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

561–570 of 628 posts

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

#561

Post by ghshephard »

pingswept wrote: post #559
ghshephard wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meta point that I was trying to make, and I think is really important, not only in this context, but in a vast number of contentious threads, in HN and other arenas, is so often when we are voicing what we propose is a moral, or ethical position, is no more than a declaration of what our particular situation happens to be at that time. Someone living in a rent-controlled apartment will be a strong believer in ren…

Mostly agreed about your meta point. I think you're omitting the possibility that someone might be opposed to something that benefits them. But in the non-meta discussion, all I'm saying is that you don't know which commenters are in which situation, and especially not with 95% certainty, like you claimed. Some of the commenters might oppose rent control, even though they benefit from it. Other commenters might stron…

So - I grant you that I don't have epistemological knowledge of these commentors positions. And yes, you're right, for people that don't have any skin in the game (people outside the bay area) - it's much more difficult to understand what their position is.

I guess my only hope is that when people voice a very strong opinion on this topic (or, for that matter, any topic) - that they might consider whether they are holding that position with a "veil of ignorance", or whether they are just projecting from their own situation.

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

#562

Post by ryan-c »

ryan-c wrote: post #490
lucaspiller wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plenty of 1 million dollar plus units being built, but nothing for first time buyers. What is affordable? I'm not in SF (or the U.S.), but as I understand salaries of $150k+ in tech are common. Mortgage repayments on a $1mm property work out to be ~$5,000 a month for a 35 year mortgage, which you can easily pay if you are earning that much.

Normally mortgage payments aren't allowed to be more than 38% of gross income for someone with no debt which works out to $4750 for $1M/yr, and you generally have to have a 20% down payment, and even then, it's still going to have to be a jumbo mortgage.

"$1M/yr" should have been "$150k/yr" there.

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

#563

Post by darkstar999 »

eyeareque wrote: post #464
cma wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think they will keep it as storage? Once the remaining tenant is out they will renovate everything and rent both units again.

I feel for the renter, but shouldn't the landlord be able to do whatever they want with their property? Rent is going way up because there aren't enough homes in sf for the amount of people who want to live there. The city is to blame for this problem. Why is sf such a flat city? There should be a lot more tall condo buildings but as I've read it seems the city blocks any structure over 4 stories. Raising rent will c…

> shouldn't the landlord be able to do whatever they want with their property?

Not under current SF rent control laws. The issue here is how the landlord is skirting around the law by making space unusable.

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

#564

Post by tylermac1 »

colanderman wrote: post #196
tylermac1 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers are just there to make it impossible to pay. They want the tenant out so they can sell the house.

I get that. But the concept of a security deposit is that you get it back when you leave, so long as you haven't damaged the place. Having to pay an additional security deposit each month doesn't make logistical or logical sense. Do they hand you a check for $1M when you leave after ten years? Does the number of damageable surfaces in the apartment increase each month?

Not necessarily. I've had security deposits where only a certain percentage is refunded after any necessary deductions. Depends on what they signed in the lease. But still, it was never designed to actually be collected, just a number to scare someone away. Not much more to look into it.

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

#565

Post by pingswept »

ghshephard wrote: post #561
pingswept wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly agreed about your meta point. I think you're omitting the possibility that someone might be opposed to something that benefits them. But in the non-meta discussion, all I'm saying is that you don't know which commenters are in which situation, and especially not with 95% certainty, like you claimed. Some of the commenters might oppose rent control, even though they benefit from it. Other commenters might stron…

So - I grant you that I don't have epistemological knowledge of these commentors positions. And yes, you're right, for people that don't have any skin in the game (people outside the bay area) - it's much more difficult to understand what their position is. I guess my only hope is that when people voice a very strong opinion on this topic (or, for that matter, any topic) - that they might consider whether they are ho…

Agreed, good sir or madam!

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

#566

Post by [deleted] »

spiralpolitik wrote: post #556
lucaspiller wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plenty of 1 million dollar plus units being built, but nothing for first time buyers. What is affordable? I'm not in SF (or the U.S.), but as I understand salaries of $150k+ in tech are common. Mortgage repayments on a $1mm property work out to be ~$5,000 a month for a 35 year mortgage, which you can easily pay if you are earning that much.

On what planet is 2/3 of your post tax income considered to be easy ? (Also most of the units being built require HOA membership so tack on another 1k to your monthly outgoing)

[deleted]

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

#567

Post by geebee »

I'm coming very late to this (540 comments and counting), but I do want to make one point about the term "NIMBY". While it's a reasonable observation about housing politics, it does invite potentially false equivalence. A kind of equivalence is built into the term itself - "not in my backyard" means everyone recognizes something is needed, but nobody wants it near them. In this case, everyone wants to live in the low density section of a high density area.

Still, this term encompasses everyone from bernal heights hippies who want to keep density at 18,311/sq mi to atherton billionaires who want to keep it at 1,400. It includes noe valley "activists" who don't want to tear down 100 year old houses and mountain view city council members who voted to allow massive new corporate construction bringing tens (hundreds?) of thousands of new workers to their region but specifically banned new residential construction near those places of business.

All in all, yeah, I hear you on the noe/bernal/mission activists. They are a bit nimbytastic, no doubt. But to me, the actions of the anti-housing forces in some peninsula towns are such an order of magnitude worse (and are causing many of the problems you see in SF) that simply applying the NIMBY label to both without further analysis is an exercise in false equivalence.

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

#568

Post by IgorPartola »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #417
IgorPartola wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are an employer in SF and your employees are getting priced out and moving away, maybe you are not paying enough. If you cannot afford to pay more, it isn't your employees that are being priced out, it's you. Move to any other area with lots of talent and 1/10 of the cost of living, or face this problem again and again.

SF is expensive, but not 10x so compared to other American cities. If you do move to a place like Manila, you might not be able to find the talent you need.

It is 10x expensive. I lived in the RTP area. I paid roughly $800 for a very nice three bedroom house with a 10 minute commute to downtown for work. That's a house I owned. Lots of tech talent there, lots of jobs, lots of startups. That's more than 10x what the rent for this shoddy apartment is being set at. A very nice downtown condo would run you about 1.5 times as much. What does an apartment in downtown SF go for now (to buy?).

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

#569

Post by IgorPartola »

impendia wrote: post #539
IgorPartola wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the SF is just a very expensive place to live. So is NYC, Tokyo, and London. Whether you consider these outcomes acceptable or not, it seems they are inevitable. By keeping rent control, you are actually leading people into believing they can afford to live in a place that is poised to prove them out one way or another. I personally cannot fathom why one place can be son much more expensive than another. Sure, the…

I was obliged to move from San Francisco to Columbia, South Carolina for work and I desperately miss SF. I miss the energy levels, the buzz on the street and present at practically every event I went to. To give just one example, I tried signing up for improv comedy lessons --- and I found that my teachers were among the best in the world, and that they had a range of lessons available ranging from beginner to master…

Don't get me wrong, I love SF. Probably more than any other city in the world. I just don't see why it's worth that much more. You can get a close approximation of it elsewhere, at a fraction of the cost. That energy, lots of young people doing cool things, etc... it follows places where young people can afford to live. SF is quickly going to phase that out in favor of people who can afford to pay, and the energy will move elsewhere.

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

#570

Post by nedwin »

simoncion wrote: post #515
nedwin wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately tenant unions and some politicians have been threatening to expand the definition of rent control for quite some time. This increases the risk that buildings built after that period are going to get locked down into rent control after the fact.

Do you believe that that's a contributing factor to the lack of new construction in San Francisco? If so, is it a larger factor than the insane city-wide height restrictions and strong anti-development lobby? (If you'd like to point a finger at the folks who obstruct demolition of rent-controlled units to construct new units, I point you to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9210429 ) :)

It's definitely a factor in new construction in San Francisco. I wouldn't say it's a larger factor than the anti-development lobby but I think the anti-development lobby and the rent control lobby are closely aligned.

Height restrictions are another factor, as is the requirements around affordable housing.

Post reply on HN