[MiroF]

> Why aren't landlords able to do this? Isn't it seen as immoral to steal property from an owner?

Well, for one, the government should enforce contract neutrally - so if you sign a contract leasing your property, you can't unilaterally break this without cause.

Second, we as a society have an interest in giving people time to move their stuff out and find a new place to live.

[registeredcorn]

Thanks for the response! Honestly, I was going to delete my comment, I felt like I was asking in bad faith, but can't since it had a reply.

I guess I see your point. I tend to side a bit harder with the landlords, but I don't want people tossed out on the streets without any sort of warning either.

[lelanthran]

> I tend to side a bit harder with the landlords, but I don't want people tossed out on the streets without any sort of warning either.

I expect that that hardly ever happens. Landlords aren't in the business to make life unnecessarily bad for renters, they're there to make money.

A tenant who stayed in the same place for 3 years, always pays on time and never damages the property is preferably to an unknown. Landlords know that starting an eviction can cost them up to a year of income, plus there is always the risk that the new tenant is going to be even costlier.

Why on earth would a landlord roll the dice on someone new? My guess is that many of those sob stories you are hearing from tenants are their side of the story.

They aren't going to tell you that the miss rent sometimes (and they'd have to miss a lot of months before a landlord will start the eviction process).

They aren't going to tell you that the landlord had to make substantial repairs to damages that they caused.

They aren't going to tell you that they sublet to "their cousins", and have 4 people to a room in a 3 room house.

When you listen to a landlord's side of the eviction story, it always comes down to money: "that house is my income and I wasn't getting it anymore".

No landlord is cutting off their income stream for several months just because they want to throw tenants onto the street.

[MiroF]

Doesn't matter if they have missed rent, they still need 30 days notice. These laws exist for a reason, they weren't created to address a problem that didn't exist at the time.

[lelanthran]

I said:

> they'd have to miss a lot of months before a landlord will start the eviction process

And you replied with:

> Doesn't matter if they have missed rent, they still need 30 days notice.

I can't tell if you are attempting to disagree with that statement of mine or not.

[staticman2]

Landlords rarely kick people out without notice because society has made it illegal for them to do so.

Your take is naive. Historically there was a lot of money to be made being a "slum lord" and renting in poorer communities where people have bad credit so can't get mortgages , there's a reason the term exists.

[lelanthran]

> Your take is naive.

Oh really? What is my "take"?

> Historically there was a lot of money to be made being a "slum lord" and renting in poorer communities where people have bad credit so can't get mortgages , there's a reason the term exists.

Yeah, but that's not under discussion.

The point I made was that because evictions are so expensive (wiping out years of profit) and long for landlords, they are only ever a last resort.

When you hear right now, as in today, under current laws, sob stories from people who've been evicted successfully, it's highly probable that they're leaving out the actual reason that the landlord just wiped out up to a year of profit just to get them out the door.

No one is wiping out years of income and going into the red just because they want to be mean.

[staticman2]

The poster upthread called registeredcorn questioned why we have any tenant protection laws at all.

I guess you wrote something intended to have nothing to do with that. While I see that wasn't your intent in context I read you as saying tenant protections don't matter.

[closeparen]

That's just a lease. Leases have fixed terms. When the lease is up either side can give 30 days notice that they will not be renewing. That is true even in places with minimal to no tenant protection laws.

In a tenant protection environment, the tenant has the option to cancel when the lease ends, but the landlord does not. Regardless of where you are in the contract cycle, the landlord's only way to end the contract is through an eviction, and he will have to prove in court that the situation meets one of the lawful bases for eviction.

[MiroF]

> In a tenant protection environment, landlords cannot just decline to renew leases.

Unless we're talking about some rent controlled context, where in the US is this law?

[closeparen]

For example, the entire state of California, including municipalities that don't have rent control and properties that aren't covered by existing rent controls.

https://sfrb.org/article/summary-ab-1482-california-tenant-p...

[Teknoman117]

What are the bounds of that though? No place that I have lived in California gives me the option of continuing my lease under the current terms (never once did they not increase my rent)

[refurb]

AB1482 is statewide and covers most rental stock. Units built in the last 15 years are exempt. Single family homes are exempt, but only if explicitly included in the lease (plenty of landlords got bit by this in 2020 - no notice to tenant, automatically covered by rent control/eviction control).

This is both rent control and eviction protection. You cant be evicted without “just cause” - all leases automatically roll over to "month to month".

[MiroF]

It only applies to homes owned by a corporation, you are incorrect that most properties are not exempt.

[MiroF]

I think the large majority of units in CA are not covered by any sort of just cause eviction law. This law has several very large exemptions.