Brickbat: Safe at Home


The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has passed an ordinance that will permanently ban landlords from evicting tenants who say they can't pay their rent for coronavirus-related reasons such as losing their jobs. Mayor London Breed had already issued an executive order barring evictions during the public health emergency and for two months after it ends if tenants can't pay their rent for coronavirus-related reasons. Landlords said the law is simply shifting the costs of the disease to them. "I'm a mom-and-pop business," said Barbara Dwyer, who owns a three-unit building."If my tenants were to decide to stop paying rent, I still have to pay my property taxes, utilities, insurance and cost of repairs."

NEXT: Congress Drops the Ball on Small Business Coronavirus Rescue

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is gonna Breed resentment among the Kulaks.

    1. Kulaks should be thankful that the party hasn’t yet ordered their property seized and redistributed to the proletariat.

      1. That’s how the property taxes work.

      2. the party hasn’t yet ordered their property seized and redistributed

        An order that bars eviction of non-paying tenants is the same as a seizure. The property cannot be accessed by the owner or otherwise used for its intended purpose of revenue generation.

        You know the city will require the landlord to maintain the property or face fines and arrest, which is the equivalent of forcing the kulaks to butcher their 5 cows for easier distribution before hauling them off to the gulag. Even the Reds didn’t do that.

        1. Sure. But that will take 5-10 years to wind its way through the courts. He has to pay his bills today.

          1. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. QWs
            Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link…………………………Go to this link

    2. start now benefitting on the web at home. start making extra $500 always by dealing with the web at home. i’ve gotten $18528 multi month once more from this apparent unpretentiously created profession. This development is realy lovely and offers me excellent low help pay dependably. every person could now have the potential to makes more pay onlinesuccessfully by on a very simple stage take after requirements on this affiliation…>>>GOOD LUCK

  2. “I’m a mom-and-pop business,” said Barbara Dwyer, who owns a three-unit building.”If my tenants were to decide to stop paying rent, I still have to pay my property taxes, utilities, insurance and cost of repairs.”

    If you can’t afford to run a business without revenue, then you shouldn’t be in business at all!

    /prog logic

    1. “I can’t worry about every undercapitalized business”
      — Hillary Clinton testifying before Congress on the effects of Nationalized Health Care.

    2. No, Ms. Dwyer. You’re an evil capitalist, and we’ll backdoor nationalize your property and, in effect, turn it over to your former tenants.

      Yours truly, San Francisco Central Committee

      1. Nobody needs 4 homes.

        1. That’s why Bernie stopped at three. He knows his limits.

      2. Oh that would be fun, watching the tenants trying to come up with the property taxes, repairs, utilities, etc, without an evil landlord to blame it on.

        1. The new tenants can simply pay for everything with party loyalty.

    3. I can see only two types of “logic” in the prog mind.

      1. A willful massive ignorance of even simple finance and exchange. Things like “rent” and “wages” are not trades, they are one directional transfers that can be arbitrarily changed without any connection to other market transactions.

      2. A deliberate goal of eliminating market economics, to be replaced by a comprehensive system of state controlled allocation of “production” (in scare quotes because these morons never seem to actually consider who will make things).

  3. How is this shit legal?

    1. That’s what I wondered. It seems like San Francisco is taking people’s property rights away without just compensation.
      The politicians only care about the tenants “rights” but don’t care at all about the property owners rights.

      1. Serious legal question: We know the police are under no legal obligation to retrieve your stolen property. Do they have an obligation to secure property you own by physically removing a trespasser from it?

    2. Fuck you, that’s how.

      1. Masturbation is the only thing that’s not banned, not regulated, and not taxed.

        That is your freedom, you are free to go fuck yourself.

        1. Masturbation is the only thing that’s not banned, not regulated, and not taxed.

          Truer words were never spoken – in San Fran, you can masturbate in broad daylight in front of a nursery school, and not get arrested.

        2. shhh, don’t give them ideas!

    3. I’m sure they’d say it’s because eviction is a legal proceeding, and that since they run the courts they can regulate how they operate, including not proceeding with evictions if they don’t want to. You know, like making marijuana enforcement the lowest priority in policing.

  4. San Fran often seems like it’s one vote away from lining property owners up against a wall.

    1. “You don’t own that!”

    2. And sadly enough, San Francisco is reactionary conservative compared to its neighbor across a bridge, Berkeley.

      I have a friend who owns in Berkeley. He has long since stopped renting to anyone, despite having ten empty units. It’s not worth it to him. He was already experienced with the shit college kids put units through, but Berkeley just got so stupid with things that he said fuck it. Which is why most Berkeley students don’t actually live in Berkeley. No one wants to rent to them within the city. Hell, I know Berkeley students commuting in from… Palo Alto!

      1. Would it pay for Berkeley students to buy a residence with a low monthly mortgage and all the equity in a balloon payment that doesn’t come due until after they’ve graduated and sold the place?

  5. Drop a match.
    Move out of CA.

    1. “We’re sorry to see you go. But thanks to your mandated ‘Departure Tax’ payment, two underprivileged tenants can stay housed for a year!”

      1. question, if someone leaves california without paying the departure tax (which seems like another legally questionable thing), how would Cali collect? It’s not like they would have jurisdiction in another state.

        1. They fuck over your credit score if you don’t pay. That’s how.

  6. Somebody can do the math: there are more tenant votes than there are landlord votes. Might makes right.

    1. Up with the Proletariat!

  7. How is this not a taking? Some people pay off homes and then rent them out to fund their retirement. Are they going to stop banks from foreclosing on properties who don’t pay their mortgage because the tenants don’t pay the rent because of Coronavirus? Where do the tenants go when the bank forecloses the building? And why would a landlord in SF ever risk renting again? So the most expensive housing market in the country will get even more expensive as units sit empty.

    Also, extending this for 2 months after the health crisis is over – have we defined when it will be over? Did I miss that? Vaccine? Eradication? Cure? Flattening the curve is no longer the goal, so what is?

    1. “Where do the tenants go when the bank forecloses the building? ”

      Why would they have to go anywhere? One assumes the new ordinance applies to bank-owned properties too.

      And that, in turn, greatly reduces the bank’s incentive to foreclose. Why would a bank want to take possession of a zero-revenue property that is still subject to taxes, still costs money to maintain, and is still liable to jackpot-seeking lawsuits. Correction, more liable to lawsuits once people find out there’s a back that can be sued.

  8. “If my tenants were to decide to stop paying rent, I still have to pay my property taxes, utilities, insurance and cost of repairs.”</blockquote.

    Dude, I'm sure you think you're smart, having worked hard and saved up to buy three building to base your income on.

    But if you were smart you'd see the signs, sell them off, and get out with what you can, while you still can.

    Because when your tenants stop paying, and the city backs them up, and you can't pay your property tax bill, the city will then just use that as an excuse to take the buildings and throw you in jail.

  9. It’s articles/comments like these are EXACTLY why Libertarians are considered unreasonable, not liked and generally fail in trying to actually get their policies/candidates/ANYTHING done.

    Dont get me wrong, I agree with a lot of Libertarian goals. But this honestly comes off as Libertarians believe solely in “Survival of the Fittest” only instead of muscle/strength measuring fitness, it’s just whoever has the most money.

    Answer me this: Why should the Landlords deserve all the pity and the renters get all the scorn, when if the situation were not like this and Landlords could do whatever they want? They’d be lauded by Libertarians for enacting their rights in tossing out deadbeats.

    Of course that doesn’t take into account that because of said Covid lockdowns, all these people who had jobs/money suddenly didn’t and would have NO WAY to actually pay for this.

    So really? All this ends up coming off as Libertarians saying “Aww, you lost your income over something that was in no way your fault? Well TOO BAD! Go live on the street like the peasant you are!”

    Until Libertarians deal with this mindset that prioritizes money/property over people, I can say with absolute certainty: You will NEVER get the true changes you want. Because you’re asking a vast majority of the American populous to be greedy and selfish on a level unheard of.

    1. Wow. You come across as really obtuse. It’s not that Libertarians object to helping out those who have lost their jobs and can’t pay their rent. What is objectionable is that the gangsters we call “the government” won’t suspend property taxes for affected landlords at the same time. I believe most Libertarians would see this as fair and reasonable – a sensible way to make sure no one is left completely out of pocket by these government decrees. Alternatively, the government could pay the rent for these people, given the government is directly responsible for them losing their jobs in the first place. This would spread the costs out over the entire tax base, instead of just whacking landlords.

      Instead, the thugs on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors are saying to landlords: “Aww, you lost your income over something that was in no way your fault? Well TOO BAD! We’ll just steal everything you own because, we believe you deserve to lose everything, you greedy kulak.”

      They stupidly believe landlords will continue to provide accommodations for free and pay for everything out of their own pockets. That’s not going to happen. Reasonable people may work out arrangements whereby rents are deferred, with an understanding that few if any repairs will be undertaken during this time.

      However, I foresee that some landlords will sue the city, some will sell (if they can) and some will just burn their properties down to collect the insurance. All they have to do is wait for a BLM march in the vicinity and claim that one of the rioters did it. Any tenant who thinks they will be living rent-free until this thing is over is in for a rude shock.

      Governments suck when it comes to unintended but entirely foreseeable consequences, especially Lefty governments.

      1. That may be true, but I do not believe for a second that if Landlords were given the freedom to do as they wish, there would just be a couple here and there that’d throw their tenants out in a heartbeat. In fact, i believe it’d be a vast majority of them.

        1. If the majority of landlords who had tenants that couldn’t pay their rent kicked them out, there would be a lot of empty residences. Most of those landlords would find themselves in pretty much the same situation: getting no income from their properties but still having to pay tax and insurance on them. The law of supply and demand would bite them in the ass hard.

          Of course, none of this changes the fact that it is the government that’s not doing their fair share in this situation. They should be willing to forego property taxes for as long as this measure lasts but, we all know they’re not going to do that. Junkie-thieves are never willing to give up their habit.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.