-
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
- Thread starter Lych
- Start date
"Sense of pride" regarding what? You only offered what seemed to me your similar experience being evicted from SF rentals where, had you asserted your rights under the SF Rent Ordinance, might not have been allowed to happen.There was no whine, sorry if you are so used to hearing it that it has permeated your comprehension. I speak with a sense of pride about my experiences. I respect the land owner as the land owner, it is their property I am being allowed to use and I have no claim on it outside of the rental agreement, which has an agreed to beginning and end.
What happened is what I would expect in a sane world. The owner sells the house, the new owners don't want to rent it, and your lease is up. Time to move. The owners want to increase the rent, the contract term has expired, you don't want to pay that much, time to move.
Why would I expect any different, that is an example of sane world to me. I don't want handouts or the nanny state to protect me. I agreed to a one year lease, anything after that is a risk on both parties. It was uncomfortable to move but each time led to a better situation I may not have instigated on my own. in hindsight they were all positive catalysts for change.
Also, I am not knocking the guy looking for help, I, like most others here including yourself, am voicing my experience and opinions about SF's renter laws.
To compare the OP's attempt to retain his affordable housing/protect himself from a possible illegal eviction to "handouts" from a "nanny state" is, imo, a gross misunderstanding of both this thread and renter's rights in SF.
There's no "pride" in the involuntary loss of [your]affordable housing, especially in SF - couching your own prior, possibly illegal, SF evictions in hokey platitudes about "change being good", and, some inexplicable misplaced quasi defense of landlords ignorant to SF renter's rights, is imo as ridiculous as it is inapplicable.
But, unlike you and most others, I've not been offering just "opinion and experiences" of marginal to no usefulness to the OP, rather facts of law and the salient points of SF tenant's rights that may serve to help the OP retain his housing.
Whether it be indecipherable blathering about how rent control is akin to fictitious example pseudo-racist water pricing to your own marginally-related experience being evicted, as if martyred and ever subordinate to the landowner yadda yadda yadda - the fuck are most of you even talking about here?
OP - PM sent.
[I really need to stay out of these threads]
wazzuFreddo
WuTang is 4 the children
You get what you negotiate. It's just business.
asthmodeus
New member
Quoted for excellence.
Do not lump anything I said about SF regulations for OMI evictions into your speculations on get-rich-quick-schemes-doing-illegal-OMI-evictions. Je-SUS christ people, is the reading comprehension level that low in this thread?
[sigh]
Housing rights counselors, myself included advise single person evicted under Ellis or an OMI on the ways in which both the Rent Board and other entities monitor these time requirements - that is, addresses of these involuntary displacements become part of a searchable public record and tracked, as best possible, to catch other devious fucktards that do exactly what you propose.
GiorgioFurioso
on sabbatical
Your efforts at shining light on the vast darkness of BARF's collective ignorance is important and much appreciated!
Reli
Well-known member
Down in SD, my apt got converted to condos. Got 3-4 months notice and 3 months worth of rent as compensation. Wasn't expecting anything, to be honest.
Last edited:
Repair a roof adds value back to a house. Plus if I don't like your price, I have the option of shopping around for another offer.
Not the case when you're the only tenant in my house .. I'm stuck dealing with you and paying you off .. very close to extortion if not it.
Not the case when you're the only tenant in my house .. I'm stuck dealing with you and paying you off .. very close to extortion if not it.
GiorgioFurioso
on sabbatical
You have no idea what the details on that are. You assume it's a bunch of sleazeballs trying to take advantage of a landlord. For all you know, the 50K was what was required by law, or the landlord made an offer above what they were required to do in order to grease the wheels. Regardless of the why, the landlord paid it because it made business sense.
Here's a better version of your flawed and racist water analogy: A bunch of vendors price gouge for water at Woodstock 1999, directly contributing to riots, fights, and deaths.
In your world, this would continue because hey, it's their water to sell, right? In my world, they are forced to price the water reasonably at the next Woodstock, or they can just sell their water somewhere else.
I never used the word peasant, and it's telling that it immediately comes to you.
Now let ME clue YOU in: If you've put away enough money to buy a spare house that you can use for rental property...surprise! You are actually wealthy. Consider yourself fortunate that you have so much more than close to 90% of everyone else.
So no, I have no sympathy for your complaints. You see, to me it sounds like you're just saying 'I don't care how much I got, I'm entitled to moar!'
My "entitled ass"? Oh the irony.
There are plenty of 'small time' landlords willing to fuck over their tenants if they can get away with it. I'd be happy to deal with a big investment firm as a landlord...at least they know the law, and they're all about business.
Your fantasy of some fair and just landlord who acts that way out of honor and the goodness of his heart, like some fair and just prince caring for his peasants (your words), is just that: a fantasy.
