The Berkeley Property Owners Association's fall mixer is called "Celebrating the End of the Eviction Moratorium."
A group of Berkeley, California landlords will hold a fun social mixer over cocktails to celebrate their newfound ability to kick people out of their homes for nonpayment of rent, as first reported by Berkeleyside.
The Berkeley Property Owner Association lists a fall mixer on its website on Tuesday, September 12, 530 PM PST. “We will celebrate the end of the Eviction Moratorium and talk about what's upcoming through the end of the year,” the invitation reads. The event advertises one free drink and “a lovely selection of appetizers,” and encourages attendees to “join us around the fire pits, under the heat lamps and stars, enjoying good food, drink, and friends.”
The venue will ironically be held at a space called “Freehouse”, according to its website. Attendees who want to join in can RSVP on their website for $20.
Berkeley’s eviction moratorium lasted from March 2020 to August 31, 2023, according to the city’s Rent Board, during which time tenants could not be legally removed from their homes for nonpayment of rent. Landlords could still evict tenants if they had “Good Cause” under city and state law, which includes health and safety violations. Landlords can still not collect back rent from March 2020 to April 2023 through an eviction lawsuit, according to the Rent Board.
Berkeleyside spoke to one landlord planning to attend the eviction moratorium party who was frustrated that they could not evict a tenant—except that they could evict the tenant, who was allegedly a danger to his roommates—but the landlord found the process of proving a health and safety violation too tedious and chose not to pursue it.
The Berkeley Property Owner Association is a landlord group that shares leadership with a lobbying group called the Berkeley Rental Housing Coalition which advocated against a law banning source of income discrimination against Section 8 tenants and other tenant protections.
The group insists on not being referred to as landlords, however, which they consider “slander.” According to the website, “We politely decline the label "landlord" with its pejorative connotations.” They also bravely denounce feudalism, an economic system which mostly ended 500 years ago, and say that the current system is quite fair to renters.
“Feudalism was an unfair system in which landlords owned and benefited, and tenant farmers worked and suffered. Our society is entirely different today, and the continued use of the legal term ‘landlord’ is slander against our members and all rental owners.” Instead, they prefer to be called “housing providers.”
While most cities’ eviction moratoria elapsed in 2021 and 2022, a handful of cities in California still barred evictions for non-payment into this year. Alameda County’s eviction moratorium expired in May, Oakland’s expired in July. San Francisco’s moratorium also elapsed at the end of August, but only covered tenants who lost income due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In May, Berkeley’s City Council added $200,000 to the city’s Eviction Defense Funds, money which is paid directly to landlords to pay tenants’ rent arrears, but the city expected those funds to be tapped out by the end of June.
It got pretty bad for a while. Landlords were stuck with properties that had tenants that were getting absolutely destroyed and there was nothing they could legally do about it. It resulted in increased barriers they put up to ensure that folks would actually pay rent and not destroy properties. It's become increasingly difficult to actually get an apartment in many cities with this rule in place.
No sympathy, landlords should get real jobs
Then what you want is less rental inventory. Because this is how you get less rental inventory.
What, you gonna tear down the apartment buildings? You know you can just sell people the deeds to their apartments. That's already in practice, in places with a shitload less homeless people.
Considering that Apartments are not deeded per unit. No you can't. You'd have to convert the apartment to condominiums... Setup an HOA (which everyone hates right?) then get everyone to pay into it... etc... You're not getting away with not paying.
Was that supposed to be a gotcha? Maybe your landlord should have replaced the lead paint in your childhood home.
Yes, that would literally be a gotcha. It's legally not possible to do what you want to do. That's a hell of a gotcha.
What I'm describing already exists, making every other consideration moot. If something exists, it stops being impossible. Do you see how that works?
Apartments are not deeded by unit. So no. It cannot simply be done.
So you see how that works?
Did you miss the part where I told you this already exists? Because it does. It doesn't matter whether or not you think apartments are deeded by unit, because we're talking about the real world. If you want to get your point across, do it with some brainpower instead of "I'm Dirty Dan" ad nauseam.
Okay... Find me an apartment complex that's deeded by unit. Since it's all public record you can just freely link me that information here. Since you claim it exists... you can provide evidence of it existing!
