Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco, Silicon Valley rents plunge amid downturn

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 342 posts

Re: San Francisco, Silicon Valley rents plunge amid downturn

#331

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

vmchale wrote: post #123
jedberg wrote: post #73

This article seems to be based on only a few transactions, as not a lot of people are actually moving right now. I manage a couple of properties in the Bay Area, so I keep a close eye on these things. What I'm seeing is not a drop in rents, but an increase in $0 deposits and many weeks of free rent upon move in (sometimes 6+ weeks). Landlords are very reluctant to lower rents, because with the statewide rent control…

> Landlords are very reluctant to lower rents, because with the statewide rent control that limits increases to 5% a year, we're incentivized to keep the rents high and give months of free rent, just so our base rate doesn't drop. God what a short-sighted policy. Not that I expect rent control to go well but that's nuts.

There's a reason rent-control is almost universally despised among economists. That said, of all the rent-control policies I've seen, I think the least-bad is what they've been using in Spain: no rent increases for 5 years after move-in, then increases are only allowed every 3 years after that.

They've implemented a time-based stabilizing mechanism, instead of an arbitrary percentage-based cap. Moving is a huge cost for a tenant, so if a landlord raises rents every year, expecting people to be able to move every year to a fairly-priced place is insanity. But, I do think most people can handle a move every 5 years to a cheaper neighborhood if they need to.

Re: San Francisco, Silicon Valley rents plunge amid downturn

#332

Post by jldugger »

pb7 wrote: post #142
jedberg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're actually in a pretty strong position. Normally to leave a lease you need to give notice, usually 30 days. But there is one time you don't have to do that -- when the lease ends. If you lease ends on July 1, you can turn in your keys on June 30 and walk away. Your landlord knows this. Rents won't go back up in July. Even if the economy recovers 100% in the next two weeks, most tech employers in the area are doi…

>Normally to leave a lease you need to give notice, usually 30 days. But there is one time you don't have to do that -- when the lease ends. Every lease I've ever signed required 30 days notice from either party to end the lease when the lease term ends, otherwise it proceeds on a month to month basis with no further action required. Edit: Technically not required in California but confirmed that it was in fact requi…

This is not really an option in California in my experience. There is no automatic month-to-month conversion, and it's pretty rare as far as I can tell.

Re: San Francisco, Silicon Valley rents plunge amid downturn

#333

Post by fiter »

marcell wrote: post #329
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not squatting. They are tenants and have rights to the property as well. The landlord can get them out, but has to follow the legal process.

The GP didn’t mention a lease so I assumed it was month to month, in which case the landlord terminated the lease and the renter moves out. If they had a longer lease, then I’d agree the landlord can’t force them out before the lease ends.

Rent control throws a wrench in this simple model. In Berkeley, the tenant almost exclusively has the right to terminate the tenancy. Expiration of lease or month-to-month term is not actually grounds for the owner to terminate the tenancy.

Re: San Francisco, Silicon Valley rents plunge amid downturn

#334

Post by tylerhou »

jedberg wrote: post #322
tylerhou wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said that Berkeley would be open, but there is a real possibility that no classes will be held on campus at all.

From my post: "Berkeley's Chancellor has said that labs will be open with restrictions, but most likely lectures will not."

"Labs" in this context means supplemental classes of ~20 people associated with a lecture, especially when lectures are often ~200+ people. If I'm taking a CS class, I might go to lab two times a week to reinforce and cover topics learned in lecture. (See [1] for an example of the colloquial usage of "lab.")

So when I say "classes will be closed," I mean that labs will not be open.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/c3r8f0/what_happe...

Re: San Francisco, Silicon Valley rents plunge amid downturn

#335

Post by jedberg »

tylerhou wrote: post #334
jedberg wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my post: "Berkeley's Chancellor has said that labs will be open with restrictions, but most likely lectures will not."

"Labs" in this context means supplemental classes of ~20 people associated with a lecture, especially when lectures are often ~200+ people. If I'm taking a CS class, I might go to lab two times a week to reinforce and cover topics learned in lecture. (See [1] for an example of the colloquial usage of "lab.") So when I say "classes will be closed," I mean that labs will not be open. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/berkel…

As a graduate of Berkeley, I'm well aware of the colloquial use of the term "labs". However, that is not the way the Chancellor is using it in her statements.

She means the more standard definition of "places where there is equipment for students and professors to use for research".

She is saying that campus labs (rooms with special equipment for research) will most likely be open in the fall with extra precautions, and that classes may be remote only or they may offer both remote and in person options, but they haven't decided yet.

But she's pretty adamant that students and professors will have access to their equipment for research.

So no, campus will not be closed. Classes may be closed, which I said initially.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. We said the same thing. You just said it in a different way, and I'm not sure why.

Re: San Francisco, Silicon Valley rents plunge amid downturn

#336

Post by refurb »

jedberg wrote: post #227
refurb wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone did a study on this in SF. You can probably google it. As you mention, a significant percentage of tenants with rent control would be regarded as "high income" households. Hell, I know a guy who has a rent control units for a couple decades. He can pay his monthly rent with one day's take-home pay.

> Hell, I know a guy who has a rent control units for a couple decades. He can pay his monthly rent with one day's take-home pay. It sounds outrageous, but I know someone like that too. Got a rent controlled box in Berkeley as a student, never left. Rent is only about $700 a month now. If you make $180,000 a year, that's a single day's pay.

Yup. I remember people telling me this when I first moved to SF. The rent may suck, but if you get a rent controlled place, a few years later you’ll be paying below market and the economics start to make more sense.

Re: San Francisco, Silicon Valley rents plunge amid downturn

#337

Post by dietr1ch »

triceratops wrote: post #233
vmchale wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Landlords are very reluctant to lower rents, because with the statewide rent control that limits increases to 5% a year, we're incentivized to keep the rents high and give months of free rent, just so our base rate doesn't drop. God what a short-sighted policy. Not that I expect rent control to go well but that's nuts.

"Rent control" has existed for nearly 50 years for property owners in California. It's called Prop 13. The current housing mess is a direct consequence of it

Oh, so if you implement rent control on some irrelevant city it'll have the same effect than on the Bay Area?

Forgetting about all the high paying jobs around together with the restrictions for building sounds too convenient to blame it on rent control.

Re: San Francisco, Silicon Valley rents plunge amid downturn

#338

Post by dehrmann »

reaperducer wrote: post #261
aeyes wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd follow up with the letter that you are moving out immediately. Let's see who'll be laughing last.

I'd follow up with the letter that you are moving out immediately. Let's see who'll be laughing last. And they'd follow up with a multi-thousand dollar bill for the remainder of your lease, plus fees, that is legally enforceable, and due immediately. A lease is a contract. You don't get to just walk away.

I think my last long-term least set the penalty at one or two months' rent, but your results may vary. In California, if they can find someone else to rent the unit, you're only on the hook for the time the unit was vacant.

Re: San Francisco, Silicon Valley rents plunge amid downturn

#340

Post by ccktlmazeltov »

bradlys wrote: post #318
ccktlmazeltov wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After 5 seconds looking, this used to be 4000$ AT LEAST https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/d/san-francisco-bright-...

> This posting has been flagged for removal. [?] I'm presuming you're looking at spam listings and getting taken for a ride.

Not sure, but I found a bunch of places like this. Haven't tried to visit any. They don't look like spam to me FWIW.
Post reply on HN