Landlords Throw Party to Celebrate Being Able to Evict People Again

The Berkeley Property Owners Association’s fall mixer is called “Celebrating the End of the Eviction Moratorium.”


A group of Berkeley, California landlords will hold a fun social mixer over cocktails to celebrate their newfound ability to kick people out of their homes for nonpayment of rent, as first reported by Berkeleyside.

The Berkeley Property Owner Association lists a fall mixer on its website on Tuesday, September 12, 530 PM PST. “We will celebrate the end of the Eviction Moratorium and talk about what’s upcoming through the end of the year,” the invitation reads. The event advertises one free drink and “a lovely selection of appetizers,” and encourages attendees to “join us around the fire pits, under the heat lamps and stars, enjoying good food, drink, and friends.”

The venue will ironically be held at a space called “Freehouse”, according to its website. Attendees who want to join in can RSVP on their website for $20.

Berkeley’s eviction moratorium lasted from March 2020 to August 31, 2023, according to the city’s Rent Board, during which time tenants could not be legally removed from their homes for nonpayment of rent. Landlords could still evict tenants if they had “Good Cause” under city and state law, which includes health and safety violations. Landlords can still not collect back rent from March 2020 to April 2023 through an eviction lawsuit, according to the Rent Board.

Berkeleyside spoke to one landlord planning to attend the eviction moratorium party who was frustrated that they could not evict a tenant—except that they could evict the tenant, who was allegedly a danger to his roommates—but the landlord found the process of proving a health and safety violation too tedious and chose not to pursue it.

The Berkeley Property Owner Association is a landlord group that shares leadership with a lobbying group called the Berkeley Rental Housing Coalition which advocated against a law banning source of income discrimination against Section 8 tenants and other tenant protections.

The group insists on not being referred to as landlords, however, which they consider “slander.” According to the website, “We politely decline the label “landlord” with its pejorative connotations.” They also bravely denounce feudalism, an economic system which mostly ended 500 years ago, and say that the current system is quite fair to renters.

“Feudalism was an unfair system in which landlords owned and benefited, and tenant farmers worked and suffered. Our society is entirely different today, and the continued use of the legal term ‘landlord’ is slander against our members and all rental owners.” Instead, they prefer to be called “housing providers.”

While most cities’ eviction moratoria elapsed in 2021 and 2022, a handful of cities in California still barred evictions for non-payment into this year. Alameda County’s eviction moratorium expired in May, Oakland’s expired in July. San Francisco’s moratorium also elapsed at the end of August, but only covered tenants who lost income due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

In May, Berkeley’s City Council added $200,000 to the city’s Eviction Defense Funds, money which is paid directly to landlords to pay tenants’ rent arrears, but the city expected those funds to be tapped out by the end of June.


style99,
style99 avatar

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.

I feel like people should really read this part and fully absorb what it means.

ZombiFrancis,

Yeah that bit caught my eye and tracks perfectly with every landlord I have ever known.

Son_of_dad,

They like to use one case like this as their excuse to kick out a dozen people who are just trying to survive

ryathal,

It’s not that surprising, courts require specific hard evidence. Getting the roommates present to testify may or may not be enough, but it’s far more difficult than showing unpaid rent or a hoarding situation.

BluJay320,
@BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Oh, boo hoo. A landlord actually having to do work. How awful, this is truly a tragedy of unspoken proportions

luthis,

You seem to have this idea that landlords don’t work? I am a landlord and I have to work full time to help cover the cost of the mortgage. If I don’t, the tenant will get kicked out by the bank when they take back the house.

Seasoned_Greetings,

You’re a housing provider, not a landlord. If you aren’t making anything off of the houses you lease then you aren’t the subject of the ire of renters.

Ignore those goons saying you’re a bad investor. It’s noble of you to not leech off of the people who you rent to, and at the end of the day, the equity of the house is still yours.

luthis,

Thanks buddy. I’m also (ironically?) a renter too. I’m grateful to have the ability to live close to work without having to take on the cost of buying a house in the city.

fushuan,

The issue here is that they self identified as a landlord, when they simply are renting their second/first house. it’s not the same situation, but the way they explain it sounds quite entitled and when people lack the whole context, it makes them look very bad. Furthermore, according to another comment of them it seems like they would like to be more like another commenter that is presenting as an actual, evil landlord (probably as a joke). Sooo… yeah.

MrBusinessMan,

Sounds like you’re not cut out for this. I’m a landlord and I take pride in never working. My tenants pay my mortgages as well as most of my living expenses (the employees at the businesses I own pay for the rest of my expenses plus my retirement savings). I hope one day you become better at being a landlord and don’t have to work any more.

luthis,

Thanks for your optimism sensai, but I’m afraid I’ll be working until retirement.

MrBusinessMan,

Sucks to suck, try getting good at landlording like me!

KevonLooney,

This is a joke, but he legitimately does sound like a bad investor. The problem is, you can become a property owner simply by buying and being lucky. There’s no skill required.

