Quote:
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.