PDA

View Full Version : Renters can now be evicted for possessing weapons - ammo ?


bg
10-15-2007, 10:23 AM
Boy this is going to be a mess. What if a person is law-abiding and the land
lord just wants to get rid of them for whatever reason ? If legally owning
a firearm/ammo and living in an apartment may get you thrown out, what
rights do law-abiding renters have if any ? Sounds like flat out discrimination
to me for exercising rights under the 2nd Amendment.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/local/Los_Angeles/San_Bernardino_Sun/SIG=11hh46raf/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbsun.com%2Fnews%2Fci_7181361
One of five anti-gang bills Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed last week targets tenants keeping weapons in their homes illegally.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Paul Krekorian, D-Burbank, allows city attorneys and prosecutors to begin eviction proceedings against people who illegally possess weapons or ammunition.
I don't know what the bill's number was, but many people rent and many own
firearms. Who's to determine what is legal and what isn't ? :confused: :eek:

rkt88edmo
10-15-2007, 10:45 AM
What if what if what if.

I think the law is a bit lame, seems necessary just because they have made it so darn hard for landlords to evict in the first place, so how do we fix a bad law? more laws :rolleyes:

Boy this is going to be a mess. What if a person is law-abiding and the land
lord just wants to get rid of them for whatever reason ? If legally owning
a firearm/ammo and living in an apartment may get you thrown out, what
rights do law-abiding renters have if any ? Sounds like flat out discrimination
to me for exercising rights under the 2nd Amendment.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/local/Los_Angeles/San_Bernardino_Sun/SIG=11hh46raf/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbsun.com%2Fnews%2Fci_7181361

I don't know what the bill's number was, but many people rent and many own
firearms. Who's to determine what is legal and what isn't ? :confused: :eek:

AJAX22
10-15-2007, 10:50 AM
If they just let us evict tennants at will and got rid of the dang rent controls, 90% of the 'problem areas' would clean themselves up overnight.

Its a buisness, higher rents mean nicer appartments, more maintenence, better security/survailance etc.

You don't get to complain when your rent is 800$ a month for a two bedroom appartment with a garage in west LA.

This will solve nothing

N6ATF
10-15-2007, 11:25 AM
Is it possible not to take everything he signs as an attack on lawful gun owners?

Boy this is going to be a mess.
For ex-cons, recipients of restraining orders who are prohibited from owning firearms, yes.

What if a person is law-abiding and the land lord just wants to get rid of them for whatever reason ?
It's too hard to evict people even if the law specifies cause. This bill is not cause to evict law-abiding gun owners. What you're describing is an at-will eviction. These apparently are illegal in CA.

If legally owning
a firearm/ammo and living in an apartment may get you thrown out, what
rights do law-abiding renters have if any ?

It won't. The article said ILLEGALLY. ILL - LEGALLY.

Sounds like flat out discrimination to me for exercising rights under the 2nd Amendment.
No, it's discrimination against ex-cons and those under restraining orders. Where do you get that it's an attack against law abiding citizens?

I don't know what the bill's number was, but many people rent and many own firearms. Who's to determine what is legal and what isn't ?

The justice system, as always!

tgriffin
10-15-2007, 11:39 AM
If they just let us evict tennants at will and got rid of the dang rent controls, 90% of the 'problem areas' would clean themselves up overnight.

Its a buisness, higher rents mean nicer appartments, more maintenence, better security/survailance etc.

You don't get to complain when your rent is 800$ a month for a two bedroom appartment with a garage in west LA.

This will solve nothing

Rent control serves a purpose. I agree, that like any system, it has its faults, but the majority of laws regarding leasing, renting, and zoning/developing of property are very necessary. While I heartily disagree with section 8 laws and the like, housing and real estate collectively is the one area of industry in which I believe total free market and laissez-faire regulation would destroy our society as we know it. It is the one area of industry that needs to be, no... must be, regulated outside of private industry.

SemiAutoSam
10-15-2007, 11:42 AM
Is it this one ?

I didn't see a Bill # at the article listed in the first post.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_271_bill_20070706_chaptered.html

Maybe this one.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1013&sess=CUR

berto
10-15-2007, 11:42 AM
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/local/Los_Angeles/San_Bernardino_Sun/SIG=11hh46raf/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbsun.com%2Fnews%2Fci_7181361

I don't know what the bill's number was, but many people rent and many own
firearms. Who's to determine what is legal and what isn't ? :confused: :eek:

Illegal possession, you know, felons and the otherwise prohibited.

Zhukov
10-15-2007, 11:48 AM
I live in unincorporated Hayward. Hayward has rent control (rent price increase limits). Since I'm technically unincorporated, I have to use whatever rules Alameda County has, instead of Hayward. While living with the same landlord since this townhouse was built, our rent was relatively cheap. We were good tenants, we never complained, we handled everything on our own, and we were rewarded by not really having major rent increases over the years we've lived here. When the places were sold our rent went up $300 a month. Had we had rent control, we could have at least not suffered such a large increase right away and it would have been so traumatic financially (single mother, 3 kids who never had the $$$ to save up for stuff like this).

