11 ms·

If you read the caption, the real issue here is a horrible abuse of the rent control law. When the renter signed their lease, the unit was covered by rent contr

If you read the caption, the real issue here is a horrible abuse of the rent control law. When the renter signed their lease, the unit was covered by rent control, putting very tight restrictions on rent increases and evictions. However, the landlord then essentially destroyed the other unit in the building so that they could reclassify the building as a single-family home instead of a multi-unit building. Single-family homes are not covered by the rent control law. This should obviously not be legal; if you're going to have a rent control, you can't let landlords take a unit that should have rent control and make it not rent controlled. At the very least, these kinds of changes shouldn't allow the landlord to escape an active rent control obligation to a current tenant.

Lewisham 12y ago
I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force landlords to keep renters ad infinitum just because. That hardly seems fair to the landlord, no?
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  That you dislike a law does not make it any less the law. That a thing is very popular does not make it lawful. The law has always been distinct from morality, with clear gateways from moral sentiment to the law.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    >The law has always been distinct from morality, Has it? If you look at Hebrew and Christian tradition, the two are highly conflated.
    - mod 12y ago
      I think that despite the strong correlation & overlap, yes, law has "always been" distinct from morality, at least where the law wasn't whimsical. If it's not illegal, you can still do it, morals be damned, without being punished. It's pretty much the point of law--to give warning & right to punish. That's not the same as morals.
      - jsprogrammer 12y ago
        What is your definition of moral then? Laws, but particularly the Law described in those tradition's holy books, describe what is acceptable behavior in that society and is often associated with eternal and everlasting punishment after death for breaking them, in addition to sacraments that must be performed to be absolved of various attachments that are made to the person for their behavior.
        mod 12y ago
        I didn't think we were talking about "holy law" and afterlife punishment. In that sense, I guess you're correct. There's still lots of flaws in the theory, for instance morality has changed--slavery was not outlawed by holy laws, and seemingly was considered okay morally. I don't personally equate legality with anything except written law enforced by people on earth, typically a government. Even in older times, "earth law" did not match "holy law." I don't think that, even at the time of its writing, the holy bible (for instance) described all immoral activity.
        jsprogrammer 12y ago
        Those traditions and societies specifically named The Law (translated from the local language) as what you are describing as holy law. You still haven't described what moral is, or how one has an obligation to it.
        Gigablah 12y ago
        "morals" are arbitrary goalposts that people move around for their own convenience and gratification.
        mod 12y ago
        Moral is right or wrong. Law is legal or illegal. Moral varies per person/family/culture. There is no obligation to morality, it's typically enforced by one's own brain and pressure from one's peers. I don't disagree with the dictionary definition: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+moral https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+moral I'm not sure if you're just being a pedant or something, but as a for instance, it's not illegal in my US state to drink alcohol to excess in the privacy of one's home, yet a great number of people find it immoral. This can be said for some act or another throughout history--frowned upon, not illegal.
- mcpherrinm 12y ago
  I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force renters to leave their homes just because. That hardly seems fair to the tenant, no?
  - sigzero 12y ago
    If you don't own it. Yes.
  - sithadmin 12y ago
    It seems that at some point, the property holder's right to dispose of their property as they wish ought to trump any claims that a temporary tenant might have. That said, I don't know enough about California law to say what 'point' might be.
  - WalterBright 12y ago
    It is kind of the difference between owning and renting.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      Ask someone who's been evicted by foreclosure. Say, by way of robosigning.
      - ageek123 12y ago
        Foreclosure is part of the voluntary agreement you signed with the bank when they loaned you the money to voluntarily purchase the property. It's not government intervention.
        dredmorbius 12y ago
        You're missing the point that if a more empowered party than you wants your property, they're likely to get it. Terms of mortgages in the past decade or so have been in tremendous flux, fraudulently granted (on the part of both lender and borrower, yes, in cases), and changed unilaterally. They've also been transferred with little or no documentation. Cases in which homes that were not even under any mortgage being seized are fairly easy to find. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/robo-signing-of-mortgages-still-a-problem/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/robo-signing-of-mortgages-still-... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/ohio-bank-forecloses-wrong-home-katie-barnett_n_3644246.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/ohio-bank-foreclose... http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing-wrong-homes/story?id=9637897 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing...
- x0x0 12y ago
  The law was passed in 1979. It's hard to seriously claim landlords could possibly be unaware of the law before becoming a landlord. If for some reason they just can't possibly see themselves in any other career, they may also choose to solely invest in buildings built since 1980.
