Something on the news is puzzling me. Can you explain it to me?

It concerns the national news story today about those apartment buildings which are threatening to fall off the cliff into the ocean on the coast of California.

And here's what's puzzling me.  I have now seen two different tv news reports which interviewed two different residents of those apartments.
Both are telling the news media that they are refusing to be evacuated because they "have no place else to go and will be homeless if they leave".

Huh.  Correct me if I'm wrong,  but these are people renting apartments.
So we know they already have means to pay the rent because if they didn't they wouldn't be living in those apartments.

SO WHY IN THE NAME OF SENSE DO THEY HAVE TO BE HOMELESS IF THEY LEAVE?  WHY IN THE BLUE BLAZES CAN THEY JUST NOT RENT ANOTHER APARTMENT IN ANOTHER APARTMENT BUILDING?  ARE THOSE THREE APARTMENT BUILDINGS THE ONLY APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN ALL OF LOS ANGELES?

The oceans have been rising since the last glacial maximum... humans used to be good at adapting.

Actually it just occurs to me that it's even crazier than what I already said.
Those apartment buildings are sitting on the ocean in Pacifica which is on the coast in the San Francisco Bay Area just south of San Francisco.  And adjacent to Silicon Valley.
Duh!!  Those CANNOT be cheap apartments. 

So here's what this is like.  A hurricane is threatening to flood a rental condo building which sits directly on the Gulf in Pensacola Beach. 
Gulf front apartments aint cheap!

So all of a sudden we start seeing news reports and they interview two of those apartment residents.  And they say if they have to evacuate those apartments they have nowhere else to go and will be homeless.
When all they have to do is drive across the Bay Bridge and rent hundreds of apartments that will be even cheaper to rent.

Something's REALLY wrong with these news reports.

I saw the interviews with the residents on two different tv shows,  Z.
One was the NBC Nightly News.

Don't misunderstand.  I'm not in any way questioning the fact that these apartment buildings are about to fall into the ocean.  Nor that the people should be evacuated from them.  I'm not even questioning that some are refusing to leave because it is their home even if they're renting.

The only thing I'm questioning is why they have to be homeless if they do leave.

I saw it on HLN this morning....unbelievable.

One of the residents that won't leave said "Where else can you find an apt on the ocean for $1500 per month"? Guess that's why some are staying, but it is crazy.

ppaca wrote:One of the residents that won't leave said "Where else can you find an apt on the ocean for $1500 per month"? Guess that's why some are staying, but it is crazy.

I'll bet since part of it has already fallen over the cliff,  that he could now drive a lot harder bargain with that landlord than $1500/mo.  I'd offer the landlord a hundred a month.  lol

Wait a minute,  I figured that one dead wrong.
If I was the landlord I'd up the rent to $10,000/mo.
Why?  Because once that apartment goes over the cliff
and takes that tenant with it,  Mike Papantonio and
Alexander Shunarrah would be teamed up to take that
wrongful death case against the landlord before the body was
even picked up.  lol

Probably not enough money in it for Papatonio at this point of his career, but Alexander is probably there as we speak.

ppaca wrote:Probably not enough money in it for Papatonio at this point of his career, but Alexander is probably there as we speak.

Excellent observation.  Yes,  unless the whole Pacific coast goes in the drink,  Papantonio has bigger fish to fry with mass torts and class actions against big pharma.  lol

My first reaction, if my apartment had the likelihood of falling off a cliff would be to get my loved ones, pets, motorcycle and other things far away quickly.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/01/26/california-pacifica-homes-evacuation-sea/79337338/

Bob wrote:The only thing I'm questioning is why they have to be homeless if they do leave.

Think Rent Control.

RealLindaL wrote:

Bob wrote:The only thing I'm questioning is why they have to be homeless if they do leave.

Think Rent Control.

Please explain.  Is that oceanfront apartment building the only rent controlled apartment building in all of the SF Bay area?  I don't understand.

I've not seen anything saying that the tenants were refusing to get out.

Markle wrote:I've not seen anything saying that the tenants were refusing to get out.

I was lying, markle,  to see if you would call me on it.

Bob wrote:

Markle wrote:I've not seen anything saying that the tenants were refusing to get out.

I was lying, markle,  to see if you would call me on it.

No, you weren't, Bob. I saw some people on the news saying they wouldn't leave...not smart.

Bob wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Bob wrote:The only thing I'm questioning is why they have to be homeless if they do leave.

Think Rent Control.

Please explain.  Is that oceanfront apartment building the only rent controlled apartment building in all of the SF Bay area?  I don't understand.

IF the building is rent controlled (and I certainly don't know that; am just offering a possible cause of the statements we've heard about being on the street), and IF the tenants have been there for quite a long time, the rent they're paying now is likely waaay lower than a new tenant would have to pay if moving into the same building today (presuming, of course, that it weren't about to fall into the sea), and also likely way lower than the departing tenant would be able to find anywhere else in the area.  

As an example, I have a friend who's moving from Oakland, CA to the Portland, OR area.  She currently lives in a rent controlled apartment, has been there for some time, already pays what I consider an astronomical amount, but says if she changed her mind about buying a house in Oregon and wanted to move back in to her old apartment or anything comparable in the Bay Area, she'd never, ever be able to afford the rent.  

Leave it and lose it, in other words.  No portability on rent controlled rates such as there is on, for example, a Florida Homestead Exemption (and no break for the new, incoming renter, either).  Hope this clarifies, Bob.  Again, I'm only guessing but it would make sense, I think, based on what the people were saying about being homeless.

Additionally, IF these people are already living paycheck to paycheck and have no other resources, it could be nigh onto impossible to come up with first and last month's rent plus a security deposit on a new place.

I think ya'll have made me see the light on this.  And this also helped (take a look at the monthly rent amounts)...

http://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/California/Pacifica/

Obviously those $1500 oceanfront apartments are not easy to come by.  So now I understand it.

For example,  this is what it costs to rent a studio apartment (doesn't even have a bedroom),  in Lands End.  Lands End is right down the street from the $1500/mo Esplanade Apartments which are falling into the ocean.
The rent for a studio apartment at Lands End STARTS at $2195/mo...

http://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/California/Pacifica/Lands-End/14363/

Markle wrote:I've not seen anything saying that the tenants were refusing to get out.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pacifica+tenants+refuse+to+leave&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Bob wrote:I think ya'll have made me see the light on this. 

Yep, Bob, I think you've got it now.

Like minimum wage, rent control should be eliminated.