“Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900” • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by will_hughes » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:13 AM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #17

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…

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,…

> What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control?

Let the owner give adequate notice to vacate (where I live it's 60 days notice without cause). But the rent-control limitation stays on that land parcel for some period of time after a new building is constructed on the site. Don't want to rent it? No problems.

> Newly moved in renters realize that they are paying 10x as much as the rest of the country, leave. Rent goes down

People have a limited ability to live a certain distance away from work - an hour, sure - two, ... okay but that's pushing it. Three? Well now half your waking day is spent commuting. Four? You're probably not driving because you need to sleep.

Property owners who're assholes will continue to push rental prices up (which is what we're seeing in OPs example) to "what the market will bear". Meaning people who're willing to live in some shithole on ramen and minimal lighting and heat for >half their wage can live within a reasonable distance of their workplace.

All so some asshole (which is probably a company), can make more money. Great for the rich.

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

#92

Post by ghshephard » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:13 AM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #70

ghouse wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And up to 10,000 units in San Francisco are vacant because they think it's unfair. http://kalw.org/post/growing-number-san-francisco-landlords-...

If those landlords don't have clear plans to use the property, that is decidedly irrational.

Highly unlikely that 10,000 landlords with an extraordinary desire to maximize their return are being "irrational". If you rent out the property in San Francisco, you effectively lose control of what you can do with it. By not renting it out, you maintain control, and you can rent to family, make use of it yourself. I'm guessing that airbnb also is an attractive option now to get around the price-control laws.

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

#93

Post by jsprogrammer » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:14 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #76

jsprogrammer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Since when do people that own things have a moral obligation to justify their prices?

Since when do people have a moral obligation to anything?

I didn't claim a moral obligation. It is the market's prerogative to demand justification for a seller's price.

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

#94

Post by brandonbloom » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:14 AM UTC

agorabinary wrote: post #66

brandonbloom wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aggressiv…

Property owners took a risk by purchasing property, just as anyone does purchasing shares of a public company for instance. The value of your asset can go up and you find yourself in an advantageous position (a seller's market as you put it), or prices can fall and recurring buyers (like renters) are at the advantage. Rent control only distorts the market and is unfair to everyone.

1) Landlords can diversify their properties, renters only get one. Everyone needs to live somewhere, nobody needs to be a landlord.

2) You've missed my point about moving costs. Even when the market favors renters, the lease renewal negotiation favors landlords. This is because moving costs time and money payable to third parties. As a result, the landlord can charge higher rents for renewals than they can for new leases.

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

#95

Post by patrickaljord » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:15 AM UTC

Russell91 wrote: post #21

whiteboarder wrote: post #13

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

Ironically, rent control is exactly why there is so little housing available in SF. Iirc, only 30% of the voting population owns property. So how is it that the rest of us (70%) don't vote to build more? Well, because 3/4 renters are under rent control, and essentially don't care. So only 70%/4 Edit: source: http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-San-Francisco-apartm...

Funny thing is that rent control is one of these issues that is non controversial among economists, from the most Keynesians to the most libertarians, they all agree that it's a bad idea. In fact, socialist economist from Sweden Assar Lindbeck said: “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.”.

Rent control is usually pushed by ruthless politicians to buy votes and end up being catastrophic for the cities victim of such policies.

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

#96

Post by jeff_marshall » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:15 AM UTC

balls187 wrote: post #54

mud_dauber wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

portland is also quite nice....

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

#97

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

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 agree that rent control laws are abuse. And that they cause the most harm to the people they are meant to protect (the poor).

That's not what you meant? Oh. That's too bad.

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

#98

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

mod wrote: post #87

vertex-four wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, they shouldn't be, but that's not really the issue. Yes, it really is. Which does the most harm - uprooting people and families every year, forcing them to deal with the stress of moving and finding new life patterns which match wherever they live now, or disallowing landlords from making a bit more money? EDIT: s/allowing/disallowing/

I guess you mean "disallowing landlords to make more money." Again I think that's a red herring. There are plenty of reasons an owner might want to remove a tenant outside of profit. But again, it's not the issue--this is really straight to the heart of property rights. Someone owns a property, and by and large, should be able to do what they want with that property. Living on someone else's property is part of the r…

Property rights only exist because of the law, otherwise, in general, property amounts to "what you can personally protect from people using force". It makes sense that alternate property models from "full ownership" can be implemented without the world crumbling.

As I say in another comment, when you rent out a house to a tenant, you already lose certain property rights, at least while the tenant is living there. You can't write a contract which allows you to keep them, by law. You usually even have certain duties to the tenant, as much as landlords like to shirk these. This is the same in many developed countries, and the world's yet to fall apart for it.

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

#99

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

jsprogrammer wrote: post #93

harryh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when do people that own things have a moral obligation to justify their prices?

Since when do people have a moral obligation to anything? I didn't claim a moral obligation. It is the market's prerogative to demand justification for a seller's price.

I think it's pretty clear in this situation that the justification is "We don't want to rent our house to you anymore so we are raising the price to a point where you will move out."

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

#100

Post by jsprogrammer » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:17 AM UTC

WalterSear wrote: post #61

jsprogrammer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What part of a month-to-month rental contract do you not understand?

I am not completely familiar with SF's laws, but typically rent-control laws state that an owner may only evict a tenant for good cause and that leases are otherwise indefinite, at the tenant's discretion.

In this case, the owner has evaded rent-control to extrajudicially evict the tenant through extortionist pricing.