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

Post by pgwhalen » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:30 AM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #207

mmarx wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It also conveniently omitted any calculation about how the owner is 'losing money', despite there being a ~$14,000 positive difference between what the tenant is paying per year and the taxes due.

Post by toephu2 » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:30 AM UTC

vegardx wrote: post #83

IgorPartola wrote: post #17

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,…

The market might correct itself, but are you really sure that gentrification is good for the community and people in general? This is basically what is happening. Not everyone can easily pack up and just move. People are social beings, they have commitments, children and probably a place where they have some sort of personal connection.

Post by shaftoe » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:32 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #192

maxharris wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is essentially a fundamentalist view of property rights. It seems like that for any X, you can find people to assert that X is obviously the most important thing in the world, so anything else doesn't matter. Fundamentalisms are mentally satisfying, because you always have clear answers. But they're practically dangerous, because the ignored concerns don't actually go away. Land, of course, does not work like yo…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:32 AM UTC

HaloZero wrote: post #166

Russell91 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Is there any sources you get those numbers? They seem very wrong from when I last researched this.

Post by brc » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 2:33 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,…