This article was posted on Monday, May 01, 2023

Dear AOA:

This “drip-drip-drip” attack on landlords by state and local politicians, from building code upgrades to eviction roadblocks to capped rents, is having a significant negative impact on building development, construction and ownership. As such, we are re-evaluating our multi-family investment goals.

If this continues… will make it impossible to build anything.    Regards, Al L.

Dear AOA and Members and All: 

There is a repeat radio commercial from Fair Housing that directly and overtly says that landlords, as a group, are prone to requiring sexual favors from their tenants.  

This is serious slander-discrimination, and should not be allowed to continue.  The commercial says that help is available with lawsuits encouraged.  It also taints all other areas of conduct by landlords, because it is describing landlords as a really bad group. 

I, as a landlord. am aware of this:  In the eyes of another person I become what that person projects onto me, regardless of my conduct as an individual.  Hoping all of you can recognize this as the classic definition of discrimination.  This one is government promoted!  Truly amazing.      Gerald Sherman

- Advertisers -

Dear Mr. Faller:

I am sending you a copy of the letter I sent to the Mayor of San Diego and to the City Council Members regarding the new tenant/landlord proposals.   Here it is:

I am writing to you regarding the new tenant/landlord proposals.

These proposals would put a burden on landlords.  Do we want to become a city like San Francisco or New York, where large corporations own most of the rental market?  Or do we want a city that allows Mom & Pop landlords who usually have lower rents because we want to keep our tenants long-term?

Strengthening rent control would actually worsen the housing crisis.  Over time, tenant/landlord laws may force small Mom & Pop landlords out of business.

Housing, as a right, would lead to the city taking over property owners’ rights.  We have a lease. It’s framework that ensures fairness between renters and rental housing providers. Everyone deserves protection, and the lease provides balanced protection for the renters and owners; both sides give and receive. We don’t want to create ordinances that will kill housing.

The San Diego Tenant Right to Know Ordinance is to bring stability. There are 15 reasons why someone can be evicted, with four being no-fault and eleven being at-fault. All fifteen of these reasons are necessary to protect property rights; that’s why they are called “just-cause” evictions. Claiming that there are “loopholes” and calling certain evictions “unnecessary tenant removals” undermines the stability of the reasonable laws that we have in place.

The law must be enforced, and breaches of the lease should be swiftly addressed. However, the clerks’ office is currently understaffed and inexperienced, with only one judge and one sheriff handling evictions. It’s frightening that non-paying renters can take up to nine months to be evicted!

It is unacceptable that a city council member suggests “building accountability measures to ensure compliance with the law and expand resources and education,” while ignoring the massive problems we have with our current court situation. You should call Judge Smyth and ask him to allocate more judges to help Judge Bell. Heis overloaded with eviction cases.

I strongly oppose the proposal to impose additional relocation assistance for no-fault just-cause evictions, which goes beyond the requirements set forth in the San Diego Right to Know Ordinance. The imposition of this fine infringes upon my constitutional right to a just-cause eviction as a property owner. San Diego Right to Know Ordinance has already gone too far.

I strongly oppose the proposal to prohibit no-fault just-cause evictions from the first day of tenancy, as well as the provision to give seniors and disabled residents additional time to find new housing when receiving a no-fault just-cause termination notice, as the current provisions already provide ample time.

I strongly oppose giving renters additional time to remedy violations that are grounds for eviction. As mentioned by one of the city council members, we need to “build in accountability measures to ensure compliance with the law.” Providing extra time to cure violations removes accountability and creates tension between the owner and the renter. It’s not fun to have to endure bad actors as a tenant; this makes life harder on the tenants that are abiding by the law and the lease.

As small property owners, we are able to establish relationships with our tenants.  We often rent below what the big guys charge and make improvements to our properties.  With the new proposals it would permanently penalize any owner.  It would likely result in less maintenance and fewer upgrades to older buildings because it would not make any economic sense under the new proposals.

These new proposals would dry up investments in duplexes by creating uncertain financial risks.  It would trigger a wave of conversions of rental homes and multi-unit rental housing into AirBnbs.

The tenant protections you are considering would put a burden on Mom & Pop owners.  If I wanted to move back into MY property or have one of my children move in, I would not be able to afford it.  I don’t mind giving a three month notice.  However, paying three months rent would be a financial burden and my children would become homeless, even though I own a duplex.

Removing a landlord’s right to remove a tenant for “illegal use” unless they are convicted of a crime, could present a safety hazard to other tenants.

Our goal is to provide housing.  We need to work together.  We also have rising costs.  We work hard to accommodate tenants who might be struggling with rent.  For example, my tenant was unable to come up with her rent at the beginning of the month.  I worked with her to have her pay the rent on her paydays.  She was paying twice a month instead of once a month.  This kept her in my duplex.

These new proposals place a burden on apartment owners by hurting our investments and our property rights.

Please reconsider these major proposals.  Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.      Rose B., Mom & Pop Duplex Owner