Posted on 05/24/2019 10:00:10 AM PDT by EdnaMode
A 102-year-old Los Angeles woman is reportedly being evicted from the apartment she has lived in for 30 years to make room for the landlord’s daughter.
Thelma Smith received a 90-day eviction notice for her month-to-month lease in early March and is now relying on friends and relatives who live on the East Coast to help her find a new place to live, The Los Angeles Times reported.
The Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance says that landlords in the county can evict tenants to accommodate a relative, but they must start with the most recent resident. Smith, however, lives in unincorporated Ladera Heights where the laws are weaker. “They use this law to target long-term, low-paying tenants,” Larry Gross, the executive director for the Coalition for Economic Survival told The Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
was this an apartment complex? If so, there was nooen else they could have given notice to? A Younger person or couple?
Legal doesn’t mean right.
I wouldn’t want to belong to any church that would have a heartless person like that as a member. Nor would I want to patronize any establishment they were part of; that is legal, too.
I said nothing about having government do jack, but societal shame is a perfectly valid mechanism for modifying behavior.
There are plenty of things that are legal and that government has no business in, that should have societal repercussions.
No worries, compassionate Nancy ‘this is not who we are’ will take the lady into her compound rent free....
Rent control laws end up having the kinds of adverse effects you enumerated. We have Liberal friends who just sold their five unit Telegraph Hill building in San Francisco. They originally purchased it so that they would have a place to stay when they visited because they live in Nevada. You cannot imagine the hoops they had to go through and the years and bucks they had to “invest” in order to have an apartment in their own building. In the end, thanks to SF’s idiotic rent control ordinance, they had to sell the property because they could not afford the uncovered expenses. Each year, under RC in SF you can only raise rents 60% of what the market shows. That is a recipe for financial ruin. And yet here in this thread we have "conservatives' on the warpath against this landlord for being "un-Christian!" One guy even said he'd not belong to the same church as the landlord. As Pogo said:"We have met the enemy and he is us!"
That is one of the risks for a month to month rental, it goes BOTH ways.
It’s sad that she’s 102 and being given the boot, but there is little recourse.
“I said nothing about having government do jack, but societal shame is a perfectly valid mechanism for modifying behavior.”
What bothers me about your statement is the fact that you actually think this landlord deserves public shaming. You are either delusional, or you are really just a Democrat pretending to be a “religious conservative!” Might want to pick up a copy of The Constitution and read through it. The Bill of Rights too!
Says you !
Again, since reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your forte, please tell my what the Constitution or bill of rights have to do with identifying and shaming people who behave disgustingly but within the law?
It is every bit as much my right to join in societal disapproval of someone doing something *I* consider heartless and disgusting as it is anybody’s right to do anything.
Your apparent general level of mental retardation keeps bringing you back to incoherence about this somehow being a legal or constitutional issue, you might try to follow along- No one said anything about using the power of government (and I sure as HELL don’t support rent control), but some things SHOULD bring shame on a person even if they are acting within their rights and the law.
If you don’t agree, fine, but don’t be such an idiot about it.
“First she has a Month to month lease and she is getting a 3 month notice. The landlord is simply not renewing the lease and is giving a 3 month notice. That is not an eviction in any way shape or form.”
+1
Add to this that she has lived in a “rent stabilized” apartment, stealing from the landlord as expenses rise every year.
Calling Hot Bench...
Calling Judge Judy...
Calling People’s Court....
Calling Judge Mathis.......
But, I would certainly like to see them named, and shamed. If they are pretending to be a Christian then hopefully their entire church would ostracize them, if they own a business perhaps it could be named and boycotted.
\-—————————————
A little vindictive for not knowing much about the situation or the people.
This article was written with an agenda and you bit, hook, line and sinker...................................
I will bet you an ice cream bar that that daughter NEVER pays rent anything close to $1600 a month....
UNLESS the daughter is on Section 8 & then the taxpayers are footing 80% of that rent bill.
It seems most assume that all landlords are wealthy and all decisions are made to increase that wealth regardless of the poor tenants’ needs.
Not all who own rental properties are wealthy. My dad bought some as a long term investment and much of my childhood was spent barely getting by ourselves. There weren’t piles of cash to rely on when tenants didn’t pay or were late.
I know several people who have bought a rental property in a college town so that their kids could live there during their college years. Before and after that time, the properties were rented to others.
For all we know, this landlord bought the property years ago with the intention of having his daughter live there at this time in her life. Why should his plans for his property change? And at 102 she must have grandkids and great grandkids, why aren’t they helping an elderly family member?
The guy is within the law, and it is his right as the owner. But, he is still an @sshole for kicking out an 102-year old woman so that his Law School graduating daughter has a place to stay. He (and his daughter) could have made other arrangements for whatever remaining time this woman has left on Earth.
And the problem with this is???? It’s their property, not hers.
This would make a good “Go Fund Me” the lady could be living in nicer digs than the landlord in short order. Sweet revenge.
I suspect the landlord is losing money on the 102 year old tenant. And he now faces the additional costs of helping his daughter pay for her housing.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s what the sniff test suggests.
And so, since he doesn’t have a tree that grows money, he faces:
1. Abandoning / selling the property
2. The only other real option.
Yup. But damn him to hell anyway.
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.