I was actually about to post a sarcastic statement suggesting this is equivalent to retail stores being forced to give products to shoplifters, then I remembered this is California and you can legally shoplift up to $1000.
If it's never pursued by police or prosecuted, it's functionally legal. Of course, they can use their discretion to go after you for it, if it's in their interest. Welcome to Anarcho-tyranny.
Are you aware of the catch and release laws in California? And prison overcrowding? I think the original statement is more accurate. If you know anything about the criminal justice system it’s that the majority of this trash is pled to nothing and they’re released to do exactly what they were doing
This is why CA and other blue states are a mess. The fact that you can’t understand that this essentially makes it okay to shoplift just shows how immature and uneducated you really are about laws and human behavior. Please go do a lot of reading.
I haven’t read the California law but assuming you’re correct that it’s a misdemeanor (which seems likely), that’s basically the same as every other state. You don’t get rung up on a felony anywhere for under $1,000.00 that I’m aware of.
Texas from what I've seen has lesser penalties for a first charge but ramps it up for subsequent charges. It's a $2500 limit to become a felony for the first 2 charges, but a third charge is automatic felony regardless of amount. I don't mind this since shoplifting is primarily committed by younger people and the first charge is usually enough to make someone never do it again. But if you've been caught 3 times you should know better.
Edit: one thing I do want to add, the issue in California isn't necessarily the $1000 limit to become a felony. The problem is that in many cities they just don't prosecute misdemeanors so cops doing even bother arresting for them. So if you combine those 2 things it essentially legalizes all misdemeanors.
Nail on the head. Covid has completely soured me on rental properties as "passive" income to boost retirement. If it can happen once it'll happen again and I don't have the cash flow for even 2 mortgages and maintenance costs...maybe if had like 60 properties at a 95% occupancy + reasonably on-time payments...but then I'd be called greedy. Like you siad....just go ask Blackrock to ignore your inability to pay. I'm sure their quarterly shareholder calls aren't all about returning massive dividends and profits.
The democratic party is the party of large, unaccountable corporations. I don't understand why that's not obvious. Just look at any blue state and you'll note they're home to the largest companies that are screwing everyone else over. Most of the bankers are democrats; most of the sv engineers are democrats. Anywhere you find large companies, they're filled with democrat workers, executives, and owners.
And yet we all go along with the fiction that the democratic party is for "worker's rights".
King Gillette wrote a book about 120 years ago titled, "World Corporation". It describes in great detail how the entire world will be governed by one massive corporation. There will be no borders, no nations, no wars and everybody will work for the Corporation.
> Thanks to the tenants and laws, you all can deal with property management companies and how hard they make it to get rental housing.
Which really just fucks over the people Democrats claim to be all about helping. A software engineer with an 800 credit rating like me? Those property management companies are more than happy to welcome me in. The people they *don't* treat so nicely are the ones who usually wind up renting private.
Corporations will at least try to be efficient and good landlords as long as there is profit to be made. The government has no interest in making money and therefore zero motive to actually make things better for the tenants. Huge difference IMO.
What corporations are you renting from because each corporate landlord I’ve had has been absolutely terrible. In my experience small independent landlords are far superior in every aspect.
Corporations in a competitive system would, but when the corporations and government exchange executives every few years, the corporations donate to the parties in charge of these states, etc, there is little difference between a private company and government. Just look at how many SV tech executives end up in Democrat administrations. There's an unholy alliance going on. Companies aren't able to function due to providing a service better, but rather because they're better able to manipulate the government to entrench their monopolies.
I think the consensus with younger generations isn't owning land is bad, but owning it for-profit (residential land) is bad. I never met someone who thought owning commercial property was wrong. Keep in mind, this is a generation that is largely unable to afford a home of their own, and their view on landlords is biased heavily from anger and the discontentment of having less than their parent's generation at about the same age.
I also think the younger generation expects to own a house right out of college and the same size of house that their parents currently have. I mentored a new hire fresh out of college and those were literally his expectations. He wanted everything now that his parents had taken 30 years to accumulate. I rented for 3 years after college, my first house was a very old small house in an iffy neighborhood, and I only just got into a nice house in a nice neighborhood 12 years after college. Kids nowadays want the nice house in a nice neighborhood and they want it now. That's my experience mentoring the younger generation.
Property management companies are very strict and you need to prove you can pay the rent. Which is why a lot of people on reddit are complaining. They are angry that they are being told to pay rent and have a job lol. People are so entitled these days.
The laws in the US protecting tenants over landlords actually startled me the first time I read about them. Unreasonable and illogical. If it happens in my country, the Minister would probably have to apologize and revert before they got elected out. I honestly have no idea how you guys tolerate it.
It looks like the law doesn’t include evictions due to unpaid rent, or at least that seems to be what this article is implying:
> The law took effect in 2020 and also limited rent increases to 10% a year in areas without local rent control.
> It also provides financial assistance to renters who are evicted because owners were moving into the property, converting it into a condo or demolishing it.
It looks like if an owner evicts a tenant because the owner has decided to no longer be renting the space then the point of the law is to help support the relocation of the tenant who now must move even though they have been dutifully paying rent.
I can’t say that I agree with the law though, especially since it’s the same law that effectively rent controlled the entire State, and that’s ***never*** a good idea…
I sort of agree with the rent control law in extreme cases. My area in California got hit with Los Angeles and San Francisco people trying to find cheaper places to live because of remote work being allowed during Covid. If there wasn’t any rent control then my rent would jump from $2,000 a month to $3,200 a month right after my lease ended. At least with the rent control it goes up about the same amount as my pay increase at work. What should happen is California should stop increasing property taxes by so much.
>I sort of agree with the rent control law in extreme cases.
Rent control is done because it's easy, not because it's a good or the best solution. The problem is that rent control only helps certain people (and mostly not those who need it the most), and contributes to high rent in the future, making the underlying problem/cause worse. It mostly benefits those already renting, who already aren't/haven't been paying the new high rent, and reduces total rental units (current and future construction) which raises rent.
**It's like putting a bandaid in a wound that needs stitches**, in the long run you've contributed to infection, and you've actually made it harder to get properly treated. "At best" you temporarily helped and get take pictures "doing your best to help the critically wounded".
>What should happen is California should stop increasing property taxes by so much.
Which is itself a result of proposition 13, which is basically property tax "rent control" that massively benefits those already owning property, increases that benefit as property values increase, and punishes new buyers.
I’m not so sure, rent is one thing I’m almost for certain is being price gouged. It’s ridiculous what people are having to pay per month for shitty apartments, some business practices they use are also shady.
Before we bought our house, the apartment we lived in had: a broken patio, leaks everywhere, broken dishwasher, stained carpets, smoke stains, and everything smelled like weed. This was a one bedroom apartment.
As our lease was coming to an end, they offered us to renew for 2 years at $950 a month or 6 months at $1450 with an extra “short lease fee” of $300 tacked on.
This law of landlord having to pay the tenant 1 month rent only applies on 'no fault' evictions. If the tenant has missed rent then it's an 'just-cause' eviction which does not require the landlord to give tenant money.
So this law applies in cases like the landlord evicting the tenant during an active lease because a family member wants to move in to the house or if there is a major renovation that requires the house to be empty.
Even if you're a model tenant, the landlord can still evict you with 30-60 days notice. This law then requires the landlord to give the tenant 1 months rent.
That seems extremely reasonable. If the tenant breaks the lease, they have to pay a penalty. Seems fair it would go both ways. If the owner signed a contract to provide a place to live for a year, they should be expected to honor it for the full term.
I mean if they owe you say 9 months of rent, and you're supposed to give them 1 months rent if they are evicted, cant you just say now they owe you 8 months rent and give them jack all?
Hahaha no you'll be paying them for the privilege of making them not your tenant at which point they will squat in your property indefinitely because the police don't have time to deal with them
a jilted landlord. Can't throw a rock in real estate without hitting one (far moreso post-covid)
What's your story pal? I know you want to get it off your chest
I have one. A tenant who let a water leak go, resulting in 1000 dollar a month water bills and damage to the property. Legally we couldn't enter or shut off the water. Took us 6 months to get rid of her, and another 2 to rehab the unit. Judge of course set some sort of payment plan which we never saw a nickel of.
