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

New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#11

Post by gtowey »

notfromhere wrote: post #6
red-iron-pine wrote: post #3

that application fee is a scam man but one of the pieces that didn't make it to the top of reddit's discussion was that it's a shared-living situation, not your own apartment or isolated basement. its shitty, but it's not like a landlord trying to regulate how often you're in your own private apartment

you're renting a space per month, and they're essentially adding an extra fee if you're doing more than sleeping there. kinda nuts

The expectations of some bay area landlords when renting space in their own home are bonkers I've seen it all: not allowed to use the kitchen, not allowed to have guests, curfews, some are even contingent on not allowing the tenant to be there on the weekend at all.

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#12

Post by al_borland »

crote wrote: post #9
al_borland wrote: post #5

Assuming nothing illegal, it isn't the landlord's business what a tenant is doing inside, working or sitting around watching TV... why does it matter? They should just be happy the person has a job and can pay the rent on time.

Landlords and HoAs have been doing this for ages , it has just mostly impacted less well-off people until now. Want to do some nails as a side hustle, sell homemade goods via the internet, or make extra cash repairing people's cars in your garage over the weekend? Sorry, contract says no, enjoy your eviction for "operating a business" or "commercial use of the property". Banning WFH or charging extra for it is just t…

Operating a business out of your home is a different story. The issue there is customers coming to the home, which means traffic and a general disturbance for neighbors. That's very different than someone sitting at home on a Zoom meeting.

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#13

Post by al_borland »

Grombobulous wrote: post #7
al_borland wrote: post #5

Assuming nothing illegal, it isn't the landlord's business what a tenant is doing inside, working or sitting around watching TV... why does it matter? They should just be happy the person has a job and can pay the rent on time.

If you really want to do something this dumb, I think it would be less dumb as a landlord to implement this as a discount. Submit a pay stub and job offer letter referencing hybrid/in-office/in-person employment and get a $200/month discount. The idea of this is not completely crazy. I definitely wear on my home hardware when working from home. However, the rent is supposed to already be covering the typical amount o…

Even as a discount, I don't see the logic behind it. Why should someone get a discount on rent for leaving for work every day? I work from home and there is no way I'm putting an extra $200/month of wear on everything because of it. If anything, being home allows me to catch issues early before they become a bigger problem.

The one place where I've seen something like this, but not framed this way, was with a reverse commute. Someone in the city, commuting outside of the city for work each day. Leaving during business hours frees up parking during the most in-demand times, and they are only there during off-peak hours. As a result, they got cheaper parking.

With this being a house, that wouldn't make sense. The reverse commute thing only really makes sense for a large lot or garage shared with the public or monthly pass holders.

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#14

Post by guywithahat »

al_borland wrote: post #5

Assuming nothing illegal, it isn't the landlord's business what a tenant is doing inside, working or sitting around watching TV... why does it matter? They should just be happy the person has a job and can pay the rent on time.

> it isn't the landlord's business what a tenant is doing inside, working or sitting around watching TV

Unfortunately the government is extremely interested in what you do in your property, and this makes it the landlord's business. That said in this case, it seems more like homeowners are renting out a small unit behind their home, and want to disincentivize people who will be there more. Personally if you can work from home I'm not sure why you'd live in a bay area suburb, especially not walnut creek, but to each their own I guess.

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#16

Post by goodmythical »

al_borland wrote: post #12
crote wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Landlords and HoAs have been doing this for ages , it has just mostly impacted less well-off people until now. Want to do some nails as a side hustle, sell homemade goods via the internet, or make extra cash repairing people's cars in your garage over the weekend? Sorry, contract says no, enjoy your eviction for "operating a business" or "commercial use of the property". Banning WFH or charging extra for it is just t…

Operating a business out of your home is a different story. The issue there is customers coming to the home, which means traffic and a general disturbance for neighbors. That's very different than someone sitting at home on a Zoom meeting.

Is it really so different? What is the difference in impact to the owner/neighbors/community if I am: 1.) Working remotely as an employee, 2.) Working remotely as a contractor, or 3.) Working remotely as an employee of the company I own?

Certainly you can't run a shop front in a residential setting, but it's not the "operating a business" part so much as the "serving customers in person" part that would cause a disturbance.

I only mention it because I have seen people who sell their art on etsy getting these kinds of eviction notices for "operating a business" and the claimed issue is not that the tenant is making art but specifically that they are profitting from it finacially.

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#19

Post by NearAP »

Context matters...

According to the article, the lease (rental rate) includes fully paid utilities and internet.

The landlords are then saying - if you're going to work from home full time, we'll raise the rate by $200.

One can dispute the figure/amount but the logic seems reasonable i.e. if you're working from home full time, then you'll probably run the AC for way longer than if you went to the office 5 days a week for at least 6 hours each day, you'll user more internet and/or we might need a higher speed internet/bandwidth, you'll use more power, etc.

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#20

Post by protocolture »

NearAP wrote: post #19

Context matters... According to the article, the lease (rental rate) includes fully paid utilities and internet. The landlords are then saying - if you're going to work from home full time, we'll raise the rate by $200. One can dispute the figure/amount but the logic seems reasonable i.e. if you're working from home full time, then you'll probably run the AC for way longer than if you went to the office 5 days a week…

>then you'll probably run the AC for way longer than if you went to the office 5 days a week for at least 6 hours each day, you'll user more internet and/or we might need a higher speed internet/bandwidth, you'll use more power, etc.

This also covers adult children playing games all day, or a variety of other situations. Seems weird to single out work from home.

Post reply on HN