201–210 of 628 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was not stated in this notice.
When the girl across the bar holds eye contact with you for a couple of seconds and then looks down and away she wants you to come talk to her. Not everything is always stated in black and white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are all landlords assholes again? Why is making a profit evil? Do you sell your services for half of what they are worth just to be nice?
By definition, profit is extracting more than the 'worth' of something.
In reality, in most transactions, both parties profit due to the fact that there is no fixed concept of "worth."
The apple that you bought from your grocer for 50 cents was valued at 40 cents by him and 60 cents by you.
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.
There are multiple units in the house.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea behind limiting the landlord's profit is that many believe that it is more important for people to be able to afford housing than for others to make larger profits through, literally, rent-seeking. It's not just because, it's a social priority. Kinda like the comment the other day on HN that was something along the lines of "I don't see why we need the gov't regulating water prices, why can't the free market…
It's not just because, it's a social priority. How does this legitimize it? A group that votes to dictate what I can do with my property might be doing it by the letter of the law, but that doesn't make it morally right. If I've earned something (e.g., I've gotten it legitimately through trade, as opposed to theft or fraud), that means I've poured some part of my life into earning that thing. Apart from issues where…
Why do you have property? Why does a police force and firefighters exist to protect that property? Why are there courts and contracts? The only reason is because a group of people have decided to set rules that protect your property - the only "natural property" you can have is that which you can fight for, and anything you have beyond that is by the grace and favour of the same society you are so quick to deride.
> To be clear, I am pro-equality in a fundamental way: we should strive to be equal before the law.
And the poor and rich alike have equal right to sleep under the bridges.
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?
The tenant was paying $2,145/month = $25,470/year.
According to the letter, they forced out another tenant. IF that tenant was paying a similar amount, the landlord was making >4x taxes in rent, not less than the current taxes.
Also, the current owners bought the property on 12/30/2014. Why should anyone have sympathy for them having tenants? They knew they were buying a rent-controlled building. They aren't some owners for the past 30 years being held victim to tenants who won't move out.
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.
> The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear. This conveniently omits the fact that there used to be two units in that house, so the actual rent would certainly have been closer to double that amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are all landlords assholes again? Why is making a profit evil? Do you sell your services for half of what they are worth just to be nice?
By definition, profit is extracting more than the 'worth' of something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not to mention supply/demand doesn't work for something with fairly inelastic demand lolwut? The free market works pretty OK for gasoline and food (taken as a whole; obviously specific foods are elastic). When was the last time you heard people clamoring for price controls at the grocery store? Even more to the point, the free market works just fine for housing in the vast majority of the US that does not have any…
Neither gasoline nor food are "free markets", even approximately. Government actively intervenes to influence the supply and price of gasoline, and actively intervenes in food, subsidizing both production and consumption. So, if whatever is being done for gas and food works well, that's not an endorsement of the free market.
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,…
What you're missing is that housing is not a normal good. Sure, there is a housing marketplace, which can provide some correction. But houses are also homes. People are born in them. People die in them. They love them, they cherish them, they fight for them. There's a lot of truth in the saying, "Home is where the heart is." What you're missing in that scenario is the large number of people who are displaced not just…
Edit: typo