131–140 of 628 posts
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,…
Transaction costs. Moving is not free: at a minimum, there are search costs to find a new apartment and moving costs to pack all your stuff up and move it around. Very often, there are also storage needs, and if you move non-locally, there are jobsearch and job termination costs, recruiting costs by their employers, relocation costs, etc. Many of these are externalities - they're born by people who are not party to t…
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
That was not stated in this notice.
Not everything is always stated in black and white.
This is a perfect example of why rent control is a terrible system that leads to market inefficiencies and worse outcomes for a community. The law has made it more profitable for this landlord to remove housing stock and charge market rate for the remaining unit than to rent out both units in the building under rent control laws. Cities with low vacancy rates like SF need to rethink their approach to housing if they…
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?
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…
The market rent is exactly what other potential tenants are willing to pay.
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.
Or that the inability to charge market prices causes property owners to refuse to rent in the first place, thereby making housing problems even worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They did, in a hostile way. Then again, maybe the tenant refused to move out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 le…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 is kind of the difference between owning and renting.