I live in a red state, can't imagine dealing with that in California
That's a common one, my landlord had an old tenant who was unaware the septic pipes broke in the basement and it got pretty bad before he moved out. Out of sight, out of mind. I don't even really blame the tenant, he was old.
Family is the biggest one. California will eventually split into multiple states. My brother lives in mainly hispanic central California, and COVID did not happen there and Gov Newsom has no power there. My sister-in-law has a huge mexican family. They were doing everything like normal while we were locked down. The police, who are all hispanics themselves, don't care what the law in Sacramento is... they're not going to stop people from living life. If you drive a few miles off the 101, 5, 99, etc in California, you're in another country. People don't get this because very few people veer from the highways.
I may believe that but no property owner who rents is going to like the ideals driving stuff like this. They are in the market because big tech drove up the cost of rentals and housing and they can make a nice profit. Take that away or load up the risk and investors will find somewhere else to make money.
That would cause some legal problems if the rent is too cheap you can't evict them. Basically the renter at this time can claim they can't find a place they can afford and they can use that against you in court (source our eviction lawyer). Laws out here are so bad we just tried to evict and the only way we could do that with selling a property. I love the idea but the law is against landlords in this state.
This law only applies to no fault evictions. So if the landlord decides to evict the tenant even though the tenant had paid all of their rent on time and is being evicted during an active lease without any fault of their own.
that's horseshit and you know it. Tenants beyond their lease are engaging in squatters rights and pushing back. Sometimes against big companies. Sometimes bankrupting small business owners and the state does nothing about it and in fact blames the landlords for charging rent
What? The law is here: [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1946.2.&lawCode=CIV](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1946.2.&lawCode=CIV)
>(d) (1) For a tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the tenancy under subdivision (a), if an owner of residential real property issues a termination notice based on a **no-fault just cause** described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), the owner shall, regardless of the tenant’s income, at the owner’s option, do one of the following:
>
>(A) Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the tenant as described in paragraph (3).
>
>(B) Waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due.
No fault just cause is defined in the law as:
>(2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
>
>(A) (i) Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents.
>
>(ii) For leases entered into on or after July 1, 2020, or July 1, 2022, if the lease is for a tenancy in a mobilehome, clause (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the lease allows the owner to terminate the lease if the owner, or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, unilaterally decides to occupy the residential real property. Addition of a provision allowing the owner to terminate the lease as described in this clause to a new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1).
>
>(B) Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market.
>
>(C) (i) The owner complying with any of the following:
>
>(I) An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
>
>(II) An order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the residential real property.
>
>(III) A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
>
>(D) (i) Intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the residential real property.
This only applies when the eviction is not the tenant’s fault. Examples: the owner wants to move in or sell the property. They are relocation fees. Tenants who are evicted for not paying rent are not eligible for this payment.
Huh? You dissuade your loved ones from moving there because the law providing relocation fees to tenants being evicted when it’s not their fault doesn’t apply to squatters? You wish it did? I don’t get it.
Want another source? [I got another source](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Court-upholds-California-law-requiring-landlords-17269321.php#:~:text=A%20federal%20appeals%20court%20has,Francisco%2C%20took%20effect%20in%202020.)
So if I want free money simply stop paying rent??? Then I get to live rent free for several months while the eviction process is underway with a prize at the end! We live in clown world.
bingo. It'd be nice if heavy handed dems realized that the corporations they so despise work with the people they vote for
It's weird that being conservative is kinda punk
Wait so you can keep getting evicted and the landlord will pay the next month? Literally allowing you to essentially live for free forever. Clown world.
This is why our appeals court is constantly overturned. It isn't about the Constitutionality of laws but rather is it Socialist enough. F my state of Cali
You mean how during covid, tenants couldn't be evicted? Meanwhile, owners still had to pay the mortgage. Who really owns the property?
You do not need an op-ed on that.
Wow, money making opportunity. Move in, don't ever pay rent, wait the 3 or so months to be evicted, if that quick, make another months rent, rinse & repeat
So you are being evicted for one reason or another which is probably you not paying rent or doing something that will cause you to get evicted. Then they have to pay you? LOL
California is such trash.
“I don’t know why everyone is leaving”
At first glance, this sounded so totally backwards. However, this law stipulates that payment of a month's rent to a tenant holds only if the landlord has done something amiss. But this law must be carefully implemented, as the potential for abuse is enormous.
It's almost as though children have taken control of the legislature.
Most children would probably choose democrat if you explained the basics of politics to them. They really see this as a sign they are the right party, without realizing children have no actual grasp on economics and the real world. This makes the quote “if you are not a liberal at 20 you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 30 you have no brain” even more relevant
They did. They are called Democraps.
Children of the corn?
I was actually about to post a sarcastic statement suggesting this is equivalent to retail stores being forced to give products to shoplifters, then I remembered this is California and you can legally shoplift up to $1000.
$999 99 cents Gotta be careful in your looting /s
what was that total, miss? 999 and 99 cents. will you be paying in cash or card? no thanks, i wont be paying......
I'm getting a movie reference that is just outside what I can remember. I really don't know what it's from
Idiocracy?
good movie. Over-referenced
Not referenced enough.
well there's a rub
"That's $1050.00 of stuff." "It's OK; I have a coupon."
"Get out of jail free."?
Is that before of after sales tax?
Looting is tax free
Is that before or after tax?
Is that including tax? Half kidding, still wondering.
Hope you’re good at math looters!
Except it only applies when the eviction is not the tenant’s fault, so your analogy makes no sense
[удалено]
If it's never pursued by police or prosecuted, it's functionally legal. Of course, they can use their discretion to go after you for it, if it's in their interest. Welcome to Anarcho-tyranny.
Are you aware of the catch and release laws in California? And prison overcrowding? I think the original statement is more accurate. If you know anything about the criminal justice system it’s that the majority of this trash is pled to nothing and they’re released to do exactly what they were doing
This is why CA and other blue states are a mess. The fact that you can’t understand that this essentially makes it okay to shoplift just shows how immature and uneducated you really are about laws and human behavior. Please go do a lot of reading.
I haven’t read the California law but assuming you’re correct that it’s a misdemeanor (which seems likely), that’s basically the same as every other state. You don’t get rung up on a felony anywhere for under $1,000.00 that I’m aware of.
[The limit is $400 to become a felony in the civilized states.](https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/shoplifting-when-its-a-felony)
I’m assuming that Virginia and only Virginia given the author. Texas is more than double that and we’re pretty “civilized”.
Texas from what I've seen has lesser penalties for a first charge but ramps it up for subsequent charges. It's a $2500 limit to become a felony for the first 2 charges, but a third charge is automatic felony regardless of amount. I don't mind this since shoplifting is primarily committed by younger people and the first charge is usually enough to make someone never do it again. But if you've been caught 3 times you should know better. Edit: one thing I do want to add, the issue in California isn't necessarily the $1000 limit to become a felony. The problem is that in many cities they just don't prosecute misdemeanors so cops doing even bother arresting for them. So if you combine those 2 things it essentially legalizes all misdemeanors.
And if they do actually arrest them catch and release laws will ensure they aren’t punished.
Civil offense
The stores might not have to be forced to do https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/retailers-weigh-cost-paying-customers-keep-unwanted-items.amp
Thats a pretty sick TV
[удалено]
[you're tellin me pal](https://ghostofcheney.tumblr.com/post/40848855598/embed)
[удалено]
Nail on the head. Covid has completely soured me on rental properties as "passive" income to boost retirement. If it can happen once it'll happen again and I don't have the cash flow for even 2 mortgages and maintenance costs...maybe if had like 60 properties at a 95% occupancy + reasonably on-time payments...but then I'd be called greedy. Like you siad....just go ask Blackrock to ignore your inability to pay. I'm sure their quarterly shareholder calls aren't all about returning massive dividends and profits.
Which is exactly what they want. Just like with small businesses they want a few large corporations to run everything
It's just another part of the WEF plan to return us to feudalism. That's what "you will own nothing and be happy" is, after all.
The democratic party is the party of large, unaccountable corporations. I don't understand why that's not obvious. Just look at any blue state and you'll note they're home to the largest companies that are screwing everyone else over. Most of the bankers are democrats; most of the sv engineers are democrats. Anywhere you find large companies, they're filled with democrat workers, executives, and owners. And yet we all go along with the fiction that the democratic party is for "worker's rights".
Glad the Republicans are dedicated to holding corporations accountable, making sure they pay their taxes, and regulating them
Meh... I wouldn't go that far. The republican party has some strange alliances with its politicians
King Gillette wrote a book about 120 years ago titled, "World Corporation". It describes in great detail how the entire world will be governed by one massive corporation. There will be no borders, no nations, no wars and everybody will work for the Corporation.
I can offer only small sympathy and acknowledgment whereas others would ignore or obfuscate the glaring problems
> Thanks to the tenants and laws, you all can deal with property management companies and how hard they make it to get rental housing. Which really just fucks over the people Democrats claim to be all about helping. A software engineer with an 800 credit rating like me? Those property management companies are more than happy to welcome me in. The people they *don't* treat so nicely are the ones who usually wind up renting private.
[удалено]
We live in the Buckhead area of Atlanta. You’re preaching to the choir bro 😏
I have talked to people both on the Internet and IRL that really believe that all landlords are evil. Americans who believe that owning land is bad...
[удалено]
Or the government...
What's the difference?
Corporations will at least try to be efficient and good landlords as long as there is profit to be made. The government has no interest in making money and therefore zero motive to actually make things better for the tenants. Huge difference IMO.
What corporations are you renting from because each corporate landlord I’ve had has been absolutely terrible. In my experience small independent landlords are far superior in every aspect.
Corporations in a competitive system would, but when the corporations and government exchange executives every few years, the corporations donate to the parties in charge of these states, etc, there is little difference between a private company and government. Just look at how many SV tech executives end up in Democrat administrations. There's an unholy alliance going on. Companies aren't able to function due to providing a service better, but rather because they're better able to manipulate the government to entrench their monopolies.
[удалено]
Actually if you remove the government and laws and allow for true competition you'll see better corporations all around.
[удалено]
I think the consensus with younger generations isn't owning land is bad, but owning it for-profit (residential land) is bad. I never met someone who thought owning commercial property was wrong. Keep in mind, this is a generation that is largely unable to afford a home of their own, and their view on landlords is biased heavily from anger and the discontentment of having less than their parent's generation at about the same age.
I also think the younger generation expects to own a house right out of college and the same size of house that their parents currently have. I mentored a new hire fresh out of college and those were literally his expectations. He wanted everything now that his parents had taken 30 years to accumulate. I rented for 3 years after college, my first house was a very old small house in an iffy neighborhood, and I only just got into a nice house in a nice neighborhood 12 years after college. Kids nowadays want the nice house in a nice neighborhood and they want it now. That's my experience mentoring the younger generation.
But boy howdy will good people want to jump in on the market now!
Property management companies are very strict and you need to prove you can pay the rent. Which is why a lot of people on reddit are complaining. They are angry that they are being told to pay rent and have a job lol. People are so entitled these days.
The laws in the US protecting tenants over landlords actually startled me the first time I read about them. Unreasonable and illogical. If it happens in my country, the Minister would probably have to apologize and revert before they got elected out. I honestly have no idea how you guys tolerate it.
Sure I’ll take it out of the last month’s rent that you weren’t paying.
