“Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
1–10 of 628 posts
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#2Is that legal? In NYC, there are laws in place to limit the amount a landlord can raise rent.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#3If you read the caption, the real issue here is a horrible abuse of the rent control law. When the renter signed their lease, the unit was covered by rent control, putting very tight restrictions on rent increases and evictions. However, the landlord then essentially destroyed the other unit in the building so that they could reclassify the building as a single-family home instead of a multi-unit building. Single-family homes are not covered by the rent control law.
This should obviously not be legal; if you're going to have a rent control, you can't let landlords take a unit that should have rent control and make it not rent controlled. At the very least, these kinds of changes shouldn't allow the landlord to escape an active rent control obligation to a current tenant.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#4Is that legal? In NYC, there are laws in place to limit the amount a landlord can raise rent.
If you read the thread it sounds like the landlord used several loopholes and had previous litigation against them and they toughened up their approach after previous failed evictions.
I'm glad my rent only went up 20% since I'm in Sunnyvale and not the city.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#5If you read the caption, the real issue here is a horrible abuse of the rent control law. When the renter signed their lease, the unit was covered by rent control, putting very tight restrictions on rent increases and evictions. However, the landlord then essentially destroyed the other unit in the building so that they could reclassify the building as a single-family home instead of a multi-unit building. Single-fam…
I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force landlords to keep renters ad infinitum just because. That hardly seems fair to the landlord, no?
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#6Is that legal? In NYC, there are laws in place to limit the amount a landlord can raise rent.
Yes, it is almost certainly legal.
The other option landlords always have is to withdraw the unit from the market. You can Ellis Act anyone you want; the price you pay is $18k per person or so plus waiting 366 days, and a stained title. You can still renovate then TIC the building though, and you'll find plenty of takers.
ps -- having been in a legal fight with an sf landlord, the fact of the matter is despite all the pretty bullshit sf claims, there are vanishingly few actual tenant protections that work against a malicious landlord. At best, you can leave and sue after the fact, but be prepared to spend years on a fight.
@harry: an ellis act eviction, or other no-fault evictions, permanently prevents the building from utilizing the 2-unit lottery bypass to condo the building, so it will have to remain a TIC. TICs have a variety of negative implications, including complicating mortgages. The lottery, which is still necessary for larger units, is suspended until 2024.
see eg http://www.andysirkin.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=158
and
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#7If you read the caption, the real issue here is a horrible abuse of the rent control law. When the renter signed their lease, the unit was covered by rent control, putting very tight restrictions on rent increases and evictions. However, the landlord then essentially destroyed the other unit in the building so that they could reclassify the building as a single-family home instead of a multi-unit building. Single-fam…
I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force landlords to keep renters ad infinitum just because. That hardly seems fair to the landlord, no?
That you dislike a law does not make it any less the law.
That a thing is very popular does not make it lawful.
The law has always been distinct from morality, with clear gateways from moral sentiment to the law.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#8If you read the caption, the real issue here is a horrible abuse of the rent control law. When the renter signed their lease, the unit was covered by rent control, putting very tight restrictions on rent increases and evictions. However, the landlord then essentially destroyed the other unit in the building so that they could reclassify the building as a single-family home instead of a multi-unit building. Single-fam…
I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force landlords to keep renters ad infinitum just because. That hardly seems fair to the landlord, no?
I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force renters to leave their homes just because. That hardly seems fair to the tenant, no?
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#9If you read the caption, the real issue here is a horrible abuse of the rent control law. When the renter signed their lease, the unit was covered by rent control, putting very tight restrictions on rent increases and evictions. However, the landlord then essentially destroyed the other unit in the building so that they could reclassify the building as a single-family home instead of a multi-unit building. Single-fam…
I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force landlords to keep renters ad infinitum just because. That hardly seems fair to the landlord, no?
The law was passed in 1979. It's hard to seriously claim landlords could possibly be unaware of the law before becoming a landlord. If for some reason they just can't possibly see themselves in any other career, they may also choose to solely invest in buildings built since 1980.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#10If you read the caption, the real issue here is a horrible abuse of the rent control law. When the renter signed their lease, the unit was covered by rent control, putting very tight restrictions on rent increases and evictions. However, the landlord then essentially destroyed the other unit in the building so that they could reclassify the building as a single-family home instead of a multi-unit building. Single-fam…
I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force landlords to keep renters ad infinitum just because. That hardly seems fair to the landlord, no?
If they think it's unfair, they could just... not rent their buildings out. There's plenty of buildings in the US that don't come under rent control laws that they could buy and rent out.