4 ms·

> Because she stayed in the unit for six months, Hirschhorn qualified for L.A.'s recently adopted Just Cause Ordinance, which requires a landlord to have a lega

> Because she stayed in the unit for six months, Hirschhorn qualified for L.A.'s recently adopted Just Cause Ordinance, which requires a landlord to have a legal reason to evict her, and if there is no legal reason, the landlord is required to pay for relocation assistance for the tenant Wow. Is that a law most Californians support?

strangesmells02 3y ago
The problem with using the government to socially engineer society is that you even if you have good intentions one way or another, you end up playing whack-a-mole with infinite possible unintended consequences. Its also like 300,000 dollars to get a liquor license in L.A. which is the government essentially excluding all small business from starting a bar and playing favoritism to big corporations with the stated intention of safety/regulation.
- allenrb 3y ago
  That’s exactly the case with renter protections. I’m a landlord in a large American city. I’m also a “nice guy” who makes sure that things work. We don’t evict except when other options have been exhausted. Now for the problem: it takes many months to evict here, best case. As a result, we will never take a chance on a marginal tenant. No other decent landlord with whom I’ve spoken will either. Unintended consequences are real, especially when owners are deprived of their property rights. You might think I’m conservative, but for the most part I’m a flaming liberal. ;-)
- ttymck 3y ago
  I find it hard to believe that completely unregulated markets don't have the same "whack-a-mole with infinite possible unintended consequences", just a different set of consequences.
pydry 3y ago
It's a crappy sticky plaster on the social problems caused by de-taxing land and granting one class of people the right to extract rents from a other through legal title. Just like rent control. If your sympathies side with those on the side of the parasitic rent extraction machine depleting the productive capacity of the real economy (the side of the economy where people work rather than charge for access to assets), you won't be a champion of either of these things and will argue that they are well meaning but inadvertently bad for the victims of the parasites. Realistically some parasites can't be killed without killing the host - they entrench themselves that deeply. When Cuba decided to overhaul land rights, for example, the US invaded.
nness 3y ago
It might be surprising that many countries have such renters protections, as it attempts to equalise the power disparity between landlord and renters, and makes it harder to be a 'scum lord.' If you ignore the Airbnb element — then on the surface this appears to be an issue of a landlord letting a property which was not fit for occupation. It is the landlords obligation, not the renters, to determine whether their property is fit for purpose. If they failed to do so, then the renter is protected from punitive actions (such as being evicted) for wanting these fixes made when they are discovered. Seems reasonable to me.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  I don't disagree with your basic premise, but in this case, the tenant appears to be refusing access to rectify the problems. And if the residence isn't fit for occupancy, then nobody should be living there, rent or no rent. While apparently legal, the dissonance required to argue "I won't pay rent because the home isn't fit for purpose" while living long-term in that same house makes my eye twitch.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > While apparently legal, the dissonance required to argue "I won't pay rent because the home isn't fit for purpose" while living long-term in that same house makes my eye twitch. Depends a bit on whether it was "not fit for purpose" knowingly before living there, or part-way through. A landlord shouldn't be able to get around rental protections by intentionally neglecting the property, nor should they be able to hide serious problems and go "welp, move out" when discovered.
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      We agree. The dissonance peaks when the tenant refuses access to fix problems.
Drakim 3y ago
As long as "legal reason" includes a reasonable list of reasons I don't see a problem with such a law. There is an inherent huge power imbalance between the landlord and the renter, where if the landlord ad-hoc decides to throw you out before you have a new place lined up, you might find yourself homeless. When people have such power over others, they often abuse that power in various ways, like asking for sexual favors, raising the rent cost exploitatively high at inopportune moments, or blackmailing the renter to keep quiet about violations, etc. We as a society recognize that simply telling people "if you don't like the thing your landlord is asking of you in the middle of the night without warning, you are free to move out and become homeless until you find a new location" is not a humane and viable solution. Hence, we have laws for what can and can't be done.
- csomar 3y ago
  Having traveled dozens of countries from east to west recently, I had come to an interesting observation: The countries with the most protections have the worst rental market. The countries with the least protections have a much better rental market. When there are no protection, the landlord just throw you the key. There are no papers to sign. No background check. No significant deposits (or absolutely no deposits). And no wait times. Key and go! The worst markets were the most regulated with the most "protections". The US was exceptionally bad. There are several checks (ie: credit check), wait time, deposit, papers, onboarding process, more wait time, bank balance checks, more papers to sign. etc... for a few months rental. And you'd think all these people will make for a better maintained property. Nope.
  - Drakim 3y ago
    You'll have no argument from me that protection and regulation can go too far. But have you considered that as you were traveling across different countries, you'd be biased towards seeing the problems that affect you (finding a new place to rent) and you'd not be seeing the problems that don't affect you (existing renters being abused)?
    - csomar 3y ago
zo1 3y ago
If only we could have a petition and vote directly on this kind of thing, and not close voting until we confirm that X% of the (legal) population has voted. It's 2023, and I'm honestly baffled we haven't done something along these lines by now. Perhaps future generations will look back on this period and see us as barbaric because of it.
UncleMeat 3y ago
I'm no longer a Californian, but I support extremely strong tenant's rights laws. Landlords risk money. Tenants risk housing. The law should shift the balance of power here. Landlords love to say how they deserve their rents because they are taking on risk for the tenant - so they should actually take on that risk. Moving is very expensive. You have a deposit on the new rental. You have to pay for moving your stuff over to the new place. You might have to take time off work to search for a new rental. You probably have some overlapping lease time where you are paying double on rent.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  I don't understand why this was downvoted. It is a very reasonable position. For perspective, I have family members that are California landlords and have been screwed by tenants and California laws.

strangesmells02 3y ago

The problem with using the government to socially engineer society is that you even if you have good intentions one way or another, you end up playing whack-a-mole with infinite possible unintended consequences. Its also like 300,000 dollars to get a liquor license in L.A. which is the government essentially excluding all small business from starting a bar and playing favoritism to big corporations with the stated intention of safety/regulation.

allenrb 3y ago
That’s exactly the case with renter protections. I’m a landlord in a large American city. I’m also a “nice guy” who makes sure that things work. We don’t evict except when other options have been exhausted. Now for the problem: it takes many months to evict here, best case. As a result, we will never take a chance on a marginal tenant. No other decent landlord with whom I’ve spoken will either. Unintended consequences are real, especially when owners are deprived of their property rights. You might think I’m conservative, but for the most part I’m a flaming liberal. ;-)
ttymck 3y ago
I find it hard to believe that completely unregulated markets don't have the same "whack-a-mole with infinite possible unintended consequences", just a different set of consequences.

pydry 3y ago

It's a crappy sticky plaster on the social problems caused by de-taxing land and granting one class of people the right to extract rents from a other through legal title. Just like rent control. If your sympathies side with those on the side of the parasitic rent extraction machine depleting the productive capacity of the real economy (the side of the economy where people work rather than charge for access to assets), you won't be a champion of either of these things and will argue that they are well meaning but inadvertently bad for the victims of the parasites. Realistically some parasites can't be killed without killing the host - they entrench themselves that deeply. When Cuba decided to overhaul land rights, for example, the US invaded.

nness 3y ago

It might be surprising that many countries have such renters protections, as it attempts to equalise the power disparity between landlord and renters, and makes it harder to be a 'scum lord.' If you ignore the Airbnb element — then on the surface this appears to be an issue of a landlord letting a property which was not fit for occupation. It is the landlords obligation, not the renters, to determine whether their property is fit for purpose. If they failed to do so, then the renter is protected from punitive actions (such as being evicted) for wanting these fixes made when they are discovered. Seems reasonable to me.

alistairSH 3y ago
I don't disagree with your basic premise, but in this case, the tenant appears to be refusing access to rectify the problems. And if the residence isn't fit for occupancy, then nobody should be living there, rent or no rent. While apparently legal, the dissonance required to argue "I won't pay rent because the home isn't fit for purpose" while living long-term in that same house makes my eye twitch.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > While apparently legal, the dissonance required to argue "I won't pay rent because the home isn't fit for purpose" while living long-term in that same house makes my eye twitch. Depends a bit on whether it was "not fit for purpose" knowingly before living there, or part-way through. A landlord shouldn't be able to get around rental protections by intentionally neglecting the property, nor should they be able to hide serious problems and go "welp, move out" when discovered.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    We agree. The dissonance peaks when the tenant refuses access to fix problems.

Drakim 3y ago

As long as "legal reason" includes a reasonable list of reasons I don't see a problem with such a law. There is an inherent huge power imbalance between the landlord and the renter, where if the landlord ad-hoc decides to throw you out before you have a new place lined up, you might find yourself homeless. When people have such power over others, they often abuse that power in various ways, like asking for sexual favors, raising the rent cost exploitatively high at inopportune moments, or blackmailing the renter to keep quiet about violations, etc. We as a society recognize that simply telling people "if you don't like the thing your landlord is asking of you in the middle of the night without warning, you are free to move out and become homeless until you find a new location" is not a humane and viable solution. Hence, we have laws for what can and can't be done.

csomar 3y ago
Having traveled dozens of countries from east to west recently, I had come to an interesting observation: The countries with the most protections have the worst rental market. The countries with the least protections have a much better rental market. When there are no protection, the landlord just throw you the key. There are no papers to sign. No background check. No significant deposits (or absolutely no deposits). And no wait times. Key and go! The worst markets were the most regulated with the most "protections". The US was exceptionally bad. There are several checks (ie: credit check), wait time, deposit, papers, onboarding process, more wait time, bank balance checks, more papers to sign. etc... for a few months rental. And you'd think all these people will make for a better maintained property. Nope.
- Drakim 3y ago
  You'll have no argument from me that protection and regulation can go too far. But have you considered that as you were traveling across different countries, you'd be biased towards seeing the problems that affect you (finding a new place to rent) and you'd not be seeing the problems that don't affect you (existing renters being abused)?
  - csomar 3y ago

zo1 3y ago

If only we could have a petition and vote directly on this kind of thing, and not close voting until we confirm that X% of the (legal) population has voted. It's 2023, and I'm honestly baffled we haven't done something along these lines by now. Perhaps future generations will look back on this period and see us as barbaric because of it.

UncleMeat 3y ago

I'm no longer a Californian, but I support extremely strong tenant's rights laws. Landlords risk money. Tenants risk housing. The law should shift the balance of power here. Landlords love to say how they deserve their rents because they are taking on risk for the tenant - so they should actually take on that risk. Moving is very expensive. You have a deposit on the new rental. You have to pay for moving your stuff over to the new place. You might have to take time off work to search for a new rental. You probably have some overlapping lease time where you are paying double on rent.

CogitoCogito 3y ago
I don't understand why this was downvoted. It is a very reasonable position. For perspective, I have family members that are California landlords and have been screwed by tenants and California laws.