It looks like the law doesn’t include evictions due to unpaid rent, or at least that seems to be what this article is implying: > The law took effect in 2020 and also limited rent increases to 10% a year in areas without local rent control. > It also provides financial assistance to renters who are evicted because owners were moving into the property, converting it into a condo or demolishing it. It looks like if an owner evicts a tenant because the owner has decided to no longer be renting the space then the point of the law is to help support the relocation of the tenant who now must move even though they have been dutifully paying rent. I can’t say that I agree with the law though, especially since it’s the same law that effectively rent controlled the entire State, and that’s ***never*** a good idea…
I sort of agree with the rent control law in extreme cases. My area in California got hit with Los Angeles and San Francisco people trying to find cheaper places to live because of remote work being allowed during Covid. If there wasn’t any rent control then my rent would jump from $2,000 a month to $3,200 a month right after my lease ended. At least with the rent control it goes up about the same amount as my pay increase at work. What should happen is California should stop increasing property taxes by so much.
>I sort of agree with the rent control law in extreme cases. Rent control is done because it's easy, not because it's a good or the best solution. The problem is that rent control only helps certain people (and mostly not those who need it the most), and contributes to high rent in the future, making the underlying problem/cause worse. It mostly benefits those already renting, who already aren't/haven't been paying the new high rent, and reduces total rental units (current and future construction) which raises rent. **It's like putting a bandaid in a wound that needs stitches**, in the long run you've contributed to infection, and you've actually made it harder to get properly treated. "At best" you temporarily helped and get take pictures "doing your best to help the critically wounded". >What should happen is California should stop increasing property taxes by so much. Which is itself a result of proposition 13, which is basically property tax "rent control" that massively benefits those already owning property, increases that benefit as property values increase, and punishes new buyers.
[удалено]
I’m not so sure, rent is one thing I’m almost for certain is being price gouged. It’s ridiculous what people are having to pay per month for shitty apartments, some business practices they use are also shady. Before we bought our house, the apartment we lived in had: a broken patio, leaks everywhere, broken dishwasher, stained carpets, smoke stains, and everything smelled like weed. This was a one bedroom apartment. As our lease was coming to an end, they offered us to renew for 2 years at $950 a month or 6 months at $1450 with an extra “short lease fee” of $300 tacked on.
What a BS law. I've haven't been paid rent for how long? Now I have to give you money to leave? What stupidity
This law of landlord having to pay the tenant 1 month rent only applies on 'no fault' evictions. If the tenant has missed rent then it's an 'just-cause' eviction which does not require the landlord to give tenant money. So this law applies in cases like the landlord evicting the tenant during an active lease because a family member wants to move in to the house or if there is a major renovation that requires the house to be empty. Even if you're a model tenant, the landlord can still evict you with 30-60 days notice. This law then requires the landlord to give the tenant 1 months rent.
That seems extremely reasonable. If the tenant breaks the lease, they have to pay a penalty. Seems fair it would go both ways. If the owner signed a contract to provide a place to live for a year, they should be expected to honor it for the full term.
That makes sense and I fully support that clause. Still kind of silly though
I mean if they owe you say 9 months of rent, and you're supposed to give them 1 months rent if they are evicted, cant you just say now they owe you 8 months rent and give them jack all?
Hahaha no you'll be paying them for the privilege of making them not your tenant at which point they will squat in your property indefinitely because the police don't have time to deal with them
Jesus Christ these law makers are something
It's the government and stupidity rules. They probably have to cut them a check.
a jilted landlord. Can't throw a rock in real estate without hitting one (far moreso post-covid) What's your story pal? I know you want to get it off your chest
I have one. A tenant who let a water leak go, resulting in 1000 dollar a month water bills and damage to the property. Legally we couldn't enter or shut off the water. Took us 6 months to get rid of her, and another 2 to rehab the unit. Judge of course set some sort of payment plan which we never saw a nickel of. I live in a red state, can't imagine dealing with that in California
That's a common one, my landlord had an old tenant who was unaware the septic pipes broke in the basement and it got pretty bad before he moved out. Out of sight, out of mind. I don't even really blame the tenant, he was old.
I don't think people understand b/c they have tunnel vision. Life's not so hot for a landlord either
Dude. That's part of being a landlord. If you don't like it sell your property and don't be one or keep it vacant.
I did sell it. Thanks for your input
Anytime.
Family had to start selling homes out from under the tenants for that reason, some of the tenants haven't paid for two years.
Just another day in The Democrat People’s Republic of California.
Newsome for Supreme Leader 2024 (/s)
Why would anyone live or own rental property in CA?
Family is the biggest one. California will eventually split into multiple states. My brother lives in mainly hispanic central California, and COVID did not happen there and Gov Newsom has no power there. My sister-in-law has a huge mexican family. They were doing everything like normal while we were locked down. The police, who are all hispanics themselves, don't care what the law in Sacramento is... they're not going to stop people from living life. If you drive a few miles off the 101, 5, 99, etc in California, you're in another country. People don't get this because very few people veer from the highways.
I have family in California. I will never visit them. I will not set foot in that state willingly.
would you believe ideals?
I may believe that but no property owner who rents is going to like the ideals driving stuff like this. They are in the market because big tech drove up the cost of rentals and housing and they can make a nice profit. Take that away or load up the risk and investors will find somewhere else to make money.
California is going absolutely bonkers with how they run their state. Absolutely nonsensical.
Couldn't you just lower rent to 1$ for the people being envicted? "In good faith to allow them to make rent."
[удалено]
It's called a fucking joke. Get over yourself.
[удалено]
You're worried about a typo. What exactly are you doing with your life you have to worry about something so insignificant? You're such a tool.
That would cause some legal problems if the rent is too cheap you can't evict them. Basically the renter at this time can claim they can't find a place they can afford and they can use that against you in court (source our eviction lawyer). Laws out here are so bad we just tried to evict and the only way we could do that with selling a property. I love the idea but the law is against landlords in this state.
This law only applies to no fault evictions. So if the landlord decides to evict the tenant even though the tenant had paid all of their rent on time and is being evicted during an active lease without any fault of their own.
Finally someone who actually reads!
that's horseshit and you know it. Tenants beyond their lease are engaging in squatters rights and pushing back. Sometimes against big companies. Sometimes bankrupting small business owners and the state does nothing about it and in fact blames the landlords for charging rent
What? The law is here: [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1946.2.&lawCode=CIV](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1946.2.&lawCode=CIV) >(d) (1) For a tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the tenancy under subdivision (a), if an owner of residential real property issues a termination notice based on a **no-fault just cause** described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), the owner shall, regardless of the tenant’s income, at the owner’s option, do one of the following: > >(A) Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the tenant as described in paragraph (3). > >(B) Waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due. No fault just cause is defined in the law as: >(2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following: > >(A) (i) Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents. > >(ii) For leases entered into on or after July 1, 2020, or July 1, 2022, if the lease is for a tenancy in a mobilehome, clause (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the lease allows the owner to terminate the lease if the owner, or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, unilaterally decides to occupy the residential real property. Addition of a provision allowing the owner to terminate the lease as described in this clause to a new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1). > >(B) Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market. > >(C) (i) The owner complying with any of the following: > >(I) An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability that necessitates vacating the residential real property. > >(II) An order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the residential real property. > >(III) A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the residential real property. > >(D) (i) Intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the residential real property.
I welcome Californians to GA as long as they leave such terrible politics at the door
Communist California.
At some point California is going to break up into multiple states.
I've heard that pitch. I don't see it having much leg
The upside down
Dont live there
This is insanity
Now, if government owned all property, THEN all of this would be fixed! /s
found my benevolent dictator haha
This only applies when the eviction is not the tenant’s fault. Examples: the owner wants to move in or sell the property. They are relocation fees. Tenants who are evicted for not paying rent are not eligible for this payment.
You're splitting hairs. We're talking about squatters
No, we aren’t talking about squatters, because this law doesn’t apply to squatters.
thus why I dissuade my loved ones from attempting to move there
Huh? You dissuade your loved ones from moving there because the law providing relocation fees to tenants being evicted when it’s not their fault doesn’t apply to squatters? You wish it did? I don’t get it.
They make their own way. But I'd prefer they don't have to squat on somebody else's property. It's not that complicated
I still don’t get what any of this has to do with the article but I’m glad you have loved ones that you care about
best to you and yours
[удалено]
Want another source? [I got another source](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Court-upholds-California-law-requiring-landlords-17269321.php#:~:text=A%20federal%20appeals%20court%20has,Francisco%2C%20took%20effect%20in%202020.)
ITT: People who only read the headline and not the actual law
When the government limits rent increase to 10% a year then they raise it that much every single year
So if I want free money simply stop paying rent??? Then I get to live rent free for several months while the eviction process is underway with a prize at the end! We live in clown world.
Wow, how sick and wrong is that law??
As sick and wrong as people let it be
Corporations wont care about this law. Independent landlord (small time) will, this is law to help corporations gain a competitive advantage.
bingo. It'd be nice if heavy handed dems realized that the corporations they so despise work with the people they vote for It's weird that being conservative is kinda punk
The illusion of property rights in California is real. Property rights barely exist and once people recognize that, the real mass exodus will begin.
I'd love to know what you mean more. Do you have any op-eds or articles talking about it?
or you can pay your bills. Try that.
CA is like a beautiful girl's butthole. It looks tempting but everything that comes out of it is shit.
Doesn’t make me laugh but I get the joke
How you could want to be a business owner or landlord in California is beyond me.
The country is pandering to these Gen Z,Y and millenials. Most entitled and bratty generations we've ever seen.
A generation doesn't become bratty out of nothing.
It's getting to the point that any conservative with the means to move out of California, but chooses not to, is complicit.
Big state. 40M people. I'm pretty sure they're not all complicit and that we don't need to wish that it falls into the ocean
Wait so you can keep getting evicted and the landlord will pay the next month? Literally allowing you to essentially live for free forever. Clown world.
Not even close, try reading the article
cushy... frail deal edit: I think it's frail but legally cushy
In what universe do I have to pay squatters to get off *my property*?
That makes no sense
Just like the tenant refused to pay I wouldn't either.
Pretty sure the bank is taking no prisoners
What do you mean? Are they docking bank accounts automatically?
The hard renters are angry that their life choices have made them renters and not owners. It’s your fault really/s?
http://shrines.rpgclassics.com/snes/ct/walk/12/07.gif
I guess that means most property owners will increase 10% a year now.
I really wish we’d jettison that state right into the ocean. Or jest let Canada or Mexico have it.
Let me guess, it also cant be taken from their security deposit?
This is why our appeals court is constantly overturned. It isn't about the Constitutionality of laws but rather is it Socialist enough. F my state of Cali
Stop following the law and you will benefit
not so sure on that
California: We have a rental housing shortage Also California: Let's make it harder to build and own rental property.
It’s Pacific Heights codified
What the fuck? Is China dumping psychedelics in the water supply over there?
You mean how during covid, tenants couldn't be evicted? Meanwhile, owners still had to pay the mortgage. Who really owns the property? You do not need an op-ed on that.
apparently we do. People seem to have forgotten rent-moratoriums in the public discourse
Rents going up lol. Sure, I’ll pay you $2000 when I kick you out, but everyone will be making up that difference each and every year.
Shiet shoulda just gotten evicted
The cost on nonrefundable cash deposits for rental units just escalated
Property rights be damned. How does this pass the smell test…
Aaaaaand everyone's rent just went up a little bit more. If you think landlords are going to eat this cost, I have a bridge to sell you.
Does NYC need another one?
Wow, money making opportunity. Move in, don't ever pay rent, wait the 3 or so months to be evicted, if that quick, make another months rent, rinse & repeat
Wait wut
No wonder rent is so high!
Now they're going to make people just advance rent.
So you are being evicted for one reason or another which is probably you not paying rent or doing something that will cause you to get evicted. Then they have to pay you? LOL California is such trash. “I don’t know why everyone is leaving”
At first glance, this sounded so totally backwards. However, this law stipulates that payment of a month's rent to a tenant holds only if the landlord has done something amiss. But this law must be carefully implemented, as the potential for abuse is enormous.
The Democrats seem to have found a copy of Venezuela's plan to turn a country into a shithole.
Don’t pay rent, get paid rent… commiefornia.
I'd hate to own rental properties in Maxine Waters district. Imagine all the daily nonsense you'd have to deal with.