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

[afmotorsports]

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

Done with the track, haven't even owned a sportbike in 2-3 years. I'm riding Harleys, gnarly dualsports - you gotta see my DR790! - and mostly killing shit on land and water. And apparently now I'm contemplating getting into the business of busting knee caps!

 

[jdhu]

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?

Mucho agree. Can understand why rent control sounds appealing; too bad the data shows that it hurts tenants.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

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. ..

..
I was thinking, as recently as yesterday, of an advocacy business to help new business in Oakland. ..Last year I tried to get help moving a 23 employee business to Oakland and City Hall completely dropped the ball.

Wait so you want no tax, but help from government?


Always appreciate your input though.. let's talk about how to deal with the Quan Texting situation

 

[wazzuFreddo]

Wait so you want no tax, but help from government?


Always appreciate your input though.. let's talk about how to deal with the Quan Texting situation

protest in front of her office?

NO BLUETOOTH! NO PEACE!

 

[afm199]

Done with the track, haven't even owned a sportbike in 2-3 years. I'm riding Harleys, gnarly dualsports - you gotta see my DR790! - and mostly killing shit on land and water. And apparently now I'm contemplating getting into the business of busting knee caps!

I saw you at Bwizzle two years ago on the R6.

 

[afm199]

Wait so you want no tax, but help from government?


Always appreciate your input though.. let's talk about how to deal with the Quan Texting situation

I ran another business in Oakland for many years. Paid shitloads of taxes, employed Oakland residents, yada yada. The City was always limp dick worthless about doing anything for business.

Quan

 

[mercurial]

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

The text I posted, said a subtenant has a claim if they are paying more than a proportional part of the rent. But I understand what you are getting at, and it probably works really well because you can just collect a "proportional" amount of rent from the master tenant on paper, and quietly refund it back in cash.

As storm mentions, it's probably also not that hard either to do an OMI, stay there for a few months until things have quieted down, then rent the unit out at (slightly) less than market rates to new tenants who you are friendly with. ANd to be perfectly honest, if I had a unit that could pull $3500 and I was only getting $900, I'd do that in a heartbeat. The extra cashflow would easily pay for any litigation costs.

 

[augustiron]

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....

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.

 

[goodness-707]

I'm betting that the last landlord didn't even take the OPs deposit and put it into a separate checking account which earns interest that the landlord is then supposed to pay the renter.

Probably not a big deal though. Bank interest on $900 over the last 5 years ought to be about a dollar or so.

 

[channelcat]

toga party

 

[budgie45]

My friend just got 50k to move out of his house the other day by his new land lord

and 2 mths free rent..He had been living in the house for 20 years,and was only paying 1900 a mth for the house,

2 guys bought the house 2 mths ago,so now they want to move into it

 

[phocup]

Every renter in a rent controlled apt in SF is essentially "pick pocketing" the landlord. Its essentially one class of people using majority rule to pass law to get financial benefit from the detriment of another class of people.

Imagine if there's a locality with a law that said any white owned store can not charge $1 / bottle of water but must only charge 25 cents. Black / asian / latino store owner can charge whatever they want. Same concept as rent control except we're now targeting a different subclass of society.

I wonder how many of you would still be saying "Oh, but the dumb white store owner knew that was the law before he bought the store ? I've been buying water at his story for the last 20 years and I remember when it was 10c. He's lucky to get 25c now.".

Its unfair / unjust / un whatever else you can think of, but the minority doesn't have the power / vote / influence to fight back in this case and the mob of renter will continue to exploit land lords for every dime they can for as long as they can.

My 2c. Worth absolutely 0 in SF.

 

[littlebeast]

renting is like living in a shark cage. and the shark has the key. yeah, sharks gotta eat. but i don't care to be in the vicinity when they do. i feel for people who have limited choices.

 

[afm199]

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.

What is wrong with you? The world owes me free shit at someone else's expense.

 

[augustiron]

My friend just got 50k to move out of his house the other day by his new land lord

and 2 mths free rent..He had been living in the house for 20 years,and was only paying 1900 a mth for the house,

2 guys bought the house 2 mths ago,so now they want to move into it

Why exactly did they get paid $50k?
The law? the kindness of the new owners hearts for the hardship? Because they dug their heels in and refused to move and the new owners felt it would be cheaper than paying lawyers to get them out?

 

[GiorgioFurioso]

Every renter in a rent controlled apt in SF is essentially "pick pocketing" the landlord. Its essentially one class of people using majority rule to pass law to get financial benefit protection from the detriment greed and abuseof another class of people.

FTFY.

Imagine if there's a locality with a law that said any white owned store can not charge $1 / bottle of water but must only charge 25 cents. Black / asian / latino store owner can charge whatever they want. Same concept as rent control except we're now targeting a different subclass of society.

I wonder how many of you would still be saying "Oh, but the dumb white store owner knew that was the law before he bought the store ? I've been buying water at his story for the last 20 years and I remember when it was 10c. He's lucky to get 25c now.".

Your analogy is flawed enough to call this a straw man argument.

Its unfair / unjust / un whatever else you can think of, but the minority doesn't have the power / vote / influence to fight back in this case and the mob of renter will continue to exploit land lords for every dime they can for as long as they can.

Oh the poor, wealthy landowners, who will come to their defense?

How about this: If you own land, don't rent it out...at least not in SF or anywhere else you don't like the law. Seem fair?

My 2c. Worth absolutely 0 in SF.

You don't need to be in SF to be an ignoramus.

 

[Blankpage]

Suppose I can't afford to rent close to work, does a SF landlord have to provide a commuter car for the tenant? I don't want to get short changed if the law requires they provide my transportation. If parking is tight I guess I could use public transit and deduct from rent.

 

[phocup]

FTFY.

Right, because renter's aren't "greedy" when they demand compensation ( $50K !?!? ) to move out of someone else's property. Squatter comes to mind when I hear stuff like that.

Your analogy is flawed enough to call this a straw man argument.

Right, because we can't easily replace "white store owner" with "landlord with rent controlled property".

Oh the poor, wealthy landowners, who will come to their defense?

Yeah .. way to stereotype. All landlord must be rich snobs trying to squeeze the poor hard working peasant. Let me clue you in. Not all land lords are wealthy. I am a landlord too and I saved for years to buy a rental property which is my nest egg for later years. I don't drive fancy cars or take fancy vacations to be able to invest in properties. God forbid that I expect to make a PROFIT from my investment. Oh the horror.

How about this: If you own land, don't rent it out...at least not in SF or anywhere else you don't like the law.

Which is my I don't. I would never ever own a rental in SF. As with most "wealthy landlords" who still need to go to work to eat, I don't have money / knowledge/ patience to do so and deal with these potential money draining issues.

But guess who does. The big investment firms with in house lawyers. The ones that only see's the bottom line. The ones that will serve eviction notice if your rent check is even 1 day late. They're going to be the only one that will step up and deal with your entitled ass. Have fun with that.

Small time landlords like me who's actually reasonable enough to be friends with their tenants and invite each other over for BBQ once in a while is going to stay in the south / east / north bay ( anywhere except SF ).

Seem fair?

Years ago people were allowed to own slave. That was legal. Was that also fair for you ?

Let me clue you in again. No, it isn't. Just because its legal to do something doesn't mean its "fair". Free economy is fair. Letting the market decide rate is fair. Letting the white store owner in my example sell his water for $1 or even $5 if he wishes to do so is fair.

Tell me why SF is so special that laws which works for pretty much every other parts of the US and the world needs to be changed so dramatically for SF ?

You don't need to be in SF to be an ignoramus.

Right, the name calling makes you automatically correct. Congratulations, you won the internet.

 

[Junkie]

Why exactly did they get paid $50k?
The law? the kindness of the new owners hearts for the hardship? Because they dug their heels in and refused to move and the new owners felt it would be cheaper than paying lawyers to get them out?

in SF the landlord is often required to pay a relocation fee. I'm assuming they dug in their heels and demanded it.

 

[augustiron]

NOT $50K worth is my point.