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

[GiorgioFurioso]

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.

Not sure how to even respond to this ignorance...

edit: but I'll try...

Rent control became popular after prop 13 passed that helped landlords by freezing property taxes...with the intention that rents were supposed to go down, but they didn't, as landlords simply (surprise surprise) pocketed the profits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_States

And here's some background on what was going on in SF in 1978, that prompted the rent control ordinance:
http://missionlocal.org/pushed-out-for-profit/

So be grateful for you property tax win via Prop 13, instead of whining about tenant's rights.

 

[wazzuFreddo]

I bet everybody in this thread who is for responsibility would do a 180 on their stance if it was their money.

 

[augustiron]

I've been kicked out 2 single family houses I rented in SF because they were sold by the owner while I was living there. Handouts expected and received = $0.
Last house I rented the landlords raised the rent an amount I did not agree with so I moved out. Why is this hard?

 

[GiorgioFurioso]

I've been kicked out 2 single family houses I rented in SF because they were sold by the owner while I was living there. Handouts expected and received = $0.
Last house I rented the landlords raised the rent an amount I did not agree with so I moved out. Why is this hard?

Sounds like you're happy with how you're living your life, with regard to landlord/tenant relationships.

Now please keep your nose out of mine. Why is that hard?

 

[mercurial]

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!

Presumably the master tenant has to live there, as well, to allow easier eviction? That seems like an awfully large loophole, otherwise. Everyone would be doing it.

Edit: Yep they need to live there. According to SFRB:

A master tenant who resides in the same rental unit with his or her subtenant may evict the subtenant without just cause.

Also looks like the SFRB is also on to your scheme.

Excessive Rent Claims by Subtenants: A subtenant who believes s/he is paying more than a proportional share of the total rent may file a petition on that basis against the master tenant pursuant to Rules and Regulations §6.15C(3). A subtenant who subleases the entire rental unit may file a petition against the master tenant under Ordinance §37.3(c) if the subtenant believes that the initial rent paid to the master tenant, either individually or in combination with other subtenants, is more than the master tenant is paying to the landlord.

 

[Yakoo752]

Is 5 people in a basement even legal?

as long as it was a 2 bedroom

2 people per room and 1 on the couch is legal

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

I understand you want to keep the cheaper rent, but the entitlement attitude of it all (SF in general) just leaves me dumbfounded.

OK.. quick and short... how exactly is that "an entitlement attitude" ? ?? Guy(or gal) merely just literally said they wanna stay unrelocated and keep the rent. How's that saying it's an entitlement????

It's a law or something..

Have a good day and stop hating SF... ... (I could say 'just leaves me dumbfounded')

I'm not from California, and the idea that a landlord would pay a tenant a relocation fee (short of catastrophic maintenance issues that render the structure unsafe) ....

 

[storm]

http://www.sftu.org/justcauses.html

Here says we would get relocation fee?

the rental needs to be in San Francisco to be covered under the SF Rent Ordinance.

So, yes, with proper notice, absent a current term lease [that new owner would have to honor until its expiration], you'll have to move. Sorry

 

[JesasaurusRex]

Is 5 people in a basement even legal?

In china town

 

[augustiron]

Now please keep your nose out of mine. Why is that hard?

Sorry didn't know Lych was your dupe acct.

 

[Entoptic]

Presumably the master tenant has to live there, as well, to allow easier eviction? That seems like an awfully large loophole, otherwise. Everyone would be doing it.

Edit: Yep they need to live there. According to SFRB:

A master tenant who resides in the same rental unit with his or her subtenant may evict the subtenant without just cause.

Also looks like the SFRB is also on to your scheme.

Excessive Rent Claims by Subtenants: A subtenant who believes s/he is paying more than a proportional share of the total rent may file a petition on that basis against the master tenant pursuant to Rules and Regulations §6.15C(3). A subtenant who subleases the entire rental unit may file a petition against the master tenant under Ordinance §37.3(c) if the subtenant believes that the initial rent paid to the master tenant, either individually or in combination with other subtenants, is more than the master tenant is paying to the landlord.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Yes your master tenant/friend would have to live there and that should be the plan. He gets super cheap rent to keep your investment afloat. What you linked is for master tenants trying to pocket money against the landlord. That wouldn't occur in this situation. So if I said to the master tenant rent is 3k and he charged the sub tenants 4k then that would be illegal. If I say 3k and he charges them 3k then its all good.

Its a win/win

 

[storm]

Asthmodeus, god forbid that people feel like they ought to be able to write and abide by commercially reasonable contractual terms of their own choosing, without rampant meddling by a local government bent on enforcing a public policy that in the end, exacerbates housing shortages, transfers normal property rights to people that have no equity interest in the property, and arbitrarily protects a small group of privileged people from economic dislocation, to the expense of both landlords and other renters, who have to fight over the remaining small pool of inventory.

I just heard another story of a landlord who is getting divorced from his partner, and needs to sell his current residence and move back into a unit in his rental. Of course, the current renters are sniffing around trying to figure out how they can fight it.

Word. And this is from someone with over 20 years in SF rental housing, big portion of it in affordable/subsidized housing and housing homeless populations.

From a strictly economic perspective, rent control does more harm than good in the long run - this point has already been amply and persuasively made by many a reputable economist.

There's also sound reasoning behind many a property owner's [nearly futile ] attempts to challenge it [rent control] on the basis of Constitutional rights around "illegal takings". Have to say that there is also a valid argument here as well.

It's complicated by the human socioeconomic voices that tend to be more myopic in thinking. Yet, without a viable alternative means, at present, to protect low-income households from equally valid interests in maintaining housing affordability, it gets pretty muddled and impassioned.

