Ethical dilemma:

[speeder]

This seems like it should be a case in a business school ethics class, assuming there is such a thing(?) I never attended one.

Assume that everything the landlord is doing is legal. Just get that out of the way.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-102-year-old-woman-eviction-help-schwarzenegger-20190525-story.html

[Zeke]

If the woman was 50 or 60 years old this would not make news. Landlord wants his rental back so his daughter can move in. Apparently he is not raising the rent although, and as the article states, he can because single family properties do not fall into the same category as multi units do.

But the tenant is 100 years old and has lived there for 40 years. Is it ethics that are in question or emotion? Is it unethical to treat anyone 100 years old the same and legal way you can treat someone half that age?

I'm sure there is a reasonable solution to this situation. I can think of a few.

(edit — more) In the same issue of todays LATimes there is an article that tells of huge rent increases up in Mountain View CA, home of Google. That is simply a matter of supply and demand.

It is also price gouging.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Zeke

But the tenant is 100 years old and has lived there for 40 years. Is it ethics that are in question or emotion? Is it unethical to treat anyone 100 years old the same and legal way you can treat someone half that age?

Middle-aged people are still adaptable. I think it's very hard on someone of that woman's age to have to relocate. They may become completely disoriented and panicky. And they don't know what to do. We had this issue when we brought my wife's Mom out to SoCal with us after we retired. Just having to navigate a new floor plan overwhelmed her. We felt bad because even though she said she wanted to come with us to SoCal, none of us anticipated her difficulty to adapt.

Denis, good topic.

[Jims5543]

My father rents an office space in downtown Vero. His lease expired and he asked the landlord for a new lease. The landlord told him no worries he was fine they would go month to month.

Then the AC failed on his unit, per the lease agreement that was on him, he spent 5K on a new AC system for the office.

4 Months later the landlord told him he had 2 months to vacate and move his business that had been there for 20 years. Reason being the landlord sold the building, new owner wants to gut the place and make it into something else.

So my 70 year old father had to move his business after dumping a nice amount of money into his unit to make it better.

He will recover from it, but it sucks and does not seem fair.

Welcome to life.

Comment after the article. Life is cruel the landlord owns the property yet, he is being told how he can use it by people who do not own it. Welcome to 2019 folks.

f the landlord's daughter is a law student, she is not going to need his help. There are a lot of well-paying jobs for law grads. Plus she's young, flexible, could live with roommates and have a lot of fun. It is just plain cruel to displace someone who has lived there 30 years, probably paid more than the value of the place many times over by then.

Where is this 102 year old womans family? Why are they not helping her, why is a stranger (the Governator) helping her?

That is more of a sad story than the landlord to me.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Middle-aged people are still adaptable. I think it's very hard on someone of that woman's age to have to relocate. They may become completely disoriented and panicky. And they don't know what to do. We had this issue when we brought my wife's Mom out to SoCal with us after we retired. Just having to navigate a new floor plan overwhelmed her. We felt bad because even though she said she wanted to come with us to SoCal, none of us anticipated her difficulty to adapt.

Denis, good topic.

All true but that doesn't enter into the ethical side of this. Ethics knows no age or time.

Originally Posted by Jims5543

My father rents an office space in downtown Vero. His lease expired and he asked the landlord for a new lease. The landlord told him no worries he was fine they would go month to month.

Then the AC failed on his unit, per the lease agreement that was on him, he spent 5K on a new AC system for the office.

4 Months later the landlord told him he had 2 months to vacate and move his business that had been there for 20 years. Reason being the landlord sold the building, new owner wants to gut the place and make it into something else.

So my 70 year old father had to move his business after dumping a nice amount of money into his unit to make it better.

He will recover from it, but it sucks and does not seem fair.

Welcome to life.

Where is this 102 year old womans family? Why are they not helping her, why is a stranger (the Governator) helping her?

That is more of a sad story than the landlord to me.

First of all, your dad's lawyer was not looking out for him when it went month to month. No lawyer, even bigger mistake. All companies need a lawyer on retainer. The article says no immediate family close at all. Leaves rather a large information gap so we are simply speculating here.

It's a question about ethics, not morality and not about the human condition.
__________________

[unclebilly]

This is pretty cold hearted and is a dilemma we could all face as landlords.

Maybe assisted living would be a good option for her now.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Zeke

But the tenant is 100 years old and has lived there for 40 years. Is it ethics that are in question or emotion?.

Emotion. There is nothing unethical about following all legal procedures for securing the use of your property.

[Jim Richards]

Milt, I disagree with your understanding of the word, “ethics.”

eth·ics
/ˈeTHiks/
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
"medical ethics also enter into the question"
synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, moral stand, moral principles, moral values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, creed, credo, ethos, rules of conduct, standards (of behavior), virtues, dictates of conscience
"the ethics of journalism"
2.
the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

Edit: I think you’re applying it too narrowly to just address the area business / contracts.

[Jims5543]

Originally Posted by Zeke

All true but that doesn't enter into the ethical side of this. Ethics knows no age or time. First of all, your dad's lawyer was not looking out for him when it went month to month. No lawyer, even bigger mistake. All companies need a lawyer on retainer. The article says no immediate family close at all. Leaves rather a large information gap so we are simply speculating here.