Oh you little saint you! The law which governs landlord-tenant relationships, like pretty much all contracts, are for times when that friendship has lost its luster.
Once again with these off-base racist analogies. What was fair for me was passing a law against slavery, because slavery was an abuse of the wealthy landowners against the defenseless. Much like SF rent control was passed, to protect those who up until then had no protection against the abuse of wealthy landowners.
If you'd bother to review the history of SF rent control, you'd learn that if the landowners had been these just, caring, friendly princes inviting their peasants over for barbecues like in your fantasy, rather then the rapaciously greedy dicks that they were, then SF rent control wouldn't even exist.
Wow, you're going to pull the whole "free market makes right" argument. There is nothing fair about supposedly free markets. If you have not yet figured out that every market is rigged in favor of its respective moneyed interests, it's time to open your eyes, son.
Apparently, you've come in late to this conversation and have not read previous posts in this thread. Please see Causes Of San Francisco 1979 Rent Control Laws.
And since you've apparently been living under a rock, I hate to break it to you, but San Francisco has literally become the epicenter for the technological shift that is remaking the entire world. Never before in recorded history has this happened. This is putting enormous pressure on the entire area, with SF at its very center. The previous couple of economic booms were just preludes to what is now happening.
Never before in history has such a small town had to deal with such enormous economic force.
Right, the name calling makes you automatically correct. Congratulations, you won the internet.
Thank you, really it's nothing. It's pretty easy to win the internet with this level of discourse. But you had one thing right: your .02 is worthless here.
I do want to thank you for the opportunity to shred your arguments, because I'm sure other people have the same ignorant bias as you do.
Reli
Well-known member
So in other words, just because someone has above-average wealth, it's OK if they're taken advantage of.
Typical attitude for BARF's wannabe proletariats
GiorgioFurioso
on sabbatical
So in other words, just because someone has above-average wealth, it's OK if they're taken advantage of.
Typical attitude for BARF's wannabe proletariats
I don't know how you can possibly construe a renter expecting their landlord to hold up their end of the legal agreement between them as somehow 'taking advantage' of the landlord.
I suppose when the slaves were freed, that was taking advantage of the landowners?
Sorry, but your point of view smacks of butt-hurt entitlement on the part of landlords.
asthmodeus
New member
The plural of proleteriat is proleteriat.
It seems pretty clear to me; a great many of us feel that rent control/anti-eviction laws create morally repugnant outcomes, since they confer rights and benefits of equity interest to a third party who has taken none of the risk associated with holding equity interest.
We aren't offering the OP useful advice on his objectives, because we don't believe he is morally deserving of move-out expenses. Feel free to disagree, but don't get incensed; this is an internet board, where everyone should expect any and all digressions in their thread.
augustiron
A firm member
For the same reasons I learned to stay out of threads on the subject where I am considered an expert (by the outside world), this is the BARF sink.
It appears they're increasing Ellis Act eviction costs to something like that: http://www.sfexaminer.com/PoliticsB...sf-boosts-compensation-for-ellis-act-evictees
When you include court fees, lawyers, and time wasted it'll be a lot cheaper to pay someone the $50k.
Archimedes
Fire Watcher
Solution. Give renters free tickets to the theater for being such great tenants. Burn house down when they're out. Collect insurance. Sell the land.
It's the only way to be sure.
It's the only way to be sure.
Too easy to get caught.
I think the safe plan is just to start renting out to tweakers and wait until they blow the place up for you.
Collect insurance, rebuild, profit.
Blankpage
alien
Did I miss the part about where you can't just kick a renter out once a one yr lease is up?
Do SF landlords offer 5, 10 and 20 year leases? Sounds like a renter gets to stay as many years as they want and the rental rate not affected by economic and market factors that affect property owner prices.
In a normal world wouldn't you expect being allowed to do with your rental property what you want once a one year lease ends. Yet for some reason SF has some sort of hybrid communist Cuba property model.
I wonder what other bizarre unique laws only they have.
Do SF landlords offer 5, 10 and 20 year leases? Sounds like a renter gets to stay as many years as they want and the rental rate not affected by economic and market factors that affect property owner prices.
In a normal world wouldn't you expect being allowed to do with your rental property what you want once a one year lease ends. Yet for some reason SF has some sort of hybrid communist Cuba property model.
I wonder what other bizarre unique laws only they have.
I don't know how you can possibly construe a renter expecting their landlord to hold up their end of the legal agreement between them as somehow 'taking advantage' of the landlord.
I suppose when the slaves were freed, that was taking advantage of the landowners?
Sorry, but your point of view smacks of butt-hurt entitlement on the part of landlords.
How much would it cost to have you just exit from the whole situation. ??
Furiosios Firiosa Albostini Furiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii?