California Doing California Things

[ZiprHead]

"Landlords in LA cannot evict tenants from any rental property, including single-family homes, unless there was unpaid rent, documented lease violations, owner move-ins, or other specific reasons that would justify moving the tenant out.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Bomb#20]

"Landlords in LA cannot evict tenants from any rental property, including single-family homes, unless there was unpaid rent, documented lease violations, owner move-ins, or other specific reasons that would justify moving the tenant out.

What's wrong with that?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it -- I'm not here to make moral claims. I'm pointing out predictable consequences of setting the terms of trades by government command instead of letting the parties negotiate them. In this case one consequence is an increase in corporate ownership of residential real estate. If you like homes being corporate owned, maybe that's all well and good; but an earlier poster indicated he didn't like corporate ownership. And he blamed the private sector, but the private sector was dancing to the government's tune.

 

[ZiprHead]

"Landlords in LA cannot evict tenants from any rental property, including single-family homes, unless there was unpaid rent, documented lease violations, owner move-ins, or other specific reasons that would justify moving the tenant out.

What's wrong with that?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it -- I'm not here to make moral claims. I'm pointing out predictable consequences of setting the terms of trades by government command instead of letting the parties negotiate them. In this case one consequence is an increase in corporate ownership of residential real estate. If you like homes being corporate owned, maybe that's all well and good; but an earlier poster indicated he didn't like corporate ownership. And he blamed the private sector, but the private sector was dancing to the government's tune.

So what are the predictable outcomes of the quote you provided?

It sounds like letting landlords break lease agreements with impunity should be okay, and not letting them do so is causing landlords to sell their properties. It also sounds like the people advocating for such actions by landlords are immoral.

These are the kinds of things government should be involved in, making sure businesses follow their contracts. It's what keeps capitalism from becoming the wild west of old.

It's also why Trump was so hated in NYC. It was his business model to break contracts.

And it has yet to be established this is the reason for corporate takeover is actually true. It was put into the thread by one poster with absolutely no evidence of it being the case.

 

[Bomb#20]

The problem isn't knowing the list of grounds for eviction, but what isn't in the list: because the lease is up. That means if you want to sell somebody one-year occupation of your property, you're required to throw in an option for much longer occupation.

B - I can't find support of this, not that it's my job to do so. Got an LAHD link?

Los Angeles has a "Just Cause Ordinance". According to Google's AI Overview, "The JCO requires landlords to have a "just cause" to terminate a tenancy, including non-renewal." And "terminate a tenancy" including non-renewal isn't just an AI hallucination; finding proof of that took some digging.

https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2021/21-0042-S3_ord_187737_1-27-23.pdf

SEC. 165.03. JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS.
A landlord shall not terminate a tenancy unless it is based upon one or more of the following grounds:
A. The tenant has defaulted in the payment of rent.
...
E. The tenant had a written lease that terminated on or after the effective date of this Article, and after a written request or demand from the landlord, the tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions, provided that those terms do not violate this Article or any other provision of law.
...
​

They wouldn't have listed clause E if "terminate a tenancy" didn't include tenants with leases that terminated. So unless one of the other clauses applies, the landlord has to offer the tenant the option to renew the lease on similar terms. (A small rent hike is allowed, but not a large rent hike.)

"Landlords in LA cannot evict tenants from any rental property, including single-family homes, unless there was unpaid rent, documented lease violations, owner move-ins, or other specific reasons that would justify moving the tenant out.

What's wrong with that?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it -- I'm not here to make moral claims. I'm pointing out predictable consequences of setting the terms of trades by government command instead of letting the parties negotiate them. In this case one consequence is an increase in corporate ownership of residential real estate. If you like homes being corporate owned, maybe that's all well and good; but an earlier poster indicated he didn't like corporate ownership. And he blamed the private sector, but the private sector was dancing to the government's tune.

So what are the predictable outcomes of the quote you provided?

It sounds like letting landlords break lease agreements with impunity should be okay, and not letting them do so is causing landlords to sell their properties.

No. As I explained upthread in one of my no-doubt tldr posts, I'm not talking about landlords breaking lease agreements; I'm talking about landlords getting their property back when the lease runs out.

It also sounds like the people advocating for such actions by landlords are immoral.

These are the kinds of things government should be involved in, making sure businesses follow their contracts. It's what keeps capitalism from becoming the wild west of old.

It's also why Trump was so hated in NYC. It was his business model to break contracts.

Making sure businesses follow their contracts is an entirely separate matter from dictating the terms of contracts.

And it has yet to be established this is the reason for corporate takeover is actually true. It was put into the thread by one poster with absolutely no evidence of it being the case.

Yeah, I know, just like minimum wage hikes not causing job losses -- it's an article of faith among progressives that economic reasoning makes an exception for attempts to transfer wealth from outgroup to ingroup.

"People respond to incentives. That is the whole of economics -- the rest is commentary."

 

[ZiprHead]

The problem isn't knowing the list of grounds for eviction, but what isn't in the list: because the lease is up. That means if you want to sell somebody one-year occupation of your property, you're required to throw in an option for much longer occupation.

B - I can't find support of this, not that it's my job to do so. Got an LAHD link?

Los Angeles has a "Just Cause Ordinance". According to Google's AI Overview, "The JCO requires landlords to have a "just cause" to terminate a tenancy, including non-renewal." And "terminate a tenancy" including non-renewal isn't just an AI hallucination; finding proof of that took some digging.

https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2021/21-0042-S3_ord_187737_1-27-23.pdf

SEC. 165.03. JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS.​

A landlord shall not terminate a tenancy unless it is based upon one or more of the following grounds:​

A. The tenant has defaulted in the payment of rent.​

...​

E. The tenant had a written lease that terminated on or after the effective date of this Article, and after a written request or demand from the landlord, the tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions, provided that those terms do not violate this Article or any other provision of law.​

...​

​

They wouldn't have listed clause E if "terminate a tenancy" didn't include tenants with leases that terminated.

Yes, they can evict after the lease ends.

So unless one of the other clauses applies, the landlord has to offer the tenant the option to renew the lease on similar terms. (A small rent hike is allowed, but not a large rent hike.)

That's not the way I read it. I don't see anywhere that it says the land lord must offer a new lease.

"Landlords in LA cannot evict tenants from any rental property, including single-family homes, unless there was unpaid rent, documented lease violations, owner move-ins, or other specific reasons that would justify moving the tenant out.

What's wrong with that?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it -- I'm not here to make moral claims. I'm pointing out predictable consequences of setting the terms of trades by government command instead of letting the parties negotiate them. In this case one consequence is an increase in corporate ownership of residential real estate. If you like homes being corporate owned, maybe that's all well and good; but an earlier poster indicated he didn't like corporate ownership. And he blamed the private sector, but the private sector was dancing to the government's tune.

So what are the predictable outcomes of the quote you provided?

It sounds like letting landlords break lease agreements with impunity should be okay, and not letting them do so is causing landlords to sell their properties.

No. As I explained upthread in one of my no-doubt tldr posts, I'm not talking about landlords breaking lease agreements; I'm talking about landlords getting their property back when the lease runs out.

It also sounds like the people advocating for such actions by landlords are immoral.

These are the kinds of things government should be involved in, making sure businesses follow their contracts. It's what keeps capitalism from becoming the wild west of old.

It's also why Trump was so hated in NYC. It was his business model to break contracts.

Making sure businesses follow their contracts is an entirely separate matter from dictating the terms of contracts.

Can you point out "dictating the terms"?

And it has yet to be established this is the reason for corporate takeover is actually true. It was put into the thread by one poster with absolutely no evidence of it being the case.

Yeah, I know, just like minimum wage hikes not causing job losses -- it's an article of faith among progressives that economic reasoning makes an exception for attempts to transfer wealth from outgroup to ingroup.

"People respond to incentives. That is the whole of economics -- the rest is commentary."

Maybe the incentive is a butt load of money from corporate buyers. Both are speculation with no proof offered.

 

[ZiprHead]

Newsom trolling Trump hard.

 

[Bomb#20]

There are plenty of things wrong with Newsom, but advocate for genocide isn't one of them. In case anyone here didn't see it, here's the post from last year where Politesse admitted Israel isn't committing genocide and isn't trying to:

... Israel does not intend for the Palestinian people to exist on the other side of this conflict, at least not while in possession of their own land, faith, and culture. ...