It's a question about ethics, not morality and not about the human condition.
__________________

What makes you think he had a lawyer for that?

He is just a regular guy running a small 2 person business. He had rented that space for 20 years and had no reason to believe anything was changing.

At 70 years old he was settled into a nice spot, all his clients knew where he was and visited every winter when in town (Hearing aids)

The bigger most troubling item to me is the fact that this woman has no family willing to lift a finger to help her.

That is sad.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by Zeke

If the woman was 50 or 60 years old this would not make news. Landlord wants his rental back so his daughter can move in. Apparently he is not raising the rent although, and as the article states, he can because single family properties do not fall into the same category as multi units do.

But the tenant is 100 years old and has lived there for 40 years. Is it ethics that are in question or emotion? Is it unethical to treat anyone 100 years old the same and legal way you can treat someone half that age?

I'm sure there is a reasonable solution to this situation. I can think of a few.

(edit — more) In the same issue of todays LATimes there is an article that tells of huge rent increases up in Mountain View CA, home of Google. That is simply a matter of supply and demand.

It is also price gouging.

The article is a bit confusing because it states she lives in a complex, then mentions having to leave her Craftsman style home which implies a single family situation. If she was alone in a single family house, this would not be an issue. Since there is an investigation as to whether the landlord followed correct procedures, she likely lives in housing covered by the ordinance.

I read the ordinance, and if the reported facts are correct, the only violation possible would seem to be the landlord failing to notify the housing authority properly. According to the ordinance, the land lord must submit to the DCBA (Department of Commercial and Business Affairs) an accurate copy of the eviction notice with a copy of proof of service to the tenant, attached. This paperwork must be sent to the DCBA by certified mail, return receipt requested, within 5 days after serving the tenant.

http://dcba.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/LAC-Amending-Ordinance-No-2018-0045.pdf

Again, if the reporting is accurate, the tenant supporters are hoping for a technical violation.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

The article is a bit confusing because it states she lives in a complex, then mentions having to leave her Craftsman style home which implies a single family situation. If she was alone in a single family house, this would not be an issue. Since there is an investigation as to whether the landlord followed correct procedures, she likely lives in housing covered by the ordinance.

I read the ordinance, and if the reported facts are correct, the only violation possible would seem to be the landlord failing to notify the housing authority properly. According to the ordinance, the land lord must submit to the DCBA (Department of Commercial and Business Affairs) an accurate copy of the eviction notice with a copy of proof of service to the tenant, attached. This paperwork must be sent to the DCBA by certified mail, return receipt requested, within 5 days after serving the tenant.

http://dcba.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/LAC-Amending-Ordinance-No-2018-0045.pdf

Again, if the reporting is accurate, the tenant supporters are hoping for a technical violation.

In California, we have many rental properties that are a cluster of small bungalows or houses on one lot, or should I say we used to have many. Lots of them are being torn down to build bigger rental properties on the same land.

The OP of this thread doesn't ask whether what the landlord is doing is legal, only if it's ethical. You do know the difference, right? There are plenty of things which are unethical but legal in this world when it comes to making $$. If your child has cancer and there is only one drug that can save her and I own the patent to that drug and raise the price to $10k a pill, that would be legal but not ethical.

The only thing illegal this landlord might be doing is lying about his daughter needing a place to live and just using her to evict a rent control tenant. Daughter moves in, moves out 6 months later and a high paying tenant moves in. Happens all the time.

Before people start in w the ownership argument, being a landlord is a little unique. You might own the property but you did not pay for it, your tenants did. If this is not the case, you suck at owning rental property. Furthermore, I'll bet dollars to donuts that this guy or his family has owned the property for a long time and paid nothing for it and that this 102 year old tenant has been making their mortgage payments for 30 years. When you own rental property, the units are income generators for you but to the tenants, it's their home.

I realize that it's not completely one-sided and good landlords provide quality housing at fair prices, maintain their properties well, etc. They are a vital and necessary part of the economy, especially in CA. where most people cannot afford to buy a house anymore. What this landlord is doing is extremely unethical, IMO. This old lady has been paying his mortgage or putting $$ in his pocket for 30 years and now he doesn't need her anymore. He found a better deal. I'll bet that when she moved in, he was thanking god for a good tenant that was a single, mature person who would not cause trouble and the supply/demand recipe was much different then. I moved into an apartment 20 years ago and they were begging for tenants. Now it's the other way around, people begging for apartments. So that's what's happening.

[daepp]

Originally Posted by speeder

Before people start in w the ownership argument, being a landlord is a little unique. You might own the property but you did not pay for it, your tenants did. If this is not the case, you suck at owning rental property. Furthermore, I'll bet dollars to donuts that this guy or his family has owned the property for a long time and paid nothing for it and that this 102 year old tenant has been making their mortgage payments for 30 years. When you own rental property, the units are income generators for you but to the tenants, it's their home.

I realize that it's not completely one-sided and good landlords provide quality housing at fair prices, maintain their properties well, etc. They are a vital and necessary part of the economy, especially in CA. where most people cannot afford to buy a house anymore. What this landlord is doing is extremely unethical, IMO. This old lady has been paying his mortgage or putting $$ in his pocket for 30 years and now he doesn't need her anymore. He found a better deal. I'll bet that when she moved in, he was thanking god for a good tenant that was a single, mature person who would not cause trouble and the supply/demand recipe was much different then. I moved into an apartment 20 years ago and they were begging for tenants. Now it's the other way around, people begging for apartments. So that's what's happening.

^Fair, and I, too, think there may be something nefarious going on here. But if a landlord/investor is going to risk his capital, society has to balance tenants' rights with investor risk, else there will be no where to rent.

[smadsen]

In the L.A. Times, the landlord is always at fault, morally, ethically, financially. Functionally rent controls hijack the equity of the building and distribute it to the tenant. The value of a commercial building is largely determined by it's cash flow. Technically this tenant is "month-to-month," but it will still cost the landlord a small five-figure sum to move her out, depending upon the laws imposed by the People Republic of Venice or Santa Monica or wherever.

[KFC911]

Speeder, I paid cash for my houses (safety hedge, diversification, other reasons)....I do suck as a LL, but renters suck even more .

2-way street....

I suck as a businessman....and that's just fine by me

[Gogar]

Are "Legal ethics" different than "moral ethics?"

If it's legal, it's legal.

Morally, the daughter who just graduated from law school would rent an apartment for a year or two and let the transition happen naturally. No obligation to do so but a great reward in heaven or whatever they say.

[KFC911]

She's a lawyer....ain't likely to enter the pearly gates anywho

[speeder]

Originally Posted by Gogar

Are "Legal ethics" different than "moral ethics?"

Yes. Nothing to do w each other. In fact, there is no such thing as "legal ethics".

[speeder]

Originally Posted by daepp

^Fair, and I, too, think there may be something nefarious going on here. But if a landlord/investor is going to risk his capital, society has to balance tenants' rights with investor risk, else there will be no where to rent.

Ok, now you lost me. With all due respect, wtf is the risk of being a landlord?

If you're trying to give me a lesson in capitalism, I understand the concept of capital and risk in business situations where someone invests tons of their own money into some venture that may or may not succeed, years of their life, etc. I even understand the risk of just being an investor in speculative investment products like stocks and bonds, someone who creates nothing of value to the rest of society but gets rich on the gamble of others' business ventures.

But being a landlord? What is the risk? That the building burns down and you didn't pay your insurance premium, (or burn it down yourself)? You buy a building w the help of the bank and you rent the apartments out. It's not exactly rocket science. I know a guy back in Minneapolis who started small w one building in the '70s when we graduated from HS and now owns thousands of units in dozens of buildings, I don't think he even has a degree and he's a multi-millionaire. Only in America.

I know others who have done the same, including a single mother who is a school teacher and now owns a few properties in Mpls. She is set for life. It's not a risky gambit, you just have to want to be a landlord and of course there is the broken water heater and leaky faucets and new roofs, etc., etc... I'm not saying that it isn't work but it's pretty lucrative out here if you bought a while ago. I'll even wild guess that the landlord in the OP story is extremely financially comfortable and his daughter could live in a high-rise in Westwood or DTLA. He's just being a POS because he can squeeze a few more dollars out of his cash cow.

[fintstone]

Can't read the initial article because it is behind a pay wall...but it seems to me that being a landlord in CA is difficult due to laws favoring tenants and rent controls. IMHO, that is what often creates problems like this. If a person is getting market rent, there is no reason to evict them. Simply rent something else at the market rate for your personal use.

I am doing similar. I have a rental (house I used to live in) in an area where I want a vacation home. There is a family in it paying a market rate. They are reasonably good tenants and have kids in school. Because of that, I just extended their lease another year...and am looking for another house to buy (or possibly rent) in the same area (although it would have been easier to just not renew the lease or increase the rent so much that they would leave). It is a wash and will add an additional investment. When the rental is available again, I can stay where I am and rent it again...or rent out the new purchase and move from it to the vacant rental (whichever I prefer).

I have no obligation to rent out property where I lose money...or make less than the market will bear. That is the only way I can provide affordable rentals (And often lose money for many years on a property before it makes me money). Older properties (to me) often fund losing newer ones. It is not up to me to fund housing for others beyond that. If others want something different, they are welcome to take tenants into their homes or help my tenants pay their market rent. I treat my tenants fairly and keep my houses in better repair than the one I live in...and often rent slightly below market to good tenants (for my own advantage..to keep them). Many tenants...even long-term ones...seem to have no problem not returning the favor and damage my properties and don't fulfill their leases. Some are outraged when rents go up, even though they often don't even cover costs of annual tax and insurance increases...much less damage they do.

[pwd72s]

Denis, were you ever a landlord? Didn't think so...

I'll just say that one of the happiest days in my life was when I was no longer a landlord.

But..you paint such a rosy picture of it being a gold mine, I urge you to do it.