200+ Families Evicted... Continued (5) - Posted by RT in CA

import · February 28, 2002, 12:32pm

Posted by RT in CA on February 28, 2002 at 16:58:35:

When I read the definition of “Mass Displacement”, I think it’s kinda rough.

As you said in your posting, there is no time frame mentioned. It also doesn’t say how many mass displacement a landlord can do a year.

The 5-mile radius area is also a joke, Oops, sorry, but does that mean you can start 2 mass displacements in the north of the town and south of the town which are 11 miles apart? That tells you landlord that if you want to purchase rentals, don’t do it in one town. Spread it out.

And they are going to make it a 90-day instead of 30-day period before the tenants have to move out. Do you know how many tenants would “suddenly forget” to pay their rents when they know they will move out for sure in 90 days? What do you do? To give a 2nd eviction notice?

The proposed bill doesn’t compensate landlord anything. Everything is for the tenants, even though the chance to have another mass displacement is rare.

This whole thing simply drives me nuts.

RT in CA

import · February 28, 2002, 12:32pm

200+ Families Evicted… Continued (5) - Posted by RT in CA

Posted by RT in CA on February 28, 2002 at 13:32:46:

This is the 5th news article of Mass Eviction happened in Northern California. I hope I don’t bore you folks. But it seems like the tenants are getting initial victory. However, the legistrature only goes against “Mass Displacement” and there is a definition of it. Surely, it’s getting interesting…

Why do I feel I am watching a creation of history?

RT in CA

Renter protection measure advances

By Gwendolyn Crump – Bee Staff Writer (www.Sacbee.com)
Published 5:30 a.m. PST Thursday, Feb. 28, 2002

Emergency legislation to give renters such as those targeted in suburban Sacramento and Santa Rosa more time to vacate cleared its first hurdle Wednesday by passing the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

The bill, which would apply statewide with a two-year sunset clause, was approved by a 9-1 vote and will move to the floor of the Assembly.

The legislation, SB 617 by state Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, would give tenants in mass lease terminations 90 days to vacate.

“When entire neighborhoods are asked to uproot, they need to be assured some protections, as well as given time, to make good decisions about alternative housing, schools and jobs,” Ortiz said.

The bill was opposed by Assemblyman Thomas Harman, R-Huntington Beach, who said he has reservations about whether the measure is constitutional.

“A willing landlord and a willing tenant entered into a 30-day agreement, and we’re talking about a law that would invalidate that,” Harman said afterward. “My opinion is that we’re stepping over the line. We should not be doing this.”

The bill’s co-authors were Assembly members Patricia Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, and Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.

Acknowledging that landlords have rights, Wiggins said, “there are sometimes larger public, social and family issues that have to be taken into consideration when a landlord’s business decisions undermine an entire community. This bill attempts to do that.”

“Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary action,” Steinberg said. “It shows that we can act quickly when people are affected in such a profound way.”

In early February, attorneys for Gensiro Kawamoto, a developer who lives in Japan, had issued 30-day notices for families on month-to month leases to vacate rental properties in Citrus Heights, Antelope, Orangevale and Rocklin. Kawamoto agreed Tuesday not file evictions on the 420 local homes until March 20.

In the other case, about 150 tenants in Santa Rosa were asked to vacate.

The proposed law would apply to mass displacement of 50 or more units in a five-mile radius and tenants current on their rent who get a 30-day vacate notice from the same owner.

The bill would allow the courts to have discretion in staying or delaying an eviction order.

It was amended in committee to include a two-year sunset clause.

The committee heard testimony in support of SB 617 from tenants and statewide associations. The bill was supported by the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, The California Housing Corp., the attorney general’s office and local and state housing rights advocates. Opponents of the bill reached an agreement with the sponsors before testimony was taken Wednesday.

import · March 1, 2002, 12:38pm

Re: 200+ Families Evicted… Continued (5) - Posted by Rob FL

Posted by Rob FL on March 01, 2002 at 13:38:21:

Of course for the current situation of these tenants, this law could not apply to them. They call it an “ex post facto law” which is blatantly unconstitutional for the current situation.

import · March 1, 2002, 1:01am

Re: 200+ Families Evicted… Continued (5) - Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA)

Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA) on March 01, 2002 at 02:01:13:

Having not seen the bill being presented, I have to laugh at the holes it will create.