All I'm trying to get at is Rent Control isn't evil. It doesn't bring in bad people. Section 8 on the other hand....every area I've seen that takes Section 8 tends to have their crime rates go up and the choice of quality tenants go down. Never been a huge fan of Section 8, and I had a father who needed it...and I saw the neighbors he had...which reaffirms what I said about quality tenants going away.

bwiese
10-15-2007, 11:55 AM
Rent control serves a purpose. I agree, that like any system, it has its faults, but the majority of laws regarding leasing, renting, and zoning/developing of property are very necessary. While I heartily disagree with section 8 laws and the like, housing and real estate collectively is the one area of industry in which I believe total free market and laissez-faire regulation would destroy our society as we know it. It is the one area of industry that needs to be, no... must be, regulated outside of private industry.

Zoning at least has some benefits for property owners. However, zoning can magnify recessions. A sharp guy with an Econ background tells me that Houston as a city has shorter recessions/slowdowns than other metro areas: lotsa folks just go work at home - laid off from your mechanics job? Hang out your shingle.

As far as rent control, what you have said is BS. Rent control causes rents to randomly skyrocket, and quality to decline. It destroys marketplace incentives and attracts crappy unmotivated hard-to-evict people. It stops new properties from being built to meet demand because the demand is artificial, unmanageable, with unpredictable risk.

Section 8 at least compensates the landlord something like a market rate. If he doesn't wanna do Sec 8 he doesn't have to; rent control, by contrast, is forced on owners. (Whether the gov should offer Sec 8 is a whole 'nuther issue, but at least it's not forced on a property owner - and Sec 8 does help some seniors with medical problems.)

Laissez faire real estate works everywhere else, how come rentals are so much better and priced more rationally than in rent control cities like SF and NYC and Santa Monica?

No one wants, for example, to build new ordinary rental housing in SF. There's no payback and great risk you'll accumulate 'frozen' tenants - folks who move in and stay for 20-30 years at a very low rate (with mandated increases far less than inflation or necessary to maintain property).

You get someone that moves in and has frozen rent for decades. There are quite a few folks in SF paying $1000 or less for 2br apartment. Of course, the landlord skimps on repairs and just goes for bare minimum.

My exGF lived in SF in a rent controlled apt in Richmond/Seacliff area. She was paying $1200 for a 2br/1ba with *large* kitchen and lotsa storage - she'd lived there for 7-8 yrs and her rent had only gone up a tad (even though demand skyrocketed). Of course the tile in bathroom had problems and it needed paint, the hallway door was stuck, lotsa other repairs needed, etc. She went on to buy an $850k condo in Sausalito but was actively thinking of keeping the SF apt and subletting it. That didn't happen, and I believe rent skyrocketed to almost $3K. So that removed that apt from the 'middle ground' and the person that ordinarily could've afforded it has to go somewhere sh*tty - so instead he moves out of the city.

Oh, go to NYC and look at all the apt buildings, they look like crap. (And I am not referring to 'apt' as condo, those terms are used similarly over there.)

Rent control also demotivates people. If they have frozen cheap rent, they don't have to attain new skills or be very economically competitive. They can go play their nose flute on the street or do some other BS arts/'social service' job that no one really wants. It creates a form of welfare & wealth transfer coming directly from a landlord's pocket.

Remember that many landlords are not big companies. They are mom & pop with a spare rental unit or a fourplex rental property. Those are the people getting screwed w/rent control; the big building developers get all sorts of subsidies and discounted 'infill' land from the City so their cost relationships in building, renting and risk are warped.

AJAX22
10-15-2007, 12:09 PM
Rent control serves a purpose. I agree, that like any system, it has its faults, but the majority of laws regarding leasing, renting, and zoning/developing of property are very necessary. While I heartily disagree with section 8 laws and the like, housing and real estate collectively is the one area of industry in which I believe total free market and laissez-faire regulation would destroy our society as we know it. It is the one area of industry that needs to be, no... must be, regulated outside of private industry.

I couldn't disagree more,

Rent controll results in housing shortages, property who's upkeep costs are more than the revenue, and a lack of investment in areas where the rents are incapable of paying both taxes and a mortgage.

Rent controll Creates slums and high crime areas by encouraging landloards to let the buildings deteriorate.

Rent controll falls under the catagory of an Entitlement and in my opinion is total B.S. You aren't entitled to a cheap bed and free bread and government cheese.

Any law which redistributes the wealth (and that is what rent controll does, its basic micro econ) is legalized theft. I'd suggest you read Bastiat's "The Law"

If you want to know why neighborhoods turn to sh*t, its because laws exist which prevent landlords from kicking out scumbag tennants who trash the property or raising the rent to fair market value in the hopes of attracting a more professional tennant by offering a more quality remodel.

The government has (in my opinion) NEVER gotten involved with anything they didn't F up. Rent control is no exception.

I feel prety strongly on this issue for two main reasons,

1. I am a property manager and I have severe limitations as to what remodeling/improvements I can do not because we don't want to do them, but because its hard to keep the property in the black (especially when tennants pull sh*t like bringing termite infested furniture into the place and we have to tent the complex out of our own pocket) Were we able to charge market price for the appartment we would be able to install the security systems, fencing, new plumbing, garage refurbishing, granite countertops, hardwood flooring etc. that we would like to do instead of having to repair things on the cheap.