If he sincerely thought "Israel does not intend for the Palestinian people to exist on the other side of this conflict.", full stop, then he wouldn't have added the "at least not while in possession of their own land, faith, and culture" part.

Here's the post where he tried to defend his trumped-up accusation of genocide after I called him on it: ...
The question of whether polluting a thread on California with off-topic Hamas propaganda is enough to make Politesse an "advocate for genocide", I'll leave to others.

I remain as unimpressed as I have ever been

Wasn't trying to impress you. Wasn't talking to you. There's a reason I used third-person.

with your rhetorical arguments concerning the word "genocide". The mass killings are what offends me about genocide, not adherence to any particular definition thereof.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with you caring more whether what you say is effective rhetoric than whether it's true; what I was aiming for was to make sure others are quite familiar with that too.

How you could possibly interpret me "derailing" a thread about California by condemning genocide

But you weren't condemning genocide. You were condemning Gavin Newsom and you were condemning Israel; neither of them is genocidal.

as somehow advocating for genocide is perplexing.

I didn't interpret you as advocating for genocide; I quite literally left that question to others. I'm merely observing that, based on your statements here, the case for you being pro-genocide is stronger than the case you presented for Gavin Newsom being pro-genocide. That is quite a low bar, so I would not take it as a strong enough case to infer you're pro-genocide -- you might perfectly well have some less nefarious reason for trying to spread a genocidal gang of terrorists' malicious disinformation.

As for the idea that any discussion of genocide could possibly be off-topic in a thread called "California doing California Things", that's absurd, and anyone with even a cursory knowledge of California history knows it.

That would be a substantive defense of your derail if you'd told us Gavin Newsom supports murdering Indians. But you didn't, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

It really was not that long ago. Some of those who deny the California genocide are defending their own great-grandparent's actions, and they are certainly defending the real estate transferred to their families as a result of the genocide, from the Law of the River to the termination era to redlining, right down to Prop 13. The inheritors of the genocide do not want to give up an acre of what their forebears won for them, and we have developed one of the most elaborate, restrictive, and labyrinthine systems of property law on the planet to serve that end.

Oh please. The labyrinthine system of property law was developed to help the inheritors of various Anglo-Saxon genocides of Celts defend their land titles against claims from heirs of dispossessed Anglo-Saxons, not heirs of dispossessed Celts, let alone dispossessed Californian Indians. All property rights in land are squatters' rights.

 

[Politesse]

Oh please. The labyrinthine system of property law was developed to help the inheritors of various Anglo-Saxon genocides of Celts defend their land titles against claims from heirs of dispossessed Anglo-Saxons, not heirs of dispossessed Celts, let alone dispossessed Californian Indians. All property rights in land are squatters' rights.

Are you high right now? California property law was not written by early medieval Anglo-Saxons.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The problem isn't knowing the list of grounds for eviction, but what isn't in the list: because the lease is up. That means if you want to sell somebody one-year occupation of your property, you're required to throw in an option for much longer occupation.

B - I can't find support of this, not that it's my job to do so. Got an LAHD link?

Los Angeles has a "Just Cause Ordinance". According to Google's AI Overview, "The JCO requires landlords to have a "just cause" to terminate a tenancy, including non-renewal." And "terminate a tenancy" including non-renewal isn't just an AI hallucination; finding proof of that took some digging.

https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2021/21-0042-S3_ord_187737_1-27-23.pdf

SEC. 165.03. JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS.​

A landlord shall not terminate a tenancy unless it is based upon one or more of the following grounds:​

A. The tenant has defaulted in the payment of rent.​

...​

E. The tenant had a written lease that terminated on or after the effective date of this Article, and after a written request or demand from the landlord, the tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions, provided that those terms do not violate this Article or any other provision of law.​

...​

​

They wouldn't have listed clause E if "terminate a tenancy" didn't include tenants with leases that terminated. So unless one of the other clauses applies, the landlord has to offer the tenant the option to renew the lease on similar terms. (A small rent hike is allowed, but not a large rent hike.)

There is still small owner exemption: CA Code 1946.2 (e) (8). As long as you are not a corporation, REIT, or LLC and have written in the lease the required legal blurbage then the house or condo you are renting is exempt and the tenancy can still end at the lease expiration. I don't even think rent control applies.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Winning the House isn't as big as the Senate

Be that as it may, my scenario necessarily gives Dems both chambers plus the presidency, and with them, the power to write and pass legislation and have it signed into law.
What would they then do about all the cheats, loopholes, gray areas etc. that The Felon has either created ex nihilo or intentionally distorted and exploited? Would they attempt to get rid of or outlaw unconstitutional practices after such practices put them in power? I doubt it. I also doubt that the corrupt SCOTUS would allow that. In fact I think the dictatorship powers they gave Trump would be withdrawn at first opportunity if a Dem became president.
The current picture is such that in-kind “cheating” is the only way Dems have any chance to stop the Nazi takeover, let alone acquire the power to put a stop to this kind of bullshit in the future.
I’m putting forth the “best case” scenario for stopping this tragic progression, and I still think it’s not enough.
IOW we’re fucked, no matter what.
Thanks, trumpsuckers.

Yep. We'd need to have Democratic Presidents for the next 20+ years to undo the damage that three Tump appointments have wrought. It gets even worse when you consider that if Thomas and Alito retire during Trump's current term, the Shitgibbon will likely put two more justices on the court who will be younger than 50 years old. If Roberts call it quits, 6 (!) SCOTUS justices will have appointed by Trump and all of whom can be expected to serve for 20 years or more.

In addition we have to hope that the the current Dem justices don't not retire or die.

Having all three branches of government isn't much help when the ultimate law making authority can rule however it pleases. When this infected boil of a SCOTUS puts a national ban on abortion and reverses Obergefell, then at least we don't have to speculate on much. And if the next elections go how I think they're going to go (illegitimate) it'll almost be kind of a relief, like dying from a long, horrific, painful disease.

 

[Elixir]

That postwar boom wasn’t a normal, repeatable event, it was the product of a world where much of the competition had been bombed into rubble, and the U.S. had the good fortune of two big oceans that protected it from getting knocked to the back of the line like everyone else.

A critical factor in that whole dynamic was the abundance of yet-to-be-exploited resources all over the continent. The few who got rich digging in their own backyards, are emblematic of the cherished spirits of unbounded opportunity, the inevitable rewards of hard work, the virtue of enterprising endeavors, the endurance of individual freedoms, and all the other aspects of “American superiority” that never existed.
Now, the barenaked sameness of America to any other semi-developed nation stares us in the face, causing those who still harbor those delusions of superiority to recoil in shame or strike out in anger.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is still small owner exemption: CA Code 1946.2 (e) (8). As long as you are not a corporation, REIT, or LLC and have written in the lease the required legal blurbage then the house or condo you are renting is exempt and the tenancy can still end at the lease expiration. I don't even think rent control applies.

That's an exemption to the requirements of CA Code 1946.2, which is a state law enacting somewhat similar tenant protections statewide.

(e) This section shall not apply to the following types of residential real properties or residential circumstances:
(1) ...
...
(8) Residential real property, including a mobilehome, that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, provided that both of the following apply:

(A) The owner is not any of the following:

(i) A real estate investment trust ...
​

"This section shall not apply" means the house or condo you are renting is exempt from CA Code 1946.2. That's not the same thing as implying the tenancy can end at the lease expiration; it only implies if you end the tenancy at that time then the state won't come after you for it. That doesn't mean the city won't come after you for it. Los Angeles has stricter rules than California as a whole. CA Code 1946.2 is a lot of dense legalese I didn't read most of, but unless it has a clause barring cities from imposing stricter "Just Cause" limits than the statewide limits, it isn't on point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are not seeing large scale speculative buying, we are seeing large scale flight from individuals renting out houses because it has become too risky for them. Same market, but the small fish are mostly driven out in favor of those big enough to be able to average out the risks. And those risks as always show up as an increased cost to the consumer.

Do you have any proof that it's what you say and not what Gospel said below?

Small landlords selling out doesn’t automatically lead to a handful of corporations controlling huge swaths of housing, unless you already have a system where Wall Street money can outbid working families every time. That’s not created by tenant protections, that’s a feature of the current market structure.

Remove the small fish from the pool, of course what's left are big fish!

