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

221–230 of 257 posts

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#221

Post by digitailor »

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…

If your pure Darwinian vision of the future were to manifest and hence there was no threat of prosecution, I'm pretty certain you'd be offed rapidly due to your savage annoyingness. The rule of law and the social norms that you decry are actually what is protecting you.

I'm just speculating, though; perhaps you would be crowned King of All There Is and paid the fealty you are so surely due, as you have responsibly planned whilst the impoverished clearly have not. All hail Nirnira, may the bones of the weak be used to grow his giant throne!

[apologies for feeding the troll, he's just so cute but ideologically dangerous]

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#222

Post by makmanalp »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #206
vectorpush wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What more could be done? The courts bent over backwards to accommodate her, going so far as to award her $14,000 after patiently exhausting every other option. 14k and a moving crew seems pretty generous as far as evictions for hostile, unsanitary, non-paying tenants go. Her story is depressing because she is clearly a troubled woman, but you can't just ignore reality and expect everything to work out, it's unsustain…

The courts didn't award her $14k. She agreed to it in arbitration and signed a contract specifying that she'd get it in return for moving out. She then declined to move out, and I assume didn't get any of that $14k (because... why would she?).

The story mentions later on: "Her settlement money comes in small increments, so it is difficult for her to save up." So she got the 14k even after she refused to honor the contract she signed.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#223

Post by Kliment »

rtpg wrote: post #131
krschultz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>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? Obviously utilities going up should be considered in rent, but in a property tax-free world, someone staying is not a burden on the owner, except in the "he could be making even more money". The owner ends up making less because they might not be market value, but considering that what he…

Someone staying can be a burden if said someone is destroying the property or causing conflict with other people living there.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#224

Post by fit2rule »

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.

Yet that is what happens on the streets of America every single day. I think your statement should be "you'd have a hard time getting your average American majority to understand that people are dying on their streets today".. because, it is happening.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#225

Post by maxjones1 »

TDL wrote: post #176
maxjones1 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When it's done through a coercive act of government, yes.

ok, yeah, I think I read that chapter in Das Capital about how to increase your capital by using government to restrict supply.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#226

Post by thaumasiotes »

makmanalp wrote: post #222
thaumasiotes wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts didn't award her $14k. She agreed to it in arbitration and signed a contract specifying that she'd get it in return for moving out. She then declined to move out, and I assume didn't get any of that $14k (because... why would she?).

The story mentions later on: "Her settlement money comes in small increments, so it is difficult for her to save up." So she got the 14k even after she refused to honor the contract she signed.

Wow. Truly, these heartless landlords have things all their own way.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#227

Post by russgray »

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…

I think that your worst-case doomsday prophecies for what our current system will lead to are hugely, overwhelmingly preferable to your alternative.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#228

Post by jonknee »

robryan wrote: post #167
jonknee wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So by the same logic the woman should have never taken up the lease in the first place given the illegal nature of it.

... Or the person profiting from it. If there was a fine of something like 3x all rent you have collected on an illegal unit to the current owner it would take care of itself--no one would buy a place with an illegal apartment in it (like this guy did, fully willing to keep taking the money for 10 years) and no one would be tempted to make any more illegal apartments. Just make it easy to check with the city about the legalities.

Currently it appears while the unit is illegal, there is no penalty for having rented out an illegal unit for a dozen years. The "penalty" is that you get to evict whoever you had been renting to (which means they lose on their renters rights) while you get to keep all the money.

She sounds like an absolute pain in the ass, but neither party was nobel.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#229

Post by mathattack »

Within a few weeks of the eviction, the landlord put the property on the market for $1.4 million; it’s a good time to sell, considering he bought the place for $627,000 in 2002.

Is this so crazy and outrageous? Someone buys a property, and 12 years later they want to sell it? Yes, it's appreciated. Has it appreciated that much more than the S&P 500, given the liquidity issues and upkeep?

I feel bad for the tenant, and our safety net is imperfect, but "I'm renting here now" shouldn't mean "I'm renting here forever at below market rates."

One reason housing rates are so high is that people don't want to invest in housing infrastructure if they can't get their money back.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#230

Post by normloman »

maxlybbert wrote: post #63
normloman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not easy for people to just pack up and move. What if you've lived there your whole life? What if your friends and family lived there? What if your job was there? I guess you say "Sorry poor trash, but you gotta be this rich to live here. If you can't cut it, kindly leave the city you've known your whole life, abandon your friends, and get a new job." But that seems cold, doesn't it?

> It's not easy for people to just pack up and move. What if you've lived there your whole life? What if your friends and family lived there? What if your job was there? I've done many things I didn't want to. It's part of being an adult. Then again, nobody makes me eat my vegetables.

You echo a lot of other comments. Boils down to "I've had to relocate, so nobody else gets to complain." That's not a valid argument. Being forced to move sucks, no matter who you are.

More importantly, why should the poor in San Francisco move? They were there first. They could afford rent, until us tech people came. Why should we crowd them out?

And if we did, is that the kind of city we want? A city where everyone is rich, and the poor and middle class huddle into slums outside the border? Here's how that will turn out: When the rich city makes too much garbage, they will dump it in the middle of poor city. When the state creates funds for new infrastructure project, you can bet they will all go to rich city. When big companies relocate, they will build their luxurious campus in rich city. Sorry, no jobs for poor city. But don't worry, rich city still needs street sweepers and baristas.

Huddling the poor in a small area just makes them an easier target for oppression.

Post reply on HN