2. My family's estate was appropriated for the greater good once before, I've seen our ancestrial home, and its beautifull, except that it has been converted to low income housing appartments (In Russia). The argument was that we didn't need the wealth, we didn't deserve the wealth, and the common people had a right to that which we owned and paid for. (and if you think its easy for Kossak Jews in Czarist Russia to ammass property wealth, you're mistaken) When the communist revolution came, they made my great grandfather dig his own grave before they went to shoot him, only because he was able to bribe the guard was he able to flee and emigrate (legally) to the united states. Now that capitalism's back, the same people who lived in my ancestors mansion during comunism are still there with the exception that they now claim title to the property and own those little appartments, (they were entitled to them afterall).

If I own property, I OWN it, and I should be allowed to do with it as I see fit, tennants who rent it for a tiney portion of the amount I have invested shouldn't get priortiy over the actuall owner of the land. If they dont like how I run things, then leave and go elsewhere, if not STFU don't go whining to big brother because you're somehow entitled to that which my family worked hard and sacraficed to pay for.

:rant:

bwiese
10-15-2007, 12:10 PM
While living with the same landlord since this townhouse was built, our rent was relatively cheap. We were good tenants, we never complained, we handled everything on our own, and we were rewarded by not really having major rent increases over the years we've lived here. When the places were sold our rent went up $300 a month.

The new owner has to pay for the property. He was nice, he coulda evicted you.

Had we had rent control (read: property theft), we could have at least not suffered such a large increase right away and it would have been so traumatic financially (single mother, 3 kids who never had the $$$ to save up for stuff like this).

Why do you feel the need to be on a personal welfare program directly sponsored by your landlord?

If you can't afford your place, move. If you still can't afford something, move outta CA. But you need to think about your circumstances and skill levels and should undergo some deep thinking as to why you're not economically competitive and can't afford rent that a millions others in SF greater Bay area can.


All I'm trying to get at is Rent Control isn't evil. It doesn't bring in bad people.


It IS evil. It distorts the marketplace, it reduces supply of quality housing, it reduces landlords' desire to keep up property (so he ends up hoping to eventually flip for the land value and doesn't care as much about the bldg). It attracts lazy unmotivated people who specifically seek freebies. The most penalized folks are the small landlords with a rental house or a small apt property.

By this logic we need 'steak control'. Not enough people have "access to steak" at "below market" prices. They become customers at Joe's Steakhouse and pay the same dinner bill for over 20 years. Of course, about at the middle of this timespan, the restaurant barely complies with health codes, it's dirty & in need of renovations, the service sucks and the meat is gristle-fat you wouldn't even feed a dog. But you've got your consistent price in steak, and poor people can have their gristle-fat in a sh*tty place w/poor service.

AJAX22
10-15-2007, 12:17 PM
One more thing I'd like to add.

One of our tennants (one with a 800$ per month two bedroom appartment with garage parking and storage space) hasn't been in her house in the last eight months. (and prior to that she'd only show up for two or three days a month)

She doesn't live there, she just keeps it because its cheaper than renting a storage facility and someday possibly, she might want to live there while they renovate her house or other appartment, or she jsut might want to throw a party etc.

And we have to eat a $1200 difference between what we're getting and fair market value, so that her place can deteriorate through lack of maintenence.

oh and she's the one who brought in the termites.

Wulf
10-15-2007, 12:57 PM
Where does this law leave someone like Corwin? Someone who's in the system for illegal possession but neither convicted or released?

bwiese
10-15-2007, 1:00 PM
Where does this law leave someone like Corwin? Someone who's in the system for illegal possession but neither convicted or released?

As I understood it, Corwin's out on bail.

He's not (and won't) be convicted of a crime.

A landlord who evicted you for a crime that was not a crime could be in an 'interesting' situation :)

tyrist
10-15-2007, 1:04 PM
This law makes it easy for landlords to get rid of trouble making tenants. Make it easier to get rid of gang members and parolees (usually the same people) who harass and intimidate other tenants of the property.

Rent control is one of the worst things to ever happen. Rent control areas instantly become locations for vice, drugs, and gangs. It lowers the supply of housing and depresses the whole area. Oh ya and it brings in parolees, drug dealers, gang members, and violence.

dfletcher
10-15-2007, 1:14 PM
Telling a person what they can earn with their own property is wrong and that includes an apartment building.

If a person owned a nice warm jacket and could sell it for a few hundred dollars, the city (let's use SF as an example) has no right telling that person they have to sell it to a homeless person for $5.00. Of course SF would do that and subsidize (meaning taxpayers make up the difference) the balance to the seller.

As I mentioned to three folks overheard grousing about rent in SF and what SOBs their landlords were - "Maybe you just can't afford to live in San Francisco?" There's nothing wrong with that and it's not a londlord's responsibility to change that equation.

Wulf
10-15-2007, 2:50 PM
As I understood it, Corwin's out on bail.

He's not (and won't) be convicted of a crime.

A landlord who evicted you for a crime that was not a crime could be in an 'interesting' situation :)

I understand all that, but I was asking the question as a hypothetical example. Can the landlord initiate the eviction process on arrest, or do they have to wait for conviction. In something like Matt's case, he could be evicted before he was even very far along in the legal process. Additionally, if arrest is sufficient to initiate eviction, the DA's could find themselves with another arrow in their quiver. DA: "You sure you dont want to plead to this lesser charge? If you do I can get the paper work done in time to keep you from getting evicted."

bwiese
10-15-2007, 4:44 PM
I understand all that, but I was asking the question as a hypothetical example. Can the landlord initiate the eviction process on arrest, or do they have to wait for conviction.

Arrests really mean nothing. The arrest & initial jailing-or-bail is just meant to assure the person shows up for trial.

I believe it's now illegal for most prospective employers to ask of you, "Have you ever been arrested?" - that's evolved into "Have you been convicted of a crime?"

If the landlord evicted you for arrest and you were later found not guilty or charges dropped, the landlord would have an interesting situation. (Evicting you for arrest even before a trial found you guilty would be highly problematic anyway.)

This is really addressed at parole violators, etc.

AKman
10-15-2007, 4:56 PM
By this logic we need 'steak control'. Not enough people have "access to steak" at "below market" prices. They become customers at Joe's Steakhouse and pay the same dinner bill for over 20 years. Of course, about at the middle of this timespan, the restaurant barely complies with health codes, it's dirty & in need of renovations, the service sucks and the meat is gristle-fat you wouldn't even feed a dog. But you've got your consistent price in steak, and poor people can have their gristle-fat in a sh*tty place w/poor service.

By this logic we need "gun control" and "ammo control" so we can access at below market prices. Too bad it wouldn't work any better than the other government-mandated price controls. Doesn't anyone remember the wonderful products and services that were available in the Soviet Union?

bg
10-15-2007, 6:10 PM
I disagree on the subject of rent control. Out here east of LA there are a
lot of seniors who have mobile homes and very little income. If not for the
rent control in our town, they'd be out on their 6's. I support rent control
as I too live in a senior park where rent control is enforced. We keep
this older park in very nice condition and the Trust the property is in
always gets it 85,000.00 + a month.

Most all the coaches are from the 60's 70's and look really nice. The front
of each is always kept by us tenets as well as the sides and the back.

We keep our places nice and still have relatively cheap rent. I'm 110% for
this and will support rent control anywhere & anyway I can when it comes
to our park.

Zhukov
10-15-2007, 6:56 PM
I've seen plenty of small 1br apartments go for the same amount of money per month as our townhouse around here. The landlords probably do LESS work there for cleaning-up/fixing-up than here. I believe our rent stopped with the $300 increase because my mom has NEVER been late or missed a payment in 25+ years.

But even since the increases there is a lot that even the new owner skimps on that people besides us complain about. One good reason for the rent control is it can keep a reliable tenant within your property. I've seen at least 4 or more families so far in 2 years be evicted for failing to pay rent and it took the owner a long time to find someone to replace them.

So it is worth it to raise the rent dramatically and lose someone extremely reliable? Again, since the new owners I've seen more people in and out of this place than in all the years I've lived here (23+). Assuming we want a handout is pretty ignorant. Wanting to avoid an instant $300/month increase that maybe could be spread over 3 years by rent control is what we would prefer. We'll take the increase in stride, but it just would have been nice to not see $300/month leave your pocket instantly with a new owner.

And again, the LEAVING THE AREA option is pretty stupid. My mother and I (just us here now, brothers are gone) take care of my grandparents due to one having later stages of alzheimers and the other being in poor physical condition. The bay area is OVERPRICED property, not fairly priced.

SemiAutoSam
10-15-2007, 7:00 PM
I recall a bill that sounded a lot like licensing of ammo when I was searching on the Arnold's website.

So it looks like they are attempting to control ammo as well as the handguns that will eventually be outlawed from the confines of California.





By this logic we need "gun control" and "ammo control" so we can access at below market prices. Too bad it wouldn't work any better than the other government-mandated price controls. Doesn't anyone remember the wonderful products and services that were available in the Soviet Union?

bwiese
10-15-2007, 7:09 PM
I disagree on the subject of rent control. Out here east of LA there are a
lot of seniors who have mobile homes and very little income. If not for the
rent control in our town, they'd be out on their 6's. I support rent control
as I too live in a senior park where rent control is enforced. We keep
this older park in very nice condition and the Trust the property is in
always gets it 85,000.00 + a month.

Most all the coaches are from the 60's 70's and look really nice. The front
of each is always kept by us tenets as well as the sides and the back.

We keep our places nice and still have relatively cheap rent. I'm 110% for
this and will support rent control anywhere & anyway I can when it comes
to our park.

Well, then - say Hi to your neighborhood friend Karl Marx.

It sounds like a buncha folks with poor life planning skills strongarmed the property owner. The owner has a right to do what he wants to do with his property and charge the price he wants.

If it were me that owned the property and rent control was in the offing, I'd just turn it into a car lot or junkyard or regular housing or business or *something* that was not rent controlled.

Those folks should move to AZ or UT or someplace cheaper they can afford, instead of stealing from the owner.

Your definition of the trust getting a 'nice income' is not necessarily his. The difference in what he could get vs what he is mandated to accept is, pure and simple, theft (well, extortion, since it uses the arm of the state).

bwiese
10-15-2007, 7:15 PM
I've seen plenty of small 1br apartments go for the same amount of money per month as our townhouse around here. The landlords probably do LESS work there for cleaning-up/fixing-up than here. I believe our rent stopped with the $300 increase because my mom has NEVER been late or missed a payment in 25+ years.

