The Berkeley Property Owners Association’s fall mixer is called “Celebrating the End of the Eviction Moratorium.”


A group of Berkeley, California landlords will hold a fun social mixer over cocktails to celebrate their newfound ability to kick people out of their homes for nonpayment of rent, as first reported by Berkeleyside.

The Berkeley Property Owner Association lists a fall mixer on its website on Tuesday, September 12, 530 PM PST. “We will celebrate the end of the Eviction Moratorium and talk about what’s upcoming through the end of the year,” the invitation reads. The event advertises one free drink and “a lovely selection of appetizers,” and encourages attendees to “join us around the fire pits, under the heat lamps and stars, enjoying good food, drink, and friends.”

The venue will ironically be held at a space called “Freehouse”, according to its website. Attendees who want to join in can RSVP on their website for $20.

Berkeley’s eviction moratorium lasted from March 2020 to August 31, 2023, according to the city’s Rent Board, during which time tenants could not be legally removed from their homes for nonpayment of rent. Landlords could still evict tenants if they had “Good Cause” under city and state law, which includes health and safety violations. Landlords can still not collect back rent from March 2020 to April 2023 through an eviction lawsuit, according to the Rent Board.

Berkeleyside spoke to one landlord planning to attend the eviction moratorium party who was frustrated that they could not evict a tenant—except that they could evict the tenant, who was allegedly a danger to his roommates—but the landlord found the process of proving a health and safety violation too tedious and chose not to pursue it.

The Berkeley Property Owner Association is a landlord group that shares leadership with a lobbying group called the Berkeley Rental Housing Coalition which advocated against a law banning source of income discrimination against Section 8 tenants and other tenant protections.

The group insists on not being referred to as landlords, however, which they consider “slander.” According to the website, “We politely decline the label “landlord” with its pejorative connotations.” They also bravely denounce feudalism, an economic system which mostly ended 500 years ago, and say that the current system is quite fair to renters.

“Feudalism was an unfair system in which landlords owned and benefited, and tenant farmers worked and suffered. Our society is entirely different today, and the continued use of the legal term ‘landlord’ is slander against our members and all rental owners.” Instead, they prefer to be called “housing providers.”

While most cities’ eviction moratoria elapsed in 2021 and 2022, a handful of cities in California still barred evictions for non-payment into this year. Alameda County’s eviction moratorium expired in May, Oakland’s expired in July. San Francisco’s moratorium also elapsed at the end of August, but only covered tenants who lost income due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

In May, Berkeley’s City Council added $200,000 to the city’s Eviction Defense Funds, money which is paid directly to landlords to pay tenants’ rent arrears, but the city expected those funds to be tapped out by the end of June.


  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    252 years ago

    They’re gathering a bunch of people who are destroying society in the same place, you say?

  • AphoticDev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    172 years ago

    One free drink, but you gotta pay what a drink at the bar costs to get in lmao.

  • falinter
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 years ago

    Housing Providers should provide houses to the Unhoused.

  • @[email protected]M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    412 years ago

    Hey guys, we all hate landlords. A lot. The phrase that immediately comes to mind is “scum-sucking weasels.” But let’s not go overboard with the violent language, OK?

    • Cosmic Cleric
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 years ago

      But let’s not go overboard with the violent language, OK?

      Thanks for saying that, but also, you’re interrupting one hell of a circle-jerk.

      • @[email protected]M
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 years ago

        So I noticed. And far be it from me to interrupt such a thorough group hand-insemination effort! Just don’t want things to get… ahem… out of hand.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1182 years ago

    “We prefer to be called ‘housing providers’”

    I’ll call you extortionists. Take it or leave it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      222 years ago

      extortionists

      This only exists because almost every American city makes it illegal, or very difficult to build new housing. It’s very hard to extort people when the a proper supply.

    • MelodiousFunk
      link
      fedilink
      872 years ago

      “We prefer to be called ‘housing providers’”

      Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide concert tickets.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        182 years ago

        Concerts fundamentally have a limit or capacity. There is no such thing for housing. All current restraints are arbitrarily chosen and we can change them if we want to.

        At the root, housing in the US and especially California is a tragedy of the commons where it is in no current owners interests to allow more construction. So all of them have created a homeowners lobby to make new construction illegal.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          So you’re saying housing has a fundamental limit?

          I mean you could say the same about concerts. They have a fundamental limit because the venue refuses to build a bigger space.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            We do have bigger venues. But no matter how large the venue, the concert has to be in a venue which has a capacity limit.

            No such thing exists for housing.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            No. We built our cities wrong, and artificially created a limit. If we were to admit that suburbs are nothing but an economic drain, and rezoned properly to mixed use medium to high density in the cities, and no more suburbs, or tax the suburbs properly and stop subsidizing them, we would have walkable cities with plenty of housing.

            Just in Imperial Beach, we could turn these 4 sq miles from being able to support ≈26,000 people to being able to house ≈250,000 which would greatly expand the city’s ability to fund badly needed infrastructure. Doing this nationwide would cause a housing crash, and cost many rich people money.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              You could say the same about a given venue for a concert, however. The city is the venue for housing

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶
        link
        fedilink
        English
        102 years ago

        You seem to think that houses just spring magically from the ground without any huge financial cost to build them.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Hi, landlord here and I want to clear up any misconceptions. I don’t build any houses, I only buy them up and then rent them out at a profit.

          • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 years ago

            What are you talking about. Landlords build housing all the time. I can take a 5 minute walk and see several construction sites right now.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              252 years ago

              You’re confused. An honorable and successful landlord such as myself would not be caught dead walking around in a goofy looking hardhat swinging a wrench around or whatever construction people do.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            52 years ago

            “I don’t build them, i just pay the people who build the houses to do it”

            You really think thats such a big distinction?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              242 years ago

              It’s quite a big distinction to me, I’m not a fucking construction worker. Gross. I also don’t usually pay anybody to build a house, I mostly scoop up already existing homes whenever there’s a market crash and the lazy poors get foreclosed on.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 years ago

                So when you “Scoop up existing homes” you don’t realize you’re paying the person for paying the builders?

                I like this “i didnt lay every single atom of the house” argument lol

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  No, I’m quite literally not, in any way. I’ll take just one of my many investment properties to explain to you how dumb you’re being. This house was built in a suburb of San Diego in 1979 and sold for $25,000. The people who built it are possibly dead by now and were, all together paid $25,000 for the land together with the house that they built. It changed hands many times, at some point a bank foreclosed on whoever was living there, and I bought it from the bank. The house is worth $775,000 dollars now and I rent it out for $3,500 a month. Every 7 months I make more money renting out this house than the people who built it were ever paid for doing that, and me buying it had absolutely nothing at all to do with it getting built.

                  Please stop trying to make me out to be a construction worker. I’m not, I’m a landlord and proud of it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            112 years ago

            Hi renter here,

            I just rent and want you to subsidies my living expenses so I can profit from you.

            I do have an entitled given by god.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    312 years ago

    Landlords are leeches on society. Play the stockmarket if you want to make money, don’t (continue to) make housing a source of gross profit.

      • Franzia
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        The government provides rental housing in dozens of other countries, yea. It’s not ideal, ideally renters could buy into a cooperatively owned share of housing and then there isn’t any inefficiently wasted value. But there is a successful model of states providing housing, yeah.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42 years ago

    Like it or not this helps to increase housing availability and therefore lower prices for rent

  • masterofn001
    link
    fedilink
    English
    37
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Coming soon: the end of the guillotine moratorium.

    (This is happening worldwide.

    In Canada the average rent for a 1bdrm is now over $2k

    5 years ago I paid 800 for a 2 bdrm.

    You’re lucky to rent a room for that now.

    That’s why.)

    • Melllvar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      142 years ago

      the end of the guillotine moratorium

      Aside from the fact that you’re advocating mass murder, it’s worth pointing out that the guillotine’s association with executing wealthy nobles is largely fictional.

      • masterofn001
        link
        fedilink
        English
        132 years ago

        Observing and stating what is an obviously exaggerated result is hardly advocating.

        But, yes, I do believe the likes of people who put profit over lives deserve the worst.

        Not advocating. I wouldn’t be sad if it happened. But, definitely not advocating.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        212 years ago

        One could say that by making housing unaffordable, by making groceries unaffordable, and by privatizing healthcare, mass murder is already being committed.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        202 years ago

        the guillotine’s association with executing wealthy nobles is largely fictional.

        that can change

        • Melllvar
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          A much more likely scenario is just a repeat of the aptly-named Reign of Terror.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            192 years ago

            Wealthy elites are running a reign of terror right now, have been for centuries, If we can’t reason with them (which has been tried, and failed) then there’s only one option left.

            • Melllvar
              link
              fedilink
              English
              6
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              The “Reign of Terror” is so called because the revolutionary government literally adopted “terror” (as in murdering people who disagreed with them) as an official government policy.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      82 years ago

      Respectfully, the average rent for all new leases is over $2000, not explicitly 1 bdrm, which should on average be lower than $2000.

  • JokeDeity
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    182 years ago

    Imagine a meteor landing on this party at peak attendance.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    342 years ago

    Feudalism was an unfair system in which landlords owned and benefited, and tenant farmers worked and suffered. Our society is entirely not different today

    There, fixed it

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    92 years ago

    Pro tip, when moving out, cut up some tofu into cubes and stick them behind the electrical sockets and in light fixtures where they won’t be seen. It’s a lovely way to thank your landlord who kicked you out, by creating a fragrance he’ll never be able to forget!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    112 years ago

    There is a way to get rid of landlord’s insane unearned income without a violent revolution, while also making our cities more lovely places to love.

    A 100% tax on the value of land, redistributed as UBI and government services. Basically the people become the landlords.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      122 years ago

      Tenant is dating a black person and you don’t like black people? Kick them out! It’s your property!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        Literally yes. If that was the case, the landlord would be totally insane and be hurting his income. As long as the tenant pays and behaves properly I bet the landlord prefers money to personal views.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Idk what to tell you. If you see neither the flaws in that logic nor the consequences, you’re either too far gone for me to teach you, or you’re just trolling.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          Yeah well the thing about contracts is that they rely on the government to enforce them, and the sovereign has always been free to abdicate such enforcement.

          That’s why racial restrictive covenants were first found illegal, even though there is no state action in the covenant itself.

          • Melllvar
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            State and local governments are explicitly denied that power by the federal Constitution.

            • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              There is no Constitutional right to have the government enforce your contract. I’m not talking about formation and performance, I’m talking about enforcement. The Contracts Clause has nothing to do with enforcement by the courts.

              • Melllvar
                link
                fedilink
                English
                22 years ago

                There is no Constitutional right to have the government enforce your contract.

                The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is enumerated in the First Amendment

                The Contracts Clause has nothing to do with enforcement by the courts.

                The Contracts Clause prohibits states from passing laws to prevent one of the parties to a contract from enforcing their rights in court, which is exactly what the moratorium did.