The Sierra Club is terrorist organization
Another example of California values. So much for California setting trends in national culture and politics.
WhatâŚ
How will this help? If renters had the financial means, then they could just buy the property when itâs listed for sale. Nothing is preventing that from happening. This seems to be an attempt by politicians to claim they did something when it wonât make a difference.
I read the comments section and now it makes sense. It means the tenant has the right to match the highest bidding price. It sounds fair and square, but the real issue is it will depress the bidding process since buyers wonât bother if they know they still canât get it even if they offer the highest price. Thatâs the real intention of the law.
How often do you think tenants will be able to match the best price?
How many times can I win a house this way? Time to be a tenant 
Or can work with the tenants 
Need to think outside the box. Why does it have to be the tenantâs money?
It doesnât, but why would the seller care? They have to match the highest offer. As long as they close and the seller is paid, then thatâs what really matters. You could argue itâs lead to âfakeâ bids to get the seller more money.
I donât think they are passing a law just to help seller get more money. 
This law inserts the tenants (and what they represent) into the sale process, not as just another bidder but as a buyer who is guaranteed to trump over all other buyers. In most cases the tenants cannot afford to buy so it doesnât help the tenants, but in cases where the tenants do want to buy or the tenants would want someone else to buy on their behalf they are guaranteed to win. These are the cases the law is for.
Selling a property is a tricky process. A lot of times sellers will choose the strongest offer which may not be of the highest price. These days there are a lot of FHA buyers offering high prices above comps but sellers ignore them because appraisals will not be high enough and these buyers typically donât have enough cash to cover the extra due to low appraisal value. If the law says the seller has to take the highest offer regardless of other terms this can be a real problem for the seller. Whatâs going to happen after the appraisal comes back low and tenants says no money to cover the difference. Do you relist the property or just lower the price to work with the tenant? Usually relisting will result in a lower sale price so might as well work with the tenant if the difference is not significant. This kind of law will limit sellersâ options to benefit buyers.
I just happened to see this today:
Probably not exactly the same as whatâs coming to Berkeley, but will eventually be the same if not already. With these rights it can get really complicated.
The fundamental theme of laws like this (including rent control) is that tenants have some property rights. If you take this as a postulate, then all these laws make sense.
I have been listening to Ben Shapiro podcast lately. He is mostly on the conservative side but he also rips Trump sometimes. The latest episode on the Bloomberg debate performance is quite good. The way he rips the Democratic candidates and analysis on their attacks on each other were satisfying. Cannot trust all he says but a lot of his opinions were spot-on.
Follow-up to the TOPA idea:
The comment section usually contains better information than the articles themselves.
Yes. I get it. Natural Gas is bad.
There was a time when Democrats called natural gas a clean alternative energy. It wasnât that long ago.
Most natural gas comes from the mouths of progressive politicians.
Absolute insanity. Hypocrisy abounds with these idiots. In the seventies electric heating was in effect banned.
In fact last year the City of SLT forced me to put in gas.
Electricity would have been easier. But much more expensive in the long run.
Title 24 regulations banned electric heating because it wastes energy. A lot of electricity generation in California comes from natural gas.
There is no let-up in Berkeley: