Hopefully the rising prices will encourage investment and lead to a greater supply of housing options in the future. The fact that this kind of thing is happening probably means the rent control laws have been too strict in the past.
“Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
501–510 of 628 posts
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#502Earlier 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?
I'd say that the onus is more on people not actively screwing over other people for their own gain, versus relying on people like me to somehow choose which of their neighbors is most deserving of charity.
The exact reason why we have legal limitations to property rights in these cases is to require that landowners sacrifice some of their disposable income for the benefit of others -- and the benefit of the public good. I think the law has the intent correct, there, even if the implementation of it leaves something to be desired.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A better way for him to have put it would have been: "Just like the Indiana state legislature can't by statute declare pi to be 3.14, San Francisco cannot repeal the law of supply and demand". Rent control or not, the law of supply and demand still applies; it just expresses itself in more dysfunctional and unproductive ways. That's the problem with rent control. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the publi…
Regardless of whether rent control works or not, my point was that it's not pointless to legislate around things like this. 'Laws of nature' get legislated around all the time. Look at violent crime and the natural law of 'might makes right' as one example. Cigarettes here in Australia are another example of legislation changing supply and demand.
As an aside, pi is a fixed constant, whereas 'rent control' is an incredibly complex concept that relies on many other complex concepts - for example, what does 'rent control' mean in a communist country? For a nomadic tribe? It relies on certain concepts around property ownership and capitalism. Which is fine to say it doesn't work as it is in SF, I'm just pointing out that there's a lot more flex in the concept than in the constant 'pi' :)
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does it hurt the not-asshole to avoid behaving like the assholes?
Because by creating a scenario that encourages assholes, all the not-assholes get pushed out. And thus, by being short-sighted nice people, you wind up with a city of assholes. Also, you should probably address harryh's excellent question about everyone else. Preferably with something other than an assertion of privilege.
Because by creating a scenario that encourages assholes, all the not-assholes get pushed out. And thus, by being short-sighted nice people, you wind up with a city of assholes.
As a landlord, deciding to raise rent on your units a modest amount, instead of a financially crippling amount, does not put you in a position to be "pushed out" than landlords who choose to be greedy.
Your costs have not increased such that you need to charge your tenant more than what they can afford. With prop 13, property tax increases are capped, the cost of public utilities that a landlord often takes on (like trash and water) don't increase that much year-over-year, and neither does the cost of contractors to maintain the property. Any increases are in-line with non-housing-related cost of living increases.
So what I don't understand about your statement is that you seem to assert that other landlords behaving like assholes somehow causes non-asshole landlords to be unable to maintain their properties and thus have to make the uncomfortable choice between either becoming assholes, or selling their properties to assholes and leaving. That doesn't seem to make sense unless somehow the cost of maintaining properties has started rising by more than single-digit percentage points per year, which doesn't make sense.
Let's assume that property maintenance somehow increases in cost by 5% per year (which I think is at the high end). The apartment in question here would be covered by a $73/mo rent increase. While that's not nothing to most renters, I think it could be considered a reasonable increase, and something that probably wouldn't break the bank. But the apartment in question isn't getting its rent raised by 5%, or even 10%. It's getting raised by 315%. There's no possible way anyone could ever believe that it costs anywhere remotely close to 315% more to maintain that property this year than it did last year.
Remember, we're not talking about profit here. We're just talking about the idea that you're pushing, that only charging a rent increase of 5% will put a landlord out of business, and that somehow the only way to stay in business is to "do what everyone else is doing" and raise rents by much higher numbers. If that's somehow true, I would love to see numbers that suggest that, because it sounds like an outrageous claim to me.
Also, you should probably address harryh's excellent question about everyone else. Preferably with something other than an assertion of privilege.
I find it interesting that you bring up the concept of privilege, as I believe landowners to be a particularly high-privilege group, especially when compared to many of the people who have been losing their homes over the past couple years.
Regardless, I agree that it's an excellent question, and I've already replied. If you feel my response is lacking, please reply to it and I'll try to clarify my position better. I'm really just trying to understand and provide my perspective, and possibly learn a bit in the process.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent control is a shocking idea that makes a small claque of renters rich at the expense of everyone else. It's obscene. Everyone blames the owners or some lawyer when a protected tenant becomes unprotected. The blame lies in the law that built up an artificial wall around the tenant and protected them from the market. Rent control creates shortages, sub-standard properties and illegal tenancies. It should be abolish…
"Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, 'In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.'" Rent control is one of the small number of policies that economists on the left and right are essentially unanimous (93% in a survey of US economists; 95% in a survey of Canadian ones) in agreeing are always harmful, because they red…
It seems likely that the owners will "change their mind" and decide to convert the "storage area" back into an apartment once the tenant is gone and they can rent at market rate again.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask someone who's been evicted by foreclosure. Say, by way of robosigning.
Foreclosure is part of the voluntary agreement you signed with the bank when they loaned you the money to voluntarily purchase the property. It's not government intervention.
You're missing the point that if a more empowered party than you wants your property, they're likely to get it.
Terms of mortgages in the past decade or so have been in tremendous flux, fraudulently granted (on the part of both lender and borrower, yes, in cases), and changed unilaterally. They've also been transferred with little or no documentation. Cases in which homes that were not even under any mortgage being seized are fairly easy to find.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/robo-signing-of-mortgages-still-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/ohio-bank-foreclose...
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing...
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A bit" is an understatement. You're overtly, obnoxiously pedantic when you reference a single dictionary and ignore common usage, particularly in this thread. Yes, I know, that sounds harsh, but "doing your homework" is a necessary precondition for being a pedant. Check another dictionary and it's part of the definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rent (verb, 2) In common use, it's always in conjunction with a…
Touché, though I don't agree with you on the "common usage" bit. People do in fact "rent (a home) forever", and from what I've gathered it's not that uncommon, at least for cases where "forever" is a person's adult life span. Even considering the temporary case, what does "temporary" mean? 1 year? 2? 5? 10? Where's the cut-off where you've rented for "too long" and it's ok to be kicked out of your home? Even if you c…
>I think the fact that all of this is a problem proves the point that people do expect to be able to rent a home for some value of "forever" (or even some value of "temporary") that is larger than a landlord's profit motive would allow.
The only value that should be expected is the duration of the lease. Yes, it's true that many landlords are satisfied with their rental arrangements and want to continue renting (I have personally done several lease renewals with the same landlord, and I have relatives that lived in the same rental for 20+ years), but a tenant should never take that renewal for granted. Leases are usually in 12 month increments, and at each renewal point, the relationship is re-evaluated by both parties and one or the other moves on or alters the terms of the rental contract if he/she is dissatisfied. Is it really that hard to figure out how this works?
I'm a tenant now and I will hold no ill will to the landlords if they do not wish to renew our lease. I do not feel entitled to their property beyond the contractual and legal stipulations outlined in our lease and in the state's landlord-tenant law, nor do I feel that it's my right to force them to rent to me in perpetuity.
I'm more surprised that some adults believe renting a home grants them a perpetual interest in it than anything. That's literally the difference between renting and owning. If you have a permanent interest in the land, you are at least part-owner. When people want to keep things forever, they buy them.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how would you compromise on the points I raised? What would you advocate for instead? Stating these openly might help clarify the issue.
One thing in your post really stood out to me: What other way is there to live than to treat others neither as masters nor slaves, but as trading partners (in love, friendship, mentorship, business)? You're advocating the opposite of that. As a landlord -- assuming a world with absolute property rights -- you have a significant power advantage over your tenant. A 3x-4x rent increase is not treating your tenant as a "…
A 3x-4x rent increase is not treating your tenant as a "trading partner", it's using your status as landowner to your enrichment and their detriment.
In a romantic relationship, either party can decide to leave without retribution.
In a friendship, either party can prioritize something else they value more, and the friendship wanes.
Students can outgrow mentors, and vice versa. Businesses can fire clients, and clients can go to other busiensses.
It can definitely be detrimental for someone's romantic partner or spouse to leave them (and the same can be said for any of the other relationships in this list). Some people are so distraught when someone leaves them that they attempt suicide.
However, does the fact that this happens in any way justify imposing restrictions on couples? Should a person be forced to endure a romantic relationship that they wish to end because it would be to the detriment of the other person? You can say the same thing about any of the relationships I've listed. For example, should you be forced to buy a brand of soap you don't like because the grocer isn't doing well, and he needs you to buy his unsold inventory?
All relationships are a two-way street, and for a fair trade, both parties have to agree, voluntarily.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
Touché, though I don't agree with you on the "common usage" bit. People do in fact "rent (a home) forever", and from what I've gathered it's not that uncommon, at least for cases where "forever" is a person's adult life span. Even considering the temporary case, what does "temporary" mean? 1 year? 2? 5? 10? Where's the cut-off where you've rented for "too long" and it's ok to be kicked out of your home? Even if you c…
>I think the fact that all of this is a problem proves the point that people do expect to be able to rent a home for some value of "forever" (or even some value of "temporary") that is larger than a landlord's profit motive would allow. The only value that should be expected is the duration of the lease. Yes, it's true that many landlords are satisfied with their rental arrangements and want to continue renting (I ha…
I think that's a matter of status quo and what's considered standard/common. In SF there's usually no new lease agreement after the initial 12 month (or whatever) lease is up. Most revert to month-to-month after that. There's certainly nothing stopping a landlord or tenant asking for a new agreement that covers more time, but in my experience it's not that common in SF.
You could interpret that either way, I guess, as reinforcement of what you're saying, or as against. People should get the fact that it's always month-to-month after the initial period, and just deal with the uncertainty surrounding that.
But the expectation is that the initial lease functions more for the landlord than the tenant (protects the landlord from a flaky tenant who is going to move out after a few months, causing the landlord to have to bear the cost of re-cleaning and re-listing the property after a very short time). SF's laws are very tenant-friendly, so it's hard to get rid of a tenant even on a month-to-month agreement. That certainly breeds an environment that makes people think that "forever unless I want to leave" is normal.
I'm more surprised that some adults believe renting a home grants them a perpetual interest in it than anything. That's literally the difference between renting and owning. If you have a permanent interest in the land, you are at least part-owner. When people want to keep things forever, they buy them.
That reasoning holds tons of merit, I think. A problem, though, is that the cost to buy in SF is out of reach for most tenants. When a 20% down-payment pushes $150k for some of the "cheaper" houses, buying becomes difficult for the majority of people. It can even be a stretch for the high-flying, well-paid tech worker who has actually been able to put money away for several years.
Re: “Your monthly rent .. shall increase from $2145 to $8900”
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? If they are living on someone else's property, and that person wishes to sell the property, and the lease and any other contractual or statutory guarantees have lapsed, then yes? This is really not a new thing. You can't do away with property ownership as a concept just because San Francisco is ridiculous.
Property ownership is an abstract concept enforced by law in the first place. There are theoretical economic models which do away with it to varying extents, or implement alternative ownership models. Why is it so mind-boggling to modify how it works in one specific instance? Actually, almost everywhere, when you have a tenant, you lose some ownership rights already, by law. For example, except in an emergency, you g…
The issue is not that acquiring a tenant restricts some rights that the owner would otherwise have; this is a compromise that the landlord knowingly makes when he rents. That control is relinquished for a pre-agreed, limited period of time, after which control will be returned to the owner, is the essence of renting. The issue is that some people seem to believe that once they are on someone's property, that person loses the future ability to determine how that property is used; i.e., it's not that they have to wait until the current contract expires, but rather that you seem to be arguing that the landlord should never be able to remove a tenant from his property if the tenant does not consent, even at points when the lease on the property has lapsed. That's a permanent deprivation of the core of ownership -- the ability to determine and direct the utilization or exploitation of the property, even if you have to fill existing contractual obligations first, like an active lease.