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

281–290 of 628 posts

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

#281

Post by ghshephard »

cthalupa wrote: post #248
ghshephard wrote: post #182

I find it interesting that we can, with almost 95%+ success, determine who on these threads owns Real Estate in San Francisco, versus those who don't. There are admittedly some comments that are in the margins, but the number of false positives/negatives is probably pretty close to zero. In particular, those who rant about the evils of uncontrolled rental markets are 99% likely to not own real estate in San Francisco…

>Should we place any value in ethical principles which are so immediately seen to be self-serving? Are you also including those who own property in SF also included in this? They too would immediately change their tune if they had to sell the property and begin renting. One party in this made the conscious choice to buy property with these restrictions on it, and receives the benefits of being a property owner (Equit…

"Are you also including those who own property in SF also included in this?"

Absolutely.

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

#282

Post by brc »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #186
clarky07 wrote: post #128

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.

No, profit is arranging a voluntary transaction where both parties where both parties trade something they value less for something they value more.

Where did all this 'profit is evil' talk come from anyway? This is a site dedicated to startups and tech talk, and all of a sudden we have activist student slogans passing for comment?

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

#283

Post by cthalupa »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #234
cowsandmilk wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zillow has property taxes at $11,043/year 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…

correction to myself on "buying", it appears the previous owner was "SHUKRY & VERA LAMA RVC LVG TR" and the new owner is "LAMA NADIA V", so it probably was an inheritance, not a purchase.

If you read the facebook post, it claims they transferred the house from one couple to a sibling as part of the process that allowed them to increase rent.

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

#284

Post by hindsightbias »

whiteboarder wrote: post #13

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

I will bring a bulldozer to Googler Mission Wonderland the day you bring a bulldozer to low-density Palo Alto whitey-ville.

We just have acres of open land here... derp.

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

#285

Post by spiralpolitik »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #236
BashiBazouk wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not an expert on California law, but the property changed hands on 12/30/2014 Grantor: SHUKRY & VERA LAMA RVC LVG TR Grantee: LAMA NADIA V

Simply way around Prop 13. The property is owned by a company not a person. To sell the property you sell the company. As far as property tax was concerned the property hasn't changed hands. Profit.

Prop 13 was never about making sure Grandma didn't get taxed out of her home, it was about making sure corporations didn't pay property tax.

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

#286

Post by maratd »

wpietri wrote: post #155
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,…

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…

You can use the same argument for any good or service. Tear something away from a person and you can absolutely traumatize them. It can be a teddy bear for a little kid, a car for an adolescent, your laptop, you get the idea.

You can't legislate life into some gentle state. It is what it is. You can, however, smooth out the bumps.

Unfortunately, rent control does the exact opposite. It creates stupidity like this. Where a landlord has to use a lawyer to increase the rent 4X, which is insane on a number of levels. That is one hell of a bump in the road.

Get rid of rent control and prices will be stable. Yes, they will be higher for some, lower for others, but they'll be stable.

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

#287

Post by growupkids »

wpietri wrote: post #219
escherize wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this argument. _Quality_ housing seems to me, to be a normal good, because when income increases the demand for such housing increases. Even crappy places in SF seem to be quality housing. Whether or not there are class issues, or your house is sentimental is irrelevant. Edit: typo

Apparently "normal good" is an economic technical term, and apparently you are using that technical definition here and not the normal use of "normal". I have no idea why you'd do that; as you point out, that technical term bears no relation to what I'm talking about.

I don't follow, privately owned housing is a normal good. It's a Textbook case, as average living standards rise, the total demand for housing expands, as does the demand for more expensive properties as people look to move "up market".

I am misunderstanding your point?

Edit: I think I understand, my degrees in economics so I assumed you were using the term as its used in economics. Apparently you were not.

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

#288

Post by kelnos »

EpicEng wrote: post #230
will_hughes wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control? Let the owner give adequate notice to vacate (where I live it's 60 days notice without cause). But the rent-control limitation stays on that land parcel for some period of time after a new building is constructed on the site. Don't want to rent it? No problems. > Newly moved in renters realize that they are paying 1…

>All so some asshole (which is probably a company), can make more money. Great for the rich. Ummm... yeah, that's why I bought the place. That's why I took the risk on the investment. That's why I deal with all of the administration. That's why I keep it up to code. So... now I have to rent it for 25% market value? I'll find any way I can out of that situation, and no, it doesn't make me an asshole.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Deciding that you need a fatter paycheck at the expense of a renter who can't afford your desire -- yes, desire, not need -- for more money... yeah, in my book that makes you an asshole. Any rent increase that isn't tied to an increase in costs (sure, maybe plus a few percent for profit) or a CPI/inflation increase is just greed, plain and simple. Put another way: landlords who are already making a comfortable profit off their property don't magically stop making a profit just because demand has increased. But that's not enough: people won't say no to a chance at more profits, even if that has a negative impact on other people.

Listen, there's no reason why all the landlords across SF need to raise rents. They do it because they want more money, and know that demand is so high and that the high income earners in the area can afford it, and that there are enough of those types of people to keep the market going, at least for a while.

And, to be frank, I could keep affording an apartment in SF even if it got much worse than it is now. But I wouldn't want to live here. The thought of living in a place populated by only the rich is entirely unpalatable to me. The idea of lining the pockets of people who are displacing families and individuals who have been living in SF for years and decades... that's disgusting. After a while, if things don't get better, I'll give up and move somewhere else, and give my rental money to people more deserving. I'll be sad to leave, but will realize that the city I love has already left me.

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

#289

Post by Kalium »

olegious wrote: post #235
freehunter wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the weather, food/beer/wine, and landscape really that much better than Santa Cruz? Is it that much better than Raleigh? Or Austin? Or any other city that isn't San Francisco? Besides the benefits you might get from SF, let's be realistic: the city doesn't want you. It doesn't want any of you. The only benefit you're getting is the people who moved there just like you, and the city doesn't want them, either. If th…

I think the people "that don't want you" are a small, although vocal, minority of San Francisco. Most San Franciscans prefer gentrification and tech workers to slums and everything that entails. The silent majority, is just that- silent. There is construction happening all over the city now, I think people are starting to "get it"- if you want lower rents, you have to build more hosing. I've been in SF since I was 9…

It's worth bearing in mind that there's a reasonable number of activists who campaign on the idea that building more housing makes everything worse.

I sometimes ask myself what planet they are from...

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

#290

Post by yuhong »

lsiebert wrote: post #164
DannyBee wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Interestingly, the idea that it's your property and you can do what you want with it was often the justification not to rent to people of color, the disabled, and other disadvantaged groups. The counter argument is, that the governments of regions, (cities, counties, states, etc) have to account for externalities that businesses don't consider or care about. Governments see benefits in keeping housing affordable. Do…

Personally, I don't like anti discrimination laws for different reasons. Clue: how do you think these laws are enforced?
Post reply on HN