>landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason
I don't understand. Why aren't landlords able to do this? Isn't it seen as immoral to steal property from an owner?
I don't understand. Why aren't landlords able to do this? Isn't it seen as immoral to steal property from an owner?
Well, for one, the government should enforce contract neutrally - so if you sign a contract leasing your property, you can't unilaterally break this without cause.
Second, we as a society have an interest in giving people time to move their stuff out and find a new place to live.
I guess I see your point. I tend to side a bit harder with the landlords, but I don't want people tossed out on the streets without any sort of warning either.
I expect that that hardly ever happens. Landlords aren't in the business to make life unnecessarily bad for renters, they're there to make money.
A tenant who stayed in the same place for 3 years, always pays on time and never damages the property is preferably to an unknown. Landlords know that starting an eviction can cost them up to a year of income, plus there is always the risk that the new tenant is going to be even costlier.
Why on earth would a landlord roll the dice on someone new? My guess is that many of those sob stories you are hearing from tenants are their side of the story.
They aren't going to tell you that the miss rent sometimes (and they'd have to miss a lot of months before a landlord will start the eviction process).
They aren't going to tell you that the landlord had to make substantial repairs to damages that they caused.
They aren't going to tell you that they sublet to "their cousins", and have 4 people to a room in a 3 room house.
When you listen to a landlord's side of the eviction story, it always comes down to money: "that house is my income and I wasn't getting it anymore".
No landlord is cutting off their income stream for several months just because they want to throw tenants onto the street.
Your take is naive. Historically there was a lot of money to be made being a "slum lord" and renting in poorer communities where people have bad credit so can't get mortgages , there's a reason the term exists.
Oh really? What is my "take"?
> Historically there was a lot of money to be made being a "slum lord" and renting in poorer communities where people have bad credit so can't get mortgages , there's a reason the term exists.
Yeah, but that's not under discussion.
The point I made was that because evictions are so expensive (wiping out years of profit) and long for landlords, they are only ever a last resort.
When you hear right now, as in today, under current laws, sob stories from people who've been evicted successfully, it's highly probable that they're leaving out the actual reason that the landlord just wiped out up to a year of profit just to get them out the door.
No one is wiping out years of income and going into the red just because they want to be mean.
I guess you wrote something intended to have nothing to do with that. While I see that wasn't your intent in context I read you as saying tenant protections don't matter.
> they'd have to miss a lot of months before a landlord will start the eviction process
And you replied with:
> Doesn't matter if they have missed rent, they still need 30 days notice.
I can't tell if you are attempting to disagree with that statement of mine or not.
In a tenant protection environment, the tenant has the option to cancel when the lease ends, but the landlord does not. Regardless of where you are in the contract cycle, the landlord's only way to end the contract is through an eviction, and he will have to prove in court that the situation meets one of the lawful bases for eviction.
Unless we're talking about some rent controlled context, where in the US is this law?
https://sfrb.org/article/summary-ab-1482-california-tenant-p...
This is both rent control and eviction protection. You cant be evicted without “just cause” - all leases automatically roll over to "month to month".
Any multi-family older than 15 years falls under rent control and eviction control. Considering how little housing is built in CA, that's a huge number of housing units.
When it comes to single family homes, you are correct that they are eligible to be exempt if they aren't owned by a corporation. However, landlords had to give notice back in 2020 to current tenants for that property to be exempt. Notice can't be retro-active, so a wide swath of single family homes that were rented at the time are under rent and eviction control now.
Of course if the tenant leaves, there is an opportunity for the property to be exempt again.
That said, if you don't think the screws will slowly be tightened on AB1482, you're out of your mind. Just like in the major cities they'll be a bunch of "updates" to the law to the point San Francisco style rent control is state wide.
Nope, only if it is owned by a corporation. AB1482 exemption is standard in leases.
You have to keep in mind the vast majority of tenancies are in good faith.
Having grown up in rentals, and having had close family member kicked out of a rental with something like 1 weeks notice, I am very conflicted over the issue. Thank you for not responding in kind to the way my question was worded.