I can show you thousands of complexes that aren't deeded by unit... hell most aren't even deeded by building. But by full complex, which can easily be acres of property with hundreds of units.
Here... I'll put one foot forward in good faith. https://goo.gl/maps/z2uRv9G14dk1GtLo9 is an apartment complex that I've seen before in person. It's comprised of 2 parcels according to the county. Parcel numbers 134-22-207 and 134-22-208 which you can validate on https://maps.mcassessor.maricopa.gov/
If you search those parcels... https://mcassessor.maricopa.gov/mcs/?q=134-22-208 and https://mcassessor.maricopa.gov/mcs/?q=134-22-207 you'll see information for the total lot of land. Not for each unit.
Now... The reason I chose this property to look at is because JUST SOUTH (https://maps.mcassessor.maricopa.gov/?esearch=13422267A)... you'll see "Circle Tree Condominiums" which ARE individually owned units and are NOT apartments. MCR: 231-32. Zoom in far enough and you'll see that each unit has a distinct parcel number.
So... now that we're talking "real world"... Please find at least a few examples of your situation. Since I can literally show you thousands showing that you're wrong.
...Hold up, is the crux of your argument seriously "America is the only country in the world"? This might be a really radical idea for you but when people describe the way they think things should be, they usually don't mean "but only within the legal framework of this specific place".
Since you can "literally" show me thousands of examples that I'm wrong (as opposed to doing so figuratively), I thought I'd return the favor. Also, I set a maximum price of $500,000 per apartment for salejust to make it harder.
417 reasons you're wrong
583 reasons you're wrong
3,075 reasons you're wrong
3,099 reasons you're wrong
5,043 reasons you're wrong
I'm bored, I'm stopping now. You've already been wrong 12,217 times here though, so I'm sure it's fine.
It's really not even hard to imagine how this works, either. A real estate company builds the building, each apartment is owned by its occupant, they each use their equal share of ownership to vote in the building's resident union, appoint a president if they want, pool funds for building-wide repairs, establish dues or not, etc. Sure, people rent. Sometimes people rent in the same building where other people own the deed to their unit. But there's no requirement that an apartment building has a master who owns the homes of all the peons. Again, landlords aren't actually necessary, and we have living proof.
Let's nip one thing in the bud: me bringing up how things work in other countries is not an asspull, it does not reinforc your point of view, and it isn't irrelevant to conversations about the United States. Don't even try. If somebody in Texas complains that there should be universal health care and legal abortions, do you pinch off "Well ACKKSHYULLYYYY that isn't possible under the legal framework of the State of Texas and that's just not how things work in the 'real world' so be more realistic."? No, even you don't do that. Because you are (I assume) a sapient being who understands how context works, you would know that you can import ideas that are already in practice in one place over to a place where they are not. Which was exactly my point.
This thread... This post is literally about American law being reverted.
so yes... talking about this in the context of America is not only fair, but expected.
Now for all your links... LMFAO you're really special you know. None of those are "apartments" in the American sense. There's no such things as an individually owned apartment here. They're called Condominiums (Condos) here if they're individually owned. I even pointed that out in my previous post. Jesus you're dense.
Edit: Oh... really ironic by the way that you want to talk about context... Because you completely missed that bus here.
I found a photo of you
Unfortunately for you, your mind is an open book to me, and I saw this coming. Which is why I predicted that you would say this. The fact that you're doing it means you are, in doing so, admitting you're wrong. There's no going back now though, you can't undo it.
Let me spell it out for you, because even though I found over 12,000 apartments for sale, that number is still eclipsed by the number of chromosomes you have. If you want to make the argument that this is wrong because of context, you have to
#P A Y
#AT T T E N T I O N
#T O
#T H E
#C O N T E X T
if you want to know what the fuck is going on.
Just look. At this.
Topical context can change over the course of a conversation, dipshit. If you want to dispute something I'm saying, look with your eyeballs and pay attention to what I say. The right interpretation is the one I've already written out, you just have to read it.
Hang on, I just want to dissect this part. I think it's really shameful to try and recoup face when you get proven wrong, when you really should just take it on the chin and admit you're wrong. But that attitude! How humiliating must it be to desperately grasp at straws the way you're doing? Also we're not on reddit, you don't have to try and add a pithy mic drop destruction 100 big chungus among sus moment, knock that shit off.
#THAT'S THE POINT
#THAT'S
#THE
#P
#O
#I
#N
#T
#THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT
#THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT UP
#FUCK
And you have the audacity to call me dense? Motherfucker, you're so damned dense you hit the point by accident and didn't even notice. And then, without a trace of irony, you go on to parrot your own point as if you like the way the words sound so much you just couldn't resist. This isn't the pot calling the kettle black, this is a neutron star calling a balloon dense.
I'm not even going to address the fact that the ownership schema of a condominium works differently from apartment ownership in other countries. Frankly, you've proven that you'd refuse to understand even if you weren't too fucking stupid.
This conversation has reached its end. If you have any decency, you will respond either by apologizing to me for wasting my time, or not at all.
None of which are apartments per any definition used in the USA... Which is the context of this whole thread.
I see your "context" that you so diligently learned how to use a digital highlighter for. Did you read what you wrote?
Here's the FULL post... I'm going to bold something...
To which... in my immediate response I stated...
Further,
Is not only vague, but doesn't actually communicate anything meaningful at all as literally every country has a homelessness problem, but let's put that aside and let's just assume that we all understood you mean overseas somewhere.
In the USA... which is where this discussion is taking place under the context of. An Apartment is not separately deeded, as evidenced by the literal evidence I've shown you. You're response has effectively been "well this other country defines it as something else". I've even already given you the correct term here for what I believe you're referencing. That is a Condominium... Or Condo for short.
An Apartment != Condo. Period. When you can realize that, then the conversation can continue. So for you to assume that "Apartment" here in the USA = "Apartment" from whatever the bumble-fuck you're from... Is already wrong. And your own "evidence" of 12000 apartment proves that point. Yet you don't see it and somehow I'm a moron?
Yet here you are... acting like a teenager. You could literally just admit that you have no idea what the terms used in the USA are for these things... and move the fuck on. Instead you act like a petulant child.
But let's back up just a smidge... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apartment
So even definitionally you're wrong, otherwise the definition wouldn't include the word leased.
vs...https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condominium
Well fuck me... Which one describes what you've explained that you believe "apartment" to mean? Especially when you stated....
But that's been the point the whole time. Oftentimes it requires drawing up contracts that 100% of the tenants agree on that share the building. Your pie in the sky bullshit thought is that 1 person out of a 30 unit building will be able to buy the one unit they have and the rest can keep renting (or vice-versa) that makes it literally impossible for all the parties to sign onto a MCR to be recognized as 30 separate deeds within a single overarching property. Your own quote above even implicitly acknowledges this when you stated " A real estate company builds the building" as in it was intended to be condos from the start. But see... rather than recognizing that you could be wrong especially with how apartments might be recognized in the USA. You instead turned into a frothing lunatic.
Feel free to keep ad hominem attacking me though. Makes your case real strong! I'm not grasping at any straws. You've failed to communicate effectively and now you've gone off the deep end like winning arguments on the internet is the only thing that keeps you emotionally stable.
Just remember... you started it ;)
Nope, no decency.
So you're aware, I did make sure to not read it past the first words. You'll never get to hear what you have to say heard by me.
I am sincerely sorry that you don't care about people's quality of life and ensuring everyone gets quality housing over your ideology.
And yet here you are celebrating poor people getting kicked out of their homes.
Less people got housing overall because grifters, not poor people were taking advantage. These largely were people that could otherwise afford it. It led to increased economic and societal barriers to starting new leases.
This policy didn't dismantle capitalism; it made the existing system more exclusive.
You're acting like rent grifting is some widespread problem. A vast majority of tenants aren't destroying where they live and taking advantage of their landlords. In reality eviction moratorium was put in place so landlords couldn't hike the cost of rent during the pandemic and that's how most tenants are using it. We're in a rolling recession and a lot of people are going to lose their homes because of this.
Literally none of the rest is true and I challenge you to prove it. We are not in a recession. Rent grifting as a perceived problem causing the above effects regardless of being able to put any numbers towards it one way or another.
I lost my home of over 7 years at the end of last year because the landlord decided to increase the cost by $900 a month even though I managed to pay them for every month of the pandemic via housing assistance etc, so you can fuck right off with saying none of it is true.
So your anecdote of your personal event is indicative of the entire market?
I'm sorry you had a bad time... but let's look at what you said.
