Post by High Priestess on Dec 5, 2018 2:37:35 GMT
This doesn't effect short term rental hosts as much as long term landlords, but as it's a property owner issue it's relevant and it could potentially effect any STR host who allows reservations over a month in length. Some cities in California, notably San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland, have passed laws that essentially require property owners to pay large fees in order to move back into their own home.
These so-called "relocation fees" were created in order to help tenants faced with eviction, to pay for their relocation to another apartment. I consider it profoundly unjust that any city would try to force any property owner to pay what are essentially the personal expenses of a tenant, at the termination of a contract. SInce contract termination is completely legal in many cases, such as when people want to move into their own house, it doesn't make any sense to in essence charge high punitive fees for doing something that is completely legal, nor to require one party to pay for personal expenses of another party in the contract. In the article, Councilmember Kaplan justifies these fees on the basis that "property owners are not poor."
Well if they aren't poor, why not require them to pay for health and dental insurance for their renters, or veterinary bills for their renter's dog...or any number of random things the renters need to pay for. I mean this argument is just totally illogical and in essence there is no valid argument -- it's just the city victimizing property owners.
For instance -- if a couple wanted to go on vacation for 3 months during the summer, and rent out their home while they were gone, the "relocation fees" law in Oakland could theoretically require them to pay $6500 or more as "relocation fees" to the subletters, when they returned, just in order to be able to get back into their own home.
These kinds of laws in essence make property owners into people forced to subsidize the private lives of renters. Tenants are responsible, like everyone else, to save money for their life expenses...such as moving, relocation, or putting down a deposit on a new apartment. It is perverse to make landlords pay for these things...it would be like forcing a a landlord to pay for a tenant's dental procedures through the argument that the tenant had such a high rent, that they could no longer afford medical care.
www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Military-couple-s-fine-to-return-to-Oakland-13432695.php
These so-called "relocation fees" were created in order to help tenants faced with eviction, to pay for their relocation to another apartment. I consider it profoundly unjust that any city would try to force any property owner to pay what are essentially the personal expenses of a tenant, at the termination of a contract. SInce contract termination is completely legal in many cases, such as when people want to move into their own house, it doesn't make any sense to in essence charge high punitive fees for doing something that is completely legal, nor to require one party to pay for personal expenses of another party in the contract. In the article, Councilmember Kaplan justifies these fees on the basis that "property owners are not poor."
Well if they aren't poor, why not require them to pay for health and dental insurance for their renters, or veterinary bills for their renter's dog...or any number of random things the renters need to pay for. I mean this argument is just totally illogical and in essence there is no valid argument -- it's just the city victimizing property owners.
For instance -- if a couple wanted to go on vacation for 3 months during the summer, and rent out their home while they were gone, the "relocation fees" law in Oakland could theoretically require them to pay $6500 or more as "relocation fees" to the subletters, when they returned, just in order to be able to get back into their own home.
These kinds of laws in essence make property owners into people forced to subsidize the private lives of renters. Tenants are responsible, like everyone else, to save money for their life expenses...such as moving, relocation, or putting down a deposit on a new apartment. It is perverse to make landlords pay for these things...it would be like forcing a a landlord to pay for a tenant's dental procedures through the argument that the tenant had such a high rent, that they could no longer afford medical care.
www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Military-couple-s-fine-to-return-to-Oakland-13432695.php
A married military couple who had to pay thousands of dollars to boot their tenants in order to move back into their Oakland home say the city law requiring the fee violates their rights.
The Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian property-rights firm based in Sacramento, said Wednesday in a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of the couple that the ordinance should be deemed unconstitutional and nullified.
Under Oakland’s law, owners moving back into their homes typically must pay $6,500 for studios and one-bedroom apartments, $8,000 for two-bedroom apartments and $9,875 for those with three or more rooms. The payments, which adjust for inflation, go to the tenants to help them relocate.
In its complaint, the Pacific Legal Foundation alleged that tenants can use the money for whatever they want, not just relocation needs. The firm said it’s an improper government seizure of property.
The Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian property-rights firm based in Sacramento, said Wednesday in a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of the couple that the ordinance should be deemed unconstitutional and nullified.
Under Oakland’s law, owners moving back into their homes typically must pay $6,500 for studios and one-bedroom apartments, $8,000 for two-bedroom apartments and $9,875 for those with three or more rooms. The payments, which adjust for inflation, go to the tenants to help them relocate.
In its complaint, the Pacific Legal Foundation alleged that tenants can use the money for whatever they want, not just relocation needs. The firm said it’s an improper government seizure of property.