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

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

#421

Post by stretchwithme » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:54 AM UTC

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…

It is terrible that an owner is able to do things with their own property.

And that those merely paying rent don't have total control over something they haven't purchased.

Its an outrage.

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

#422

Post by sampo » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:55 AM UTC

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…

I don't think you need to be a property owner in San Francisco to believe in the free market economy.

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

#423

Post by zobzu » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:56 AM UTC

maxlybbert wrote: post #396

cc439 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why not create a lifetime rent control that is tied to the occupancy of the current tenant? One they're gone, it's fair game for anyone at any price and you protect the "right to a home" for the existing resident. That said, I don't think a rental can ever be a home in the way you describe it. The fact that the property is owned by another party means the resident will always be limited in their sense of place dur…

Generally speaking, that's how rent control is managed. The people who dream up rent control somehow never realize that property owners will change their behavior based on how they expect rent control to affect them. So, when a tenant moves out, for whatever reason, the property owner doesn't set rent based on the current economy, instead rent is based on what the market might look like years down the line. So, after…

That goes both ways. Nobody will pay if its too high (you will pay another slightly cheaper landlord, then) and thus landlord has to lower prices. Thus rent control apts are, in fact, at market rate. Its just that market rate is higher than you think it is. When the market is exploding prices will rise regardless of rent control to crazy amounts.

People should disclose if they have an interest in this thread, since last I remember, all landlords are pretty wealthy people without that problem. (they own their place + other places, so, yeah)

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

#424

Post by nvader » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 3:58 AM UTC

subodd wrote: post #353

kelnos wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

Why don't you pay some of your neighbors' rent? You admit you could afford an increase, and you want people to sacrifice their disposable income for the benefit of others' housing, right?

Touché.

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

#425

Post by zobzu » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 4:00 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #115

DrStalker wrote: post #68

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.

In SF the only real way to kick someone out of a rent controlled unit is via an Ellis Act eviction. The allows the owner to take the building off the market. Issue is, you need to pay a substantial fee to the tenant (many thousands if they've been there a long time) AND you cannot rent the unit out again for 5 years.

it actually sounds fair, doesn't it?

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

#426

Post by stretchwithme » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 4:01 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #407

maratd wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Wh…

You can't legislate life into some gentle state. So you don't believe laws against crime? You can use the same argument for any good or service. None of the things you mentioned have the universality of a home, which strikes almost everyone, regardless of demographic. Those who aren't adversely affected by not having a home are notable for being extreme outliers. As wpietri said, housing is not a normal good.

It is not a crime to take risks. Or to avoid them. Or to enter into contracts on mutually agreeable terms.

Owners risk their capital and defer their own consumption. The renters preserve their flexibility and get more house than they could have afforded to buy and avoid losing their shirts in housing busts.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Ah, but if you can use the power of the state to give you the economy of renting with the rights of owning, without those annoying responsibilities, then you've really got something!

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

#427

Post by zobzu » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 4:02 AM UTC

toephu2 wrote: post #263

vegardx wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How can we get rid of the homeless people in SF? I don't think anyone likes them and they contribute not only nothing to society but actually a negative amount. They are an eyesore and a burden to the community.

It sounds like you want them dead because it doesn't look nice when you look through your window.

They were most likely tenants that have been evicted and couldn't pay, or other similar reasons. Some choose to live homeless, but most do not.

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

#428

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 4:03 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #414

Kalium wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually, interestingly, you've now also defined profit as a zero-sum game across society. For some to be enriched, others must falter and be brought lower. OK. What nuance of your stated position did I mistake? In what way do you make a profit and enrich yourself without it coming at the expense of another? Bear in mind that trading something of yours for money from someone else is very literally a trade taking pl…

Not when prop 13 caps are generally higher than rent control caps. I don't believe we're talking about rent control here, or at least not exclusively. The original article is about someone's rent increasing by over 400%. I can't imagine how that could be justified by cost increases on the landlord's side. I'm not arguing that the current system of rent control and property tax increase limits is working properly and…

> I don't believe we're talking about rent control here, or at least not exclusively. The original article is about someone's rent increasing by over 400%.

Yes, because the unit is no longer controlled and the landlord wants them out. In your eyes, that makes the landlord an asshole. That may be, but the reality on the ground is that there are few ways to do that... and they found one.

Does it even matter why? What if the landlord wants somewhere for their aging grandmother to live so they can care for her? Would that still make them an asshole? I suspect you'll say yes, because they're looking to push someone out of their home. Maybe the tenant has caused so many headaches that it's not worth putting up with them for the profit anymore. Who knows?

It wouldn't be an issue at all - magical words and warm fuzzies and similar crap aside - if all the various policies supported by not-assholes hadn't created a situation that encourages assholes. It's kind of like well-intentioned policies need to be carefully thought through because they can have consequences other than those intended.

> At any rate, you're re-framing the argument here to try to make me look bad.

Really? I thought I was just exploring the consequences of your position(s), but I'll bow to you on this one.

> There are many multipliers between 0x and 10x, and I would argue that the responsible multiplier in order to maintain non-asshole status is well below 10... and even well below 1... but certainly greater than 0.

OK. Then what is it? What's your happy medium, where you are getting money from someone, providing something in exchange, and making a profit without enriching yourself at their expense?

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

#429

Post by ultrasaurus » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 4:04 AM UTC

bratsche wrote: post #302

tptacek wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're missing is that housing is not a normal good This logic taken to its conclusion brings us to some pretty disquieting places. Maybe SF should just build a lot more housing .

Build where? You know there's water all around it right?

On Mission street in my neighborhood alone there are at lease 3 large lots with derelict buildings on them and they've been that way for years. There are quite a few other smaller parcels on Mission and smaller streets.

If we want to take housing seriously, let's start with a law that says "If the building is abandoned for 5 years, you lose it, it becomes housing."

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

#430

Post by cma » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 4:05 AM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #112

cma wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a rent controlled area, they don't have that right, by definition. Rent controlled rentals aren't for a limited time, with various exceptions, by definition.

Yes, they do have that right. They can use the building themselves, rent it to someone more trusted (family/friends), or sell it. They don't have to rent it out in the first place, so the building never has to come under rent control.

Yes, you technically can rent it for a limited time of zero, meaning they do have the right to rent it for a limited time, in some weird mathematical field theory of rental treating that as the additive identity element or something.