San Diego County to vote on extending eviction moratorium TODAY

San Diego, California
San Diego Real Estate Forum
5yFollow

San Diego County to vote on extending eviction moratorium TODAY

Benjamin Fishler
Investor · San Diego, CA · Member since 2016 · 14 posts · 5 votes

https://www.sandiegouniontribu...


They introduced wording that says:

"
The biggest point of contention is a provision that limits landlords’ ability to evict tenants for lease violations and, in general, being a nuisance. It would go beyond statewide law crafted during the pandemic that says renters can be evicted for just cause, such as lease violations. San Diego County’s ordinance says eviction can only happen if renters are imminent threats to health and safety.
"
They don't even have clauses if you want to move back into your own house.

This is insane, and just because it may expire in late August doesn't mean it's OK -- they do it once, they may be testing the waters to make something like this more permanent or used frequently in the future. We need tools to be able to evict someone who is a nuisance...what's the point of having a lease with signed agreements if nothing in it is enforceable? We may as well not even own the housing at that point.

I don't think some of politicians get the picture -- I've been seeing an unprecedented jump in rent prices and a corresponding decrease in rental units available, and most of the new tenants we've had apply are telling us the same thing -- their landlords are selling. May be "good" for those staying in the game and the system may balance out, in terms of higher rent prices. But right now, there's a lot of incentive to cash out from high home prices and/or laws that are extremely landlord unfriendly. Seems like we're the one group who's expected to directly foot the bill for necessities -- I don't see politicians forcing grocery stores or farms to provide free food to those who lost their job in the pandemic. And our property tax bills are higher monthly fees than some people pay for mortgages in other parts of the country. And yes, many businesses had to shut down operations during the pandemic -- but there's a difference than being told you can't run your business, and you have to run your business and can't exit out.

Anyway, if you feel the same way -- please go visit the virtual meeting at: 

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/cob/bosa/index.html


It starts at 9am I believe, although I'm not sure on the exact voting schedule yet.

Also, this ordinance was introduced by "San Diego County Supervisor Nora Vargas" -- please remember that name next time she's up for reelection. I think we need to send a message to politicians who think this is OK by voting them out.





3Reply
14 views

Most Popular Reply

Justin R.
Developer · San Diego, CA · Member since 2015 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
5y
Originally posted by @Dan H.:
Originally posted by @Cody L.:
Originally posted by @Dan H.:

@Emy Bernardo and @Cody L.

I'm a democrat (as are most voters in CA) and believe in many of the ideals of the democratic party, but I do not view messing with free market (except to protect against unscrupulous behavior) as a staple of the democratic party.  I view it similar to thinking that the majority of Republicans are Tea Party advocates (I would say the same thing about Trump supporters, but the stats seem to show a majority of Republicans are Trump supporters).  There are extremes in both parties and they sometimes get what they want, but they are the extremes of the party.

Human rights, ultra rich should pay for more social programs, the value of good social programs I am in.  Tell property owners that they cannot move into their own property is a line that I would think is extreme yet got 3 of 5 supervisors votes.  I know I will not be voting for any of those 3 (I am unsure if I get to vote for any of those 3, but if I do they are not getting my vote).

I personally believe most democrats would not be for not allowing an owner to move into their property or for tenants to be able to violate the terms of their leases with no repercussions (but 3 of 5 supervisors felt otherwise). Incredible.  I am glad my lease explicitly sets the dollar amounts on most violations.  If they violate the lease, I will be going for the compensation as stated in my lease when this is over.  

My tenants know I provide good homes and treat them right.  They also know I do not deal with BS.  Whether it is late payments or lease violations.  I have the tenant pay for any BS that they cause.

You're an old skool dem/liberal.  i.e., rational.   Which means we'd agree on most things.  And where we didn't, we could happily agree to disagree.

Sadly, the party is being taken over by far left woke morons with a dangerous racial identitarianism bent. 

 >Which means we'd agree on most things. And where we didn't, we could happily agree to disagree.

I suspect so.  I agree with virtually all of your posts and understand your fear of the tenant friendly policies which at this particular moment seems were extremely justified.

>the party is being taken over by far left woke morons

Ironically I have a similar belief in the Republican party moving more right.  I also feel that that much of the Republican party has become less moral.  I will admit that democrat policies that seemed at the 2016 election to be extreme are getting closer to mainstream democrat (such as forgive education debt, a net worth tax, etc.).  So there has been a profound shift in the democrat party in the last 5 years.  My belief is it is a reaction to the shift of the republican party to the right (maybe both are in reaction to each other) and if we had the republicans of Mitt Romney or McCain (both I considered moral men) that there would not have been the shift left (or it would not have been as extreme).  

