I suspect I have the unpopular opinion, but I don't see this as an especially big deal. Yes, I understand this is an especially sensitive issue for SFers. And yes, it sucks for the guy. Renting has its perks, but this is part of the risk of renting; you're living on someone else's property. Repeating that--it's THEIRS, not yours. If you have no current contract (lease), why should they be required to rent something to you under terms you like? Where else does this occur? When some business raises rates, it is the exception, not the rule, that you're "grandfathered" in to a previous rate.
I get that having to move and find a new place to live is a bigger deal than if McDonald's raises the price of a cheeseburger by a dime, and that's why there are some protections in place (requirements of notice, an eviction process, etc.), but there is no indications that those aren't in play here.
Then you are clearly underestimating the effects of housing on the rest of society. Where you live (and how much you pay) is one of the biggest factors that determine how you live your life. So whatever your opinion on the topic, it is a "big deal".
"Renting has its perks, but this is part of the risk of renting"
No, having your rent quadrupled over night shouldn't be part of the risk profile. Again, whatever your opinion it is a shitty situation. It's not like you aren't taking a risk by buying.
This appears to be a case where the landlord wants the tenant out, perhaps to live in the unit himself, or perhaps to sell it as a vacant unit, but for various legal reasons it's impossible or unattractive to take the simple path of saying, "I decline to rent to you anymore", and the landlord instead is going with the effectively equivalent option of raising the rent to approximately infinity.
I don't believe they expect the current or a future tenant to actually pay $8000/month. It's conceivable that they might lower it to far below $8000 as soon as the current tenant is gone, and then rent it out to someone else -- maybe the landlord just doesn't like this tenant.
Of course, none of this is allowed in a rent-controlled unit, and all pre-1979 apartments in San Francisco are rent-controlled, so my guess is that this hundred-year-old multi-unit building is actually a set of condos, and the owner of one had been renting it out to this tenant; in such a situation, rent control is generally not in effect, for the same reasons it's not in effect when one is renting out a single-family house.
Hmm yes my first question was "does the rent contract stipulate he can raise rents? or is it month to month so he can change it whenever he wants"? (assuming its a male landlord, sorry ladies)
In no way am I defending the landlord, and I know nothing about the rents in that area of SF, but the news clip fails to state when the last increase was. It also doesn't mention how large the apartment is, or what a comparable rental in that area would be.
The renter says he's been living there a long time. If the rent hasn't increased in 20 years, there may be an expectation of an increase at some point. That doesn't mean it needs to be 400%, but if the renter has been 'saving' on rent while the rest of the market increases, this may have been inevitable.
At the same time, I'm surprised that there are no limits to rent increase amounts.
San Francisco has a rent control ordinance that caps the rate at which rent can rise. The problem is that about 50% of units in San Francisco no longer qualify for rent control (newer units, rebuilt buildings, and certain types of residences do not qualify).
It has become extremely competitive for those rent controlled units and those units distort the rental prices for the non-rent controlled units (the market prices are forced upwards while the rent controlled prices are fairly stagnant).
Also, landlords would obviously like to be able to collect more rent for the same unit if that's what the market would allow, thus there is financial incentive to find/create loopholes in that ordinance.
In California if you raise rent by more then 10% you have to give 60 days notice. This article didn't mention if the landlords notice was properly done.
My landlord recently put up a rental for $9,500/mo. The backstory is interesting: he told me someone had been staying at the place paying $700/mo. He cut a deal with that tenant where the tenant moves to a much smaller unit and instead of paying $700, only paying $300/mo. So overall, tenant gets to pay less and the landlord has a chance to make additional 5-6K/mo.
Wow, seems something's a bit "out of whack" or "outdated" when a landlord wakes up and realizes "wait, I could charge 10x the rent!" :) I assume he could't just evict the tenant because of some kind of tenancy laws or something?
We socialize certain types of goods in the United States - roads, police, schools and mostly (though not always) the fire department. Other goods, like healthcare, while not socialized in the United States, are regulated (in many other countries of course, health care is in the same column as police/roads/schools).
Singapore is an interesting example of a country where they've mostly socialized housing to great success.
You can still buy property if you are very wealthy, but 80%+ of the population lives in a government (heavily) subsidized "HDB" - Housing Development Block - basically massive apartment blocks, that the government builds by the 10s of thousands. You then get a "99 year lease" to the property, though, by the time the property starts to get around 40-50 years old (HDBs have only been around that long) - the government will usually build much nicer, newer buildings, and give the occupants of the old building first right of refusal of (collectively) moving out of the old one and signing a new 99 year lease (Known as Selective Enbloc Redevelopment Scheme) - it remains to be seen if there will be any leases that ever expire.
