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

Evicted in San Francisco

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 257 posts

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#31

Post by jjoonathan »

kohanz wrote: post #4

Call me cold, but after reading this I come away with almost no sympathy for the evicted senior citizen. She comes across as very entitled.

I can't help but suspect that this is exactly how this story was designed to read.

They could have chosen between any of the Ellis Act evictions in the dabrownstein figure (~4000 of them), and yet the person they chose to interview

* has health care retirement benefits

* has the ability to go back to Germany and use their social programs

* has personal attention from social workers and relatives finding her options

* has a car

* has a shelter offering a place to stay for the night

* is a member of a social group (female, white, older) that is not the bottom of the charity priority list

* hoards, smokes, intentionally antagonizes her landlord

All of this raises questions about how representative Inge is of the evictee population. I suspect the answer is "not very."

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#32

Post by Shivetya »

jedmeyers wrote: post #23
pyrrhotech wrote: post #13

Another whine story. I do feel sorry for those people that legitimately deserve it. You know, women in the middle east who are beaten or stoned to death for not wearing berkas, or orphans in Africa dealing with genocidal warlords. But this lady could live perfectly fine on her social security if she would move to somewhere she could afford. Living in San Francisco is something a whole lot of people want to do. That's…

It looks like the Entitled do not consider it to be a privilege. To them once you rented a place somewhere for x years, you are entitled to live at that place indefinitely.

we only have to look to politicians to assign the blame, in the East its called rent control, whats its called in SF?

It is like any government handout, except here in the case of money they merely take your rights away to your property.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#33

Post by Crito »

iopq wrote: post #26
Crito wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have little sympathy for her, or the new owners (who failed to report the illegal situation to the city immediately after becoming owners of the property). My main take-away from all of this is that being evicted in SF is quite the feat, right up there with climbing Mount Everest or swimming the English channel. We should commend her for accomplishing something so difficult, despite all the people who told her it c…

Why, because they were nice enough to still let her stay there? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's illegal so they should kick her out immediately.

It was illegal, and they made the decision to do it. Anything that follows that gets little sympathy from me; I believe that people should own the consequences of their actions in situations like that. Your illegal tenant refuses to pay you rent, leaving you with no legal recourse? Cry me a river.

And make no bones about it, it wasn't a sense of charity that made them decide to let her stay. They were charging her rent (and in fact, attempted to raise it at least once).

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#34

Post by lettergram »

fishtoaster wrote: post #28
pyrrhotech wrote: post #13

Another whine story. I do feel sorry for those people that legitimately deserve it. You know, women in the middle east who are beaten or stoned to death for not wearing berkas, or orphans in Africa dealing with genocidal warlords. But this lady could live perfectly fine on her social security if she would move to somewhere she could afford. Living in San Francisco is something a whole lot of people want to do. That's…

It sounds like she moved there when it was cheap. Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? Housing isn't widgets: it's not easy to move to a cheaper type if your current type gets expensive. There isn't an easy answer to this sort of problem, but to imply that she should simply "move somewhere else" is simplistic in the extreme.…

No reason she couldn't have moved 40 minutes out of the city, or perhaps if she does have friends she could move in with them.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#35

Post by tn13 »

Government regulations are the villain here. Is it legal or stay in a car with cat litter around but living in a room with height less that 7' is illegal ?

In the name of protecting tenant rights government has made regulations that deeply hurt the land owners and reduce their incentives to create housing opportunities for poor.

"In San Francisco, a landlord can’t evict a current tenant just because they are selling or buying the property; by the time the unit was purchased. "

Burning down the house in that case sounds like a lucrative offer.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#36

Post by roc »

steven777400 wrote: post #10

We don't have a strong enough social welfare net (or enough resources there-in) to care for folks that need care; but, we're not comfortable letting them starve on the streets either. The result? Essentially innocent people, like the property owner, get "stuck" with "it's your problem now" where various agencies give contradictory mandates, backed with fines. How was property owner supposed to respond when told he mu…

I don't even think a stronger safety net would have helped in this case. It sounds like she simply wasn't interested in changing anything and that just doesn't work when you have to move and have to change your lifestyle (e.g. stop hoarding).

This is all-too-familiar to me, after having helped a couple older relatives through serious late-life changes like this.

Further, the general lack of safety net doesn't really apply when you're talking about a person with $1300/mo in disability/SSI, 'free' medical and some savings (/settlement payments). She could live, certainly not lavishly, but at least as well as she did before, just not where she did before or how she did before.

