Report: San Jose landlords are 'Cashing in on Renters'

A new Silicon Valley housing report points a critical eye toward landlords in San Jose, many of which advocacy groups claim are taking advantage of and displacing the city’s poorest renters for their own financial gain.

The report, released Wednesday, comes out just in time for an important San Jose City Council vote slated for next week that would help implement stronger protections for renters in the city. Specifically, the proposed ordinance that will be discussed next week aims to curb no-cause evictions for low-income renters and help residents get relocation funds after being displaced.

Let’s see how you guys like a lil taste of the potential future of what we already get on a regular basis in the Fab 7x7…

I believe @buyinghouse already posted about this upcoming meeting and wanted you SJ owners there in solidarity to fight it. It may be inevitable, but if you owners don’t at least present your case well another town falls…

How is it “taking advantage” of someone to charge market rent? It amazes me the entitlement and rights that renters expect over a property they don’t even own. We may hit a tipping point where renters have more property rights than the property’s owner.

I also don’t get the whole “eviction” thing. If rent increases and the tenant doesn’t want to sign a new lease, then their lease is over on the expiration date. The tenant is choosing to move out. Now if they decide to stay and not pay rent, then it’d be an eviction with cause.


We get it. Renters don’t.

1 Like

I’m sick and tired of the Uber liberal’s propaganda. These Uber liberals are “Cashing in” on misleading public opinion. There should be a “fact check” on these nonsense.

Anyone has time to start a fact-check website for these nonsense? It could become a success and bring in millions of dollars annual ad revenue.

Spread my ideas to all the entrepreneurs, I’ll charge $0 license fee.

1 Like

I posted that just to prove what I always said, some landlords, I can’t say all of them, but…some on this forum are just blah, blah, blah. They never come here telling us they attended any meetings where they went to “protest”, oh nooooo…they want everything in their hands.

I speak specially of those with the “liberal here, liberal there mantra”. The poor souls don’t know liberals fought for their right to be respected here. They love to live in the liberal areas where they are protected by diversity. Once they go out of the grid, their language, or the English accent, or their physical appearance, or their clothing will make them a nice target for racism.

By the way, I know many landlords, I’ve known all sorts of them, never a bad apple, but heard of them.

So there’s something called “loyalty”. That goes both ways, landlords and tenants. They don’t move when the bad times are in for the landlord, nor they expect the backstabbing landlord to nail them with a yearly increase when they are old, and they have contributed into the landlord’s coffers so they can own that place free and clear. Increases may not all be in contract, but those loyal people rely on the word of mouth to be a contract among men of honor.

But, this is America, go ahead, do what your honesty and your moral values dictate you.

I may be idealistic in many ways, but all I ask for is fairness. If legitimate costs are increasing, shouldn’t an owner be allowed to pass along those increases in costs (in full, incrementally, whatever) to their tenants? What happens is that in rent controlled areas, costs such as garbage collection and water have really gone up, yet, you can only pass along the max amount allowed per year which is pennies. People shouldn’t think renting houses is any different from renting a car. You have a contract duration and if you damage it you pay for it. Once contract duration is over, the rental company can charge whatever it wants. To me, the contract is key. If your lease is for a year, then nothing can be done to you during that year. I feel, once the lease is over though, all bets are off, and the owner can do whatever he/she wants to. Why not? The contract is over.

If we really want to address the housing crutch do away with the present state of rent control. Why? Well, for one reason, it is working great…not!!! We have too many owners who have held out units since they are afraid that they will lose control of their own properties. Imagine that, that people are willing to forego say thousands of extra dollars income monthly because they are afraid and legitimately so, of possible tenant issues. I go back to a form of means testing. Means testing is fair to both owners and renters. If you make a lot, you shouldn’t be allowed to keep paying pennies for your apartment or to use them as vacation homes. Housing should go to those in need. You are a senior citizen on a fixed income, too bad for the owner. He/she will just have to wait until they move out, one way or another. What we need to do is incrementally DO SOMETHING. Don’t just sit there and think the problem will go away by itself. I would prefer that the Fab 7x7, the city that I think is at the forefront of most things, can come up with legislation that is cutting edge and fair. I know, with our pathetic Bored Of Stupidvisors, ain’t happening soon but I still have hope that it too will see the light or that the voting citizens of the Fab 7x7 finally get it and vote in folks with real, good ideas and not just pipe dreams.

1 Like

The attitude of average American is:
If you make money, share them; if you lose money, is your problem.
If the business can make money, government should hand off; if the business loses money, tax payers are oblige to provide the safety net to the risk takers and its employees.

Having said that, in general, the price of a good and service should be determined by willing buyers and sellers. However, for certain public good and service that are essential to the smooth functioning of the economy, is appropriate for government to intervene to prevent price gouging or subsidize to spur economic activities.

Housing is a tricky issue. Government has decided that buying and selling of private residential properties are private transactions, so it follows that renting is also a private transaction. In that case, landlords should be allowed to set whatever rent they want. Hence rent control is not consistent with treating rental as private transactions too. If we allow rent control, there should be similar measures for sale transactions of private residential properties too, price control for sale :joy:. In Singapore, both sale and rental transactions are not treated as private transactions and are subjected to government regulations, stamp duties are imposed for these transactions. Government influences price and rent through changes in stamp duties.

1 Like

Can the government subsidize me for providing house if they are doing rent control? So if my rental is 50% below market due to rent control, government should chip in the other 50%.


Liberals in CA do not honor the legal system. Contract in this country is BS.
All they need is making up some sorry ass story, make them so poor, and landlords are so evil then they’ll win the case.


I didn’t know you had the Liberal = Communist mindset .:rofl:

That’s typical of a hypocrite or a liar person, right?

I am going to be working for you, I won’t have time to play golf. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Is that a liberal/communist mindset??? ok, if you say so… :slight_smile:

I would leave the state if I went through this BS. Yeah, I would be flying out of here ASAP! I would then land in a state where they will make tacos with my race or nationality after listening to my English :rofl: