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

211–220 of 257 posts

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#211

Post by chipotle_coyote »

nirnira wrote: post #161
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…

Disagree. I think the existing social welfare system in your country is hugely destructive, and you need to weaken and dismantle it as much as possible. Social welfare weakens incentives for individuals to plan and live for the future. People should pay for their own lives with their own dollars, and if they are too foolish and imprudent to account for their old age, they should suffer the consequences of their own a…

In a world where what happens to you in your old age is entirely determined by the choices you make when you're younger, and where the correct choices will absolutely guarantee that you have the proper resources available, this would be an excellent idea.

In my world, though, there are layoffs, long periods of unemployment, expensive catastrophic events, and generally a whole heapin' helpin' of reasons why people may need financial assistance for reasons that have nothing to do with their life choices. There are people who have done everything "right" and go into bankruptcy because a family member with insufficient health insurance gets sick. Do these things not happen in your world?

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#212

Post by zaroth »

jonknee wrote: post #143
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.

Which actually makes sense if you think about it--if it was an instant eviction it would be very valuable to the landlord. They can rent and take your money for years and whenever they want to get rid of you and flip the property they report the unit and boom you are gone without any rights. What would make even more sense is very severe fines to the landlord for renting illegal units. Something like a multiple of al…

They can only do that if it's an illegal unit, which is not exactly a secret from the renter when they first moved in.

Now, if there was a way a tenant could make a legal unit into an illegal unit and then invoke this, I could see that as a problem.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#213

Post by zaroth »

You would think a property owner would have an implicit right to "go out of business" when a lease term expires. Every lease I've ever signed had a clause that at the end of the least it can only be renewed, with notice, if BOTH parties agree.

As a renter, I would never presume to be able to stay in a unit past the end of the lease without the landlord's permission. How was this basic right of property ownership was ever subverted? It sounds a bit like 'involuntary servitude' (13th amendment) to be forced to rent your property to someone after the lawful terms of your agreement to rent it have expired.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#214

Post by zaroth »

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 think this story has anything to do with social welfare or a safety net. Free health insurance, $1,300/mo stipend from Uncle Sam, pays no utilities, and stopped paying rent entirely. Is there something in the constitution that I missed about a right to live for free in someone else's garage in San Francisco Mission District? There are actually plenty of places in this great country where you can rent a 1-bedroom apartment for $500/mo and not exactly have to duck bullets.

This read to me more like story about a squatter in an illegal dwelling, trying to cause as much pain to the owners as she could on her way out.

A property owner wants to, god forbid, sell their property, and they have to suffer through this: http://pix-media.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/632/ScreenShot2014-03...

I'd feel bad for the soon-to-be-prior owners, but the $40k in costs barely dented their 120% return ($723k) over 12 years. It's not like they didn't know she lived there when they bought the place. But it still doesn't mean they are/should be legally obligated to rent to her for the rest of her life.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#215

Post by pyoung »

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #190
pyoung wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lotte…

I don't think the owners are saints... but they get way more sympathy than that rotten tenant. We don't know what they thought the end game would be. It sounds like to me that they were willing to keep the tenant but then started to see she was a nightmare. I have no doubt they knew the unit was illegal. But once it got to the point that they were required to take action to do something to fix the situation... they w…

They could have insisted that the original seller fix the violation/evict the tenant before the sale of the unit. This of course would mean a much higher sales price (or no sale), so they didn't. They could have reported the illegal unit to the DBI at anytime in the 10 years that they lived there. Instead they waited until they were basically ready to move out and sell the property.

They were probably hoping that the tenant would eventually move out on her own so that they could either re-rent the unit for a much higher price, or bring the unit up to code and re-sell it. They didn't let her live there for 10 years because they were being nice, they did it because they were hoping to avoid the messy and expensive legal issues that they eventually had to deal with. Regardless they walked away with ~$770K from the appreciation of their property, so not sure why they deserve any sympathy. As far as investments go, they hit a home run.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#216

Post by nirnira »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #211
nirnira wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. I think the existing social welfare system in your country is hugely destructive, and you need to weaken and dismantle it as much as possible. Social welfare weakens incentives for individuals to plan and live for the future. People should pay for their own lives with their own dollars, and if they are too foolish and imprudent to account for their old age, they should suffer the consequences of their own a…

In a world where what happens to you in your old age is entirely determined by the choices you make when you're younger, and where the correct choices will absolutely guarantee that you have the proper resources available, this would be an excellent idea. In my world, though, there are layoffs, long periods of unemployment, expensive catastrophic events, and generally a whole heapin' helpin' of reasons why people may…

Sorry, what? Risk and uncertainty are universal. Everyone has to deal with their existence.

There have been plenty of insurance systems developed throughout time whereby people can hedge their risks. Previously however insurance was informal and consensual - you signed up to a Roman college. You and everyone else in the society engaged in it of your own free choice. If your group couldn't manage its finances it went broke (or more accurately appealed to an aristocrat.)

Nowadays we live in such enlightened times that the elements of choice and freedom have largely been removed.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#217

Post by nirnira »

zevyoura wrote: post #169
nirnira wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. I think the existing social welfare system in your country is hugely destructive, and you need to weaken and dismantle it as much as possible. Social welfare weakens incentives for individuals to plan and live for the future. People should pay for their own lives with their own dollars, and if they are too foolish and imprudent to account for their old age, they should suffer the consequences of their own a…

I think you'll have a hard time convincing the majority of Americans (or even just humans in general) that we should literally let people die on the street.

But that's exactly what we should do. Or, more accurately, we should leave it to private citizens to decide, of their own free will, to render assistance (and prevent anybody from using the state's threat of violence to force an entire society to render assistance.)

Until the full dangers of death and failure operate as incentives, moderated only by the free choice of individuals to cooperate and render assistance, our economies will never grow to their full extent, and our prosperity will always remain limited. In the long term, any society that clings to these dysfunctional social policies will be outcompeted by societies that discard them. In the much longer term, if the planet as a whole is held back by these policies, we may expect to be outcompeted by other, more progressive alien civilisations.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#218

Post by flomo »

zaroth wrote: post #212
jonknee wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which actually makes sense if you think about it--if it was an instant eviction it would be very valuable to the landlord. They can rent and take your money for years and whenever they want to get rid of you and flip the property they report the unit and boom you are gone without any rights. What would make even more sense is very severe fines to the landlord for renting illegal units. Something like a multiple of al…

They can only do that if it's an illegal unit, which is not exactly a secret from the renter when they first moved in. Now, if there was a way a tenant could make a legal unit into an illegal unit and then invoke this, I could see that as a problem.

Actually, a prospective tenant probably has no idea if the unit is "illegal" or not. It is an apartment for rent and there is a line going out the door, so don't ask any annoying questions.

I can understand the confusion because I once interned for a midwestern city's planning department. There if someone built an unapproved apartment above their garage, the city would hit them like a ton of bricks.

In San Francisco, it is not like that, and these so-called "illegal" units are enshrined by law and practice in many respects. As a tenant, you have nearly all the same rights as a legal unit, so this would probably not figure into your evaluation.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#219

Post by arjie »

zaroth wrote: post #214
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 think this story has anything to do with social welfare or a safety net. Free health insurance, $1,300/mo stipend from Uncle Sam, pays no utilities, and stopped paying rent entirely. Is there something in the constitution that I missed about a right to live for free in someone else's garage in San Francisco Mission District? There are actually plenty of places in this great country where you can rent a 1-bedr…

It says she paid for the health insurance back when she was younger. It isn't free. She paid for it already.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#220

Post by [deleted] »

nirnira wrote: post #217
zevyoura wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll have a hard time convincing the majority of Americans (or even just humans in general) that we should literally let people die on the street.

But that's exactly what we should do. Or, more accurately, we should leave it to private citizens to decide, of their own free will, to render assistance (and prevent anybody from using the state's threat of violence to force an entire society to render assistance.) Until the full dangers of death and failure operate as incentives, moderated only by the free choice of individuals to cooperate and render assistance, o…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN