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.
You’re ignoring the main point. If people stop paying, it’s usually because they lost their job and are looking for a new one. So why don’t you suggest the landlord get a part time job to make up their income? Why should they be entitled to rent during a pandemic when their tenant lost their job?
Also, you are ignoring the fact that there were Covid funds available for landlords who lost rent due to non-payment. It was an inconvenience, but so was Covid. As a nurse did you throw a fit because you had to wear extra protective equipment? Or did you realize the reason behind it?
The eviction moratorium was ultimately a health policy. Maybe you didn’t realize that, but its purpose was to save lives.
How to then pay child care to work that part time gig. Odds are good the cost of childcare would exceed part time unskilled labor income.
There’s a lot of assumption here re entitlement. Ideally everyone should have housing. Ideally, everyone who engages a contract to loan out use of their stuff for money should either get the money or get their stuff back. If there’s no rent to be had, great, give that persons belongings back.
My point is there’s impact on both. Being dismissive of either party who can no longer pay bills is what misses the point.
The landlord IS entitled to rent while you’re in their property. That’s the contract.
If you want to call housing a right, which is an ideal I would love to see realized in a practical, actionable way, then the onus should not be on the back of any single private citizen making loan of their property, but in those who collect 22-32% of our incomes already.
That piece, the responsibility of providing housing to citizens, regardless of capacity to pay rent for a loan, would go higher up the chain.
Punishing a private citizen for engaging a rental contract on the landlord side, out of spite, because housing should be a right but isn’t is not the way to solve the problem but only works to not only create bigger problems (including higher rent…a spite response to that spite) but is just another version of private citizens fighting one another instead of fighting up.