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

111–120 of 628 posts

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

#111

Post by GabrielF00 »

cmdrfred wrote: post #103
therealwill wrote: post #58

Here is the home: http://www.trulia.com/homes/California/San_Francisco/sold/71... Taxes are 11,043 with a value of 904,085. $2145 looks like an EXTREMELY low rent for a house of this size in San Francisco. (half of the rent is just property taxes.) The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear.

I live in a pretty expensive area and $2145 is high for a one bathroom, and if there are multiple units isn't that essentially a boarding house?

From the link (click see more on her post), this was a 2-unit house where the owners removed the second bathroom and claimed that they had converted the second unit into storage space, thus allowing them to say that the building was a single unit and exempt from rent control.

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

#112

Post by vertex-four »

cma wrote: post #106
cookiecaper wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In a rent controlled area, they don't have that right, by definition. Rent controlled rentals aren't for a limited time, with various exceptions, by definition.

Yes, they do have that right. They can use the building themselves, rent it to someone more trusted (family/friends), or sell it. They don't have to rent it out in the first place, so the building never has to come under rent control.

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

#113

Post by mbillie1 »

charlesdm wrote: post #90
therealwill wrote: post #58

Here is the home: http://www.trulia.com/homes/California/San_Francisco/sold/71... Taxes are 11,043 with a value of 904,085. $2145 looks like an EXTREMELY low rent for a house of this size in San Francisco. (half of the rent is just property taxes.) The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear.

A million dollars sure doesn't get you a lot these days.

http://www.upout.com/blog/san-francisco-3/5-castles-that-are...

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

#114

Post by raldi »

hristov wrote: post #74
whiteboarder wrote: post #13

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

I do not know if you have been in SF lately, but the city is downright full of under construction apartment towers.

The mayor's goal, which we're not on track to hit, is to add 30,000 new homes by 2020. Meanwhile, the city's chief economist says we need at least 100,000 homes to start having a real impact on prices.

Source: http://m.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/leveling-sf-housing-fie...

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

#115

Post by refurb »

DrStalker wrote: post #68
charlesdm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why can't they tell the tennet to move out? In Australia residential leases have a fixed term (usually 12 months) and after that become month-to-month, and the owner can ask you to leave with 90 days notice when you're not under a contract.

In SF the only real way to kick someone out of a rent controlled unit is via an Ellis Act eviction. The allows the owner to take the building off the market. Issue is, you need to pay a substantial fee to the tenant (many thousands if they've been there a long time) AND you cannot rent the unit out again for 5 years.

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

#116

Post by BashiBazouk »

therealwill wrote: post #58

Here is the home: http://www.trulia.com/homes/California/San_Francisco/sold/71... Taxes are 11,043 with a value of 904,085. $2145 looks like an EXTREMELY low rent for a house of this size in San Francisco. (half of the rent is just property taxes.) The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear.

Zillow has it going up in tax last year from $1,500 a year but it hasn't been sold since 1976. Either the sale is slow to show up or someone just inherited the house without a trust. In which case getting the renters out and selling is not surprising.

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

#117

Post by clarky07 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #32
charlesdm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We only see one side here. perhaps they did ask nicely, and the renter said no.

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

#118

Post by thearn4 »

freehunter wrote: post #108
thearn4 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1 full bath, 1,900 sqft Single-Family Home > a value of $904,085 I understand the nature of supply and demand and the appeal of living in an area full of like minded people, but as someone in a flyover state, this absolutely blows my mind.

Shoot, in the Midwest I have an apartment with about that much square footage, two full baths, and I think I'm getting ripped off at $1400/mo. Did I mention I moved in less than a year ago, and was the first resident in the building, so it's brand new? I understand San Francisco is the home of technology, but get your stuff sorted out, seriously. Is it worth being in a city that absolutely hates you? A city that woul…

It's a good question. It's clearly worth it for some. For me, I own a 1800 sq. ft. home on 4 acres outside of Cleveland valued at $170k, in an area with excellent schools. The career prospects in NY and SF are far better, but I'd have a really hard time giving this up.

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

#119

Post by sergiotapia »

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.

Pretty much receive billionaire dollars or STFO.

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

#120

Post by jsprogrammer »

mod wrote: post #64
jsprogrammer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The law has always been distinct from morality, Has it? If you look at Hebrew and Christian tradition, the two are highly conflated.

I think that despite the strong correlation & overlap, yes, law has "always been" distinct from morality, at least where the law wasn't whimsical. If it's not illegal, you can still do it, morals be damned, without being punished. It's pretty much the point of law--to give warning & right to punish. That's not the same as morals.

What is your definition of moral then? Laws, but particularly the Law described in those tradition's holy books, describe what is acceptable behavior in that society and is often associated with eternal and everlasting punishment after death for breaking them, in addition to sacraments that must be performed to be absolved of various attachments that are made to the person for their behavior.
Post reply on HN