Gov. Newsom's new bill allow tenants to pay only 25% of rent due (August: to rent, condo)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

From The link above
A lot of conditions associated with Trump's exec order which is a lot more reasonable.
A few comments
1) My rental is at a highr rent scale. If the tenant is unable to pay, they can move into a lower rent apartment. So they can not prove they will become homeless.
2) They will need to prove they went through the ringers applying for government loans
3) My rental is currently under month-to-month, so it's not an eviction, it's a simple decision by me not to renew the lease.

Where are the "reasonable conditions" that will keep the landlord solvent? There are a lot of people around here who are retired and have one or at most two rentals to subsidize their pension- they can't go on long paying the mortgage and taxes on those properties and not being able to collect rent, or evict the non paying tenant. A 'reasonable' approach would have been Trump going to HUD and acquiring rapid rehousing vouchers for this purpose. They are time limited, usually 6-12 months they pay the normal rent to the landlord but only charge the tenant a portion based on their income and expenses. Oh wait...it's entirely possible that Trump never heard of a rapid rehousing voucher, silly me

Regarding your 'month-to-month' rentals, if you don't renew their lease then you still can't evict them any more than you can kick out someone on a one year lease who fails to pay rent - the EO doesn't discuss term of the lease or whether or not it's month-to-month.

[columbusboy8]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Just because they - an affected group, I assume - could pay just 25% doesn't mean they wouldn't pay more. I think they will if they can and know the homeowner might otherwise go into foreclosure and everyone end up on the street.

I personally wouldn't make the minimum that low for private houses and apartment buildings with less than, say, 8 units.

Newsom does need to try harder to extract money from the Federal government.

Why should the other 49 states (Federal government ) be called on to bail out socialist California???????????????????????

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Where are the "reasonable conditions" that will keep the landlord solvent? There are a lot of people around here who are retired and have one or at most two rentals to subsidize their pension- they can't go on long paying the mortgage and taxes on those properties and not being able to collect rent, or evict the non paying tenant. A 'reasonable' approach would have been Trump going to HUD and acquiring rapid rehousing vouchers for this purpose. They are time limited, usually 6-12 months they pay the normal rent to the landlord but only charge the tenant a portion based on their income and expenses. Oh wait...it's entirely possible that Trump never heard of a rapid rehousing voucher, silly me

Regarding your 'month-to-month' rentals, if you don't renew their lease then you still can't evict them any more than you can kick out someone on a one year lease who fails to pay rent - the EO doesn't discuss term of the lease or whether or not it's month-to-month.

First I agree with you this is BS relieving the tenant from paying rent and not relieving the landlords from paying mortgage payments. Democrats or Republicans this is a contract violation between tenants and landlords.

You can do it a number of ways to keep people from becoming homeless but squeezing the mom & pop landlords in the middle is not the right way to go. You’re worsening the economy with more foreclosures and more tenants out on the street.

But like typical politicians using band-aid approach without thinking through. Maybe having millions of tenants becoming homeless is actually healthy, at least by then these lazy politicians will actually do something. Just like corporate bankruptcy is actually healthy for the economy.

Oh yes. Legally I can choose not to renew the lease and the tenant will need to find somewhere else to rent. It's not an eviction

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Where are the "reasonable conditions" that will keep the landlord solvent? There are a lot of people around here who are retired and have one or at most two rentals to subsidize their pension- they can't go on long paying the mortgage and taxes on those properties and not being able to collect rent, or evict the non paying tenant. A 'reasonable' approach would have been Trump going to HUD and acquiring rapid rehousing vouchers for this purpose. They are time limited, usually 6-12 months they pay the normal rent to the landlord but only charge the tenant a portion based on their income and expenses. Oh wait...it's entirely possible that Trump never heard of a rapid rehousing voucher, silly me

Regarding your 'month-to-month' rentals, if you don't renew their lease then you still can't evict them any more than you can kick out someone on a one year lease who fails to pay rent - the EO doesn't discuss term of the lease or whether or not it's month-to-month.

If the federal government blew it, then isn’t California just as culpable by passing this law?

Also, the bigger monkey wrench may be AB 1482, the rent control and just cause evictions. After the prior poster brought it up, it bears closer scrutiny. There are some exceptions but it doesn’t look like a landlord can non-renew a lease without meeting the provisions in the law.

“Q. How does this bill affect leases? If a tenant’s lease is up, can the landlord choose not to renew the lease?

A. The bill’s tenant protections -- just cause for eviction and the rent cap -- apply to both month-to-month tenancies and fixed leases. If the tenant is protected by just cause, the landlord must have a cause as provided in AB 1482 to terminate the tenancy. The expiration of the lease alone is not cause for eviction. Once a lease expires, a landlord can require a tenant to sign a written extension or renew a lease (that is substantially similar to the prior lease), but just cause also applies to that extension.“

https://a17.asmdc.org/issue/ab-1482-...sked-questions

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

Oh yes. Legally I can choose not to renew the lease and the tenant will need to find somewhere else to rent. It's not an eviction

True, but it becomes an eviction when they refuse to move.

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

True, but it becomes an eviction when they refuse to move.

Then it will hurt their credit rating and they will have trouble getting the next rental, pay a higher interest on a car loan, and may have trouble to qualify for a mortgage. It's to their best interest just to move.

[amokk]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

Then it will hurt their credit rating and they will have trouble getting the next rental, pay a higher interest on a car loan, and may have trouble to qualify for a mortgage. It's to their best interest just to move.

I don't think you've read up on the recent state wide rent control legislation that was passed.

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by amokk

I don't think you've read up on the recent state wide rent control legislation that was passed.

You're naive if you think I am going to show all my cards on the table.

[artillery77]

Originally Posted by amokk

I don't think you've read up on the recent state wide rent control legislation that was passed.

Why the hell would I follow that gibberish? Two votes matter, mine and the tenant's.

[artillery77]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

True, but it becomes an eviction when they refuse to move.

I would expect that we will see a return of people who were quite good at convincing others they need to live somewhere else.