As a result, property is affordable to all citizens, though if you are less well off, there is a good chance you will be living with other family members sharing rent - Singapore is a much more family oriented country, so this is normal and accepted. Also, if you are price sensitive, you might chose to live in a somewhat more distant property (known as New Estate, as compared to Mature Estate that has lots of shops, transit, built up around it).
And, then if you strike it rich - and don't like the HDB lifestyle, you can go buy a Condo (has lawn, pool, security, gym, usually nicer architecture) for 2x what a similar HDB would have cost you.
Singapore is a fabulously expensive country for expats to live in - but they've done a great job (amazing job) of keeping it very affordable for citizens. Transportation, Food, Housing, Healthcare Insurance - all of the essentials have had a lot of work put into them to keep everything cheap, cheap for the citizenry.
Singapore is able to socialize apartments by taking only 20% of their citizens' money. If you think about it, their 20% top bracket:
- pays for all their roads, schools, bridges, etc.
AND
- pays for huge apartment communities
There is absolutely no way our state will ever be efficient enough to socialize housing. We're taxed at almost 3X what Singapore is and we cannot even manage paying for all our roads, schools, bridges, etc.
When I was at school participating in a legal clinic I had lots of clients facing eviction and we had plenty of tricks to use. Most popular was to demand a jury trial, which could take a month or two to organize, during which time the tenant wasn't paying rent and so could save enough to move.
Kind of shocked to hear about this happening at a "legal clinic". I'm familiar with the business structure behind these types of programs and they're invariably seedy characters involved with a paralegal group and lots of cold calling. Clogging up the courts so you can avoid paying rent...shrug
I could see applying for a jury trial if you need time to...gather evidence to get ready or something but...just to be able to keep living there "rent free" ??? I guess if the landlord has done something awful and you want to get back at them maybe but...
We don't need highrises. We could cut the cost of housing in half by increasing the supply by 30% (i.e., around 110,000 units), and we could do that by converting 6% of the city's single-family houses into six-story apartment buildings. The other 94% of the houses could stay the same, and no other plot of land would need to change. No buildings taller than six stories would be necessary.
To summarize: it sucks for anyone to lose their home, but in this particular case the details are a bit confusing (what about rent control? doesn't eviction take a while? etc.).
Could I ask why HN crowd supports rent control? It seems we are going against our own interests. 90% of flats are not on market, that makes remaining 10% very expensive.
I honestly wonder if anyone will pay that? If the landlord ends up having to rent it for something less, isn't this basically just using the rent to force out the tenant?
Or on the other hand, maybe the landlord has someone lined up already to pay $8000 a month. Either way, this is pretty insane. That kind of insanity is what just made me leave California entirely.
In Germany, private rent contracts (i.e. the renter is not a business) can be raised max. 20% over three years, and the new rent may not be over the average rent in the area ("Mietspiegel").
[+] [-] torgoguys|9 years ago|reply
I get that having to move and find a new place to live is a bigger deal than if McDonald's raises the price of a cheeseburger by a dime, and that's why there are some protections in place (requirements of notice, an eviction process, etc.), but there is no indications that those aren't in play here.
[+] [-] uola|9 years ago|reply
Then you are clearly underestimating the effects of housing on the rest of society. Where you live (and how much you pay) is one of the biggest factors that determine how you live your life. So whatever your opinion on the topic, it is a "big deal".
"Renting has its perks, but this is part of the risk of renting"
No, having your rent quadrupled over night shouldn't be part of the risk profile. Again, whatever your opinion it is a shitty situation. It's not like you aren't taking a risk by buying.
"Where else does this occur?"
What you can put in an agreement is determined by contract law. It's not obscure at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Contract_law
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cam_l|9 years ago|reply
Do you mean renting or rent-seeking? I fail to see how renting has perks.
[+] [-] raldi|9 years ago|reply
I don't believe they expect the current or a future tenant to actually pay $8000/month. It's conceivable that they might lower it to far below $8000 as soon as the current tenant is gone, and then rent it out to someone else -- maybe the landlord just doesn't like this tenant.
Of course, none of this is allowed in a rent-controlled unit, and all pre-1979 apartments in San Francisco are rent-controlled, so my guess is that this hundred-year-old multi-unit building is actually a set of condos, and the owner of one had been renting it out to this tenant; in such a situation, rent control is generally not in effect, for the same reasons it's not in effect when one is renting out a single-family house.
[+] [-] rogerdpack|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pedalpete|9 years ago|reply
The renter says he's been living there a long time. If the rent hasn't increased in 20 years, there may be an expectation of an increase at some point. That doesn't mean it needs to be 400%, but if the renter has been 'saving' on rent while the rest of the market increases, this may have been inevitable.
At the same time, I'm surprised that there are no limits to rent increase amounts.
[+] [-] thephyber|9 years ago|reply
It has become extremely competitive for those rent controlled units and those units distort the rental prices for the non-rent controlled units (the market prices are forced upwards while the rent controlled prices are fairly stagnant).
Also, landlords would obviously like to be able to collect more rent for the same unit if that's what the market would allow, thus there is financial incentive to find/create loopholes in that ordinance.
[+] [-] gscott|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaidf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rogerdpack|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|9 years ago|reply
Singapore is an interesting example of a country where they've mostly socialized housing to great success.
You can still buy property if you are very wealthy, but 80%+ of the population lives in a government (heavily) subsidized "HDB" - Housing Development Block - basically massive apartment blocks, that the government builds by the 10s of thousands. You then get a "99 year lease" to the property, though, by the time the property starts to get around 40-50 years old (HDBs have only been around that long) - the government will usually build much nicer, newer buildings, and give the occupants of the old building first right of refusal of (collectively) moving out of the old one and signing a new 99 year lease (Known as Selective Enbloc Redevelopment Scheme) - it remains to be seen if there will be any leases that ever expire.
As a result, property is affordable to all citizens, though if you are less well off, there is a good chance you will be living with other family members sharing rent - Singapore is a much more family oriented country, so this is normal and accepted. Also, if you are price sensitive, you might chose to live in a somewhat more distant property (known as New Estate, as compared to Mature Estate that has lots of shops, transit, built up around it).
And, then if you strike it rich - and don't like the HDB lifestyle, you can go buy a Condo (has lawn, pool, security, gym, usually nicer architecture) for 2x what a similar HDB would have cost you.
Singapore is a fabulously expensive country for expats to live in - but they've done a great job (amazing job) of keeping it very affordable for citizens. Transportation, Food, Housing, Healthcare Insurance - all of the essentials have had a lot of work put into them to keep everything cheap, cheap for the citizenry.
[+] [-] youngButEager|9 years ago|reply
In California, the highest tax bracket is 13.3% and it's 39.6% as the highest Federal income tax bracket, for a total of:
13.3% + 39.6% = 52.9%
The top income tax bracket in California (combined) is nearly 53%.
Could California build socialized apartments to satisfy demand? I.e. are taxes high enough to provide the funds to do so?
The highest tax bracket in Singapore is 20%. (See https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/Individuals/Locals/Working-...)
Singapore is able to socialize apartments by taking only 20% of their citizens' money. If you think about it, their 20% top bracket:
- pays for all their roads, schools, bridges, etc. AND - pays for huge apartment communities
There is absolutely no way our state will ever be efficient enough to socialize housing. We're taxed at almost 3X what Singapore is and we cannot even manage paying for all our roads, schools, bridges, etc.
[+] [-] sandworm101|9 years ago|reply
The basic procedure:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/27723.htm
[+] [-] sachingulaya|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rogerdpack|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gozur88|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toodlebunions|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|9 years ago|reply
Sources: http://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employmen... http://spothopping.com/sfhpn.html
[+] [-] mdorazio|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Razengan|9 years ago|reply
Or would that just not work there?
[+] [-] nness|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrator|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lngermani|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] evmar|9 years ago|reply
To summarize: it sucks for anyone to lose their home, but in this particular case the details are a bit confusing (what about rent control? doesn't eviction take a while? etc.).
[+] [-] jkot|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Natanael_L|9 years ago|reply
The latter would at most get a few people to share smaller apartments - the former will free up much more space much faster with less disruption.
[+] [-] raldi|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbanek|9 years ago|reply
Or on the other hand, maybe the landlord has someone lined up already to pay $8000 a month. Either way, this is pretty insane. That kind of insanity is what just made me leave California entirely.
[+] [-] thephyber|9 years ago|reply
This unit also was listed for $8k/month and is about a block away: http://www.apartments.com/1818-mason-st-san-francisco-ca/3pq...
[+] [-] gozur88|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mschuster91|9 years ago|reply
400% rent hikes is insane.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] luojiebin|9 years ago|reply