I still believe this vote is beyond what most democrats believe to be fair/right.  I believe most democrats believe that the property owner should have the right to move into their property.  I believe most democrats believe that the terms of the lease should be followed and if the tenant is unwilling to follow those terms (terms the tenant agreed to) that the owner should be able to make them leave and for the tenant to find a home that permits what the tenant desires but is against their current lease. 

I will say that votes show that the voters are often not as extreme as the politicians.  I point to the voters voting down a rent control provision, but the politicians less than a year later enacting statewide rent control.  It shows the power of lobbyists. There are a lot more tenants than LL and if it is the power of either lobbying group, the LL will usually lose even if the tenant position is not the position of the majority of the constituents (such as was the case with the rent control as evidenced by the vote).

This moratorium, if placed to a vote, I believe would get clobbered, yet it got passed by our County supervisors.

You guys are great - love all ya'lls.

I really try to avoid commentary adjacent to specific politician personalities, but this one was so obvious to see coming.  The reason there were 3 votes at the Board of Supervisors for this issue is because Terra Lawson-Remer defeated Kristin Gaspar last November.  And, arguably, the primary reason Gaspar lost to someone who has never held political office, is because of her alignment with a certain man whose first name is Donald and last name rhymes with Dump.

I would second @Dan's general sentiment - this type of policy does not likely represent the San Diego general public's will.    

My goal isn't to draw dramatic and unwarranted conclusions - there's a lot of things at play here.  BUT, this intellectually idiotic garbage from the vocal right means that the voting majority -- in San Diego: moderate-conservative, sane, and kind -- has no one to vote for other than people who ultimately enact enhanced eviction moratoriums.  Not because they want that person, but because there is no moral or defensible alternative.

2Reply
See this reply in the discussion

12 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Dan H.Pro Member
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    5y

    >statewide law crafted during the pandemic that says renters can be evicted for just cause, such as lease violations. San Diego County’s ordinance says eviction can only happen if renters are imminent threats to health and safety.

    This would give every tenant carte Blanche to do whatever they desire.   Smoke in the unit, pets, subleasing, not keeping the place clean, etc.   the legality of such a regulation is also suspect, but that has not shown to be very useful in the various other regulations passed during the pandemic.  

    >Tenants’ rights groups say the provision is necessary because they say landlords have used loopholes to evict tenants not paying rent, despite statewide law that attempts to stop evictions during the pandemic because of widespread job loss and efforts to keep people at home to avoid spreading the virus.

    I believe these tenant rights groups do not know how hard it is to evict tenants.   I know a landlord that daughter was going to go to Santa Barbara community college that went virtual.   Her daughter has no home anywhere; she sleeps at her moms or friends homes as she has been expecting to move into her mom’s condo for months.   So far this LL has been unable to get her tenant out to move her daughter in.   She (the LL) has a professional PM that I think has been useless.   The tenant works for the city and has suffered no adverse financial impact, but has been using the regulations to not pay rent at times and to stay in the unit.  

    >The rent cap would limit increases to the rate of inflation, but the exact number is unclear. The ordinance said the cap would be based on the inflation rate included in the Consumer Price Index for the San Diego region for April 2020 to April 2021

    They want to allow tenants to ignore their lease terms increasing risk and potential lowering return while setting max rent increase to CPI.   As risk increases, the associated profit must increase to account for the increased risk.   This is how the economics of business work.  


    >this ordinance was introduced by "San Diego County Supervisor Nora Vargas" -- please remember that name next time she's up for reelection. I think we need to send a message to politicians who think this is OK by voting them out

    There are a lot more tenants than LL.   Voting is not enough.  Join and contribute to organizations that fund lobbying efforts that protect home owner rights and LL rights.  

    0Reply
  • Cody L.
    Rental Property Investor · San Diego, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    5y

    Man, so much for San Diego being the last bit of red in an otherwise blue so cal.   :(

    1Reply
  • Emy Bernardo
    Investor · San Diego, CA · Member since 2017 · 112 posts · 92 votes
    5y

    Well, the meeting went late into the night and despite the hundreds of callers, ecomments, and letters from Mayors opposing - the ordinance was approved. Hopefully, this will be challenged in court so this very dangerous infringement on property rights is not upheld. I know SDAR is a strong opponent, will keep an eye out for any legal action. We know nothing is ever "temporary" in government, once rights are taken away, they are never given back willingly!   San Diego has turned very blue and it's not going to be good for America's not so finest City anymore..

    0Reply
  • Cody L.
    Rental Property Investor · San Diego, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Emy Bernardo:

    Well, the meeting went late into the night and despite the hundreds of callers, ecomments, and letters from Mayors opposing - the ordinance was approved. Hopefully, this will be challenged in court so this very dangerous infringement on property rights is not upheld. I know SDAR is a strong opponent, will keep an eye out for any legal action. We know nothing is ever "temporary" in government, once rights are taken away, they are never given back willingly!   San Diego has turned very blue and it's not going to be good for America's not so finest City anymore..

    My wife and I have been looking at new homes (the house I'm in, in Mission Hills, was bought when I was single.  now I have two kids.  So while it's a nice home I'd like something bigger.  Plus I can afford quite a different property now vs. when I was a first time buyer)

    But I told her I'm scared of putting so much equity into a home in this state.  For a long time the fact I was in San Diego helped to mitigate the fear of crazy blue politics but with so many changes in San Diego I think it's too risky to put down a giant pile of $ into a new home here. 

    0Reply
  • Dan H.Pro Member
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    5y

    @Emy Bernardo and @Cody L.

    I'm a democrat (as are most voters in CA) and believe in many of the ideals of the democratic party, but I do not view messing with free market (except to protect against unscrupulous behavior) as a staple of the democratic party.  I view it similar to thinking that the majority of Republicans are Tea Party advocates (I would say the same thing about Trump supporters, but the stats seem to show a majority of Republicans are Trump supporters).  There are extremes in both parties and they sometimes get what they want, but they are the extremes of the party.

    Human rights, ultra rich should pay for more social programs, the value of good social programs I am in.  Tell property owners that they cannot move into their own property is a line that I would think is extreme yet got 3 of 5 supervisors votes.  I know I will not be voting for any of those 3 (I am unsure if I get to vote for any of those 3, but if I do they are not getting my vote).

    I personally believe most democrats would not be for not allowing an owner to move into their property or for tenants to be able to violate the terms of their leases with no repercussions (but 3 of 5 supervisors felt otherwise). Incredible.  I am glad my lease explicitly sets the dollar amounts on most violations.  If they violate the lease, I will be going for the compensation as stated in my lease when this is over.  

    My tenants know I provide good homes and treat them right.  They also know I do not deal with BS.  Whether it is late payments or lease violations.  I have the tenant pay for any BS that they cause.

    1Reply
  • Cody L.
    Rental Property Investor · San Diego, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Dan H.:

    @Emy Bernardo and @Cody L.

    I'm a democrat (as are most voters in CA) and believe in many of the ideals of the democratic party, but I do not view messing with free market (except to protect against unscrupulous behavior) as a staple of the democratic party.  I view it similar to thinking that the majority of Republicans are Tea Party advocates (I would say the same thing about Trump supporters, but the stats seem to show a majority of Republicans are Trump supporters).  There are extremes in both parties and they sometimes get what they want, but they are the extremes of the party.

    Human rights, ultra rich should pay for more social programs, the value of good social programs I am in.  Tell property owners that they cannot move into their own property is a line that I would think is extreme yet got 3 of 5 supervisors votes.  I know I will not be voting for any of those 3 (I am unsure if I get to vote for any of those 3, but if I do they are not getting my vote).

    I personally believe most democrats would not be for not allowing an owner to move into their property or for tenants to be able to violate the terms of their leases with no repercussions (but 3 of 5 supervisors felt otherwise). Incredible.  I am glad my lease explicitly sets the dollar amounts on most violations.  If they violate the lease, I will be going for the compensation as stated in my lease when this is over.  

    My tenants know I provide good homes and treat them right.  They also know I do not deal with BS.  Whether it is late payments or lease violations.  I have the tenant pay for any BS that they cause.

    You're an old skool dem/liberal.  i.e., rational.   Which means we'd agree on most things.  And where we didn't, we could happily agree to disagree.

    Sadly, the party is being taken over by far left woke morons with a dangerous racial identitarianism bent. 

    0Reply
  • Dan H.Pro Member
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Cody L.:
    Originally posted by @Dan H.:

    @Emy Bernardo and @Cody L.

    I'm a democrat (as are most voters in CA) and believe in many of the ideals of the democratic party, but I do not view messing with free market (except to protect against unscrupulous behavior) as a staple of the democratic party.  I view it similar to thinking that the majority of Republicans are Tea Party advocates (I would say the same thing about Trump supporters, but the stats seem to show a majority of Republicans are Trump supporters).  There are extremes in both parties and they sometimes get what they want, but they are the extremes of the party.

    Human rights, ultra rich should pay for more social programs, the value of good social programs I am in.  Tell property owners that they cannot move into their own property is a line that I would think is extreme yet got 3 of 5 supervisors votes.  I know I will not be voting for any of those 3 (I am unsure if I get to vote for any of those 3, but if I do they are not getting my vote).

    I personally believe most democrats would not be for not allowing an owner to move into their property or for tenants to be able to violate the terms of their leases with no repercussions (but 3 of 5 supervisors felt otherwise). Incredible.  I am glad my lease explicitly sets the dollar amounts on most violations.  If they violate the lease, I will be going for the compensation as stated in my lease when this is over.  

    My tenants know I provide good homes and treat them right.  They also know I do not deal with BS.  Whether it is late payments or lease violations.  I have the tenant pay for any BS that they cause.

    You're an old skool dem/liberal.  i.e., rational.   Which means we'd agree on most things.  And where we didn't, we could happily agree to disagree.

    Sadly, the party is being taken over by far left woke morons with a dangerous racial identitarianism bent. 

     >Which means we'd agree on most things. And where we didn't, we could happily agree to disagree.

    I suspect so.  I agree with virtually all of your posts and understand your fear of the tenant friendly policies which at this particular moment seems were extremely justified.

    >the party is being taken over by far left woke morons

    Ironically I have a similar belief in the Republican party moving more right.  I also feel that that much of the Republican party has become less moral.  I will admit that democrat policies that seemed at the 2016 election to be extreme are getting closer to mainstream democrat (such as forgive education debt, a net worth tax, etc.).  So there has been a profound shift in the democrat party in the last 5 years.  My belief is it is a reaction to the shift of the republican party to the right (maybe both are in reaction to each other) and if we had the republicans of Mitt Romney or McCain (both I considered moral men) that there would not have been the shift left (or it would not have been as extreme).  

    I still believe this vote is beyond what most democrats believe to be fair/right.  I believe most democrats believe that the property owner should have the right to move into their property.  I believe most democrats believe that the terms of the lease should be followed and if the tenant is unwilling to follow those terms (terms the tenant agreed to) that the owner should be able to make them leave and for the tenant to find a home that permits what the tenant desires but is against their current lease. 

    I will say that votes show that the voters are often not as extreme as the politicians.  I point to the voters voting down a rent control provision, but the politicians less than a year later enacting statewide rent control.  It shows the power of lobbyists. There are a lot more tenants than LL and if it is the power of either lobbying group, the LL will usually lose even if the tenant position is not the position of the majority of the constituents (such as was the case with the rent control as evidenced by the vote).

    This moratorium, if placed to a vote, I believe would get clobbered, yet it got passed by our County supervisors.

    0Reply
  • Justin R.
    Developer · San Diego, CA · Member since 2015 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Dan H.:
    Originally posted by @Cody L.:
    Originally posted by @Dan H.:

    @Emy Bernardo and @Cody L.

    I'm a democrat (as are most voters in CA) and believe in many of the ideals of the democratic party, but I do not view messing with free market (except to protect against unscrupulous behavior) as a staple of the democratic party.  I view it similar to thinking that the majority of Republicans are Tea Party advocates (I would say the same thing about Trump supporters, but the stats seem to show a majority of Republicans are Trump supporters).  There are extremes in both parties and they sometimes get what they want, but they are the extremes of the party.

    Human rights, ultra rich should pay for more social programs, the value of good social programs I am in.  Tell property owners that they cannot move into their own property is a line that I would think is extreme yet got 3 of 5 supervisors votes.  I know I will not be voting for any of those 3 (I am unsure if I get to vote for any of those 3, but if I do they are not getting my vote).

    I personally believe most democrats would not be for not allowing an owner to move into their property or for tenants to be able to violate the terms of their leases with no repercussions (but 3 of 5 supervisors felt otherwise). Incredible.  I am glad my lease explicitly sets the dollar amounts on most violations.  If they violate the lease, I will be going for the compensation as stated in my lease when this is over.  

    My tenants know I provide good homes and treat them right.  They also know I do not deal with BS.  Whether it is late payments or lease violations.  I have the tenant pay for any BS that they cause.

    You're an old skool dem/liberal.  i.e., rational.   Which means we'd agree on most things.  And where we didn't, we could happily agree to disagree.

    Sadly, the party is being taken over by far left woke morons with a dangerous racial identitarianism bent. 

     >Which means we'd agree on most things. And where we didn't, we could happily agree to disagree.

    I suspect so.  I agree with virtually all of your posts and understand your fear of the tenant friendly policies which at this particular moment seems were extremely justified.

    >the party is being taken over by far left woke morons

    Ironically I have a similar belief in the Republican party moving more right.  I also feel that that much of the Republican party has become less moral.  I will admit that democrat policies that seemed at the 2016 election to be extreme are getting closer to mainstream democrat (such as forgive education debt, a net worth tax, etc.).  So there has been a profound shift in the democrat party in the last 5 years.  My belief is it is a reaction to the shift of the republican party to the right (maybe both are in reaction to each other) and if we had the republicans of Mitt Romney or McCain (both I considered moral men) that there would not have been the shift left (or it would not have been as extreme).  

    I still believe this vote is beyond what most democrats believe to be fair/right.  I believe most democrats believe that the property owner should have the right to move into their property.  I believe most democrats believe that the terms of the lease should be followed and if the tenant is unwilling to follow those terms (terms the tenant agreed to) that the owner should be able to make them leave and for the tenant to find a home that permits what the tenant desires but is against their current lease. 

    I will say that votes show that the voters are often not as extreme as the politicians.  I point to the voters voting down a rent control provision, but the politicians less than a year later enacting statewide rent control.  It shows the power of lobbyists. There are a lot more tenants than LL and if it is the power of either lobbying group, the LL will usually lose even if the tenant position is not the position of the majority of the constituents (such as was the case with the rent control as evidenced by the vote).

    This moratorium, if placed to a vote, I believe would get clobbered, yet it got passed by our County supervisors.

    You guys are great - love all ya'lls.

    I really try to avoid commentary adjacent to specific politician personalities, but this one was so obvious to see coming.  The reason there were 3 votes at the Board of Supervisors for this issue is because Terra Lawson-Remer defeated Kristin Gaspar last November.  And, arguably, the primary reason Gaspar lost to someone who has never held political office, is because of her alignment with a certain man whose first name is Donald and last name rhymes with Dump.

    I would second @Dan's general sentiment - this type of policy does not likely represent the San Diego general public's will.    

    My goal isn't to draw dramatic and unwarranted conclusions - there's a lot of things at play here.  BUT, this intellectually idiotic garbage from the vocal right means that the voting majority -- in San Diego: moderate-conservative, sane, and kind -- has no one to vote for other than people who ultimately enact enhanced eviction moratoriums.  Not because they want that person, but because there is no moral or defensible alternative.

    2Reply
  • Chris Ng
    Investor · Saint Johns · Member since 2021 · 34 posts · 16 votes
    5y

    Yup, San Diego has changed so much since I moved here some 20 years ago, and definitely not for the better. Leftist politics have pretty much worked more or less in similar ways for decades. Unfortunately, many are OK with it until they fall into the wrong "class". It's almost literally history repeating itself but people will blame others for it. 

    Anyways, I've had a good ride here, but it's easy to see that it will only get worse from here. Too bad, I really enjoy the weather here, well, at least when the wild fire isn't coming, and many other things. 

    1Reply
  • Emy Bernardo
    Investor · San Diego, CA · Member since 2017 · 112 posts · 92 votes
    5y

    Here is an excerpt from an update from the SDAR President, Carla Farley.  I encourage anyone against this ordinance to send an email to express your concerns to the supervisors that support it:  

    • San Diego County Supervisors Who Supported Item 26 (-)
      • Chair Nathan Fletcher
      • Vice Chair Nora Vargas
      • Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer

    ..."The ordinance is set to take effect 30 days after the vote and remain effective until 60 days after the Governor of California lifts all COVID-related stay-at-home and work-at-home orders. We are exploring options to challenge what is clearly a misguided policy and overstep of County authority and are committed to making sure these provisions aren’t extended further or made permanent. In other words, the fight is not over… and we need your continued support."

    0Reply
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.
Log InJoin for Free