Community Chat

[gertrudecloset]

---

@busymom22 wrote:

People seem to believe that landlords are these rich and greedy corporations when fact is most are owned by mom and pop landlords who own 5 or fewer units.

My family has rentals in California. The laws now totally favor the tenant.  My uncle had a unit in San Francisco that he wanted to give to his son for him to move into. It was rent-controlled and rented for way under market because of that. The tenant who lived there for 12 years was 62.  The law said that because of his age he could not be evicted and literally could live there until death.

The only thing my uncle could do was negotiate.  He had to pay the tenant $75k to move. 

---

@busymom22Yes, unfortunately for now the laws favor the tenants.  This, will not be the case for much longer as we will be having a national conversation about what to do with people who lost income and need help with the rent payback.  If they didn't have it then ~ are they going to run into a rich uncle to help?  This is not going to be "indefinite" much longer.

[gertrudecloset]

---

@chickenbutt wrote:

It seems odd that a tenant can have the power to not allow an owner to show the property.   Is this universal, or just an anomaly in some places?   It just seems wrong.  The tenant doesn't have any ownership privileges, to my knowledge.

---

I've never heard of this before in my life unless you're talking about people who are buying for investment purposes.  They have to allow Landlord access for repairs don't they?  Same applies for selling.  They may have certain persnickity rules for showing, but they can't totally stop showings of a private home.

[BirkiLady]

@depglass  How much longer are unemployment benefits? I don't even have a clue how much they are per month. It's beginning to sound like a scam with so many people still not looking for work since I see so many companies hiring. It doesn't make sense to me. 

[gertrudecloset]

Big attempts here to make political statements on the weekend.  I'm not surprised by this.  The first handouts were 600 dollars.  Now they're half of that.  Some are no longer getting either the UE or the extra added $300.00.  Who you gonna ask why they were given out to begin with?  To keep people from becoming homeless and hungry I'm sure was the thinking.

[depglass]

I think I heard they end in September, not sure of the date.  The benefits are $300.00, down from the $600.00 they were paying originally.  That was on top of state dollars, a real bonanza for some people.  Since I'm retired all the people I know are retired. Of course the workers at the grocery store are "essential."  DD works for a company that feeds Amazon, so she is also "essential."

[Love my grandkids]

@SurferWife That's always been my understanding. I am sure your very cogent reply was helpful!

[moonandthestars]

@gertrudecloset @chickenbutt 

Just to follow up and to clarify.   Tenants don't have the 'right' not to show the house, but in the real world there are some tenants who refuse to allow showings.  A landlord would need to fight in court, get the sheriff to evict, etc. and this can be a very long process.  Years even.  

[CAcableGirl2]

@depglass   I heard somewhere that you can still be evicted during this covid time due to the landlord doing "renovations".

My son rents an apt and the people below him were evicted and now they are doing some upgrades in their apartment.  

That may be the loophole that landlords are using to evict people. 

[Mz iMac]

@depglass   You stated......

"if one has no way to catch up the balance when the moritorium is over, that would be a free rent situation, but not of the tenant's choosing."

"The case went to court and the the judge ruled in favor of the tenants, who seemed to be retired with guaranteed income."

Where does the "free rent" come into play if these tenents have a guaranteed income? 

[Marp]

---

@chickenbutt wrote:

It seems odd that a tenant can have the power to not allow an owner to show the property.   Is this universal, or just an anomaly in some places?   It just seems wrong.  The tenant doesn't have any ownership privileges, to my knowledge.

---

@chickenbutt,  based on the information provided in the OP the idea that the tenant can prevent the property from being shown was manufactured by posters speculating and making assumptions.