So there are a lot of people like that who say “it’s hard to own even one property”, as if collecting rent and mailing some checks is hard. I know someone who has like 6 properties, even commercial property. It’s not a “full time job” even with that many.

Updating properties to sell or rent for more money is work, but the actual act of owning property is mostly waiting for checks to come in. Honestly there should be a test on laws in the local area to rent out property. Lawyers need a test just to read and write contracts; real estate agents have a test.

Bad property owners shouldn’t be allowed to take their stupidity out on tenants. If you don’t live in the building, you should need to pass a basic test for a license that can be revoked.

MrBusinessMan,

you should need to pass a basic test for a license that can be revoked.

Wow this reminds me of a little book called 1984, ever heard of it?

landlordlover,

Take a another look with an advisor in whatever country you are at. Its usually much easier to get a property second time around. Im not aware of your local laws and how banks can refinance you but there should be possibilities. Its good to spread risk. I used to have one property and it brought me stress knowing one single bad tenant could financially ruin me.

luthis,

Sounds like a good idea but things are too unstable in the market right now. Not to mention the deposit.

archomrade,

Landlord solidarity

KevonLooney,

I think you have it backwards. The tenant is supposed to pay you.

luthis,

I’m just a middle man for the bank.

KevonLooney,

No, you are an investor who assumes risk of non-payment. Maybe you are a bad investor who shouldn’t be renting? In that case, you should sell the property to someone who is a better investor, possibly the actual occupants.

luthis,

The tenant cannot afford to. That’s why they are renting.

KevonLooney,

See, here’s the thing. If you’re a bad owner you should take a loss.

luthis,

Even if I insanely decided to take a loss, the bank would not give them the loan.

KevonLooney,

Then the price isn’t low enough.

XbSuper,

Do you always live life in fantasy land? Or do you at least occasionally try to take a vacation back to reality? Because I think you could do with one.

archomrade,

The tenant can’t afford to because rent seekers reduce the available supply of housing. If they can afford to pay you rent then they can afford to pay a mortgage, and the profit you derive from that relationship is representative of what they could be saving for a down payment if you weren’t leaching off of them.

You are part of the problem.

luthis,

Wrong again sonny.

The average house price is now over 1 million. If you buy a house for 1 mil with a $200k deposit (unreachable for the vast majority including me) then your weekly payments are over $1200 excluding rates.

To rent a property it is very easy to find a multitude that sit at the $600 per week mark and some even lower for the same number of bedrooms.

So “If they can afford to pay you rent then they can afford to pay a mortgage” is stupid. Mortgage is literally double the cost of rent.

archomrade,

The average house price is now over 1 million

To rent a property it is very easy to find a multitude that sit at the $600 per week mark and some even lower for the same number of bedrooms.

Lol this is completely meaningless:

  • “average” home price is going to be far higher than “average” rental price, because the price distribution of houses doesn’t match the price distribution of rentals (a $500 mil home isn’t going to have a matching rental property)
  • a home and an apartment are priced differently, so “$600 per week … for same number of bedrooms” could mean anything, including a $5mil 4 bedroom home vs a 4 bedroom apartment in a 50 unit building.

Suffice it to say: I don’t fucking believe you. Even in NZ, straight comparisons between mortgage servicing costs of a house and rental pricing of the same house would show weekly rent is more expensive than the weekly mortgage servicing costs. There’s good reason for that, too: in a market where the home is worth more than what can be extracted in rent, you would definitionally make more money selling the property than renting it out (and nobody would be doing it)

Edit: The only exception to this would be if you purchased the house at the peak of a housing bubble, and are now renting the house out after the bubble has popped and so you are unable to sell without taking a loss.

luthis,

You don’t have to believe me, the facts are right here:

lemmy.nz/comment/2449229

straight comparisons between mortgage servicing costs of a house and rental pricing of the same house would show weekly rent is more expensive than the weekly mortgage servicing costs

You are wrong as my real world examples show.

fushuan,

you realize that after the mortgage is paid, you will have a fill house at your name and the tennants will still ahve nothing? Yeah you offer them a service but complaining that you have to work to pay the mortgage sounds SO entitled, to be honest. Of course you have to work to pay the mortgage, we all do! You might be a good landlord, but when people complain about landlords it’s usually about big landlords whho have several properties, not people that have a second house that they rent. People that say that “landlording” is their job.

If this is not you, this doesn’t apply to you and commenting as if you were one will only work against you,

luthis,

I have a single second property that I am renting out.

Actually, I don’t even live in the first property that I co-own because prices are so high I had to buy an hours drive outside of the city where I work. I am renting in the city.

I’m not complaining that I have to contribute to the mortgage, that’s just how it is. I am fully in agreement that house-hoarders are bad, but there’s a big distinction between that and a general ‘landlord.’

