Measure Y Would Close 'Just Cause' Eviction Loophole for Oakland Landlords

A measure on the ballot in Oakland this week would make it much harder for some landlords to evict tenants whenever they want without "just cause" restrictions. Susie Steimle reports. (11-4-2018)

[TheLIRRFrenchie...]

I mean he's not even trying to work with these people. I mean who kicks someone out who has a special needs child?? Yes it is his property, and I guess he can legally do it, but MORALLY at the very least you could do is work with these people especially if they've always paid rent on time. Both work hard. Neither are LAZY. So it's like what gives?? Oh and if you reply negatively I will block and report.

[danhealey]

its' .NOT. her and simple....your telling him what and how he can do things in his...OWN .

[jennifercoleman]

FAMILY PLANNING: I'm a renter for 19 years. I was evicted 7 months ago without cause, and four years prior to that, again for no cause. I'm not angry at the landlord, as they had other plans for their property. I feel for everyone involved, and each situation is subjective; so we don't know the full story behind an eviction all-ways. The reporting is half-backed at best. The toughest cultural hurdle to overcome with financially struggling families is their part in NOT taking accountability for being part of the problem. This, due to a lack of fiscal responsibility around their choices in "family planning". How many babies does a person want to have of their own choosing? And can one afford 1, 2, 3, 4 children? I personally chose NOT to have children in the SF Bay Area because I knew that I could not afford the housing required for the LUXURY of having children. Choosing to have children is a true luxury and not a mandate. No one forces this upon another. Though, most families will be irate and outraged and have no part of the conversation of responsible family planning as having lent to their financial woes and insufficient funds to afford housing in a region where it is not conducive. Contrary, some, if not many will find that affordable housing in SF bay area is their entitlement, with no thought of "how" they've perpetuated the strain upon themselves. It is a blame game that goes both ways on the tenant-landlord spectrum. I could have moved to Idaho, (like my friend and her husband did to raise their four children). However, I chose to stay in the bay area and help children through Big Sisters non profit. Yet, this kind of accountability for the luxury of having children is met with intense and angry backlash to defend culpability to improper family planning. On a middle income it costs approximately... $233, 614... to raise ONE child to age 17! Please, I wish everyone would take part of the responsibility for this housing crisis. It's too easy to blame one side or the other. I agree that we MUST build more housing, with easier and more affordable permitting processes, as well as, to loosen up lending restrictions for first time home buyers. I also want to see more affordable housing built in the bay area made available to lower income families. Also, there are better compromises to HELP renters at the legislative level that can prove purposeful without enacting "just cause" laws. IDEAS: Perhaps landlord should pay $5, 000 in moving expenses with a 90 day notice to vacate instead of 60 days. Some small mom and pop landlords work HARD to support their investments and some have sacrificed a great deal of their finances toward their leveraged debt (30 year mortgages not yet paid off) over the years; its not all one sided maneuvering. I've rented from some awesome landlords. But for Pete's sake sound FAMILY PLANNING is a part of this little talked about LOOMING issue.

[josephparker]

If I had the money I would have probably bought the home myself and maybe had some meetings on how we could adjust prices to keep them in their homes. I was raised to honor existing commitments or reconcile if possible. My mind is these people deserve at least a transition plan.