Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

abc13.com

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#41
We socialize certain types of goods in the United States - roads, police, schools and mostly (though not always) the fire department. Other goods, like healthcare, while not socialized in the United States, are regulated (in many other countries of course, health care is in the same column as police/roads/schools).

Singapore is an interesting example of a country where they've mostly socialized housing to great success.

You can still buy property if you are very wealthy, but 80%+ of the population lives in a government (heavily) subsidized "HDB" - Housing Development Block - basically massive apartment blocks, that the government builds by the 10s of thousands. You then get a "99 year lease" to the property, though, by the time the property starts to get around 40-50 years old (HDBs have only been around that long) - the government will usually build much nicer, newer buildings, and give the occupants of the old building first right of refusal of (collectively) moving out of the old one and signing a new 99 year lease (Known as Selective Enbloc Redevelopment Scheme) - it remains to be seen if there will be any leases that ever expire.

As a result, property is affordable to all citizens, though if you are less well off, there is a good chance you will be living with other family members sharing rent - Singapore is a much more family oriented country, so this is normal and accepted. Also, if you are price sensitive, you might chose to live in a somewhat more distant property (known as New Estate, as compared to Mature Estate that has lots of shops, transit, built up around it).

And, then if you strike it rich - and don't like the HDB lifestyle, you can go buy a Condo (has lawn, pool, security, gym, usually nicer architecture) for 2x what a similar HDB would have cost you.

Singapore is a fabulously expensive country for expats to live in - but they've done a great job (amazing job) of keeping it very affordable for citizens. Transportation, Food, Housing, Healthcare Insurance - all of the essentials have had a lot of work put into them to keep everything cheap, cheap for the citizenry.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#43

When I was at school participating in a legal clinic I had lots of clients facing eviction and we had plenty of tricks to use. Most popular was to demand a jury trial, which could take a month or two to organize, during which time the tenant wasn't paying rent and so could save enough to move. The basic procedure: http://www.courts.ca.gov/27723.htm

That's a pretty shitty thing to do to a landlord.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#44
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or people could just stop moving to SF already. Supply and demand works two ways, and it's not like the SF housing shortage is a secret.

But one of these is the market functioning correctly - people moving to places with good jobs. The other is the market being manipulated to serve the interests of a relatively small group of people - restricting housing supply.

No, the market is not functioning correctly. The SF housing situation is making it increasingly expensive to get workers in SF. In a functioning market this would cause businesses to set up elsewhere. This isn't happening, in part because funding is coming from a relatively small, tightly-connected group of SF-centric VCs.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#45
post #26

Could I ask why HN crowd supports rent control? It seems we are going against our own interests. 90% of flats are not on market, that makes remaining 10% very expensive.

Total supply is a bigger problem than rent control. Building more would solve more problems than removing rent control.

The latter would at most get a few people to share smaller apartments - the former will free up much more space much faster with less disruption.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#46

We socialize certain types of goods in the United States - roads, police, schools and mostly (though not always) the fire department. Other goods, like healthcare, while not socialized in the United States, are regulated (in many other countries of course, health care is in the same column as police/roads/schools). Singapore is an interesting example of a country where they've mostly socialized housing to great succe…

This "socialized apartments" would not work easily in the U.S.

In California, the highest tax bracket is 13.3% and it's 39.6% as the highest Federal income tax bracket, for a total of:

13.3% + 39.6% = 52.9%

The top income tax bracket in California (combined) is nearly 53%.

Could California build socialized apartments to satisfy demand? I.e. are taxes high enough to provide the funds to do so?

The highest tax bracket in Singapore is 20%. (See https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/Individuals/Locals/Working-...)

Singapore is able to socialize apartments by taking only 20% of their citizens' money. If you think about it, their 20% top bracket:

- pays for all their roads, schools, bridges, etc. AND - pays for huge apartment communities

There is absolutely no way our state will ever be efficient enough to socialize housing. We're taxed at almost 3X what Singapore is and we cannot even manage paying for all our roads, schools, bridges, etc.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#48
post #37
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Rent control laws in SF don't allow that. That's the flip side of rent control: you have people paying a lot less than market price. Or another way to look at it, people moving into the city are subsidizing costs for existing tenants resulting in higher market prices--which depending on your perspective, could be seen as unfair to new tenants or fair for old tenants.

The costs of being a landlord don't change that much from year to year - especially in SF where property taxes are capped by prop 13. New tenants aren't "subsidizing" anything. Whats happening is that landlords are making a killing on rapidly rising rents, with relatively fixed costs.

Thank you for bringing a dose of accuracy to this discussion.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#49

I suspect I have the unpopular opinion, but I don't see this as an especially big deal. Yes, I understand this is an especially sensitive issue for SFers. And yes, it sucks for the guy. Renting has its perks, but this is part of the risk of renting; you're living on someone else's property. Repeating that--it's THEIRS, not yours. If you have no current contract (lease), why should they be required to rent something t…

[deleted]

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#50

When I was at school participating in a legal clinic I had lots of clients facing eviction and we had plenty of tricks to use. Most popular was to demand a jury trial, which could take a month or two to organize, during which time the tenant wasn't paying rent and so could save enough to move. The basic procedure: http://www.courts.ca.gov/27723.htm

I could see applying for a jury trial if you need time to...gather evidence to get ready or something but...just to be able to keep living there "rent free" ??? I guess if the landlord has done something awful and you want to get back at them maybe but...

Or to prevent the client becoming homeless for lack of money to pay a deposit, a cycle that does no good for anyone.

Americans have a right to a jury trial in these situations. A jury of you peers, as opposed to a bench trial by a judge, is a civil right. A trial you are going to loose is a bad idea, but the act of asking for one is always a reasonable assertion of one's rights.

Post reply on HN