I would argue that the tenants do have something, which is “not a life living on the streets because landlording was illegal and they couldn’t afford to buy construction materials and pay builders to build them a house.” I have rented all my life, I have never lived in a house that I owned despite having my name on two houses,

I get where people are coming from, but their argument is “ban all landlords” without any consideration of actual reality that involves having capital and taking financial risk to construct housing. There’s something to be said about having a system in place that incentivises those actions. Maybe it’s the system and not the actors that should be blamed? Hate the game, not the player.

archomrade,

I’m not complaining that I have to contribute to the mortgage

I’m confused, are you saying you’re charging less rent than the cost of the mortgage?

luthis,

Yes of course. Rent is always less than mortgage payments until you’re in the final years.

fushuan,

You need to understand that context is important. It’s clear that they are not against people like you, and that as I stated, they are using the term Landlord more as a job title than as a status of owning a rented house. I have already agreed with your arguments, I’m just saying that if you present yourself as the term that people have coined for “house-hoarders”, then you are going to have a bad time, even if technically that term is being misrepresented in the given context.

You shouldn’t tell them that they are wrong on blaming landlords, because what landlord is for you and them is different, you should tell them to find a better term, at most. The better way to approach this would be to ask for clarification of what they mean with landlords, and while for sure there will be extremists, people in general will agree that what they hate is house-hoarders and landlords that speculate with property, not people that own 2 houses and rent 1 of them to help a bit with finances in a fair way.

archomrade,

It’s clear that they are not against people like you, and that as I stated, they are using the term Landlord more as a job title than as a status of owning a rented house.

Respectfully, I am one of these people and I absolutely include landlords of any size. Economic rent of all kinds are unethical and unproductive, and that includes any landlord that charges more than what a property costs to produce and maintain (still unclear if @luthis is somehow underwater with his property, i’m not sure how that’d even happen) by nature of some arbitrary notion of ownership. The rent they extract is unproductive and exploitative, on top of the problem of them hoarding homes from the housing stock and artificially inflating home prices.

fushuan,

still unclear if @luthis is somehow underwater with his property

what’s he’s stating is that he has to pay a part of the mortgage with his own money, which tbh to me is completely normal, giving all the mortgage cost to the tenant is exploitative.

Also,

by nature of some arbitrary notion of ownership.

Idk, but if I bought a summer house with my savings and decided to rent it to gain a small extra income, that’s not an arbitrary notion of ownership, I bought that house with my savings.

In any case, if you are against anyone owning more than 1 house, then,

there will be extremists

If I didn’t rent the summer house, it would have been unavailable to the market because I would use it maybe 2 weeks a year. We did use it a lot more when we purchased it but life changes and now we don’t. In the end we sold it but I don’t see it as unfair to rent it for a completely reasonable price (different country so prices won’t make sense to you, but it’s low, lower than 1/4 of what I earn in my actual job). In any case, I was just trying to clarify him why people were downvoting him so hard, since most people are not really against any kind of renting.

luthis,

what’s he’s stating is that he has to pay a part of the mortgage with his own money, which tbh to me is completely normal, giving all the mortgage cost to the tenant is exploitative.

To be even more accurate, if anyone charged more rent than what mortgage payments would be, no one would want to rent it because it would be more than double the price of other rental properties. There is a really big gap between rent and mortgage payments.

dragonflyteaparty,

From what I’ve seen in my own neighborhood rent is way higher than the mortgage. The only people who do it are those who can’t afford a down payment and/or closing costs, though, of course, paying the extra in rent doesn’t help them.

luthis,

Very different to the situation here. I ran some numbers earlier:

The average house price is now over 1 million. If you buy a house for 1 mil with a $200k deposit (unreachable for the vast majority including me) then your weekly payments are over $1200 excluding rates.

To rent a property it is very easy to find a multitude that sit at the $600 per week mark and some even lower for the same number of bedrooms.

archomrade,

Lol this guy is making this claim based on “average rent” vs “average home price”. He’s comparing houses to apartments in 50-unit buildings.

luthis,

Nope. I made an apples to apples comparison here:

lemmy.nz/comment/2449229

luthis,

Nope, not underwater at all. It is normal to be paying extra on top of rent to cover the mortgage unless your deposit was like 90% or something. There is a really big gap between mortgage payments and rent payments.

fkn,

This is just such an obtuse view. A person should be fairly compensated for their property, regardless of kind.

If you don’t believe in property ownership at all… then these positions are fundamentally at odds.

Rent extracted for property should be proportional to the property and the value an individual gains from the use of the property. I think we can agree to that. I also believe that reasonable profit can be expected for reasonable work / value.

To say that economic rent of all kinds is unethical and unproductive doesn’t make sense to me.

If one person invests their capital into a house and someone else wants to make use of that property, they should pay rent. How is that transaction unethical? The rent is payment for use of the other persons capital.

There are arguments about housing specifically as a basic right / need that changes the dynamic… but in cases where these needs are exploited for financial gain, it’s the exploitation that is unethical, not the basic premise of rent.

To explore the notion that rent should only be proportional to the value that the property produces, and frankly how insane that sounds… it only takes startup costs of the property to consider that those costs should also be included in the computation… again exploitation is the thing that is unethical, not the exchange for use of property fundamentally.

Is this wrong?

Croquette,

Which risk? Any increase in taxes, mortgage rates and renovations are directly passed on the tenants.

At the end of the day, someone else if paying your mortgage because you could enter the market before they could.

And nowadays, simply having someone paying your mortgage isn’t enough. Landlords need to be cashflow positive.

luthis,

What the hell are you talking about??

You think you can just renovate the bathroom and bill the tenant for the work?? That’s not how reality works.

Rent can also only be increased once per year and the tenant is able to appeal to the Tribunal if it is too much and the Tribunal can order the rent to decrease.

In terms of risk: When building: unforeseen expenses like complex earthworks, no access to building supplies and environmental issues that can blow out construction times by months or even years (this actually happened recently with gib), and all the while having to pay the mortgage when there isn’t a house to live in.

When renting: property damage from tenants, meth labs (it will be illegal to rent a property soon with a certain level of meth contamination), things requiring repairs in the house (I recently had to buy a new heat pump because the old one died), changes to laws like the recent one that requires older homes be retrofitted with insulation at cost to the owner, tenants moving out leaving you with the mortgage to cover yourself, job loss myself leaving me with no way to cover the extra…

And nowadays, simply having someone paying your mortgage isn’t enough. Landlords need to be cashflow positive.

I showed earlier that mortgage payments are more than double rent payments.

polskilumalo,
@polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I’m not complaining that I have to contribute to the mortgage, that’s just how it is. I am fully in agreement that house-hoarders are bad, but there’s a big distinction between that and a general ‘landlord.’

There is absolutely little to none. No matter what you serve the same function, and no matter how “good” of a person you are, a landlord will always be a social parasite.

I would argue that the tenants do have something, which is “not a life living on the streets because landlording was illegal and they couldn’t afford to buy construction materials and pay builders to build them a house.”

mf lives in the confines of capitalism 🙄🙄🙄

And not just capitalism, but for you a concept of “social housing” seems to be absolutely alien. Vienna is an example of a western city that is a prime “fuck you” to this “argument”.

I get where people are coming from, but their argument is “ban all landlords” without any consideration of actual reality that involves having capital and taking financial risk to construct housing.

What fucking risk huh? What risk that any other person living in their own home don’t take?

“Oh the property might burn down.”

Mine can too fucker and you don’t see me complaining. The problem here is, your mortgage is being paid off by your tenant and who’s keeping the property at the end of the day? Not him that’s for sure!

“Oh but I pay my part!”

So If you split the payment, split the property too fucker.

If anything, the tenant takes more risk by renting because if he loses his job or sustains an injury he’s fucked because he has no property of his own he’s guaranteed to live in.

Sincerely, fuck you. I hope your tenant finds a better deal and that both of your properties burn down you entitled ass.

Oh and keep this in mind:

“The Maoist uprising against the landlords was the most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, leading to almost totally equal redistribution of the land amongst the peasantry”

holycrapwtfatheism,

Been a landlord for almost 20 years. I've rebuilt some of these houses myself from an auctioned off unlivable disaster to a safe, clean, maintained property. To imply landlords don't work is such a narrow sighted view of reality. I got a glimpse during covid of an eviction moratorium a tenant that had quite a bit of hardship and I worked with her for 5 years pre-covid. Heating oil run out she couldn't afford I filled it out of pocket for her and her family. If she needed flexibility on rent timing I worked with her. When she snuck an untrained dog classified as an emotion support dog that chewed up the house's 70 year old woodwork stairs and balusters. I worked with her. When covid hit and the moratorium was about to go live her lease was up1 month prior. She ceased paying rent and utilities, I was informed I'd have to cover all her expenses during the moratorium. If she hadn't had that lease end right before this moratorium she would've continued staying there for free while I covered her family's entire housing and utilities. In the end my thanks for covering her and enforcing the lease end date was an entire house abandoned and full of trash and pest. Took my wife and I almost 2 months and close to $5000 to clean, repaint, repair/replace that property on top of the maintenance costs. This isn't a black and white situation..
Tldr, I guess: Evictions are a last resort for people who have had an agreement no longer be met by the other party. Should never have mad a moratorium on that legal process imo, it needed to have flexibility to help both parties not just shoulder 1 party with all the responsibility. The party is in extremely poor taste but I can understand their relief if they have similar tenants they can hopefully divest of after years of what my example held. I wouldn't have been able to do it for 3 years financially or mentally.

archomrade,

Good job with being a good property maintenance worker, sounds like you’re a decent person making the best of a shit situation. You’re still occupying a roll that’s exploitative, and I think the means by which you derive profit from an arbitrary notion of “ownership” is unethical and should be abolished.

ZombiFrancis,

The distinction is in the role of being the owner of the property versus the property manager and superintendent.

Landlords that also assume the role of property manager or superintendent for the land or buildings they lease do work.

But their role as owner and collector of rent is divorced from upkeep. The wealthier the landlord, the more removed and absentee they can be from their property. And the reality of that specific dynamic is just shining in the example of this kind of party.

menas,

So Landlords are united and fighting to get us homeless Lets organize against them !

vitriolix,
@vitriolix@lemmy.world avatar

continued use of the legal term ‘landlord’ is slander against our members and all rental owners.” Instead, they prefer to be called “housing providers.”

I think I’ll stick to “leeches”

Amadou_WhatIWant,

There is a way to get rid of landlord’s insane unearned income without a violent revolution, while also making our cities more lovely places to love.

A 100% tax on the value of land, redistributed as UBI and government services. Basically the people become the landlords.

JokeDeity,

Imagine a meteor landing on this party at peak attendance.

isVeryLoud,

Stop, I can only be so erect

polskilumalo,
@polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml avatar

“The Maoist uprising against the landlords was the most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, leading to almost totally equal redistribution of the land amongst the peasantry”

Deftdrummer,

Umm, mass genocide and government tyranny. You will never speak highly of this regime if you know wtf you’re talking about.

polskilumalo,
@polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I know what I’m talking about is all you need to know. Landlord will get what’s coming to them.

Amadou_WhatIWant,

I agree landlords suck but there are better approaches than a violent revolution. Georgism > Maoism

IHaveTwoCows,

It’s amazing to see even in this thread that people will still defend a violent and corrupt housing industry

kescusay,
@kescusay@lemmy.world avatar

Hey guys, we all hate landlords. A lot. The phrase that immediately comes to mind is “scum-sucking weasels.” But let’s not go overboard with the violent language, OK?

drmoose,

Skin and fry them I say!

DragonTypeWyvern,

If you fry them then skin them it becomes a tasty treat.

PM_ME_FEET_PICS,

Rents due, rentoid.

CosmicCleric,
@CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

But let’s not go overboard with the violent language, OK?

Thanks for saying that, but also, you’re interrupting one hell of a circle-jerk.

kescusay,
@kescusay@lemmy.world avatar

So I noticed. And far be it from me to interrupt such a thorough group hand-insemination effort! Just don’t want things to get… ahem… out of hand.

AphoticDev,

One free drink, but you gotta pay what a drink at the bar costs to get in lmao.

Francis_Fujiwara,

Fuck this world dude.

PM_ME_FEET_PICS,

Why? Because leaches did want to pay rent? Rents due, rentoid.

Viking_Hippie,

Feudalism was an unfair system in which landlords owned and benefited, and tenant farmers worked and suffered. Our society is entirely not different today

There, fixed it

AceFuzzLord,

That party sounds like it would have been an amazing place to release mustard gas or chlorine gas while also locking in those people.

All jokes aside, fuck those parasitic people known as landlords.

CADmonkey,

deleted_by_moderator

  • Loading...
  • Shardikprime,

    Like it or not this helps to increase housing availability and therefore lower prices for rent

    Viking_Hippie,

    If you truly believe that, I have a mountain chalet in Florida to sell you.

    Rent isn’t ridiculously high because of lack of supply, it’s primarily because of landlord greed. They’re even using software designed to help them set the highest rents they can possibly get away with

    dangblingus,

    Let me know how your economic theory takes off.

    masterofn001, (edited )

    Coming soon: the end of the guillotine moratorium.

    (This is happening worldwide.

    In Canada the average rent for a 1bdrm is now over $2k

    5 years ago I paid 800 for a 2 bdrm.

    You’re lucky to rent a room for that now.

    That’s why.)

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    the end of the guillotine moratorium

    Aside from the fact that you’re advocating mass murder, it’s worth pointing out that the guillotine’s association with executing wealthy nobles is largely fictional.

    dangblingus,

    One could say that by making housing unaffordable, by making groceries unaffordable, and by privatizing healthcare, mass murder is already being committed.

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    I’m talking about literal homicide.

    MisterScruffy,

    the guillotine’s association with executing wealthy nobles is largely fictional.

    that can change

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    A much more likely scenario is just a repeat of the aptly-named Reign of Terror.

    MisterScruffy,

    Wealthy elites are running a reign of terror right now, have been for centuries, If we can’t reason with them (which has been tried, and failed) then there’s only one option left.

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    The “Reign of Terror” is so called because the revolutionary government literally adopted “terror” (as in murdering people who disagreed with them) as an official government policy.

    CADmonkey,

    Yes, kind of like how things are now.

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    Um, no.

    CADmonkey,

    What a well thought out response from someone who thinks things are just fine, apparently.

    MisterScruffy,

    Are you familiar with the american police? Their brutality upholds the status quo. They and the elites they serve deserve to be terrorized.

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    Yes. I’m also familiar with the history of the French Revolution and why it’s not an example to be followed.

    They and the elites they serve deserve to be terrorized.

    Normalizing political violence inevitably, and sometimes literally, will blow up in your face. Just ask Robespierre.

