Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 628 posts

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#31

Post by jsprogrammer »

jacques_chester wrote: post #7
Lewisham wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>The law has always been distinct from morality,

Has it? If you look at Hebrew and Christian tradition, the two are highly conflated.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#32

Post by IgorPartola »

charlesdm wrote: post #25
IgorPartola wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH, how much can you restrict the property owner? What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control? Would it be OK for the law to tell the owner to fix it some other way? What if both units were destroyed in a natural disaster and a new structure had to be built from nothing? Is that still rent-controlled? Also, is rent control even a good idea? In the short term,…

If you own the building, i'd say you should be free to do what you want. Just because you rented out a unit 5 years ago doesn't mean you want to rent it out forever. You own the building after all. Imagine a building with 20+ units, you'd never be able to clear it out. But, that doesn't make it a fun process to go through for a renter. It sucks. Couldn't the owner just ask the person who is renting the unit to move o…

I can't imagine someone going through this trouble instead of just asking. It is a dick move, for sure. I just don't see GGP's point about making this specific action illegal as the solution. Seems to me that it would the just complicate things and in the end negatively affect everyone.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#33

Post by tylermac1 »

colanderman wrote: post #16

"the security deposit [...] shall increase to $12,500 per month" Can someone explain what this means? I've never had to pay a security deposit per month . That must be a copy + paste error?

The numbers are just there to make it impossible to pay. They want the tenant out so they can sell the house.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#34

Post by brandonbloom »

Lewisham wrote: post #5
jackowayed wrote: post #3

If 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?

Rent control does not force landlords to keep renters ad infinitum. It protects tenants from price gouging. Landlords can impose rent increases far beyond fair market rents for new tenants because it's costly and inconvenient to move, but (in a sellers' market) cheap to replace tenants. This imbalance of negotiating power necessitates regulations.

Now, you can argue that particular rent control laws are too aggressive, or that the strategy for calculating bounds on rent increases cause excessive opportunity losses. But that's a far cry from the implication of your message.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#35

Post by cookiecaper »

mcpherrinm wrote: post #8
Lewisham wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's plenty fair. This is why we have lease contracts. The lease protects both the tenant and the landlord for the lease's duration, and contractually obligates the landlord to prevent habitable premises while the lease is in force, but the landlord is under no obligation to renew if he wishes to do something else with his property. That's how ownership works. You don't lose ownership just because you choose to rent to a tenant.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#36

Post by vertex-four »

cookiecaper wrote: post #24
vertex-four wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Landlords have the right to change their mind when it comes time for lease renewal. You're arguing that landlords should be forced to always rent their property to the same tenant once they begin. That's how ownership, not rental, works. Rentals are for a limited time by definition.

> Rentals are for a limited time by definition.

I know people (in fact, every branch of my family, along with many of my friends) who have rented their entire lives, because they can't own - they've never been able to amass enough capital or convince someone else to lend them it. Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money?

Rentals are whatever the combination of the contract and the local law say they are, by definition.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#37

Post by codezero »

whiteboarder wrote: post #13

Build more houses. None of this shit would happen if SF would just build more houses.

But if we do that, the skyline will be ruined for the residents of Palo Alto, and we can't have that!

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/07/10/growth-debate-...

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#39

Post by WalterSear »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #12

YC sings the praises of San Fransisco, and they're right about the culture and the startup scene there. But things like this, and the cost of living overall, make me hesitate to start something out there.

This happens everywhere, all the time. The butthurt it's eliciting however, that's pure San Francisco.

EDIT: fwiw, I'm an SF native, and this same trick was done to me in 2005.

Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”

#40

Post by gcb0 »

Lewisham wrote: post #5
jackowayed wrote: post #3

If 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 take it you are under 25 and never have to move a family into a rental house?

when you do that, i'd love to see your opinion then about living in a place where every month you need to set aside a weekend to find a plan-b place just in case your rent jump to a price you can't afford next month.

Post reply on HN