You're implication here is that you've rented for 7 years, and apparently NEVER had a rent increase? That's insane on it's own. Now 7 years later you're complaining that there's finally a rent increase? Even though costs of maintaining a house has gone up over time... Those costs your landlord would have been eating for 7 years. Further, you never state what you were actually paying... If you were renting a $5000 house, and then it went up to $5900, that's actually expected as rent tends to increase at about 2.5%.
Now if it started at $750 and now it's increasing to $1650 with no changes to the property, then you might have a leg to stand on to complain... but please keep the emotions out of it. I used to rent at a condominium complex... Where each unit is owned. TONS of units would get trashed every year because the vast majority of renters do not know how to maintain a house... and don't want to learn/be liable for it. Those units were NEVER maintained properly, because they simply were not educated on how to perform that maintenance, and I'm talking simple things like cleaning up after a liquid spill on carpet.
Please point out in my reply where I said I never got a rent increase during that time. I'll wait.
Also, I don't need you or any other asshole on here telling me what a reasonable rent increase is for my area, for the property I inhabited for 7 years. I already know, and a $900 increase all at once, even for this area, was absurd for where I was renting. It was such a ridiculous increase that I couldn't justify it and had to move against my wishes, after being a model renter by most standards. I don't need to tell you more than that.
You would have brought it up. It strengthens your case to have paid rent increases over the years. The fact that you omitted it is obvious evidence that it didn't happen.
No, it's not obvious evidence, are you a dumb Republican or something? You made an assumption based on words I didn't say, that's not evidence of anything.
In reality I did pay an increase every year, and expected to pay another such reasonable increase for this year, but instead of something normal, it was drastically higher because my landlord took hits on a separate vacation property during the pandemic that had nothing to do with me, and decided to make up the difference with the property I was living in. So she priced me out so she could rip it up and do renovations, then rent it out someone who probably just moved here from California and doesn't know how stupid the price is. And if we had some kind of policy regarding rent control, and/or ejecting people out for these kinds of reasons, there would be far less people on this island trying to find a place to live. It's nothing but landlord greed, regardless of whether or not you agree with that.
Sounds like Renter entitlement to me... You admit that they want to do renovations to the property. Why should they cater to you if they can improve the property and get better rent for it? They want to add improvements. Those improvements have a cost associated with it... you're not willing to pay. That's that. You think that those improvements should be furnished to you for free?
But see, this is my point. You've left out the details that paint you poorly. Ultimately the owner has a right to do with their property as they please unless they violate the law or contract.
Honestly don't care, dude. You apparently are also some kind of entitled person talking out of your ass about something that happened to me.
Improvements weren't needed. At all. It's just the ongoing repeated cycle we have over here of owner's making unnecessary renovations just to resell it or re-rent it at much higher prices, usually at whatever they heard someone else was renting things for, which is why so many people who live here have trouble finding homes and possibly leave the state even though they shouldn't have to. Natives getting prices out of their own homeland by investors from the mainland.
You want to talk about entitlement? How about all these out-of-state companies calling Lahaina fire survivors to try to sweep up and take over their land? They're trying to do this exact this same thing, just the next version of the cycle.
See, to me you're the arrogant, entitled, ignorant one, because there's a whole different kind of housing politics going on here than anywhere else on the mainland. Similar, but way worse, partially because we're a tourist destination. You just won't actually understand until you've been here living with it, and remain ignorant with wrong opinions until you do.
I'm blocking you now. Enjoy your day.
A lot of those people don't have money to rebuild a house... Getting value for their land so they can live somewhere else is likely the only way out of poverty for a lot of those people. But you can feel free to dress it up however you want.
And considering you have no idea where I live... pot... kettle.
Yes because that's what adults do when they don't get their way in a conversation. They plug their ears screaming "LALALALA" rather than continuing rational conversations.
That has literally nothing to do with what the above poster claimed so you can cool your jets and consider that your landlord was only able to do that because they have a scarce resource, made more scarce by the above policies. I will not fuck right off while you folks make the situation literally worse. You can fuck off and let educated folks solve problems with real economic policies.
I made the situation worse? How exactly? I paid in full for every month I was there, my landlord didn't lose anything on me as a renter, and it didn't matter, still got priced out by an obscene raise in rent only done because we have zero rent control and there was nothing to stop her from getting away with it.