    MisterScruffy,

    Do you think we can make things better by being nice and civil to the people currently doing the oppression? Or do you just like things the way they are and want nothing to change?

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    What I think it that normalizing political violence is extremely dangerous. That it will inevitably be turned back against the very people who advocate for it. And that people who advocate for it must have slept through history class.

    MisterScruffy,

    Police brutality is political violence. You will never escape political violence, there has never been a period of history without it. You enemies will always use violence against you what are you gonna do just roll over and let them take everything?

    IHaveTwoCows,

    Sounds great!

    masterofn001,

    Observing and stating what is an obviously exaggerated result is hardly advocating.

    But, yes, I do believe the likes of people who put profit over lives deserve the worst.

    Not advocating. I wouldn’t be sad if it happened. But, definitely not advocating.

    Brahm1nmam,

    I am advocating.

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    If you’re not advocating for political violence, then why mention the guillotine in the first place?

    JokeDeity,

    Go back to Forbes or whatever.

    IHaveTwoCows,

    Sorry, this is Proletariat Exuberence. Bourgeois Indignance is down the hall and to the right

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    Do you have anything actually intelligent or sincere to say?

    IHaveTwoCows,

    Do you?

    masterofn001,

    Then, it must be smally factual.

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    My kingdom for an intelligent response.

    dangblingus,

    Respectfully, the average rent for all new leases is over $2000, not explicitly 1 bdrm, which should on average be lower than $2000.

    Amadou_WhatIWant,

    100% Land Value Tax pleaseeee, way better than guillotines

    danikpapas,

    Yes, you should be always able to evict people from your property no matter the reason.

    gamer,

    Tenant is dating a black person and you don’t like black people? Kick them out! It’s your property!

    danikpapas,

    Literally yes. If that was the case, the landlord would be totally insane and be hurting his income. As long as the tenant pays and behaves properly I bet the landlord prefers money to personal views.

    gamer,

    Idk what to tell you. If you see neither the flaws in that logic nor the consequences, you’re either too far gone for me to teach you, or you’re just trolling.

    JustZ,

    Yeah fuck contracts!

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    The moratorium already did that.

    JustZ,

    Yeah well the thing about contracts is that they rely on the government to enforce them, and the sovereign has always been free to abdicate such enforcement.

    That’s why racial restrictive covenants were first found illegal, even though there is no state action in the covenant itself.

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    State and local governments are explicitly denied that power by the federal Constitution.

    JustZ,

    There is no Constitutional right to have the government enforce your contract. I’m not talking about formation and performance, I’m talking about enforcement. The Contracts Clause has nothing to do with enforcement by the courts.

    charonn0,
    @charonn0@startrek.website avatar

    There is no Constitutional right to have the government enforce your contract.

    The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is enumerated in the First Amendment

    The Contracts Clause has nothing to do with enforcement by the courts.

    The Contracts Clause prohibits states from passing laws to prevent one of the parties to a contract from enforcing their rights in court, which is exactly what the moratorium did.

    polskilumalo,
    @polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml avatar
    landlordlover,

    He got that psycho neckbeard look. At least now we know what kind of people hate landlords.

    polskilumalo,
    @polskilumalo@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    He’s the good guy in this story bud. ;)

    landlordlover,

    Edgy.

    SnowdenHeroOfOurTime,

    Yes landlords can be awful scumbags…

    But am I supposed to think that people should be able to live rent free despite agreeing to pay rent? Not seeing anyone pointing this “minor” issue out here.

    nora,

    Landlords are leeches. They make people pay for a basic human right.

    SnowdenHeroOfOurTime,

    Brain powered down, cool

    PizzaMan, (edited )

    Maybe people could actually pay rent if they were charging reasonable rates and didn’t intentionally keep housing scarce. Maybe we could instead stop letting NIMBYs get away with their bullshit.

    Landlords do not deserve rent, they shouldn’t exist in the first place.

    krayj,

    Landlords do not deserve rent, they shouldn’t exist in the first place.

    I’ve seen this sentiment a lot, especially since joining lemmy a few months ago, and I am genuinely confused by it. Could you elaborate on this? I can’t comprehend what incentive someone would have to develop property (finance and pay for the actual physical process of constructing a physical place for people to live) if it was a foregone conclusion that they do not deserve to exist, let alone be compensated for it. And don’t take this the wrong way, I’m definitely not defending the act of celebrating being able to evict people, so don’t interpret my question as being apologist for landlords. I’m just struggling to understand what the alternative would be.

    Is there an alternative process you are referring to? If so, what is it?

    ShaggySnacks,

    I’ve seen this sentiment a lot, especially since joining lemmy a few months ago, and I am genuinely confused by it. Could you elaborate on this?

    Landlords provide no value to anything. I’ll let Adam Smith, the father of capitalism say it:

    He sometimes demands rent for what is altogether incapable of human improvement. Kelp is a species of sea-weed, which, when burnt, yields an alkaline salt, useful for making glass, soap, and for several other purposes. It grows in several parts of Great Britain, particularly in Scotland, upon such rocks only as lie within the high water mark, which are twice every day covered with the sea, and of which the produce, therefore, was never augmented by human industry. The landlord, however, whose estate is bounded by a kelp shore of this kind, demands a rent for it as much as for his corn fields.

    The sea in the neighbourhood of the islands of Shetland is more than commonly abundant in fish, which make a great part of the subsistence of their inhabitants. But in order to profit by the produce of the water, they must have a habitation upon the neighbouring land. The rent of the landlord is in proportion, not to what the farmer can make by the land, but to what he can make both by the land and by the water. It is partly paid in sea-fish; and one of the very few instances in which rent makes a part of the price of that commodity, is to be found in that country.

    The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give.

    chakan2,
    @chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

    That doesn’t remotely answer OPs question

    PizzaMan, (edited )

    Is there an alternative process you are referring to? If so, what is it?

    Private industries that regularly fail ought to instead be nationalized, especially ones that deal with basic necessities. The government should be building housing on a massive scale, and selling it at low cost to families, individuals for personal use only, non profit co-ops, etc. Hundreds of thousands of new apartment units ought to be built by the government as prefab units that are manufactured in pieces in factories and then shipped off for assembly at location. Basically, lego-ify housing. Such a solution would benefit greatly from economies of scale, and would go such a long way towards fixing the problem. This would take quite a lot of rezoning, but nothing impossible.

    Capitalism works on the assumption that there is competition, but that’s not really possible with housing. You can’t realistically just move to a different place overnight every day to get the best deal, there are limits for how many residences exist in an area, etc. Housing is physically tied to land use, which means there essentially is no competition. As a result landlords price gouge, price fix, and charge thousands of dollars for single bedroom units that are run down and in need of repair. Government doesn’t work on the notion of competition. If the law says that X housing units are to be built in city Y, then it’s going to happen, all without a profit motive.

    what incentive someone would have to develop property (finance and pay for the actual physical process of constructing a physical place for people to live

    The government exists to maintain the stability and well-being of our country, so it has a responsibility to develop property to fix the housing crisis, and to replace the utter failure that is landlords. The people who actually build housing, the construction laborers, city planners, etc, they all are doing actual work and deserve compensation. Landlords don’t do that, owning is not a job and should not have a wage.

    A society with landlords has failed at one of the most basic tasks. Housing is a human right, it should be easily accessible to everyone.

    Chocrates,

    I think it comes down to, should living indoors be a human right or is it ok to let people sleep on the streets if they aren’t very good at capitalism?

    After that it comes down to how to do it? Perhaps housing should be the governments job and the wealthy can fuck off to the middle of nowhere if they want to own something

    krayj,

    The only system I’ve ever experienced like this was the 4 years I spent on active duty in the USMC. All the basics (food, housing, medical) were provided for as part of the deal. But (and this is a big BUT) that was in exchange for the individual voluntarily giving up the vast majority of their rights and free will by agreeing to live in what can only be described as a dictatorship - and also in exchange for tireless work and unquestioning obedience. I somehow do not believe that the majority of people advocating for government-provided everything would be willing to hold up their end of that kind of expected social contract in exchange. Everything has a ‘cost’, and by saying that ‘the government’ should bear that cost, what you are really saying is that the taxpayers should bear that cost.

    I guess what I’m saying is: I keep hearing and seeing this sentiment that housing should be an inalienable human right, and I don’t have any reason to disagree with that, I’m just asking for someone to explain how that would be feasible or point to an example of a working model of that.

    Chocrates,

    So you were able to take advantage of this and “all” you had to do was give up your life for a number of years, potentially forever, and possibly kill people.

    I am in no way trying to attack you or your service, but should that be a requirement for everyone? Should we need people to have to do that to live?

    krayj,

    I think the entire message of my comment escaped you. Especially the beginning part, the middle part, and the end part. If you re-read what I wrote, the gist is that I’ve only ever seen one system in the US that does what people are wanting but I don’t think that’s what they had in mind…and then I follow up with a request for someone to point to a working model for how they are expecting it to work.

    Your comment…is just an attack on my personal experience that I cited as a reference. It’s offensive. Your comment comes across as unnecessarily hostile. I am not sure if it’s because you didn’t understand what I was getting at, or if you just wanted to be intentionally argumentative.

    Shyfer,

    It’s been done in other countries to great effect. The UK had a great public housing system and no one would say that was some horrible dictatorship. The only cost was the normal amount of taxes they pay. It’s slowly been a bit privatized form what I understand, but provided housing for a majority of the population without complaint for hundreds of years,and still provides for a large part of the population. They even built ones that look pretty nice and not like the public housing people imagine in like Soviet Russia.

    chakan2,
    @chakan2@lemmy.world avatar
    Shyfer,

    That happens in private apartments, too. My old landlord left a huge hole in the wall for almost a year. Others regularly ignore mold. My current one ignored water damage. It’s what landlords do.

