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

Post by WalterSear » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:01 AM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #55

WalterSear wrote: post #26

I just don't see the news here. It's totally legal, and done all the time: it's why people lease houses rather than go month to month. It's not a reflection of the market in SF. This happens everywhere a landlord who isn't getting on with their month-to-month tenants and want them out, for whatever reason. It happened to me in 2005. It's not a necessarily a reflection of anything outside of the personal situation of…

Part of the outrage is that the owner is apparently being dishonest and provides no justification (and it's hard to imagine any reasonable justification) for suddenly demanding a 3x and security deposit increase. What additional value has the owner provided the tenant to justify such a large increase? If the owner wants the tenant out, the owner should say so, not hide behind some ridiculous attorney letter and extor…

Post by manigandham » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:02 AM UTC

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?

Post by vertex-four » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:03 AM UTC

mod wrote: post #51

vertex-four wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? No, they shouldn't be, but that's not really the issue. The issue is: should landlords be legally allowed to uproot them? My answer is a decisive yes. For whatever the reason, they should be able to not renew a contract once it expires. I don't see why laws should be in place to restrict how much someone makes. Nobody…

Post by bovermyer » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:05 AM UTC

Post by WalterSear » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:05 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #53

WalterSear wrote: post #26

I just don't see the news here. It's totally legal, and done all the time: it's why people lease houses rather than go month to month. It's not a reflection of the market in SF. This happens everywhere a landlord who isn't getting on with their month-to-month tenants and want them out, for whatever reason. It happened to me in 2005. It's not a necessarily a reflection of anything outside of the personal situation of…

They converted the other unit in the building to storage (after hassling that tenant out). I don't think it's anything like 'isn't getting on', the landlord wants to convert the building to some other use and simply doesn't care about the tenants, which isn't the same as finding them disagreeable or whatever (one imagines they might want to do something like sell it as a private home).