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.


    • Melllvar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Clearly they’re more “real” than the jobs that disappeared during COVID.

        • Melllvar
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          My point is that landlord is more of a “real” job, if we’re measuring by how essential to society they are, than the BS make-work jobs that most people do.

          In other words, jobs that were lost during COVID are less essential (read: “real”) than jobs that were mandated to continue without interruption.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            My point is that landlord is more of a “real” job, if we’re measuring by how essential to society they are

            Landlords are essential to society in the same way that fleas are essential to dogs. Whether or not a job is a real job is based on how much value it provides to people. As in not the top 1%, there are too few of them for their wants to be relevant and they’re no longer actually people anyway.

            • Melllvar
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -11 year ago

              If the dog declared the fleas essential and forbade them from leaving, then your analogy would hold.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                What insight is this entire line of conversation meant to add to this thread? Clearly it’s something of substance, and not just pedantry about semantics, right?

                • Melllvar
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -11 year ago

                  The insight is that your claim doesn’t survive a logical analysis.

          • Franzia
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 year ago

            People owning things is not necessary for society.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -71 year ago

      Then what you want is less rental inventory. Because this is how you get less rental inventory.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        What, you gonna tear down the apartment buildings? You know you can just sell people the deeds to their apartments. That’s already in practice, in places with a shitload less homeless people.

        • Saik0
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          You know you can just sell people the deeds to their apartments.

          Considering that Apartments are not deeded per unit. No you can’t. You’d have to convert the apartment to condominiums… Setup an HOA (which everyone hates right?) then get everyone to pay into it… etc… You’re not getting away with not paying.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            Was that supposed to be a gotcha? Maybe your landlord should have replaced the lead paint in your childhood home.

            • Saik0
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Yes, that would literally be a gotcha. It’s legally not possible to do what you want to do. That’s a hell of a gotcha.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                What I’m describing already exists, making every other consideration moot. If something exists, it stops being impossible. Do you see how that works?

                • Saik0
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Apartments are not deeded by unit. So no. It cannot simply be done.

                  So you see how that works?

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    Did you miss the part where I told you this already exists? Because it does. It doesn’t matter whether or not you think apartments are deeded by unit, because we’re talking about the real world. If you want to get your point across, do it with some brainpower instead of “I’m Dirty Dan” ad nauseam.

    • @galloog1
      link
      English
      -321 year ago

      I am sincerely sorry that you don’t care about people’s quality of life and ensuring everyone gets quality housing over your ideology.

      • @MooseLad
        link
        English
        371 year ago

        ensuring everyone gets quality housing over your ideology.

        And yet here you are celebrating poor people getting kicked out of their homes.

        • @galloog1
          link
          English
          -71 year ago

          Less people got housing overall because grifters, not poor people were taking advantage. These largely were people that could otherwise afford it. It led to increased economic and societal barriers to starting new leases.

          This policy didn’t dismantle capitalism; it made the existing system more exclusive.

          • @MooseLad
            link
            English
            211 year ago

            You’re acting like rent grifting is some widespread problem. A vast majority of tenants aren’t destroying where they live and taking advantage of their landlords. In reality eviction moratorium was put in place so landlords couldn’t hike the cost of rent during the pandemic and that’s how most tenants are using it. We’re in a rolling recession and a lot of people are going to lose their homes because of this.

            • @galloog1
              link
              English
              -141 year ago

              Literally none of the rest is true and I challenge you to prove it. We are not in a recession. Rent grifting as a perceived problem causing the above effects regardless of being able to put any numbers towards it one way or another.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                111 year ago

                I lost my home of over 7 years at the end of last year because the landlord decided to increase the cost by $900 a month even though I managed to pay them for every month of the pandemic via housing assistance etc, so you can fuck right off with saying none of it is true.

                • Saik0
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  31 year ago

                  So your anecdote of your personal event is indicative of the entire market?

                  I’m sorry you had a bad time… but let’s look at what you said.

                  You’re implication here is that you’ve rented for 7 years, and apparently NEVER had a rent increase? That’s insane on it’s own. Now 7 years later you’re complaining that there’s finally a rent increase? Even though costs of maintaining a house has gone up over time… Those costs your landlord would have been eating for 7 years. Further, you never state what you were actually paying… If you were renting a $5000 house, and then it went up to $5900, that’s actually expected as rent tends to increase at about 2.5%.

                  Now if it started at $750 and now it’s increasing to $1650 with no changes to the property, then you might have a leg to stand on to complain… but please keep the emotions out of it. I used to rent at a condominium complex… Where each unit is owned. TONS of units would get trashed every year because the vast majority of renters do not know how to maintain a house… and don’t want to learn/be liable for it. Those units were NEVER maintained properly, because they simply were not educated on how to perform that maintenance, and I’m talking simple things like cleaning up after a liquid spill on carpet.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Please point out in my reply where I said I never got a rent increase during that time. I’ll wait.

                    Also, I don’t need you or any other asshole on here telling me what a reasonable rent increase is for my area, for the property I inhabited for 7 years. I already know, and a $900 increase all at once, even for this area, was absurd for where I was renting. It was such a ridiculous increase that I couldn’t justify it and had to move against my wishes, after being a model renter by most standards. I don’t need to tell you more than that.

                • @galloog1
                  link
                  English
                  -11 year ago

                  That has literally nothing to do with what the above poster claimed so you can cool your jets and consider that your landlord was only able to do that because they have a scarce resource, made more scarce by the above policies. I will not fuck right off while you folks make the situation literally worse. You can fuck off and let educated folks solve problems with real economic policies.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    -1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I made the situation worse? How exactly? I paid in full for every month I was there, my landlord didn’t lose anything on me as a renter, and it didn’t matter, still got priced out by an obscene raise in rent only done because we have zero rent control and there was nothing to stop her from getting away with it.

                    No, asshole, you can fuck off with your ignorance, I understood what Mooselad said perfectly well.

              • @MooseLad
                link
                English
                5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Literally posted today

                Literally none of that is true? So you’re saying a vast majority of tenants are destroying homes? That’s delusional lol

                https://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-recession-outlook-rolling-hard-landing-growth-gdp-bofa-2023-7?op=1

                https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2023/01/26/what-rolling-recession-what-means-and-why-we-might-one/11126039002/

                And there’s another one. A rolling recession is not the same thing as a recession.

        • Neuromancer
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -91 year ago

          Not really their home if they’re not paying for it.

          My house is my home because I pay for it.

        • @Supervivens
          link
          English
          -161 year ago

          They’re celebrating people who destroy their homes getting kicked out making it easier for other people (who likely need it just as much) to get in instead

          • @MooseLad
            link
            English
            24
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes because most landlords are regularly getting their homes destroyed and only kick out people who destroy their homes. They would never kick people out to hike rent prices. And it’s not like 9% of homes in America are just sitting vacant, right?

            • Saik0
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              And it’s not like 9% of homes in America are just sitting vacant, right?

              This alone means nothing…

              https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/united-states-housing-vacancy-rate-declined-in-past-decade.html

              2010 it was 11.4%, and in 2020 it’s now 9.7%. So either more houses that were vacant are no longer vacant… or the market has added more houses to the market overall that are not vacant to effectively scale the 11.4 down to 9.7%.

              But there’s a whole lot of caveats on how those numbers are generated as well…

              Housing units are classified as vacant if no one was living in them on Census Day (April 1) — unless the occupants are absent only temporarily, such as away on vacation, in the hospital for a short stay, or on a business trip.
              They are also classified as vacant if they are temporarily occupied entirely by individuals who have a usual residence elsewhere at the time of enumeration such as beach houses rented to vacationers who have a usual residence elsewhere.

              So any “shared” housing such as timeshares… or second homes are all considered “vacant” even if they aren’t and have people live in them for particular times of the year.

              Now you can make the claim that people with multiple houses are monsters… fine, but that’s a completely different thing than “9% of all houses are vacant”. I would also wonder how many houses are “vacant” because they’re literally unlivable. If you check the link the highest rates were states like Maine/Vermont/Alaska where no heat is literally a death sentence… but otherwise those houses would be unrentable.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        I agree with him and also care that people get quality housing

        Which would be easily possible if all the shitty landlords (including corps) weren’t allowed to just hold onto properties like they currently can

        We could easily house every homeless person in the US, but we dont

        • @galloog1
          link
          English
          -21 year ago

          We could also build more housing but you’d rather focus on targeting those that already have it making it more scarce.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        You should be, because that’s a stupid-ass opinion and something went very wrong in your life (blow to the head as a baby?) that you could ever say it.

        • @galloog1
          link
          English
          -11 year ago

          Your comment literally was just an insult and provided no argument. Why bother? It doesn’t make you look mature.