One equitable way to start re-working rent control to meet the needs of owners and affordable housing preservationists? Start by changing rent control eligibility to some means-tested [income-based]system. If a household's got $90,000 a year in income, the argument that we need to protect their $1000-a-month-for-a-two-bedroom-in-SF rent falls a little short, yeah?

 

[storm]

Thanks for all the responses, thanks barfers!

I do live in San Francisco near mission district. We have been living there for more than 5 years and we did not have any lease contract. We just moved in there with first and last month deposit. I will go to SFTU to ask for more infos and contact a local lawyer as well. We are not trying to scam anyone, it's hard to look for another place to rent and it's just a big hassle. Since we are being asked to move and we would need to look for another place. New owner does know we have been living there for more than 5 years, I have a feeling that we want to kick us out and rent it to other people. We are paying $900 for every month for 2 bedrooms and 1 living room. I would say it's pretty cheap for today's economy

Thanks for all the help again, it doesn't hurt to ask for opinions. I deeply appreciate for all the help, you guys are the best!

Ok, OP, knowing now that your rental is in SF, not Daly City, as presumed from your sig line, is important.

PM sent

 

[storm]

Ellis Act applies to RENTAL PROPERTY. He's living in a basement in a someone's house. You basically have no standing. They give you time to move out and you don't get pay out.

See, now, this is just not true and indicative of the half-cocked "opinions" that folks here shoot out cloaked in a veneer of fact.

 

[storm]

What stops a property owner from simply kicking a renter out, moving in themselves to cover the law, and then re-leasing it a year later at market rates?

The SF Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance does, in theory and in fact.

OMI [Owner Move In] evictions, like much in life, are supposed to be undertaking in good faith which means, at minimum, according to the letter of law/Rent Ordinance, which precludes this kind of duplicity.

Still, owner's successfully and illegally circumvent the criteria and time requirements regarding re-renting after an OMI eviction; housing advocates have a valid bone to pick with these kind of scofflaws imo

 

[storm]

I've been kicked out 2 single family houses I rented in SF because they were sold by the owner while I was living there. Handouts expected and received = $0.
Last house I rented the landlords raised the rent an amount I did not agree with so I moved out. Why is this hard?

In SF, renters in single family homes [of which I am one] have just-cause eviction protection under SF Rent Ordinance, but not rent controls. This is why we just got a $100 a month rent increase but is also why, with a couple exceptions, we can't get thrown out for no good/legal reason.

Just because you did not, for some inexplicable reason in the land where renter's rights and tenant counseling can be had for a song, get proper advice before [probably unnecessarily]leaving your rentals [but later whining about it in a barf thread], don't knock the guy that's looking for help to avoid doing the same [stupid] thing.

Just saying....flame if you must but rather just have ya quit the whining....

 

[mrzuzzo]

TWe are paying $900 for every month for 2 bedrooms and 1 living room. I would say it's pretty cheap for today's economy

That is insanely cheap. I know someone renting the same for $3500 in the same district, and he says it's a good deal.

 

[afm199]

So be grateful for you property tax win via Prop 13, instead of whining about tenant's rights.

try this for size: My house in Oakland, bought under Prop 13 in 1988 has seen increases in property tax of almost 6% yearly since 88, thanks to assessments, bond issues, levies, and other sneaky little add ons, MANY of which did not require a super majority or 2/3 of the vote. The whole prop 13 thing is a straw man. Government will spend every fucking penny they take in tax, count on that. If they can't they will hire more bureaucrats or increase wages and bennies. The do that anyway.

 

[afmotorsports]

Wow, I'm getting quite the education on the SF rental bs, I particularly love this little gif on the SFTU website:

http://www.sftu.org/hammery2.gif

That actually gave me a fantastic business idea, it seems there's a missed opportunity to counter the SFTU "hammer" and the landlords probably need their advocate. Maybe there is a need to find alternate methods for them to protect their investment and receive current market price rents, so there might be an appetite for hiring "Vinnie" to go bust some knee caps and convince some of these squatters that it's time to find a new residence.

Damn, I hate SF almost as much as Oaklamd! Hi Ernie

 

[afm199]

Wow, I'm getting quite the education on the SF rental bs, I particularly love this little gif on the SFTU website:

http://www.sftu.org/hammery2.gif

That actually gave me a fantastic business idea, it seems there's a missed opportunity to counter the SFTU "hammer" and the landlords probably need their advocate. Maybe there is a need to find alternate methods for them to protect their investment and receive current market price rents, so there might be an appetite for hiring "Vinnie" to go bust some knee caps and convince some of these squatters that it's time to find a new residence.

Damn, I hate SF almost as much as Oaklamd! Hi Ernie

Hey big man! When you ride on track again? You make the R6 look like a Ninjette.

CofC is the advocate. Berkeley CofC is actually a really good one, have seminars and meetings several times a month on how to deal with all the local ordinances and bullshit technicalities. Also some fairly big law firms have seminars. I went to one last year in SF, gratis, with a beautiful downtown high level view, entire floor, coffee, tea, snacks, and fairly hot femme lawyers. They want business. Trying to remember the name of the firm. Oakland CofC is kinda lame.

I was thinking, as recently as yesterday, of an advocacy business to help new business in Oakland. Getting something done here is such a fucking catastrophe, unless you are a billion dollar corp and hiring 100+ employees. Then they trot out the blowjobs and liquor. Last year I tried to get help moving a 23 employee business to Oakland and City Hall completely dropped the ball.