    That plight in the article, like many others, seems to be caused mostly from the steady but gradual defunding of the UK’s public services for to long time conservative and Tory control of the government.

    “The funding from the government to build new social homes is insufficient and so they have to rely on other income streams,” Rob says.

    r_thndr,

    Access to shelter is a human right, but access to a rental property requires an agreement between the tenant and the property owner.

    Where does the boogeyman capitalism figure into upholding your end of the bargain? If you’re unable to work, there’s an (admittedly minimal for a Western nation) safety net in place and countless charities willing to assist. You still have to contribute to society. Working isn’t the only way.

    PizzaMan,

    Where does the boogeyman capitalism figure into upholding your end of the bargain?

    The part where the threat of homelessness is coercive.

    If you’re unable to work, there’s an (admittedly minimal for a Western nation) safety net in place and countless charities willing to assist.

    For food there is a shitty safety net here. For rent, it is abysmal. It’s incredibly difficult to get help with rent, so saying there is countless charities willing to assist is grossly misleading. Social workers always recommend paying rent instead of food for this very reason.

    You still have to contribute to society. Working isn’t the only way.

    Being unable to work isn’t the only problem. There are next to no places in the U.S. where the minimum wage will cover the rent of a 1bd apartment. Landlords shouldn’t exist in the first place, they are just leeches.

    chriscrutch,

    the threat of homelessness is coercive.

    Well foxes and rabbits and blue jays don’t have capitalism or government, but if they don’t put in some work to eat and get shelter, then they won’t survive either. That isn’t a “threat,” that’s a physical truth of the universe that has existed for millennia. Nothing is achieved without work and input.

    PizzaMan,

    if they don’t put in some work to eat and get shelter, then they won’t survive either

    That’s not a good world. We shouldn’t seek to emulate it. We are higher beings than other animals, and we should act as such. We have more than enough for everybody to have shelter and safety, yet we instead choose a system that prevents all from having it.

    Nothing is achieved without work and input.

    I never said otherwise.

    SnowdenHeroOfOurTime,

    Reality is not your strong suit. Might consider balancing ideals with what actually has existed for thousands of years.

    Landlords do exist, and there are certainly people who defraud them by not paying rent despite agreeing to it. Most landlords don’t deserve a defense, but then again neither do the deadbeat scumbags which you seem to be simping for.

    yokonzo,

    You had a point until you became uncivil

    PizzaMan,

    Reality is not your strong suit.

    Jumping to insults when criticized shows how weak your position is.

    there are certainly people who defraud them by not paying rent despite agreeing to it.

    Landlords are scalpers. I have no empathy for them, nor should anybody else.

    SnowdenHeroOfOurTime,

    It’s shit like this that led to the coining of “npc”

    CosmicCleric,
    @CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s shit like this that led to the coining of “npc”

    Non-player character?

    PizzaMan,

    Great argument. You really have me convinced.

    chakan2,
    @chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

    Honest question…if land lords don’t exist, and you can’t afford a house, where do you propose we get housing from?

    PizzaMan,

    I answered this a little lower down:

    lemmy.world/comment/3402724

    IHaveTwoCows,

    What if we were allowed to buy or build without the value tripling immediately? What if hoarding housing resources was actually open to market prices instead of artificial scarcity?

    IHaveTwoCows,

    Honest question: do you think a landlord is A) one guy with a second property to rent out, or B) a coeporation absorbing ALL the properties they can and gentrifying the middle class into homelessness?

    chakan2,
    @chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

    Technically both. The former invariably turns into the latter.

    My question stands though…without landlords, where do people live if they can’t afford a home.

    IHaveTwoCows,

    The thing is, if they can afford landlords then they can afford a home. Guess who is deciding that they CAN’T afford a home?

    chakan2,
    @chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

    I don’t know many people that have 20% down in cash

    IHaveTwoCows,

    Certainly in this absolutely horrible economic environment created by capitalism you would never be able to get 20% down in cash as home values are inflated far beyond their actual value.

    arwengrey, (edited )

    So who deserves the rent? The government ? That’s even worse taxes are damn too high why do you think neighborhoods are being gentrified? Real Estate Investment Companies and banks are buying all of the properties and land. I used to be homeless thanks to these jabronis

    PizzaMan,

    So who deserves to rent?

    I’m not sure I understand your question.

    why do you think neighborhoods are being gentrified?

    Neighborhoods become too expensive to live in, and so minorities get forced out.

    Real Estate Investment Companies and banks are buying all of the properties and land

    Amd that shouldn’t be legal.

    arwengrey,

    Your username makes me hungry… now I want pizza.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • nottheonion@lemmy.world
  • kavyap
  • thenastyranch
  • ethstaker
  • InstantRegret
  • osvaldo12
  • DreamBathrooms
  • Durango
  • magazineikmin
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • mdbf
  • provamag3
  • ngwrru68w68
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • GTA5RPClips
  • modclub
  • Leos
  • tester
  • megavids
  • cisconetworking
  • normalnudes
  • anitta
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines