• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Landlord sold the house to new owner, and asked us to leave

Nitewaif said:
^Except it's a new owner. The tenant didn't pay them anything in this case.
Click to expand...

True. But I was just speaking in general. It's definitely situational as far as personal matters are concerned. If I rented my place out to someone who kept it clean, paid their rent on time, respected the property for a decent amount of time (say over 5 years), I would be inclined to give them a good amount of notice (not just 30 days) if I decided I wanted to sell my house.

But the law is the law. If the city of SF states they are entitled compensation, then why are the renters the bad guys in this situation? A home-owner is obligated to know these laws. I'm sure there are a few dickhead homeowners that ruined it for the rest of the good homeowners in SF. These laws are to prevent such dickheadness.
 
jh2586 said:
True. But I was just speaking in general. It's definitely situational as far as personal matters are concerned. If I rented my place out to someone who kept it clean, paid their rent on time, respected the property for a decent amount of time (say over 5 years), I would be inclined to give them a good amount of notice (not just 30 days) if I decided I wanted to sell my house.

But the law is the law. If the city of SF states they are entitled compensation, then why are the renters the bad guys in this situation? A home-owner is obligated to know these laws. I'm sure there are a few dickhead homeowners that ruined it for the rest of the good homeowners in SF. These laws are to prevent such dickheadness.
Click to expand...

Legal bullshit is still bullshit.

They're the bad guys for thinking they deserve compensation-isn't renting at like 1/3rd of market rate for the lat few years enough? Fuck SF for even passing laws like that.

Some of the joy that comes with owning your own property is the ability to do with it as you please. When you buy your first place and paint the walls ugly, swap out the light fixtures, get six cats and a deadbeat friend on the couch and you don't have to ask permission from anyone is great.

Now the city is telling you that you can't actually do as you like with your own belongings. Think about that for a second.

You can't even ask people to leave when the lease is up-try applying that to anything else-would you not return a leased car at the end of the contract? No-because that's the whole point of a contract. In this case, the city is taking that option away.
 
tgrrdr said:
here's a quote from the thread last month
Click to expand...

Thanks for quoting me.

Marlowe said:
Those costs are part of being a renter. It's not your place for life -- that's why you're RENTING.

This is how it works everywhere else, and most people seem to be able to suck it up.
Click to expand...

You are correct that is how it works everywhere else but this is SF and there are laws in favor of the renter. It's not his fault that he is protected under law is it? Is it his fault that the owner sold the place and now the new owner wants him out? I agree it is a little out of hand but this is the price you pay for living or renting in SF.

I don't understand this entitled thing people keep throwing around. It's the law and the law states that the new owner must pay for relocation. There is no entitlement issues going on there because its the law.
 
MrIncredible said:
Now the city is telling you that you can't actually do as you like with your own belongings. Think about that for a second.
Click to expand...

For one thing, you can't do whatever you want anyway. You want to expand the footprint? Good luck! Stick another floor on it? Not gonna happen.
Cut down that oak tree? Better not get caught.

You're also forgetting that when you use your property as a business, the rules change. You knew that going into it.
 
Entoptic said:
I don't understand this entitled thing people keep throwing around. It's the law and the law states that the new owner must pay for relocation. There is no entitlement issues going on there because its the law.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. The argument being made is that the law got there in the first place because of a ridiculous sense of entitlement seemingly found only in Sam Framcisco. You are correct that the law is the law and it is what it is, but the law if fucking retarded. That's all folks are saying.

But I agree with you. Whining about the rules that all parties knew going in, is equally retarded.
 
GiorgioFurioso said:
....

As a class, landlords in SF brought this on themselves.
Click to expand...

No, the SF voter majority of young idealistic non-property owning renters brought this on, like so many other idealistic (dare I use this overused term I despise) Liberal laws this city has on the books that seem great to people without skin in the game on the issue, like the young transitory voters with little life experience (no kids, no property, not jaded that most homeless do not want to be "normal")...Forced integration of public schools, handouts to homeless and drug addicts now all over the city, anti-owner rental laws, etc.
Yeah, that stuff sounded cool when I was a poor 22 year old also, "fuck the man". Well, as a business man, father of 2 preschoolers, property owner and property tax payer in this city, I am now one of the men. :x
 
Poxy said:
For one thing, you can't do whatever you want anyway. You want to expand the footprint? Good luck! Stick another floor on it? Not gonna happen.
Cut down that oak tree? Better not get caught.

You're also forgetting that when you use your property as a business, the rules change. You knew that going into it.
Click to expand...

Jesus dude, nitpicky much? Sorry, I said "whatever I want" then used the examples of getting pets and painting the walls, something renters typically aren't allowed to do. Yes, I'm aware you can't cut down all your trees, mill them in the yard and expand the house with them.

Yes-the rules are in existence and still woefully fucked up. Which is the point I'm making-if I rent you a place for a year then decide I don't want to rent to you after guess what? The contract is up! I did everything I was supposed to for one year-please fuck off and get out-what I do with it now is my business because it's my property. Don't like being kicked out? Buy your own place.
 
Protection for renters is killing your desire to live in the city? Seems an odd sentiment... unless you mean to buy a house and rent your basement out to 5 people, then I see your point.
 
Kornholio said:
All of this bullshit is just killing my desire to live in the city.
Click to expand...

You are not a techie, you are not welcome here. :x

Related CSB for you, I went to buy a TV two days ago from a dude in the Mission off CL. He was in the ground level apartment behind the garage of a normal outer Folsom victorian. We went in through the door and I was stunned to see the entire living room filled with dudes at desks with computers, maybe 4-5 of them covering every inch of the place except for a pathway to the kitchen, where another dude was on the kitchen table. They were running a sartup out of there, for SEVEN YEARS. It was the business owner's one bedroom apartment, he did actually have a bed in there somewhere. :wow
 
Lych said:
I feel like they want us to leave and re rent it out for $1500 or more, we are currently paying $900 per month.
Click to expand...

then offer them $1500/month (which is waaaaay below market)
 
^^^OMG actual constructive advice for responsibility and direct communication???!!!! what planet are you from?
CALL YOUR LAWYERS FIRST! </sarcasm>
 
augustiron said:
No, the SF voter majority of young idealistic non-property owning renters brought this on, like so many other idealistic (dare I use this overused term I despise) Liberal laws this city has on the books that seem great to people without skin in the game on the issue, like the young transitory voters with little life experience (no kids, no property, not jaded that most homeless do not want to be "normal")...Forced integration of public schools, handouts to homeless and drug addicts now all over the city, anti-owner rental laws, etc.
Yeah, that stuff sounded cool when I was a poor 22 year old also, "fuck the man". Well, as a business man, father of 2 preschoolers, property owner and property tax payer in this city, I am now one of the men. :x
Click to expand...

:thumbup:laughing
 
Guys these rules are very easy to get around.

1. Buy house
2. Rent it out but put ONE master tenant on the lease (Make it a friend or someone close to you)
3. The master tenant sub leases to everyone else. He is now legally responsible for renting to sub tenants.
4. Now month to month leases are in full effect for sub tenants
5. PROFIT BITCHES!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top