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

41–50 of 257 posts

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#41

Post by radley »

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 have no sympathy for the owner. He knew he had a tenant when he bought the property. The fact the unit was illegal was caveat emptor, yet she's the one who had to pay the price.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#42

Post by nilkn »

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.…

It's not that I don't feel sympathy for her, but yes, cities change and it's something you simply have to be aware of if you're living in one. If you're planning on being a life-long renter, you're really taking a risk that this will happen to you, too, if the prices ever experience a big boom as they have in San Francisco. If she had bought property back when it was cheap, she might be a millionaire today. If over the course of her life she could never afford to buy anything in the city, though, then evidently it wasn't ever really "cheap" relative to her income (or else she just wan't frugal enough).

Besides, I moved away from my family, friends, and contacts that I'd built up over the first 18 years of my life in order to attend college. People uproot themselves frequently because they realize that not doing so is just too impractical.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#43

Post by nickff »

jjoonathan wrote: post #31
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 *…

There are many working-age, highly-paid individuals who rent housing, and are evicted for various reasons, so this may not be the least sympathetic case of eviction.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#44

Post by radley »

pilom wrote: post #40
fishtoaster wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually there is. It's called Rent Control and it protects the elderly from stuff like this (because they need the protection). As far as I'm concerned, the landlord simply found a loophole.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#45

Post by Crito »

pilom wrote: post #40
fishtoaster wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. She has no more right to live in SF than I have to live in Malibu. If she is entitled to 500/mo rent in SF, why am I not entitled to some nice 500/mo rent on the beach?

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#46

Post by tn13 »

The reality is that none of us deserve anything. The so called social welfare is nothing but a government's excuse to reduce our liberties.

If there is any reason why poor can not afford housing in SF then it is not the fault of the landlord who is trying to make maximum money but the government regulations which prevent him from doing so. It is beyond me why In-Law unit is illegal in SF. The city is expensive, poor people are clearly willing to stay in these illegal units which is a better option than staying in a car. What exactly is government's problem ?

My making the in-law unit illegal government has actually deprived the poor people of any legitimate consumer rights they could have. Government has reduced competition between the in-law unit owners and as a result increased prices and left the poor people susceptible to all sort of oppression.

The problem with poor people is most often they are able to see the first order causes but not beyond that. Igne was not stupid to blame the Landlord for her situation, but she was merely ignorant of the fact that it is government that forced him to take such steps. Her sense of entitlement though it totally misplaced.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#47

Post by radley »

nilkn wrote: post #42
fishtoaster wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

It's not that I don't feel sympathy for her, but yes, cities change and it's something you simply have to be aware of if you're living in one. If you're planning on being a life-long renter, you're really taking a risk that this will happen to you, too, if the prices ever experience a big boom as they have in San Francisco. If she had bought property back when it was cheap, she might be a millionaire today. If over t…

San Francisco has Rent Control ordinances, so as long as the unit was legal, she could have stayed there for the rest of her life (which she probably expected).

http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#48

Post by nilkn »

radley wrote: post #47
nilkn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that I don't feel sympathy for her, but yes, cities change and it's something you simply have to be aware of if you're living in one. If you're planning on being a life-long renter, you're really taking a risk that this will happen to you, too, if the prices ever experience a big boom as they have in San Francisco. If she had bought property back when it was cheap, she might be a millionaire today. If over t…

San Francisco has Rent Control ordinances, so as long as the unit was legal, she could have stayed there for the rest of her life (which she probably expected). http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html

> so as long as the unit was legal

It wasn't, according to this article. She took a risk.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#49

Post by Crito »

radley wrote: post #44
pilom wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Actually there is. It's called Rent Control and it protects the elderly from stuff like this (because they need the protection). As far as I'm concerned, the landlord simply found a loophole.

loophole ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/

noun: Part of a set of laws that I do not like.

Rent control does not give you the right to live in an area for a given amount of rent in any circumstance. The circumstances in which it does not provide assurances are not "loopholes".

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#50

Post by pyrrhotech »

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.…

I live in Hayward amongst plenty of people making her income or less. She can come be my neighbor if she wants & still be within a bart ride of her friends.
Post reply on HN