The Berkeley Property Owners Association’s fall mixer is called “Celebrating the End of the Eviction Moratorium.”


A group of Berkeley, California landlords will hold a fun social mixer over cocktails to celebrate their newfound ability to kick people out of their homes for nonpayment of rent, as first reported by Berkeleyside.

The Berkeley Property Owner Association lists a fall mixer on its website on Tuesday, September 12, 530 PM PST. “We will celebrate the end of the Eviction Moratorium and talk about what’s upcoming through the end of the year,” the invitation reads. The event advertises one free drink and “a lovely selection of appetizers,” and encourages attendees to “join us around the fire pits, under the heat lamps and stars, enjoying good food, drink, and friends.”

The venue will ironically be held at a space called “Freehouse”, according to its website. Attendees who want to join in can RSVP on their website for $20.

Berkeley’s eviction moratorium lasted from March 2020 to August 31, 2023, according to the city’s Rent Board, during which time tenants could not be legally removed from their homes for nonpayment of rent. Landlords could still evict tenants if they had “Good Cause” under city and state law, which includes health and safety violations. Landlords can still not collect back rent from March 2020 to April 2023 through an eviction lawsuit, according to the Rent Board.

Berkeleyside spoke to one landlord planning to attend the eviction moratorium party who was frustrated that they could not evict a tenant—except that they could evict the tenant, who was allegedly a danger to his roommates—but the landlord found the process of proving a health and safety violation too tedious and chose not to pursue it.

The Berkeley Property Owner Association is a landlord group that shares leadership with a lobbying group called the Berkeley Rental Housing Coalition which advocated against a law banning source of income discrimination against Section 8 tenants and other tenant protections.

The group insists on not being referred to as landlords, however, which they consider “slander.” According to the website, “We politely decline the label “landlord” with its pejorative connotations.” They also bravely denounce feudalism, an economic system which mostly ended 500 years ago, and say that the current system is quite fair to renters.

“Feudalism was an unfair system in which landlords owned and benefited, and tenant farmers worked and suffered. Our society is entirely different today, and the continued use of the legal term ‘landlord’ is slander against our members and all rental owners.” Instead, they prefer to be called “housing providers.”

While most cities’ eviction moratoria elapsed in 2021 and 2022, a handful of cities in California still barred evictions for non-payment into this year. Alameda County’s eviction moratorium expired in May, Oakland’s expired in July. San Francisco’s moratorium also elapsed at the end of August, but only covered tenants who lost income due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

In May, Berkeley’s City Council added $200,000 to the city’s Eviction Defense Funds, money which is paid directly to landlords to pay tenants’ rent arrears, but the city expected those funds to be tapped out by the end of June.


  • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have benefited from being able to rent a house because there’s no way I would have been able to afford to buy one at 18.

    • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Land lords aren’t the only option for short term housing. Housing can be provided by the state or the university without a profit motive for cheaper. You can look to systems like Singapore and Vienna where the public housing is robust enough to cover housing needs, without landlords leeching off the work of others.

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        I bet you’re going to say something like ‘but the government will provide it.’

        See my comment below.

        The government uses income taxes to build public housing, how is that not leeching off the work of others??

        • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Government, at least democratic ones, are controlled and accountable to the people, landlords aren’t. If your going to be forced to pay someone to exist then it’s better if you get some say in how that’s done.

          A landlord and the government also have completely different incentives. A landlords incentive is to raise your rent to:

          1. Get more money
          2. Raise the price of their property. The more you can charge in rent the more the property is worth
          3. Prevent you from being able to save up for a down payment to exit this exploitative system. They are also incentivised to obstruct any new construction as it would increase the housing supply and therefore decrease the price they can charge for rent and their property.

          A democratic governments interest is to keep voters happy. They can do that by building housing for voters and keeping rents stable for the voters in public housing. These incentives are muddled by corruption but even with that they are more aligned with your average person then a landlords.

          • holycrapwtfatheism@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh man this thread. Believing every person renting a house out is exactly as you lay in your description is fascinating in how wrong it is and fascinating how sad it is you’ve driven your thoughts so far down. This is not real world reality for the vast majority of landlords.

            • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I do not believe every landlord is like this, I believe this is the incentive structure for landlording. Individual landlords can act against their interest and not raise rent, just as an individual CEO can take a pay cut instead of firing workers, but they usually don’t because it goes against their material interests. But if you believe this isn’t the incentive structure tell me a reason a landlord will decrease rent or promote new construction, besides the kindness of their heart which I’m not willing to bet on.

        • Solumbran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are some stupid fallacies, but this one deserves a medal.

          Even though it’s hard to tell what is the most stupid, the fallacy or the reasoning behind it.

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Explain to me how, at age 18 with no money and minimum wage, I would be able to build a house. If there are no landlords, then there is no housing excess houses so I would need to pay for a house to be built. How can I afford to pay the workers to build the house and pay for the construction materials? You seem to think houses just magically spring from the ground at no cost. Taking away landlords doesn’t remove the cost of construction, materials and connection to utilities.

        I bet you’re going to say something like ‘but the government will provide it.’

        • limelight79@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The theory is that without landlords, there are a lot more houses on the market, driving down prices.

          Edit: I’m just relaying the theory. Take your arguments and downvotes elsewhere. So glad I’m done renting, though. I don’t envy anyone that is stuck with it.

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok let’s say that happens and house prices drop by half. What bank is lending an 18 year old 100-150k that’s making minimum wage? It’s still a minimum of 3.5k down payment as well.

          • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            How does that theory work? Landlords don’t just sit on empty houses. They make no money if it’s not rented.

            • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m afraid they do, and I’m completely against it. They make money on capital gains. And also by using the houses as equity to make other investments. Those are the big fish though, most landlords own only one or two houses.

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                They make money on capital gains. And also by using the houses as equity to make other investments.

                That requires them to sell the property. Just like stocks don’t actually make money until you sell them. And that kind of appreciation comes as ebbs and flows… I bought my house at 259k… According to Zillow it’s now worth ~410k. In order to actually realize the 150k worth of value I have to sell the house, or take money out against the house. Then when the market inevitably bursts… I’m negative in the house.

                If you’re negative in the house and miss a single payment you probably don’t have a house anymore. Nothing of this is making money on a house while it’s empty. And if they’re not paying the mortgage on it… the bank will simply take it, including the loans you’re assuming that they can borrow against houses for other investments… ultimately this ONLY works if the house is rented (or they’re working some other job that allows them to pay the loan payments.)

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Just like stocks don’t actually make money until you sell them.

                  Stocks sometimes (or even often) bear dividends. They can also split, and in some cases you can borrow against them.

                  You can also borrow against real estate holdings. I’m not sure if helocs (home equity lines of credit) have specific borrowing requirements, but if they don’t you can just borrow and use that money to pay the mortgage and taxes for a time.

                  I think this is all for small time landlords though. If you own a giant building with lots and lots of units, you may not require all or even most of the units to be rented in order to turn a profit, and there may be many scenarios in which case it makes sense to drive pricing higher through artificial scarcity than try to rent all of your units.

                • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  None of what you said is incorrect, but there are houses sitting empty that could be rented out. More than I expected in my city.

                  It’s a small percentage of course, and I expect that the houses are in really rich areas that increase in valuation at a faster rate than the cost of owning an empty house. I’m not an expert on this though.

                  • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s a small percentage of course

                    If we’re spending time chasing down 1% or less of all houses out there to punish people… then we’ve lost the point… The real answer is to build more housing, not chasing down the people who are “hoarding” it.

                    It’s simple logistics… increase supply or decrease demand. In this case demand is a static small increase year after year. This is bad policies (usually at the local level) that stops builders from building more houses (or only building mini mansions because that’s what local government incentivized through building code or otherwise [otherwise being that they collect most taxes out of that group of people]).

          • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ohhh right, so now that we have had landlords bear the cost of building extra housing, and therefore providing a benefit to society, only now do we not need landlords. I get it.