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

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

#171

Post by mattschmulen » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:48 AM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #132

nostrademons wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Then a better policy would be to price these negative externalities into a single metric that is a multiple of the rent. Want to raise rent by more than max(inflation, 3%)? Offer the renter 2.5x the months rent to leave instead. My cofounder lives in a place that is only $900 / mo with his girlfriend in Toronto because she's been renting there for forever. They are essentially trapped there because their rent would e…

I couldn't agree more. Rent control originally proposed for these on fixed salary growth (teachers, firemen, etc.) is turned upside down when the inhabitants are not constrained by these caps. That being said the rules of the game are clear and defined on signing of the lease ( by both parties), and property owners are constrained (and game) these rules as much as the tenants. Having an updated provision that allows both parties to win from a conversion makes for amicable relations. I love my rent controlled apartment,but let's face the facts the contract and governance is clear and I could end up with the same situation. I would be more inclined to be bought out of my position giving up my under market rent giving the landlord the option to try for greater revenue. Win win

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

#172

Post by WalterSear » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:48 AM UTC

bovermyer wrote: post #67

Regardless of legality, this is obviously wrong. The owner of the property clearly has no understanding of reality; they're going to be financially destroyed by this move, so no additional action necessary on that front. Glad to see someone so evil fall on hard times; pity they won't suffer more. As for the tenant(s); if you want to relocate, I'll put you up in Minneapolis for free for a couple months if you want. No…

From the records on Zillow, assuming they owned the unit free and clear, the landlord was likely losing money at the current rent: it's less than the current taxes on the unit.

Should they have been forced to continue to rent the unit out at a loss?

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

#173

Post by awad » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:49 AM UTC

Sanddancer wrote: post #148

whiteboarder wrote: post #13

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

One of the problems is that San Francisco in the 60s and 70s passed rather strict zoning ordinances to prevent "Manhattanization". So, this city that has a very limited amount of space cannot grow upwards to help meet demand.

This is the real problem. SF is loathe to build out skyscrapers even though it's been proven that dense urban areas are the most efficient way to live. The earthquake argument isn't really a sound one in this day and age so the only thing left is "we don't like change."

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

#174

Post by cletus » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:49 AM UTC

Landlord finds loophole to end rent control on a unit. Shocker.

To those who say it's unfair to the landlord to force rent control on them I say two things:

1. Yes it is. There are cases when legally allowed rents are below the taxes the landlord needs to pay. If the government really thinks affordable housing is a public good, let the government build or buy apartment buildings and offer it rather than having forced income distribution essentially; and

2. To the landlords: it's not so funny when the shoe's on the other foot is it? I'm talking of course about Prop 13. This allows long term owners to pay basically nothing in property taxes with those taxes only resetting when the property is sold.

So the state of California screwed up in creating rent control and Prop 13. Great. Repeal them both.

The problem with massive rent control is it creates a dysfunctional market and a huge disincentive to rent out or build new housing supply [1].

New York City ended issuing new rent control leases in 1973. There are very few left. NYC has a functional housing market (in comparison). There are affordable places to live 30 minutes from Manhattan thanks to pretty good infrastructure.

SF specifically and South Bay in general are basically an object lesson in NIMBYism gone insane.

Honestly, the sooner the startup figures out that the only thing the Valley has got going for it is the weather because everything else sucks, the better.

[1]: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/San-Francisc...

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

#175

Post by imsofuture » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:49 AM UTC

knorby wrote: post #143

freehunter wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I lived in Chicago before moving to SF a few years ago, and I can't imagine ever going back. There is an argument about jobs, people, and companies that's complex, but people pay so much for so little space because it really is that valuable. The weather is near perfect year round, the food/beer/wine is astounding, the landscape is glorious, and so on. Midwest winters, particularly as climate change is making them wo…

You're living with mono-culture blinders on, but okay.

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

#176

Post by cwyers » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:49 AM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #165

harryh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are totally correct that landlords have this option. People who are opposed to rent control argue, quite convincingly, that things like the situation you describe lead to bad outcomes for the community at large. A dwelling sitting unoccupied because an owner doesn't want to subject themselves to rent control laws decreases supply and increases rents for everyone.

If it's sitting unoccupied and the owner has no plans to do anything with it, the owner is being irrational. If the owner does have plans to do something with it, they have to kick the tenant out, meaning that any additional supply as a result of renting out these houses is short-term, thus just pushing the problem back a bit. You'd still have to deal with the problem in the future.

Well, this assumes that renting out a house has no costs; if income is less than costs over the course of the lease, it's rational to keep a property off the market.

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

#177

Post by jsprogrammer » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:50 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #141

jsprogrammer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the majority of owners don't wish to personally utilize their property and instead choose to extract rent from it, what exactly are the renters supposed to buy? Owners can apparently force renters to bleed ever more money, but renters can't force a squatting owner to sell, they just have to accept it or, as this letter exemplifies, GTFO.

> If the majority of owners don't wish to personally utilize their property, and to extract rent from it, what exactly are the renters supposed to buy? If you offer to pay at least as much for the building as the landlord would expect to make from renting it out then any rational landlord will sell you the building. > Owners can apparently force renters to bleed ever more money If they raise the rent significantly ab…

>any rational landlord

That's a large assumption.

>If you offer to pay at least as much for the building as the landlord would expect to make from renting it out

Over what time period?

>Landlords have nothing to gain by gouging tenants who will only move across the street to keep paying what they are now,

Where in SF is that possible? Do you know of any documented cases?

>is completely reasonable and natural.

Exactly the justification used for so many horrors.

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

#178

Post by kchoudhu » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:51 AM UTC

mbillie1 wrote: post #113

charlesdm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

That Italian villa/castle thing looks delicious. I wonder what's wrong with it?

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

#179

Post by gress » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:52 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #60

mcpherrinm wrote: post #8

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?

For at least the past thousand years, the bedrock principal of law has been "restraints on alienation of property are generally considered invalid". That is, property owners are free to do what they want with their property. Another is: Your rights cannot exceed those of who you got them from (IE tenants cannot have greater rights to land than landlords) Tenants are tenants for a reason. The whole point of ownership…

The concept of home is far older than 1000 years, and is deeply important to humans.

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

#180

Post by jsprogrammer » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 1:54 AM UTC

mod wrote: post #145

jsprogrammer wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't think we were talking about "holy law" and afterlife punishment. In that sense, I guess you're correct. There's still lots of flaws in the theory, for instance morality has changed--slavery was not outlawed by holy laws, and seemingly was considered okay morally. I don't personally equate legality with anything except written law enforced by people on earth, typically a government. Even in older times, "eart…

Those traditions and societies specifically named The Law (translated from the local language) as what you are describing as holy law.

You still haven't described what moral is, or how one has an obligation to it.