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

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

#61

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 9:02 PM UTC

raldi wrote: post #29

bduerst wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real trick is convincing the families in those 6% single-family homes to move. You'd have an easier time rezoning old industrial areas into residential, like they did with Mission Bay.

> The real trick is convincing the families in those 6% single-family homes to move. No way; that would be a piece of cake. The only reason it's not happening now is that zoning law forbids it. If that were changed, homeowners would be falling over themselves to sell their land to apartment developers; it would be a giant windfall for them. In fact, you'd have to charge a steep development fee to reduce that windfall…

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by ghshephard » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 10:02 PM UTC

youngButEager wrote: post #46

ghshephard wrote: post #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 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…

Fair point about taxes - but, to be clear, I'm sure the HDBs are sold at a profit compared to the cost of building them - but there is no land speculation (they are 99 year leases), and housing speculation has a zillion dials to reduce it from happening with HDBs (you have to live in them for a while before you can sell them, you have to pay extra taxes if you are not a citizen)

And all this came about because in the 1950s, the housing situation in Singapore was abysmal, possibly one of the worst in the world. Government decided to take a leadership role in ensuring that their citizens had housing.

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

#63

Post by asksol » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 10:45 PM UTC

torgoguys wrote: post #60

cam_l wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Renting has its perks" Do you mean renting or rent-seeking? I fail to see how renting has perks.

There are lots of them. The biggies: Mobility (i.e., not being tied down to the property). Either a) not tying up a lot of money on housing (assuming outright purchase or large down payment) or b) cheaper monthly payment than a mortgage (small down payment). Outsourced maintenance (although there are good and bad landlords in this regard). If there weren't advantages, renting wouldn't be as common as it is.

I agree it has some advantages, but citing commonality seems weird when it's increasingly unlikely for new to be homeowners to afford a home in cities like London, SF, etc. I doubt most people waste thousands of dollars each month for the ability to relocate quickly?

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

#64

Post by pedalpete » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 10:47 PM UTC

gscott wrote: post #7

pedalpete wrote: post #3

In no way am I defending the landlord, and I know nothing about the rents in that area of SF, but the news clip fails to state when the last increase was. It also doesn't mention how large the apartment is, or what a comparable rental in that area would be. The renter says he's been living there a long time. If the rent hasn't increased in 20 years, there may be an expectation of an increase at some point. That doesn…

In California if you raise rent by more then 10% you have to give 60 days notice. This article didn't mention if the landlords notice was properly done.

But even still, a 60 day notice on a 400% increase isn't much if you've been living in the residence for 20 years.

I'd find it interesting to have a 60 day + 2 weeks per year of residence or something like that. The longer you stay in a place, the harder it can be to leave.

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

#65

Post by mdorazio » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #20

mdorazio wrote: 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.

So what do you suggest the companies do that already exist in the area when they need more employees? "Tough shit"? That likely won't work in a free market :) Finding a place to live there absolutely sucks and I hope someone eventually makes progress towards fixing it but I'm not sure telling people to stop taking good jobs is going to fly.

Open offices in other locations? Move to other locations? Allow remote work? The notion that companies just have to setup shop and maintain a primary presence in SF is ridiculous.