Quote Originally Posted by 313WX View Post
Try re-reading the article. It was the landlord who chose not to renew their lease and evict them.
I haven't said much in a long time, but I had to nitpick a little on the use of "evict". A tenant is "evicted" when they fail to meet the terms of the lease...perhaps they are behind on rent, perhaps they aren't following the rules agreed to for use of the rented space, but whatever it is, there is a breach of contract on the part of the tenant. The eviction is the Landlord asking the courts to remedy contract breach by forcing the tenant to exit the premises.

Choosing not to renew a lease is a two-way street. A 5-year lease binds the landlord to the tenant as well as the tenant to the landlord.

After 5 years, all bets are off. The two parties can renew for another 5 years. Another 3 years. Another 1 year. The Tenant can demand that rent be cut in half. The Landlord can demand that rent be doubled. They either come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.

Being a tenant and hearing the news that the landlord will not renew is disappointing.
Being a landlord and hearing the news that the tenant will also not renew is disappointing.

Having been on both sides of it, it sucks either way.

I'm a fan of Bucharest. I'm sorry they are moving. But they were not evicted. They were not "forced out". Their lease was up, and the two parties could not reach an agreement to renew.