Evicted in San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#151

Post by tsotha » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 1:18 AM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #51

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.

It's not NIMBY. The problem is between California law and San Francisco law renters have far too many rights. A person who knows how to play the game can stay in your rental for more than a year without paying rent. You shouldn't need to hire a lawyer everyone thinks is an asshole (think about that - someone who's an asshole even for a lawyer) to get rid of someone who isn't even paying rent.

Property owners sell off places they would otherwise have rented out or just leave them empty because it just isn't worth the risk. That is what constrains the supply. You'd be crazy to go into the rental business unless you had a lot of units to balance out the Inges of the world, particularly since once you finally evict someone like that you have to tear out the walls to get rid of the stench.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#152

Post by greenrice » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 1:19 AM UTC

Ok, San Francisco, it's time to bite the bullet and build (much) more housing. This is getting ridiculous.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#153

Post by pyoung » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 1:27 AM UTC

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #114

flomo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco almost always looks the other way regarding these 'illegal' units. Many of them are in plain sight and the rent/tenancy control laws still apply. I would guess the unit must have been a serious health/safety hazard for them to do anything.

Yes, according to the article there is a long standing "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But it does say that when they are reported, the city takes serious action. And it sounds like it was a health hazard the way she was living. The owner seemed to be caught in the middle of two incompatible laws: 1) You can't have that person living there. 2) You can't make that person leave.

My guess is that the owners were well aware of the situation when they purchased the property. The owners stated that they were warned by "pretty much everyone" not to purchase the property, and the fact that the property came with someone living in it should be a pretty big red flag. For those that have been around SF long enough, it's easy enough to recognize when someone is playing the 'sf housing regulatory lottery'. The basic gist of the game is as follows:

Step 1 - Buy a property that is impacted by certain regulatory constraints (which depresses it's market value heavily). Step 2 - If you are cheap, sit, wait, and pray that natural forces relive you of the regulatory burden (or make life a living hell for your existing tenant in an attempt to get them to move out). If you have some money, actively spend it to rid your property of regulatory constraints. Step 3 - Once unburdened (or partially relived) of said constraints, sell the property and profit handsomely.

This game is primarily played with rent controlled units and TICs. The owners in question bought property on the cheap, evicted an old disabled lady who is now homeless, and made bank. Sure, the lady was a piece of work herself, but let's not pretend these owners were saints, they knew what the endgame was all along.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#154

Post by tsotha » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 1:27 AM UTC

mjmahone17 wrote: post #124

jseliger wrote: post #11

Nonetheless, it’s a good time to be a Bornstein in San Francisco: in the past year alone, Ellis Act evictions have risen 170%; since 1997, there have been 3,811, and that number is constantly rising. The obvious solution to rapidly rising prices is to increase supply, as described here ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO ) or here ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francis... ). I've posted both…

The crazy thing is that San Fran homeowners have essentially tried to increase housing supplies in the past, by creating in-law units such as the one in the story. However, it's now more lucrative to get rid of them than to keep them on and collect rent on them. It would seem to make more sense for zoning laws to require multi-family homes (or in-law units), or at least to incentivize creating more of them. If there…

Any mayor who made a serious effort to crack down would be run out on a rail. The last thing SF needs is fewer rental units.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#155

Post by tsotha » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 1:30 AM UTC

jonknee wrote: post #148

ryguytilidie wrote: post #86

I just don't get how you can defend this tenant at all. She was constantly unpleasant, didn't pay rent, didn't even bother trying until the last possible second at which point it was "well what options do I have?" It's as if she believed she deserved to live in a house she didn't own for the same price in perpetuity. How does this belief make any sense and why should people sympathize with it? The idea that the owner…

It wasn't until she was aware the owner was trying to evict her that she stopped paying rent. Why would anyone continue to pay rent in that case? > Over the years, Inge’s rent had gradually increased from $480 to $560 per month; in late 2012, in the midst of the permit debacle, she decided to stop paying rent altogether. Withrington says he “couldn’t do a damn thing about it,” since he was renting an illegal unit. So…

>Sounds pretty smart to me.

Sure. Sometimes it's pretty smart to screw other people over. I guess it just depends on what kind of person you are.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#156

Post by jonknee » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 1:36 AM UTC

tsotha wrote: post #155

jonknee wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't until she was aware the owner was trying to evict her that she stopped paying rent. Why would anyone continue to pay rent in that case? > Over the years, Inge’s rent had gradually increased from $480 to $560 per month; in late 2012, in the midst of the permit debacle, she decided to stop paying rent altogether. Withrington says he “couldn’t do a damn thing about it,” since he was renting an illegal unit. So…

>Sounds pretty smart to me. Sure. Sometimes it's pretty smart to screw other people over. I guess it just depends on what kind of person you are.