Which is the crux of this entire story.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#37

Post by pdeuchler »

> First came the arbitration hearing, where Inge’s lawyer and the landlord’s lawyers tried to strike a deal to avoid any type of elongated legal dispute. This ended somewhat peacefully: Withrington agreed to pay Inge a settlement of $14,000 in resettlement fees, and she signed a contract agreeing to vacate the property within 60 days. The first eviction notice was issued.

Yet she refused to do so and is now homeless, with a fraction of $14k to her name. It sounds like the landlords went above and beyond, I would kill to have landlords like that, and yet because this woman was her own worst enemy[0] she ends up on the street. Barring mental illness (which is quite possible) I can't see this being anything else but a conscious choice on her part to end up on the street. Furthermore, it seems like this woman was actively taking away resources from those who are in more dire situations[1]. Maybe we should be more concerned that the multiple social workers (and the post author) didn't consider that the woman might have needed mental help?

[0] “I personally went out and found stuff -- my own mother personally went out and found stuff. We put Inge in touch with multiple social workers and housing agencies. The problem is that a lot of these places come and check where you’re living and only take you in if you meet their standards. Inge is a hoarder, a smoker, and has a cat. The smell in her unit was absolutely…just...unbelievable. That didn’t work out well for her.”

[1]“It took three truck loads to get her stuff out,” recalls Withrington. “And the help of a whole team of social workers.”

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#38

Post by jedmeyers »

fishtoaster wrote: post #28
pyrrhotech wrote: post #13

Another whine story. I do feel sorry for those people that legitimately deserve it. You know, women in the middle east who are beaten or stoned to death for not wearing berkas, or orphans in Africa dealing with genocidal warlords. But this lady could live perfectly fine on her social security if she would move to somewhere she could afford. Living in San Francisco is something a whole lot of people want to do. That's…

It sounds like she moved there when it was cheap. Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? Housing isn't widgets: it's not easy to move to a cheaper type if your current type gets expensive. There isn't an easy answer to this sort of problem, but to imply that she should simply "move somewhere else" is simplistic in the extreme.…

How about this strip: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-04-18/

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#39

Post by krschultz »

fishtoaster wrote: post #28
pyrrhotech wrote: post #13

Another whine story. I do feel sorry for those people that legitimately deserve it. You know, women in the middle east who are beaten or stoned to death for not wearing berkas, or orphans in Africa dealing with genocidal warlords. But this lady could live perfectly fine on her social security if she would move to somewhere she could afford. Living in San Francisco is something a whole lot of people want to do. That's…

It sounds like she moved there when it was cheap. Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? Housing isn't widgets: it's not easy to move to a cheaper type if your current type gets expensive. There isn't an easy answer to this sort of problem, but to imply that she should simply "move somewhere else" is simplistic in the extreme.…

My parents bought their house in the 1980s. They paid it off 100%.

When they retired they moved. Would it have been preferable to keep the house the whole family grew up in? Probably. But they couldn't afford the overhead of utilities, maintenance, etc. They moved to a smaller house in a state with lower property taxes.

They too left their friends, contacts, etc. Built up over living there for 35 years. But it was the responsible decision to do it. Why should it be everyone else's burden if they make a stupid decision to stay put in a place they can't afford? Is that a right?

Especially when seniors have the dual safety net of Social Security and Medicaid - they are generally in a better shape than many working class people. The landlord paid her $14k just to move out. That with social security would absolutely cover living expenses in most of the country.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#40

Post by pilom »

fishtoaster wrote: post #28
pyrrhotech wrote: post #13

Another whine story. I do feel sorry for those people that legitimately deserve it. You know, women in the middle east who are beaten or stoned to death for not wearing berkas, or orphans in Africa dealing with genocidal warlords. But this lady could live perfectly fine on her social security if she would move to somewhere she could afford. Living in San Francisco is something a whole lot of people want to do. That's…

It sounds like she moved there when it was cheap. Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? Housing isn't widgets: it's not easy to move to a cheaper type if your current type gets expensive. There isn't an easy answer to this sort of problem, but to imply that she should simply "move somewhere else" is simplistic in the extreme.…

>Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing?

YES! Absolutely reasonable. There is no right to live exactly where you want for the rest of your life (especially when where you want to live is an illegal residence). Nor should there be.

Post reply on HN