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

51–60 of 257 posts

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#51

Post by forrestthewoods »

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…

It's almost as if excessive regulation and NIMBY-ism in San Francisco has created an artifical bubble of hyper inflated housing prices that causes the most harm to the people who are in most need of help. Damn.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#52

Post by fennecfoxen »

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.

Well, there sort of is a right to live exactly where you want for the rest of your life. It's called buying the property. There are very few exceptions to this (something about property tax, and prop 13 mitigated that pretty well).

Note: comments to the effect that buying property is a big risky deal should pause and consider what that statement imputes about what the landlord offering the place for rent happens to bring to the table

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#53

Post by dlss »

Crito wrote: post #45
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.

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias

Basically the moral center of our brain, by default, views her leaving as a choice, and you moving as a choice. Rather than her staying vs leaving as a choice. Looks dumb when you parse it right, feels right when you parse it wrong.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#54

Post by radley »

Crito wrote: post #49
radley wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Think of it this way: she was renting a room in the house, except as a courtesy to each owner she would to come in through the garage.

New owner decides he's tired and wants her out. If he suddenly claims the room to be an "inlaw apartment", then it would be illegal. Now he can start the process to evict.

Legal loophole.

[Update] The timing is suspicious too, since these units could be legal soon:

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/S-F-in-law-units-law-c...

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#55

Post by CocaKoala »

radley wrote: post #41
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.

Ah, yes; how dare she be evicted for threatening to burn the building down, refusing to pay rent, refusing to attend court summons, complaining about her neighbors for having the temerity to turn on a sprinkler, and turning her home into a disgusting pit? Clearly those are all natural rights of tenants, and the landlord should have just accepted her with all her quirks when he bought the property.

Come on. It's sad that she got evicted, but to imply in any way that the tenant is blameless seems ridiculous. You don't get a free pass to be an asshole just because you're old; you're still obligated to try and work with the system.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#57

Post by Crito »

dlss wrote: post #53
Crito wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias Basically the moral center of our brain, by default, views her leaving as a choice, and you moving as a choice. Rather than her staying vs leaving as a choice. Looks dumb when you parse it right, feels right when you parse it wrong.

Lets say that I was once struck very hard in the head by a frisbee, and the moral center of my brain now causes me to believe myself entitled to live in Malibu.

Wanting something is not the same as deserving something.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#58

Post by radley »

nilkn wrote: post #48
radley wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if she was just "renting a room" and the new owner simply labelled it an "inlaw" as a legal loophole?

[Update] I didn't see the pic. Yeah, it's clearly in a different building, so an in-law.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#59

Post by Crito »

radley wrote: post #54
Crito wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Think of it this way: she was renting a room in the house, except as a courtesy to each owner she would to come in through the garage. New owner decides he's tired and wants her out. If he suddenly claims the room to be an "inlaw apartment", then it would be illegal. Now he can start the process to evict. Legal loophole. [Update] The timing is suspicious too, since these units could be legal soon: http://www.sfgate.c…

There was never any question if the unit was illegal. Everyone involved knew that it was (hence my absolutely minimal sympathy for everyone involved, except perhaps^W the cat.) The new owner did not declare the unit to be illegal, the city did.

(edit: I definitely feel sorry for the cat.)

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#60

Post by CocaKoala »

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.

I like how you can read an article that details all of the ways in which this woman was a terrible and destructive tenant and then say "Oh yeah, she was definitely evicted because the asshole landlord wanted to flip the property".
Post reply on HN