Are you referring to the person who bought a property knowing about an illegal rental unit and ultimately took their money for years until it was opportune to kick out the nearly destitute leasee?

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#157

Post by jjoonathan » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 1:36 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #134

jjoonathan wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What point were you trying to make? I assumed you weren't talking about rich assholes getting evicted for unconscionable behavior, since that would be completely irrelevant to the discussion about gentrification (at least, as far as I could tell). Instead, I fuzzily matched your argument to the nearest one that I thought made sense in context ("they could have found an even less sympathetic postergirl for evictees if…

I was addressing your original point that said: > "this raises questions about how representative Inge is of the evictee population. I suspect the answer is "not very." You are correct in your fuzzy logic, I was first making the point that the author could have picked a less sympathetic individual, if the author's intent had been to malign evicted tenants. My second point was intended to state that I am not sure what…

> I was first making the point that the author could have picked a less sympathetic individual, if the author's intent had been to malign evicted tenants.

Your specific example was outside the scope of gentrification, which is what we were all discussing. I accused the article of baiting us into falsely generalizing from Inge's case to conclude (fuzzily) that "evicted poor people only mind being kicked out because they're a bunch of ungrateful slobs that turn down the abundant opportunities everybody heaps upon them because they believe they are entitled to something better". Inge's hypothetical wealthy twin evictee would not have been a better candidate to advance this agenda because smearing her would not have smeared the protesting masses who, by and large, are not as wealthy.

> My second point was intended to state that I am not sure what type of person would be "representative" of the individuals evicted

I gave you three examples. A fourth example would be to choose an evictee at random and investigate them. It's entirely possible that this is how the story came about and that it's coincidental that she is such an unsympathetic figure. My original post observed that the likelihood of interpretation #4 is lowered by the extreme nature of Inge's case.

> criticizing an author for not finding a person who does not fit an undefined descriptor seems unfair to the columnist.

In a world of incomplete knowledge, finite opportunity cost, and human-resource-intensive processes for rigorous inference it's entirely fair to have a complaint that is not mathematically precise.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#158

Post by maxjones1 » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 1:42 AM UTC

w1ntermute wrote: post #65

jseliger wrote: post #11

Nonetheless, it’s a good time to be a Bornstein in San Francisco: in the past year alone, Ellis Act evictions have risen 170%; since 1997, there have been 3,811, and that number is constantly rising. The obvious solution to rapidly rising prices is to increase supply, as described here ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO ) or here ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francis... ). I've posted both…

It's amazing how so many people refuse to accept that out-of-control housing prices are due to artificial scarcity, and that the solution is deregulation, rather than even more idiotic rent control and eviction regulations. David Campos is now trying to enact legislation to penalize Ellis Act evictions. More than two decades after the USSR collapsed, and people are still clinging to socialist ideologies.

restricting supply to drive up prices is socialist????

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#159

Post by chaostheory » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 1:48 AM UTC

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…

The Bay Area still has plenty of single rooms for rent around the same price as her illegal in-law. She just has to be open to change.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#160

Post by smtddr » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 1:48 AM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #146

hack_edu wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build baby, build.

This. The tech boom isn't at fault here. The refusal to make the necessary changes that allow the housing supply to grow is to blame. Basically, San Francisco voters are responsible for the evictions, whether they be natives, long-time residents or recent tech transplants.

Grow at the expense of what though? So you tear down anything you can to increase SF's ability to hold all the things techies enjoy... and then one day, all this booming goes away and you're left with... http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3433 ...kinda like the real-estate boom. Build houses anywhere & everywhere because everyone suddenly can afford a house(or at least get the loan)... then one day that isn't the case and you're left with a bunch of empty houses everywhere in places that could have been schools, parks, community centers, living areas for those of low-income.

When you increase fancy apartments for techies, the businesses/services around them will also appear and take up more land. More jobs sure, but those salaries aren't going to be able to buy a place near their job ...since the location of the job is probably near the high-paid techies. I still don't understand that Gamestop on market street, SF. Someone needs to interview them and blog about it. Where do those employees live? How do they survive?

I almost wish SF would enforce a limit on how many tech job holders are allowed to live in SF. Not necessarily the ultimate solution, but I think this gentrification needs to be throttled while someone comes up with the ultimate-solution... or just wait out this tech-boom and the problem would go away on its own.