Post by High Priestess on Jan 13, 2018 22:18:36 GMT
A very bad law has expanded from San Francisco and Berkeley to Oakland -- namely the "tenant relocation" law which requires those property owners wanting to move into their OWN BUILDING to pay tenants an enormous "relocation fee" to get them out.
www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/12/19/oakland-approves-tenant-relocation-assistance-for-owner-move-ins-and-condo-conversions
Oakland property owners will have to pay tenants $6000 to $9800 in order to move into their own building. I consider this quite absurd ---- why should property owners be forced to pay for a tenant's living expenses if they are legally evicting that tenant. However, this type of law is popular in progressive cities where tenant activists are powerful groups and have an inordinate and excessive influence on city legislators. Essentially city council wants to make owners of private property into sources of charity for renters. The old simple idea of a mutual rental contract, which could be terminated by either party, has gone out the window with all these kinds of subsidies. In effect the old style rental contract no longer exists in many cities, and the mutuality and balance of the contract is destroyed, as these kinds of laws in effect allow the tenant to end the contract at the end of the lease term, but when the property owner wants to end the contract and evict, they may require "just cause" or have to pay an enormous fee. I think this type of imbalance in the contract should be examined at the state and federal level as I consider these "tenant relocation" payments to be unconstitutional.
www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/12/19/oakland-approves-tenant-relocation-assistance-for-owner-move-ins-and-condo-conversions
Oakland property owners will have to pay tenants $6000 to $9800 in order to move into their own building. I consider this quite absurd ---- why should property owners be forced to pay for a tenant's living expenses if they are legally evicting that tenant. However, this type of law is popular in progressive cities where tenant activists are powerful groups and have an inordinate and excessive influence on city legislators. Essentially city council wants to make owners of private property into sources of charity for renters. The old simple idea of a mutual rental contract, which could be terminated by either party, has gone out the window with all these kinds of subsidies. In effect the old style rental contract no longer exists in many cities, and the mutuality and balance of the contract is destroyed, as these kinds of laws in effect allow the tenant to end the contract at the end of the lease term, but when the property owner wants to end the contract and evict, they may require "just cause" or have to pay an enormous fee. I think this type of imbalance in the contract should be examined at the state and federal level as I consider these "tenant relocation" payments to be unconstitutional.