 

[ZiprHead]

We are not seeing large scale speculative buying, we are seeing large scale flight from individuals renting out houses because it has become too risky for them. Same market, but the small fish are mostly driven out in favor of those big enough to be able to average out the risks. And those risks as always show up as an increased cost to the consumer.

Do you have any proof that it's what you say and not what Gospel said below?

Small landlords selling out doesn’t automatically lead to a handful of corporations controlling huge swaths of housing, unless you already have a system where Wall Street money can outbid working families every time. That’s not created by tenant protections, that’s a feature of the current market structure.

Remove the small fish from the pool, of course what's left are big fish!

That's not proof.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Better than what we have now" should always be the aim. If it is, then it's a ratchet; It allows small improvements to become large ones over time, avoiding the difficulty and peril of attempting large improvements in a single step.

I disagree. There has to be a ratchet in order for a ratchet-and-pawl model of history. If you mistake the slip for the goal, only stagnation can be expected. Small improvements are neither made nor kept by people with small conceptions and little initiative, but by generation after generation of high ideals and brave sacrifices.

A clear case of perfect being the enemy of good.

An improvement is an improvement even if it's not as much as you want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, what, Rosa Parks should have been petitioning for better padding in the colored section and just sort of hoped that her grandchildren's grandchildren would one day be allowed to sit in the middle rows as long as they aren't too loud? Fuck that. A citizen is a citizen, and should accept nothing less. If saying that causes conflict, win the conflict. And if genocide is wrong, it's wrong. Politics requires concessions, yes, but if all you ask for are concessions, you'll never even get those. What politician cares about a constituency that demands nothing and doesn't ask for much? Trump isn't sliding back toward the mean, he's sliding deeper into insanity, because that's what his most active and vocal supporters want.

By demanding perfection you are assisting our slide into insanity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Montgomery bus boycott was not a request for gradually better treatment. It was a demand for immediate full and equal treatment of all citizens by the city bus system. And they had every right to demand that, and they were successful in attaining that. That is how society advances.

No. It usually fails. We see the cases where it works because somebody pushed something that society was already ready to accept, they were just the tipping point. But most such demands go nowhere and you never hear of them. There's a major survivorship bias.

 

[Politesse]

So, what, Rosa Parks should have been petitioning for better padding in the colored section and just sort of hoped that her grandchildren's grandchildren would one day be allowed to sit in the middle rows as long as they aren't too loud? Fuck that. A citizen is a citizen, and should accept nothing less. If saying that causes conflict, win the conflict. And if genocide is wrong, it's wrong. Politics requires concessions, yes, but if all you ask for are concessions, you'll never even get those. What politician cares about a constituency that demands nothing and doesn't ask for much? Trump isn't sliding back toward the mean, he's sliding deeper into insanity, because that's what his most active and vocal supporters want.

By demanding perfection you are assisting our slide into insanity.

Support for Rosa Parks is insanity? I strongly prefer insanity, that being the case.

 

[Politesse]

The Montgomery bus boycott was not a request for gradually better treatment. It was a demand for immediate full and equal treatment of all citizens by the city bus system. And they had every right to demand that, and they were successful in attaining that. That is how society advances.

No. It usually fails. We see the cases where it works because somebody pushed something that society was already ready to accept, they were just the tipping point. But most such demands go nowhere and you never hear of them. There's a major survivorship bias.

I am well aware of that. Did someone tell you politics was nice? Protecting society from sliding into either totalitarianism or anarchy requires constant effort, and it claims a great many casualties. But the alternative to civil activism is just as bloodthirsty, and benefits only the tiny class of people currently being bought off by whatever the cirrent status quo might be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The trouble is, this market situation screws over any landlord who only has one or a few units. Theoretical diversifiability doesn't make him actually diversified -- he doesn't own enough units for that. So the ordinance in effect orders him to sell a high-risk-to-him option for the low-risk price. So it reverses the comparative advantage. In a free market for rentals the small landlord has a comparative advantage over the giant corporation. He's intimately familiar with the local housing market, he can make repairs himself or else knows who will do them at the best price, and he knows his tenants personally. But require him to give tenants an option on extending their stays and the giant corporation has the comparative advantage. Now the economically rational move for the small owner is to sell out to the giant corporation.

Why do you persist in using the heavy artillery against those armed only with faith?