No, asshole, you can fuck off with your ignorance, I understood what Mooselad said perfectly well.
I'm referring to policies. You apparently didn't. I'm curious as to how you think your situation has any impact on the overall housing supply and accessibility to new renters? I'm not seeing the link but maybe I and every other housing policy expert are the dumb ones here.
I just said "zero rent control" in my last reply, that doesn't imply policy to you?
And rent control was literally not mentioned anywhere in this thread so it is your turn to fuck right off.
Rent control also hurts supply which hurts everyone trying to get housing except the lucky few who get in. It also locks in a steady rate of rent increase regardless of the market.
Building more housing gives people options which decreases landlord power.
From Mooselad's reply:
Learn to read.
I paid reasonable rent increases throughout the pandemic, and as soon as the eviction moratorium was up, my next lease renewal was raised ridiculously high and priced me out, which is exactly one of the things he's talking about.
An eviction moratorium is not rent control. It is much worse actually.
Learn to comprehend.
You obviously didn't really deal with the subtleties of this from the renter's end at all during the pandemic. How nice for you.
You obviously don't understand the basics of the housing market and let your personal opinions and anecdotes cloud your perspectives on effective housing policies for everyone.
I would say that ignorance is bliss for you but it's obvious that yours has also caused you hardship.
Also, I am not a landlord so you can take your prejudice and apply your initial uncalled for insult of fucking right off.
Landlord or not, you can still fuck right off. Regarding the rest, I'll just copy you what I said to that other idiot:
See, to me you’re the arrogant, entitled, ignorant one, because there’s a whole different kind of housing politics going on here than anywhere else on the mainland. Similar, but way worse, partially because we’re a tourist destination. You just won’t actually understand until you’ve been here living with it, and remain ignorant with wrong opinions until you do.
I’m blocking you now. Enjoy your day.
Supply and demand applies to all privately owned markets regardless of what you think of a market system. You cannot escape it on an island and it is actually exacerbated the smaller the market.
Blocking me doesn't make your opinion any more fact; it just closes you off in your ignorance.
Literally posted today
Literally none of that is true? So you're saying a vast majority of tenants are destroying homes? That's delusional lol
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-recession-outlook-rolling-hard-landing-growth-gdp-bofa-2023-7?op=1
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2023/01/26/what-rolling-recession-what-means-and-why-we-might-one/11126039002/
And there's another one. A rolling recession is not the same thing as a recession.
Not really their home if they’re not paying for it.
My house is my home because I pay for it.
They’re celebrating people who destroy their homes getting kicked out making it easier for other people (who likely need it just as much) to get in instead
Yes because most landlords are regularly getting their homes destroyed and only kick out people who destroy their homes. They would never kick people out to hike rent prices. And it's not like 9% of homes in America are just sitting vacant, right?
This alone means nothing...
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/united-states-housing-vacancy-rate-declined-in-past-decade.html
2010 it was 11.4%, and in 2020 it's now 9.7%. So either more houses that were vacant are no longer vacant... or the market has added more houses to the market overall that are not vacant to effectively scale the 11.4 down to 9.7%.
But there's a whole lot of caveats on how those numbers are generated as well...
So any "shared" housing such as timeshares... or second homes are all considered "vacant" even if they aren't and have people live in them for particular times of the year.
Now you can make the claim that people with multiple houses are monsters... fine, but that's a completely different thing than "9% of all houses are vacant". I would also wonder how many houses are "vacant" because they're literally unlivable. If you check the link the highest rates were states like Maine/Vermont/Alaska where no heat is literally a death sentence... but otherwise those houses would be unrentable.
I agree with him and also care that people get quality housing
Which would be easily possible if all the shitty landlords (including corps) weren't allowed to just hold onto properties like they currently can
We could easily house every homeless person in the US, but we dont
We could also build more housing but you'd rather focus on targeting those that already have it making it more scarce.
You should be, because that's a stupid-ass opinion and something went very wrong in your life (blow to the head as a baby?) that you could ever say it.
Your comment literally was just an insult and provided no argument. Why bother? It doesn't make you look mature.
It says in the article they could evict for health and safety concerns if they were willing to do some paperwork. Property damage is a crime. Nothing they could legally do about it my ass.