Investors will only buy 49 houses in a subdivision. Sorry Mr. Builder, but I will only buy 49 of the 62 houses you built.

You can send out 49 termination of lease letters today, then send out 49 the day after.

As another pointed out, investors with multiple subdivisions will make sure they are spread out every 5.1 miles from the nearest development they own.

If an investor makes a mistake and sends out 50 lease termination letters, they can count on not getting any rents from those 50 renters for the next 3 months. IE: No income.

SB617 - We don’t want to protect the investor, his properties, or his income lost; there are social and family issues that the government needs to get in on.

import · February 28, 2002, 6:23pm

The bigger question - Posted by Kristine-CA

Posted by Kristine-CA on February 28, 2002 at 19:23:28:

The bigger question here is why municipalities expect or depend on private enterprise to provide housing under all circumstances. Capitalism is the current system. If Sacramento or any other community really wants to address a housing crunch or problem, it needs to take on the responsibility and expense of the housing. I am not against a more socialist system for housing, but the double standard the government is showing here is absurd. Please Mr. Businessmen, invest in our community, because we can’t develop with our own initiative, creativity, and cash. And then, wham, you have no right to behave as an investor. I believe it probably is unconstiutional to control private enterprise this way.

Where the creativity is really needed is to it work with Mr.Kawamoto to figure out if there is a way that his needs can be met and some of the tenants could buy, etc. Also, providing incentives for other investors to come up with a solution. Since the local government actually has very few “rights” here, they need to get their guardianship and management act together. And so do the tenants. It is difficult to watch this story unfold, with so much entitlement attitude and victimization involved. And I’m a bleeding heart liberal!

Thanks RT for more food for thought. Sincerely, Kristine

import · February 28, 2002, 4:10pm

Rich investors will think twice now… - Posted by MatthewC

Posted by MatthewC on February 28, 2002 at 17:10:21:

This is ridiculous. All I can say is big-time investors would be stupid to dump money into Sacramento or any other area that has this type of mentality.

There is little incentive to give or put money into a community that is happy to take the money when people come in but doesn’t allow the money to be taken out.

I am very certain that many big-time investors will monitor this case. Sacramento and other places in California will have even more of a housing crisis than they do now. There is little incentive in providing rentals.

import · February 28, 2002, 2:43pm

Re: 200+ Families Evicted… Continued (5) - Posted by tang-0-rang

Posted by tang-0-rang on February 28, 2002 at 15:43:46:

I have a question about the news article, the part I have a question about reads:
The proposed law would apply to mass displacement of 50 or more units in a five-mile radius and tenants current on their rent who get a 30-day vacate notice from the same owner.
—my question: It does’t mention a time frame on the 50, as in one could file 49 evictions and wait one-two weeks to file 49 more? and so on. thus only 49 are being evicted at a certain…deadline (good word to use?)
since we’re talking a 30 day eviction, starting a different series of evictions…creating a new
DEADLINE for these evictions should be considered. or I am stupid and need to be put in check. either way…thanks for your time
Todd Williamson (CO)

import · February 28, 2002, 9:46pm

Re: The bigger question - Posted by jim

Posted by jim on February 28, 2002 at 22:46:16:

A well written essay, Kristine. My thoughts exactly; I could not have said it better myself, and I am a conservative.

import · February 28, 2002, 4:56pm

Re: 200+ Families Evicted… Continued (5) - Posted by David H

Posted by David H on February 28, 2002 at 17:56:19:

Please stop using the word “evicted”!

It’s not an eviction until the tenants refuse to move and the landlord files an unlawful detainer action. “eviction” is an emotionally charged word that creates undue sympathy for the tenants. “lease termination” is an appropriate term, as is “served notice.”

rhosource.com is a rental owner’s association for Southern Alameda County. They claim to advocate for and against legislation on behalf of landlords. If you go to www.google.com and search for “california apartment associations” you should quickly come up with enough links to determine if there is one in your own area.