So what?

But even since the increases there is a lot that even the new owner skimps on that people besides us complain about. One good reason for the rent control is it can keep a reliable tenant within your property. I've seen at least 4 or more families so far in 2 years be evicted for failing to pay rent and it took the owner a long time to find someone to replace them.

You may be a reliable tenant, but most aren't in this situation.

Besides there is an excess of tenants from which to choose. Raise the rent, raise the income for upkeep and then update the property and the riff-raff goes and better people (who can afford the higher rates) move in and care for property better.



So it is worth it to raise the rent dramatically and lose someone extremely reliable?

Yep. Remember that tax factors come into play too.

Again, there are more people than rentals esp with mortgage slowdown /slower RE sales.


Again, since the new owners I've seen more people in and out of this place than in all the years I've lived here (23+). Assuming we want a handout is pretty ignorant. Wanting to avoid an instant $300/month increase that maybe could be spread over 3 years by rent control is what we would prefer. We'll take the increase in stride, but it just would have been nice to not see $300/month leave your pocket instantly with a new owner.

Your attempting to not pay $300 is taking $300 from the landlord. That's theft.


And again, the LEAVING THE AREA option is pretty stupid. My mother and I (just us here now, brothers are gone) take care of my grandparents due to one having later stages of alzheimers and the other being in poor physical condition. The bay area is OVERPRICED property, not fairly priced.

The price is what people will pay for it and people will pay for it. If you're not there someone else will be. If you can't keep up you need to move on and not burden others with your problems.

Rent control is theft from property owners, pure and simple.

ghettoshecky
10-15-2007, 9:02 PM
hey this law is pretty interesting, so if I toss in a couple rounds of tracers into a tenants home I can evict them if I was a landlord? hmm would help some people I know who are stuck with some unsavory characters as tenants.

dfletcher
10-15-2007, 9:26 PM
Is there any other transaction where a buyer with less money can go to a seller and demand he be allowed to pay the same amount for a product now that he paid in years past - and, jump in line ahead of folks willing to pay more money? And, the seller is required to make the sale?

If that is not appropriate regarding food or cars or real estate, why is it appropriate when renting an apartment?

And BTW - if the city of SF would drop rent control and allow builders to build the price of rentals would fall.

Scarecrow Repair
10-15-2007, 9:50 PM
One good reason for the rent control is it can keep a reliable tenant within your property. I've seen at least 4 or more families so far in 2 years be evicted for failing to pay rent and it took the owner a long time to find someone to replace them.

So it is worth it to raise the rent dramatically and lose someone extremely reliable?

What makes that the government's business? What on earth makes it anybody's business except the property owner's? Maybe he wants to convert to condos and make a profit. Maybe he wants to knock out walls and have fewer bigger units. Maybe he wants to add walls and have more smaller units.

Maybe he just wants to do his own thing with his own property. Why is that anybody else's business?

Tell you what. Let's look in your house and your neighbors' houses and identify unused space and force you to rent that out. After all, that is better for the greater good of society, is it not?

Let's check your vehicle usage. How often do you actually drive your pickup? Maybe the government should loan it out (at rent controlled prices no less) to your neighbors when they need to haul something and you are not using it.

How about that closet full of clothes? Not wearing them all at once, are you? Because there are a lot of poor people who would love to have decent clothes, and the government can hand them out and collect them back and wash them, and it won't affect you at all, will it, because you only wear that particular suit on Sundays. Right?

As soon as you start thinking that the government has any kind of moral obligation to protect people from themselves or manage their business, you have entered the nanny zone.

Scarecrow Repair
10-15-2007, 9:56 PM
If rent control were just, it would work both ways. You as a renter want the landlord to shut up and take lower than market rent because that is fair, according to you.

What happens if there is a glut of units available and landlords have to lower the rent to fill units? How would you like it if you were forced -- forced! -- to continue to pay higher rent while your new neighbor moved in at $300 less?

Be a little pissed, I imagine.

Be a little annoyed and upset, no doubt.

You'd scream bloody murder and threaten to sue and rant and rave about the friggin' government sticking its nose into your business, most likely.

Sauce, goose, gander. Your case is as poorly thought out as gun grabbing or any other property theft.

metalhead357
10-15-2007, 10:15 PM
Government intrusion into lawful commerce between renter and rentee......

Any Questions?


Its ALWAYS a bad mix...........

let the market decide & let the goobermint officials keep thier hands out of most everything....especially land use & rights.

((Yeah...like I know its gonna happen))

So ok.... whats the solution? How about actually ENFORCING some of the statues ALREADY on the books. We dont need ANY more laws like this.

Zhukov
10-15-2007, 11:02 PM
So when a corporation abuses its power or the land it owns, to say dump toxic chemicals, the government shouldn't step in? I mean, it's their land right?

When a landlord refuses to fix things or keep up his property, no government body should ever get involved to help the tenant. It's his property, we need to stay out of it.

If you try to leave from that property and break your lease because of poor maintanence and you get assessed a fine from the landlord (losing security deposit) or your credit could potentially take a hit, the government should never get involved, right?

Some of us don't make a lot of money. Some of us never had the opportunity to save money. Some of us have been ****ed over by others. Some of us have failed to seize opportunities when they presented themselves. Some of us chose family over personal gain. Because we stayed home instead of going to college to take care of a sick family member, we should be pushed around because we make less money? Without ANY form of government regulation, people literally get away with murder and get taken advantage of. And due to their lack of funds, they cannot hire a decent attorney to defend themselves.

SOME form of help, even if minor, should be provided to assist those in need. It's part of helping your community, not this cut-throat bull that you are advocating. The reason this state, the reason this country is such a mess, is because nobody tries to help one another anymore. Everyone would rather advocate fending 100% for yourself without anyone willing to help. That's like saying we shouldn't donate money to Matt because he failed to save up enough money to fund a high-quality attorney JUST-IN-CASE someone thought his legal firearms were illegal. I mean, why should we help ANYONE, right?

Hell, let's just abolish the police. They're apart of the government and they run around trying to help people. Let citizens just look out for themselves all the way around. Here's a gun, here's some ammo....GOOD LUCK!

I'm against our current welfare system, but I think a well regulated system with limits on how long you can be on it would be good for society. Right now you can basically sit on it forever and never have to work again. That is the kind of crap that needs to end.

But with the mindset you're going at, there shouldn't be grants for college, there shouldn't be ANY assistance for ANYONE, anywhere. Because that's the government intruding, right?

God forbid I want to help people.

It's not even like this area is a great area, they're lucky to have someone like my mom who, while being forced to take care of 3 kids, work full-time, NOT get on welfare, AND be fully apart of her kid's life....it's HER fault for my father being a drunken piece of **** who was unable to provide for us. It's HER fault for taking care of my grandparents.

"I'm sorry, mom. You tried to be a good person, you tried to never abuse the system, you tried to be responsibile. That doesn't fly in this country anymore, so now I'm going to have to dump you in a ditch somewhere so I can make my overpriced rent payment."

Smokeybehr
10-15-2007, 11:25 PM
I hate to piss in everyone's corn flakes, but what does rent control or Section 8 have to do with landlords evicting someone because they are illegally in possession of firearms?

SemiAutoSam
10-15-2007, 11:29 PM
Nuthin.

I hate to piss in everyone's corn flakes, but what does rent control or Section 8 have to do with landlords evicting someone because they are illegally in possession of firearms?

Charliegone
10-15-2007, 11:48 PM
I gotta agree with Bill...having been former landlords, being nice doesn't pay the bills, yeah sure they pay everything on time most of the time, but when they leave...boy do they leave a mess. My parents learned that the hard way....unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the people who lived in that apartment or whatever will leave the place clean, etc even if they were good tenants (deposit is good, but..). I argued with my parents on how to handle things, they refused to raise prices on the properties we were renting because they felt, "pity" (people weren't that well off or whatever, but in reality that's not my problem)...of course when they left, they left a s*** load of mess...but hey they wanted to learn the hard way...oh well. 800 bucks for rented house in Ontario...hell I would have raised it to at least 1,200 bucks...I gotta eat too! I think some people need to understand, people go into renting properties for a steady income and probably to make some money as well, if the government is in there telling you can't do that, what's the point of it? Might as well just hand the property over to the government.

odysseus
10-15-2007, 11:52 PM
Wow. Ok I was staying away from this thread, however I guess I am jumping in. I have been a landlord, single residence and multi-unit, partnerships, and even rented as a tenant myself during some of those times too.

BTW to stay on topic, I can understand the law in assisting communities against gangs, but something about this law leaves a bad taste in my mouth - and I am not convinced it is a tool that will be effective for a lot of fundamental reasons.

Now on to rent control and Zhukov's reply. Zhukov, I can feel you have some personal bite in this, but I think you are a bit tangled on the subject.

So when a corporation abuses its power or the land it owns, to say dump toxic chemicals, the government shouldn't step in? I mean, it's their land right?

This is erroneous reasoning and a "red herring" of a reply. Corporations who dump toxic chemicals illegally are breaking serious ecological laws. Since your land is next to my land, and chemicals don't stay on just your land - you are dumping on my land, air, and water too. Stay on topic. BTW, most rentals are not owned by corporations either - FYI.

When a landlord refuses to fix things or keep up his property, no government body should ever get involved to help the tenant. It's his property, we need to stay out of it.

Yes. And as a tenant you have quite a long list of actionable items if the landlord is not reasonably maintaining the property. First and foremost it is a breach of contract on his end of the lease, when reasonable efforts are not made.

If you try to leave from that property and break your lease because of poor maintanence and you get assessed a fine from the landlord (losing security deposit) or your credit could potentially take a hit, the government should never get involved, right?

Again, the government is NOT INVOLVED right off the bat. Let's clear the air - a tenant and landlord are in a CONTRACT. An agreement for use of property at a price. You didn't sign up to rent it from the government (assumably not a HUD property), so your rights are the force of the contract. No one made you to take on that contract, you did it freely - so your first action is against the other person you made your agreement with. Keep in mind in landlord/tenant arbitration or small claims court, everything weighs heavily on the side of the tenant in even non rent-control jurisdictions. Again, if the landlord is not maintaining the property, you can pretty much get out of the lease, but follow the correct path. There are plenty of resources that will show you how and what to do.

Why do you want the government involved so much with your household? Do you think they can manage it for you better than you can?


Some of us don't make a lot of money. Some of us never had the opportunity to save money. Some of us have been ****ed over by others. Some of us have failed to seize opportunities when they presented themselves. Some of us chose family over personal gain. Because we stayed home instead of going to college to take care of a sick family member, we should be pushed around because we make less money? Without ANY form of government regulation, people literally get away with murder and get taken advantage of. And due to their lack of funds, they cannot hire a decent attorney to defend themselves.

No one is getting away with murder. Don't be silly. Most of the landlords are people just like you who have been able to get a property to market. If the price of a rental is getting expensive, it is a force of the free market. Why? Because prices are made not from the sellers (landlord leasing price), but from the buyers (tenants buying leases). In a rising rental market it is TENANTS that are raising prices. I know that might sound strange to someone not in business, but think it through and you will see. You want to protect yourself? Negotiate a LEASE term in the contract. Lock in your price. If after the unlock landlord wants to go up, well negotiate, pay it, move on to another place that works for you. It is a market and a business.

I understand though that it can be frustrating, especially in many areas of California, that the cost of living is high. I also understand that for some, income levels are not rising and times are tough. The unintended consequence of the housing bubble is that rentals in some areas are going up in prices as the rental market sees a current surge. Yes, that can be difficult - but it is not the owners fault that people are willing to pay a given price and rental rates are going up. If they weren't, they would be going down (and they do go down).


SOME form of help, even if minor, should be provided to assist those in need. It's part of helping your community, not this cut-throat bull that you are advocating. The reason this state, the reason this country is such a mess, is because nobody tries to help one another anymore. Everyone would rather advocate fending 100% for yourself without anyone willing to help. That's like saying we shouldn't donate money to Matt because he failed to save up enough money to fund a high-quality attorney JUST-IN-CASE someone thought his legal firearms were illegal. I mean, why should we help ANYONE, right?

While I agree that people should help their communities, and our society is a bit more self centered than the previous generation - this has nothing to do with why rent control actually can hurt tenants (less supply available, less improvements) and why there is a rental market. Hey - you DO HAVE TO FEND for yourself. That's what landlords are doing, they are running a business! If I ran a grocery store, should I just lock my prices on produce for you while the suppliers charge me more? How long will I stay in business? Can't I also make a living too from some profits from this business? Same with be a landlord. Inflation, insurance, TAXES, maintenance, utilities, services, ALL are going UP in prices. Yet you think I shouldn't be able to raise my rent to address this and make nothing. There would be NO RENTALS available to you then Mr. Marx! You need to read up on economics. Start with Macro Econ, to get a basic understanding of supply and demand.


But with the mindset you're going at, there shouldn't be grants for college, there shouldn't be ANY assistance for ANYONE, anywhere. Because that's the government intruding, right?

Red Herring argument again. Assistance for grants, scholarships, donations, and many other givings are not always Government given either! And these are given so you can ADVANCE and educate yourself. We want people, and our society to do better! This again doesn't mean that government should force landlords to go broke (and then one less rental on the market for tenants).


"I'm sorry, mom. You tried to be a good person, you tried to never abuse the system, you tried to be responsibile. That doesn't fly in this country anymore, so now I'm going to have to dump you in a ditch somewhere so I can make my overpriced rent payment."

If the rental is overpriced, then don't rent it. If it is overpriced, then the other person won't rent it at that price either? Guess what landlords do. They lower the rental price. Like I said, tenants set the price. Also again, while I feel your pain having been young, and low of funds - you are tangled here on your personal frustrations versus the truth about this matter.

artherd
10-15-2007, 11:56 PM
Exquisitely well put.
If rent control were just, it would work both ways. You as a renter want the landlord to shut up and take lower than market rent because that is fair, according to you.

What happens if there is a glut of units available and landlords have to lower the rent to fill units? How would you like it if you were forced -- forced! -- to continue to pay higher rent while your new neighbor moved in at $300 less?

Be a little pissed, I imagine.

Be a little annoyed and upset, no doubt.

You'd scream bloody murder and threaten to sue and rant and rave about the friggin' government sticking its nose into your business, most likely.

Sauce, goose, gander. Your case is as poorly thought out as gun grabbing or any other property theft.

Zhukov
10-16-2007, 12:48 AM
Well put...calm...logical argument

Thank you Odysseus for a well argued and well put reply. I appreciate that more than anything.

Most of my arguments reflect emotions mainly and how I've watched many people do the RIGHT thing and get nowhere because the system is so utterly broke while those that abuse the system constantly get ahead.

Again, thank you for the reply.

metalhead357
10-16-2007, 5:52 AM
So when a corporation abuses its power or the land it owns, to say dump toxic chemicals, the government shouldn't step in? I mean, it's their land right?

SOME form of help, even if minor, should be provided to assist those in need. It's part of helping your community, not this cut-throat bull that you are advocating. The reason this state, the reason this country is such a mess, is because nobody tries to help one another anymore. Everyone would rather advocate fending 100% for yourself without anyone willing to help. That's like saying we shouldn't donate money to Matt because he failed to save up enough money to fund a high-quality attorney JUST-IN-CASE someone thought his legal firearms were illegal. I mean, why should we help ANYONE, right?

Hell, let's just abolish the police. They're apart of the government and they run around trying to help people. Let citizens just look out for themselves all the way around. Here's a gun, here's some ammo....GOOD LUCK!

I'm against our current welfare system, but I think a well regulated system with limits on how long you can be on it would be good for society. Right now you can basically sit on it forever and never have to work again. That is the kind of crap that needs to end.

But with the mindset you're going at, there shouldn't be grants for college, there shouldn't be ANY assistance for ANYONE, anywhere. Because that's the government intruding, right?

God forbid I want to help people.
Corporations are not people & I've made the argument on many threads why they should not be treated as such...here is yet another.

DONT confuse PRIVATE help with goobermint "help".........

Nice try...police do serve a purpose & seperate and aside from property laws that we're talking about here.

No arguments about the stance on the welfare system..it needs to change.

God doesn't forbid it...but WHY make help goobermint controlled? this contry operated JUST FINE without goobermint help for 2/3 of its existance without welfare. Private help from individuals and/or chruches/groups/ etc. is quite different than a gov. handout.

petey
10-16-2007, 1:59 PM
Text of AB 1013 can be found at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1013&sess=CUR&house=B&author=krekorian

Basically, amends section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow prosecutors to remove tenants who are a public nuisance. Before, tenants who were using the property as a crack house could be removed. Illegal weapons are now another means to remove them.

(2) For purposes of this section, "weapons or ammunition purpose"
means the illegal manufacture, causing to be manufactured,
importation into the state, transportation, possession, possession
for sale, sale, furnishing, giving away, or providing storage of, a
firearm, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 12001 of the Penal
Code, or of any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any
firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any
ammunition which contains or consists of any flechette dart, any
multiburst trigger activator, any short-barreled shotgun, any
short-barreled rifle, any leaded cane, any zip gun or unconventional
pistol as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12020 of the Penal
Code, or of any assault weapon as defined in Section 12276, 12276.1,
or 12276.5 of the Penal Code, or of any .50 BMG rifle, as defined in
Section 12278 of the Penal Code, or of any ammunition as defined in
paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 12316 or Section 12323 of
the Penal Code, or of any tear gas weapon as defined in Section
12402, if the offense occurs on the subject real property and is
documented by the observations of a peace officer.

In theory, if you were convicted of an AW violation, the prosecutors could notify your landlord and you that you need to move out.

Rumpled
12-17-2007, 2:09 AM
I'm very anti rent control; but still wonder about the biggr issue of each area having a good proportion of differences in prices of housing stock.

The gardeners, waiters, and burger flippers and barristas all need to live somewhere. We all need these low priced service jobs near us - they can't be outsourced to India. And they can't all commute from Arvin to San Jose.

I don't know the answer, for now I just see the problem.

acrostoa
12-17-2007, 3:39 AM
If gardeners and baristas cannot afford rent then they will either find a better paying job or move to a less costly area. If that happens then there will be a labor shortage which will increase the cost of your daily latte so that the coffee shop can pay a higher wage along with a surplus of rentals on the market that were vacated by the gardeners. Rent will come down as a result, which will let the coffee shop sell their lattes for less and decrease the wage of the barista. It is a self balancing system.

We know for a fact that Central Planning does not work even when operated by geniuses. Let’s face it, Russians are great thinkers. They have 6 of the top ten chess players in the world. Topalov, Kramnik, Mamedyarov, Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich. If the Soviets couldn't figure out a way to equally balance out resources versus costs, what makes you think that your representatives in Sacramento and City Hall, who got elected because of their speaking skills and good looks, can succeed where brilliance has failed?

An insofar as rent control goes, somebody at sometime worked extra for that rental property that they now own. IE my grandfather worked 2 jobs, sometimes 3 to provide for his family. My father works 12 hours a day 5 days a week and has done it for as long as I can remember. Who the f*#& are you to tell them what they can and cannot do with their property? You’re not the one who sacrificed. If you cannot afford it then MOVE. My family loss everything in Oklahoma during the dust bowl and then lost it all again 10 years later by floods in Missouri. My grandfather relocated to Texas, Arizona and finally California in search of jobs after he got back from the Korean War. I won’t get into how we have gotten flooded 3 more times in California either. And btw, my mother walked out on us when I was 6 and left my father to raise my brother, my sister and myself. My family is a testament to the American spirit. If you want more, work more. Don’t cry for the government to stick it to someone else for your benefit.

5968
12-17-2007, 10:12 AM
Boy this is going to be a mess. What if a person is law-abiding and the land
lord just wants to get rid of them for whatever reason ? If legally owning
a firearm/ammo and living in an apartment may get you thrown out, what
rights do law-abiding renters have if any ? Sounds like flat out discrimination
to me for exercising rights under the 2nd Amendment.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/local/Los_Angeles/San_Bernardino_Sun/SIG=11hh46raf/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbsun.com%2Fnews%2Fci_7181361

I don't know what the bill's number was, but many people rent and many own
firearms. Who's to determine what is legal and what isn't ? :confused: :eek:

I think you missed this part: against people who illegally possess weapons or ammunition.

bwiese
12-17-2007, 10:25 AM
I think you missed this part: against people who illegally possess weapons or ammunition.

Correct.