Skip to comments.A UC-Berkeley Professor Couldn’t Evict Her Tenant Because of California’s Insane Rent Laws
Posted on 01/04/2017 2:09:33 PM PST by SeekAndFind
writes, "It's not easy to evict someone in California Generally that's a good thing." But many people who read the article in which this claim appears may reach a different conclusion.
Elizabeth Abel, an English professor at the University of California-Berkeley, rented her two-bedroom home to David Peritz, who teaches at Sarah Lawrence College. Abel didn't bother to ask for references or do much research on her prospective tenant, according to Mother Jones: the fact that he was an academic was essentially good enough for her.
Her trust was misplaced. Peritz failed to pay rent on time, and it didn't take long for him to stop paying entirely:
By the time April 1 came and went without a rent check, Abel had had enough. She wrote Peritz to tell him she was taking him to small-claims court. Around the same time, Abel's neighbors began writing her increasingly concerned emails. One of them had even seen Peritz taking her furniture down the driveway to the office in the garage late at night. They rarely, if ever, saw his wife or son.
Abel got in touch with the Kensington Police Department, which sent an officer by the house to talk with Peritz. The officer emailed Abel to tell her that he thought Peritz was "trying to establish squatters rights or lock you out," and that she should have a cop accompany her when she eventually came back home. Someone from the police department would tell her she should start the eviction process as soon as possible. It might take weeks, even months, to get Peritz out of her house.
That's because of California's insane laws governing landlord-tenant interactions. The law protects tenants engaged in the worst sorts of consthey can essentially continue to occupy a home, without ever paying rent, for months at a time. The eviction process is so crazy, it even formed the basis of the plot on an episode of HBO's Silicon Valley (the episode, according to Bustle, was pretty dead-on). According to Mother Jones:
This process was set up in part to protect tenants from predatory landlords. But in some instances it has provided cover for people looking to score a few months of free housing. In 2008, SF Weekly reported that there were between 20 and 100 serial evictees operating in San Franciscobouncing from home to home without ever paying a dime.
The sharing economy has provided new opportunities for grifters to game the system. So-called Airbnb squatterslike the pair of brothers who refused to leave a Palm Springs condo in the summer of 2014 after paying one month's renthave become more common. It's enough of an issue that Airbnb has a page devoted to the topic; it warns that local laws may allow long-term guests to establish tenants' rights.
Peritz has been accused of doing exactly this. Someone even set up a website to warn people not to rent their homes to him.
Thankfully, Abel finally prevailed over Peritz (for the most part), largely thanks to a public shaming campaign launched by sympathetic academicsincluding feminist giants Judith Butler and Wendy Brown. "I will write to every colleague in your field explaining the horrible scam you have committed," Brown threatened. Students have tried to get Peritz firedand for once, such an effort seems entirely merited. Suffice it to say, someone like Peritz should not be teaching a course on "Ethics and Politics of New Technology."
Peritz eventually vacated the premises, and has started making restitution payments to Abel, according to Mother Jones. But what about all the landlords out there who don't have Judith Butler on speed dial? They are at the mercy of a system designed to protect scammers from the consequences of taking advantage of property owners.
Liberals who support California's eviction policiesincluding many of the folks at Mother Jones, I presumewill say these laws are necessary in order to prevent landlords from mistreating their tenants: to stop them from evicting people without notice, force them to fix the utilities, and prevent sudden rent increases. But this seems like a case where the straightforwardly libertarian approach works just fine: landlords and tenants should be permitted to agree to mutual terms, spell them out in a contract, and sue each other if either party violates it. The problem with California's laws is that they supersede these contracts, tip the scales in favor of tenants, and enable the kinds of horrific abuses detailed in the Mother Jones article.
In any case, Abel told Mother Jones that she's hoping her ordeal could persuade policymakers to reform Caifornia's eviction laws. It's sure nice to see college professors standing up for private property rights.
One liberal professor takes advantage of another liberal professor.... What’s not to like?
A liberal that’s been mugged.................
Wonder if it’s going to be like the old saying about a conservative just being a liberal who’s been mugged?
Ten seconds...a mere ten seconds for GMTA! LOL!!
Hahahahahahaha...HOISTED ON OWN PETARD!!!!!!
In my experience, so-called "Academics" are often the most narrow-minded, vicious, bureaucratic and political people you will ever meet. I believe Henry Kissinger once said - its because there's so little at stake.
It’s California. That’s what they voted for; that’s what they get.
[ Mother Jones writes, “It’s not easy to evict someone in California Generally that’s a good thing.” ]
Written like a idiot starbucks employee with a PhD renter and not a Landlord that has had to put up with property destroying tenets.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer gal.
Academics never think they should have to pay for anything. I remember teaching a computer class to a bunch of them once, back in the dawn of mobile devices, and they were all “too poor” to buy their own and wanted their universities to buy them. They were earning about 5 times what I was earning, many of them had subsidized housing, they had great medical care...but they still felt that somebody else should pay for everything they did.
Including the rent, of course. And if nobody else paid for it, then it was owed to them and theirs by right anyway.
This is a good article, and it uses a rather mild circumstance to illustrate the folly of that Eviction Protection Law. Believe me, it can get far worse when the renters cannot be shamed into moving, or even into discussing the issue without feigning harassment.
Pacific Heights Trailer (1990)
Michael Keaton in Pacific Heights...
Take the front door off, for maintenance, and they typically move out soon there after?
I have observed that the harder it is to get out of something, the less people are willing to get in it. Stocks are attractive because you can easily liquidate, you don’t have to go through any closing process. Same with job. If you make it hard to fire people, you will find that employers are reluctant to hire new people. Or take this case. If you can’t get rid of a bad tenant, fewer property owners are willing to rent out available space. And they wonder why there is a homeless problem.
and you'll go to jail until you have it put back on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.