Inside San Francisco's housing crisis • Hacker News Board

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#181

Post by JamesBarney » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 5:37 PM UTC

warfangle wrote: post #127

JamesBarney wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the Ellis Act allows you to break a lease. It just allows the owner to not have to conform to certain aspects of the rent control law. In most places that aren't rent controlled the leasee doesn't have the option for perpetual renewal in the contract. If the leasee meets all of the stipulations of the contract then he is entitled to live there until his lease expires. The landlord is obligated to perfor…

It allows landlords a way to go out of business without selling the property they own. It's often used to evict tenants who live in units that are regulated. SF requires a compensation of $5,153 to $18,000 per tenant evicted. NYC requires that tenants not be evicted unless they have violated provisions of their lease. If the landlord wants a tenant to move out, they can _buy_ the tenant out, at a price the tenant agr…

I am confused. Is the landlord evicting them in the middle of their lease. Example: Landlord signs year long lease with tenant and then evicts tenant mid lease to sell property or are they not renewing the lease at the end of the year when lease contract expires.

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#182

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 6:31 PM UTC

malyk wrote: post #179

smsm42 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally seriously don't get it. I mean, the article describes a guy who is out of job, fails to find a job anywhere around after multiple attempts, but it still adamant on remaining in a city where, for example, I - being fully employed and pretty handsomely paid professional - would not live because prices there are freaking insane. Why? I'm not even saying move to Arizona desert or something - but even moving…

Twoo things come directly to mind. 1- every place here requires first and last months rent as a security deposit at a minimum. Even I a "cheap" place that's a lot of cash when you don't have a job. 2- credit/background checks make it unlikely that he would ever be approved by a landlord.

True, upfront costs is a huge problem. Credits may be less so, I've rented with literally no credit at all - just came to the US - and I've seen landlords not checking credit at all. Not all of them but some. After all, credit score doesn't guarantee I won't lose my job tomorrow and stop paying. For upfront costs, it is a big hurdle. But staying in most expensive place in the area doesn't make it any better.

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#183

Post by msandford » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 8:10 PM UTC

warfangle wrote: post #124

msandford wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens when the company that owns the property goes bankrupt because, say, it can't raise rents? Does the state step in and buy the property so everyone can live there? If the company goes bankrupt then the building is probably put up for sale, and could get sold to a developer rather than another landlord right? Seems like a fairly straightforward end-run around the law. You go bankrupt in your building and…

> So what happens when the company that owns the property goes bankrupt because, say, it can't raise rents? The building becomes foreclosed and bank-owned, or is sold to a new landlord. Most landlords can raise rent. Less than 2.8% of units are controlled, though 48.6% of units are stabilized. Only 31.9% of units in this city are not regulated - and landlords tend to do pretty well here. Occasionally you'll read abou…

Those are some really foreign concepts to me, but OK. Thanks for explaining!

Given all that the SF rent wars make a lot more sense.

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#184

Post by tsotha » Sat, Oct 25, 2014, 11:50 PM UTC

muzz wrote: post #175

tsotha wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, eventually you get an equilibrium. Because nobody else wants to be a landlord you can charge so much that it's worth the aggravation. I wonder how many of these new units would be needed if people were more willing to rent out unoccupied units. The problem isn't as acute for big companies. If you have 1000 renters you have a staff to deal with problem tenants. You have lawyers on retainer. You expect some numbe…

Reminds me of that Yogi Berra quote "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

So you're expecting rents to go down?

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#185

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 4:32 PM UTC

muzz wrote: post #176

ktothemc wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but how do you prove that? That is the dilemma all these prospective piece of legislation in Vancouver, NYC are running up against? What would you do? How would you enforce it? Water bills? Electricity? Which you could fake. Phone presence? A rebate program, which no one would vote for anyway.

Similar to the way deductions are enforced on income tax, i.e. self-reporting and it is a crime to lie about it (essentially the same way that mortgage interest on primary residence is deducted, etc).

Coupled with the fact that you can only have one primary residence at a time.

Won't be perfect, but I'm not sure it needs to be.