  - mod 12y ago
    Maybe I'm a bit ignorant here, but I don't always know the laws about things I'm doing before I do them. If I wanted to rent my apartment out I wouldn't go searching for laws--I'd go searching for tenants (and a basic lease agreement I could modify). If there's a required course or something, I guess it would make sense then.
    - bbcbasic 12y ago
      I recommend you change that attitude. It doesn't take long to learn the basic laws about something that are most likely to affect you. And then consult a lawyer for anything you are not sure about. Do you have insurance? Same principle.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      You most definitely should not be buying rental property without familiarizing yourself with the local rental laws. That's simply awful, awful business. I don't feel a lot of sympathy for the landlords in SF. If they want to own property that isn't rent controlled, there's a whole big country out there, the vast majority of which isn't rent controlled. They chose to buy under the restrictions that exist. That's their responsibility.
    - kelnos 12y ago
      "A bit" is an understatement. You're incredibly, dangerously ignorant. Yes, I know, that sounds harsh, but "doing your homework" is a necessary precondition for doing, well... anything.
    - simoncion 12y ago
      Holy shit. >If I wanted to rent my apartment out I wouldn't go searching for laws... This is a dangerous level of ignorance. When you rent a space that you own to another for residential use, you forfeit the vast majority of your privileges as a property owner. Pretty much every jurisdiction recognizes that a person requires a secure space to come home to in order to have a chance at a decent life. If you're thinking about renting out your property, you're setting yourself up to be royally fucked if you don't familiarize yourself with the relevant laws.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  If they think it's unfair, they could just... not rent their buildings out. There's plenty of buildings in the US that don't come under rent control laws that they could buy and rent out.
  - SilasX 12y ago
    And if you're fine with the supply contracting further in already-choked markets, then that works! If not ...
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      Well, obviously, given that we're discussing rental in a rent-control city, it doesn't entirely kill off rental.
      - SilasX 12y ago
        "Not entirely killing off the rental market" is a pretty low bar to clear :-P
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    Landlords have the right to change their mind when it comes time for lease renewal. You're arguing that landlords should be forced to always rent their property to the same tenant once they begin. That's how ownership, not rental, works. Rentals are for a limited time by definition.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      > Rentals are for a limited time by definition. I know people (in fact, every branch of my family, along with many of my friends) who have rented their entire lives, because they can't own - they've never been able to amass enough capital or convince someone else to lend them it. Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? Rentals are whatever the combination of the contract and the local law say they are, by definition.
- tmurray 12y ago
  property taxes are capped in CA, so the landlord's costs are essentially fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%2819...
  - jrs235 12y ago
    Does California have income tax?
    - pcwalton 12y ago
      Yes.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    In San Francisco, the rent increase is also capped, oftentimes less than the amount that property taxes are increased under prop 13.
    - cowsandmilk 12y ago
      rent increases are almost always less than prop 13 increases. prop 13 increases are capped at 2%. In the last decade, only once was rent control greater than 2% and once it was 2%. The other 8 years, it has been less, including 0.1% one year. http://sfrb.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1939 http://sfrb.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1939
- TheHypnotist 12y ago
  It's not a commodity, it's livelihood. SF renters are still making money, this is gouging.
  - WalterSear 12y ago
    It's an eviction by another name. The rent they are asking for is just a way to make it happen. There's no story here.
    - TheHypnotist 12y ago
      Simplified, yes. But the HN landlord lobby is nauseating. This thread is sad.
      - WalterSear 12y ago
        You are aware that you made this comment on a post that was at the top of the site with over 100 points, just because it sorta-kinda looked like justification for SF renter butthurt? The overall lack of self awareness is what is nauseating about HN.
- Brian-Puccio 12y ago
  The idea behind limiting the landlord's profit is that many believe that it is more important for people to be able to afford housing than for others to make larger profits through, literally, rent-seeking. It's not just because, it's a social priority. Kinda like the comment the other day on HN that was something along the lines of "I don't see why we need the gov't regulating water prices, why can't the free market just sort this out" ... "because water isn't like an iPhone, it's something that everyone needs and there's a huge butterfly effect to this, less crops, less food, etc. on a very large scale -- not to mention supply/demand doesn't work for something with fairly inelastic demand". What's next, "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force insurance companies to not take into consideration pre-existing health conditions"? "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force politicians and political parties to reveal who gives them money"? "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force people who are working to pay for the retirement of older people via Social Security"? "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force companies to limit the amount they pollute"? There are plenty of arguments against rent control. But I find it hard to accept "but this guy could be making more money if the government didn't get in the way!" as an argument against rent control (or most other things, for that matter).
  - maxharris 12y ago
    It's not just because, it's a social priority. How does this legitimize it? A group that votes to dictate what I can do with my property might be doing it by the letter of the law, but that doesn't make it morally right. If I've earned something (e.g., I've gotten it legitimately through trade, as opposed to theft or fraud), that means I've poured some part of my life into earning that thing. Apart from issues where criminality is involved (theft, fraud, etc.), no life should be subject to the arbitrary dictates of any group. Each of us should be free to make the most of our lives, as best as each of us can. Some of us will achieve more, others less. And there's no getting around that, because no two people can ever be the same in every respect. To be clear, I am pro-equality in one fundamental respect: we should strive to be equal before the law.
    - wpietri 12y ago
- brandonbloom 12y ago
  Rent control does not force landlords to keep renters ad infinitum. It protects tenants from price gouging. Landlords can impose rent increases far beyond fair market rents for new tenants because it's costly and inconvenient to move, but (in a sellers' market) cheap to replace tenants. This imbalance of negotiating power necessitates regulations. Now, you can argue that particular rent control laws are too aggressive, or that the strategy for calculating bounds on rent increases cause excessive opportunity losses. But that's a far cry from the implication of your message.
  - agorabinary 12y ago
    Property owners took a risk by purchasing property, just as anyone does purchasing shares of a public company for instance. The value of your asset can go up and you find yourself in an advantageous position (a seller's market as you put it), or prices can fall and recurring buyers (like renters) are at the advantage. Rent control only distorts the market and is unfair to everyone.
    - brandonbloom 12y ago
      1) Landlords can diversify their properties, renters only get one. Everyone needs to live somewhere, nobody needs to be a landlord. 2) You've missed my point about moving costs. Even when the market favors renters, the lease renewal negotiation favors landlords. This is because moving costs time and money payable to third parties. As a result, the landlord can charge higher rents for renewals than they can for new leases.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - nsxwolf 12y ago
        I need to be a landlord because my other mortgage is so far underwater I could either foreclose and not be able to buy a suitable place for my family, or be a landlord and be able to pay both mortgages. It seems there would be people around to criticize me no matter which option I chose.
- gcb0 12y ago
  i take it you are under 25 and never have to move a family into a rental house? when you do that, i'd love to see your opinion then about living in a place where every month you need to set aside a weekend to find a plan-b place just in case your rent jump to a price you can't afford next month.
  - balls187 12y ago
    > when you do that, i'd love to see your opinion then about living in a place where every month you need to set aside a weekend to find a plan-b place just in case your rent jump to a price you can't afford next month. Do they not offer long term leases? It seems figuring out a more long term solution would be prudent.
    - gcb0 12y ago
      that don't exist anywhere, and is exactly what rent-control tries to solve. rent is either 1 or 2yr contracts and then month-by-month. everywhere in the world. you can try to renegotiate a new 1yr or 2yr each time with a discount (or lower increase) but that is the same as negotiating all over again.
- kelnos 12y ago
  Why does it have to be fair to the landlord? How is the current situation fair the the renters? What makes fairness to one a higher priority than the other? If we have a limited amount of "fairness" to go around, I would rather hand it out to the people who would otherwise be displaced from their home, and possibly their city, than to the landlord who is already making a profit... just less of one than he/she could theoretically be making. Or does having money and property ownership entitle you to more fairness? Remember that property is also a limited resource, and all plots of property are not created equal. Property ownership is an agreement between individuals and the state. The state gives the individual some rights to the property, but is empowered to restrict use of that properly when it believes the public good is better served. In theory, both sides benefit from that. But, for now, landlords are trying to throw aside what many (myself included) would consider the public good, in the name of higher profits. I'm personally not a big fan of rent control, but simply dropping it (and allowing landlords to drive trucks through loopholes such as this) alone is not a way to get ourselves out of our current housing mess.
  - fancyketchup 12y ago
    > Why does it have to be fair to the landlord? Well, it doesn't have to be. But prospective landlords tend not to build new units (or maintain old ones) when they don't feel they are getting a fair deal. It leads directly to the situation they have in San Francisco, where property owners only rent to family, coalesce many smaller units in to few larger ones and sometimes withdraw their units from the market entirely. Landlords are investing capital and their own labor in their properties. If the expected return on that investment is less than what they could get from government bonds and a 9-5 job, don't plan on a big expansion in housing stock.
    - kelnos 12y ago
      A very good point, but I think it has to go both ways. Both renters and landlords need to feel like they're getting a good deal. Kill rent control without increasing supply or enacting other protections, and suddenly the fairness scale tips over to the landlords and completely away from many (most?) residents. Definitely agree that the current situation is broken, but I was only suggesting that "it wouldn't be fair to landlords" is a bit too simple a consideration to make things right.
IgorPartola 12y ago
OTOH, how much can you restrict the property owner? What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control? Would it be OK for the law to tell the owner to fix it some other way? What if both units were destroyed in a natural disaster and a new structure had to be built from nothing? Is that still rent-controlled? Also, is rent control even a good idea? In the short term, it obviously protects a renter from the market running away from them. In the long term it seems to create artificial conditions which eventually blow up in everyone's face. Imagine a plan where the current renters had a viable alternative. Now drop all rent control laws and let the market correct itself. Lower income renters move out, higher income families move in. Rent goes up higher. Newly moved in renters realize that they are paying 10x as much as the rest of the country, leave. Rent goes down. The market has corrected itself and all is well. What am I missing?
- charlesdm 12y ago
  If you own the building, i'd say you should be free to do what you want. Just because you rented out a unit 5 years ago doesn't mean you want to rent it out forever. You own the building after all. Imagine a building with 20+ units, you'd never be able to clear it out. But, that doesn't make it a fun process to go through for a renter. It sucks. Couldn't the owner just ask the person who is renting the unit to move out in a reasonable amount of time? That seems like the ethical thing to do.
  - IgorPartola 12y ago
    I can't imagine someone going through this trouble instead of just asking. It is a dick move, for sure. I just don't see GGP's point about making this specific action illegal as the solution. Seems to me that it would the just complicate things and in the end negatively affect everyone.
    - clarky07 12y ago
      We only see one side here. perhaps they did ask nicely, and the renter said no.
forrestthewoods 12y ago
I agree that rent control laws are abuse. And that they cause the most harm to the people they are meant to protect (the poor). That's not what you meant? Oh. That's too bad.
batbomb 12y ago
there are several factors involved in this: 1. Apparently this family has tried this once before and failed, but learned from their mistakes. 2. The lawyer is a real estate broker. 3. This bypasses having to pay for the tenant to be evicted through Ellis. 4. This bypasses other provisions in Ellis and preserves rentability: If they used Ellis, they could not evict the tenant and then rent the place out for 5 years without offering the tenant the option of renting the place at the previous price (other companies bypass this through voluntary evictions by buying out tenants, for, say $30k) At the end of the day: This bypasses the intent of the law but follows the letter of the law. The intent is to sell the house. They pay less by not buying out the tenant. They preserve the rentability. Reclassifying while a tenant is protected under rent control should be prohibited.
stretchwithme 12y ago
It is terrible that an owner is able to do things with their own property. And that those merely paying rent don't have total control over something they haven't purchased. Its an outrage.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Lewisham 12y ago

I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force landlords to keep renters ad infinitum just because. That hardly seems fair to the landlord, no?

jacques_chester 12y ago
That you dislike a law does not make it any less the law. That a thing is very popular does not make it lawful. The law has always been distinct from morality, with clear gateways from moral sentiment to the law.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  >The law has always been distinct from morality, Has it? If you look at Hebrew and Christian tradition, the two are highly conflated.
  - mod 12y ago
    I think that despite the strong correlation & overlap, yes, law has "always been" distinct from morality, at least where the law wasn't whimsical. If it's not illegal, you can still do it, morals be damned, without being punished. It's pretty much the point of law--to give warning & right to punish. That's not the same as morals.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      What is your definition of moral then? Laws, but particularly the Law described in those tradition's holy books, describe what is acceptable behavior in that society and is often associated with eternal and everlasting punishment after death for breaking them, in addition to sacraments that must be performed to be absolved of various attachments that are made to the person for their behavior.
      - mod 12y ago
        I didn't think we were talking about "holy law" and afterlife punishment. In that sense, I guess you're correct. There's still lots of flaws in the theory, for instance morality has changed--slavery was not outlawed by holy laws, and seemingly was considered okay morally. I don't personally equate legality with anything except written law enforced by people on earth, typically a government. Even in older times, "earth law" did not match "holy law." I don't think that, even at the time of its writing, the holy bible (for instance) described all immoral activity.
        jsprogrammer 12y ago
        Those traditions and societies specifically named The Law (translated from the local language) as what you are describing as holy law. You still haven't described what moral is, or how one has an obligation to it.
        Gigablah 12y ago
        "morals" are arbitrary goalposts that people move around for their own convenience and gratification.
        mod 12y ago
        Moral is right or wrong. Law is legal or illegal. Moral varies per person/family/culture. There is no obligation to morality, it's typically enforced by one's own brain and pressure from one's peers. I don't disagree with the dictionary definition: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+moral https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+moral I'm not sure if you're just being a pedant or something, but as a for instance, it's not illegal in my US state to drink alcohol to excess in the privacy of one's home, yet a great number of people find it immoral. This can be said for some act or another throughout history--frowned upon, not illegal.
mcpherrinm 12y ago
I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force renters to leave their homes just because. That hardly seems fair to the tenant, no?
- sigzero 12y ago
  If you don't own it. Yes.
- sithadmin 12y ago
  It seems that at some point, the property holder's right to dispose of their property as they wish ought to trump any claims that a temporary tenant might have. That said, I don't know enough about California law to say what 'point' might be.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  It is kind of the difference between owning and renting.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Ask someone who's been evicted by foreclosure. Say, by way of robosigning.
    - ageek123 12y ago
      Foreclosure is part of the voluntary agreement you signed with the bank when they loaned you the money to voluntarily purchase the property. It's not government intervention.
      - dredmorbius 12y ago
        You're missing the point that if a more empowered party than you wants your property, they're likely to get it. Terms of mortgages in the past decade or so have been in tremendous flux, fraudulently granted (on the part of both lender and borrower, yes, in cases), and changed unilaterally. They've also been transferred with little or no documentation. Cases in which homes that were not even under any mortgage being seized are fairly easy to find. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/robo-signing-of-mortgages-still-a-problem/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/robo-signing-of-mortgages-still-... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/ohio-bank-forecloses-wrong-home-katie-barnett_n_3644246.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/ohio-bank-foreclose... http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing-wrong-homes/story?id=9637897 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing...
x0x0 12y ago
The law was passed in 1979. It's hard to seriously claim landlords could possibly be unaware of the law before becoming a landlord. If for some reason they just can't possibly see themselves in any other career, they may also choose to solely invest in buildings built since 1980.
- mod 12y ago
  Maybe I'm a bit ignorant here, but I don't always know the laws about things I'm doing before I do them. If I wanted to rent my apartment out I wouldn't go searching for laws--I'd go searching for tenants (and a basic lease agreement I could modify). If there's a required course or something, I guess it would make sense then.
  - bbcbasic 12y ago
    I recommend you change that attitude. It doesn't take long to learn the basic laws about something that are most likely to affect you. And then consult a lawyer for anything you are not sure about. Do you have insurance? Same principle.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    You most definitely should not be buying rental property without familiarizing yourself with the local rental laws. That's simply awful, awful business. I don't feel a lot of sympathy for the landlords in SF. If they want to own property that isn't rent controlled, there's a whole big country out there, the vast majority of which isn't rent controlled. They chose to buy under the restrictions that exist. That's their responsibility.
  - kelnos 12y ago
    "A bit" is an understatement. You're incredibly, dangerously ignorant. Yes, I know, that sounds harsh, but "doing your homework" is a necessary precondition for doing, well... anything.
  - simoncion 12y ago
    Holy shit. >If I wanted to rent my apartment out I wouldn't go searching for laws... This is a dangerous level of ignorance. When you rent a space that you own to another for residential use, you forfeit the vast majority of your privileges as a property owner. Pretty much every jurisdiction recognizes that a person requires a secure space to come home to in order to have a chance at a decent life. If you're thinking about renting out your property, you're setting yourself up to be royally fucked if you don't familiarize yourself with the relevant laws.
vertex-four 12y ago
If they think it's unfair, they could just... not rent their buildings out. There's plenty of buildings in the US that don't come under rent control laws that they could buy and rent out.
- SilasX 12y ago
  And if you're fine with the supply contracting further in already-choked markets, then that works! If not ...
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    Well, obviously, given that we're discussing rental in a rent-control city, it doesn't entirely kill off rental.
    - SilasX 12y ago
      "Not entirely killing off the rental market" is a pretty low bar to clear :-P
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  Landlords have the right to change their mind when it comes time for lease renewal. You're arguing that landlords should be forced to always rent their property to the same tenant once they begin. That's how ownership, not rental, works. Rentals are for a limited time by definition.
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    > Rentals are for a limited time by definition. I know people (in fact, every branch of my family, along with many of my friends) who have rented their entire lives, because they can't own - they've never been able to amass enough capital or convince someone else to lend them it. Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? Rentals are whatever the combination of the contract and the local law say they are, by definition.
tmurray 12y ago
property taxes are capped in CA, so the landlord's costs are essentially fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%2819...
- jrs235 12y ago
  Does California have income tax?
  - pcwalton 12y ago
    Yes.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  In San Francisco, the rent increase is also capped, oftentimes less than the amount that property taxes are increased under prop 13.
  - cowsandmilk 12y ago
    rent increases are almost always less than prop 13 increases. prop 13 increases are capped at 2%. In the last decade, only once was rent control greater than 2% and once it was 2%. The other 8 years, it has been less, including 0.1% one year. http://sfrb.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1939 http://sfrb.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1939
TheHypnotist 12y ago
It's not a commodity, it's livelihood. SF renters are still making money, this is gouging.
- WalterSear 12y ago
  It's an eviction by another name. The rent they are asking for is just a way to make it happen. There's no story here.
  - TheHypnotist 12y ago
    Simplified, yes. But the HN landlord lobby is nauseating. This thread is sad.
    - WalterSear 12y ago
      You are aware that you made this comment on a post that was at the top of the site with over 100 points, just because it sorta-kinda looked like justification for SF renter butthurt? The overall lack of self awareness is what is nauseating about HN.
Brian-Puccio 12y ago
The idea behind limiting the landlord's profit is that many believe that it is more important for people to be able to afford housing than for others to make larger profits through, literally, rent-seeking. It's not just because, it's a social priority. Kinda like the comment the other day on HN that was something along the lines of "I don't see why we need the gov't regulating water prices, why can't the free market just sort this out" ... "because water isn't like an iPhone, it's something that everyone needs and there's a huge butterfly effect to this, less crops, less food, etc. on a very large scale -- not to mention supply/demand doesn't work for something with fairly inelastic demand". What's next, "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force insurance companies to not take into consideration pre-existing health conditions"? "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force politicians and political parties to reveal who gives them money"? "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force people who are working to pay for the retirement of older people via Social Security"? "I think it's sort of obnoxious and should be illegal to force companies to limit the amount they pollute"? There are plenty of arguments against rent control. But I find it hard to accept "but this guy could be making more money if the government didn't get in the way!" as an argument against rent control (or most other things, for that matter).
- maxharris 12y ago
  It's not just because, it's a social priority. How does this legitimize it? A group that votes to dictate what I can do with my property might be doing it by the letter of the law, but that doesn't make it morally right. If I've earned something (e.g., I've gotten it legitimately through trade, as opposed to theft or fraud), that means I've poured some part of my life into earning that thing. Apart from issues where criminality is involved (theft, fraud, etc.), no life should be subject to the arbitrary dictates of any group. Each of us should be free to make the most of our lives, as best as each of us can. Some of us will achieve more, others less. And there's no getting around that, because no two people can ever be the same in every respect. To be clear, I am pro-equality in one fundamental respect: we should strive to be equal before the law.
  - wpietri 12y ago
brandonbloom 12y ago
Rent control does not force landlords to keep renters ad infinitum. It protects tenants from price gouging. Landlords can impose rent increases far beyond fair market rents for new tenants because it's costly and inconvenient to move, but (in a sellers' market) cheap to replace tenants. This imbalance of negotiating power necessitates regulations. Now, you can argue that particular rent control laws are too aggressive, or that the strategy for calculating bounds on rent increases cause excessive opportunity losses. But that's a far cry from the implication of your message.
- agorabinary 12y ago
  Property owners took a risk by purchasing property, just as anyone does purchasing shares of a public company for instance. The value of your asset can go up and you find yourself in an advantageous position (a seller's market as you put it), or prices can fall and recurring buyers (like renters) are at the advantage. Rent control only distorts the market and is unfair to everyone.
  - brandonbloom 12y ago
    1) Landlords can diversify their properties, renters only get one. Everyone needs to live somewhere, nobody needs to be a landlord. 2) You've missed my point about moving costs. Even when the market favors renters, the lease renewal negotiation favors landlords. This is because moving costs time and money payable to third parties. As a result, the landlord can charge higher rents for renewals than they can for new leases.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - nsxwolf 12y ago
      I need to be a landlord because my other mortgage is so far underwater I could either foreclose and not be able to buy a suitable place for my family, or be a landlord and be able to pay both mortgages. It seems there would be people around to criticize me no matter which option I chose.
gcb0 12y ago
i take it you are under 25 and never have to move a family into a rental house? when you do that, i'd love to see your opinion then about living in a place where every month you need to set aside a weekend to find a plan-b place just in case your rent jump to a price you can't afford next month.
- balls187 12y ago
  > when you do that, i'd love to see your opinion then about living in a place where every month you need to set aside a weekend to find a plan-b place just in case your rent jump to a price you can't afford next month. Do they not offer long term leases? It seems figuring out a more long term solution would be prudent.
  - gcb0 12y ago
    that don't exist anywhere, and is exactly what rent-control tries to solve. rent is either 1 or 2yr contracts and then month-by-month. everywhere in the world. you can try to renegotiate a new 1yr or 2yr each time with a discount (or lower increase) but that is the same as negotiating all over again.
kelnos 12y ago
Why does it have to be fair to the landlord? How is the current situation fair the the renters? What makes fairness to one a higher priority than the other? If we have a limited amount of "fairness" to go around, I would rather hand it out to the people who would otherwise be displaced from their home, and possibly their city, than to the landlord who is already making a profit... just less of one than he/she could theoretically be making. Or does having money and property ownership entitle you to more fairness? Remember that property is also a limited resource, and all plots of property are not created equal. Property ownership is an agreement between individuals and the state. The state gives the individual some rights to the property, but is empowered to restrict use of that properly when it believes the public good is better served. In theory, both sides benefit from that. But, for now, landlords are trying to throw aside what many (myself included) would consider the public good, in the name of higher profits. I'm personally not a big fan of rent control, but simply dropping it (and allowing landlords to drive trucks through loopholes such as this) alone is not a way to get ourselves out of our current housing mess.
- fancyketchup 12y ago
  > Why does it have to be fair to the landlord? Well, it doesn't have to be. But prospective landlords tend not to build new units (or maintain old ones) when they don't feel they are getting a fair deal. It leads directly to the situation they have in San Francisco, where property owners only rent to family, coalesce many smaller units in to few larger ones and sometimes withdraw their units from the market entirely. Landlords are investing capital and their own labor in their properties. If the expected return on that investment is less than what they could get from government bonds and a 9-5 job, don't plan on a big expansion in housing stock.
  - kelnos 12y ago
    A very good point, but I think it has to go both ways. Both renters and landlords need to feel like they're getting a good deal. Kill rent control without increasing supply or enacting other protections, and suddenly the fairness scale tips over to the landlords and completely away from many (most?) residents. Definitely agree that the current situation is broken, but I was only suggesting that "it wouldn't be fair to landlords" is a bit too simple a consideration to make things right.

IgorPartola 12y ago

OTOH, how much can you restrict the property owner? What if the other unit needed to be knocked down for a reason other than to get rid of rent control? Would it be OK for the law to tell the owner to fix it some other way? What if both units were destroyed in a natural disaster and a new structure had to be built from nothing? Is that still rent-controlled? Also, is rent control even a good idea? In the short term, it obviously protects a renter from the market running away from them. In the long term it seems to create artificial conditions which eventually blow up in everyone's face. Imagine a plan where the current renters had a viable alternative. Now drop all rent control laws and let the market correct itself. Lower income renters move out, higher income families move in. Rent goes up higher. Newly moved in renters realize that they are paying 10x as much as the rest of the country, leave. Rent goes down. The market has corrected itself and all is well. What am I missing?

charlesdm 12y ago
If you own the building, i'd say you should be free to do what you want. Just because you rented out a unit 5 years ago doesn't mean you want to rent it out forever. You own the building after all. Imagine a building with 20+ units, you'd never be able to clear it out. But, that doesn't make it a fun process to go through for a renter. It sucks. Couldn't the owner just ask the person who is renting the unit to move out in a reasonable amount of time? That seems like the ethical thing to do.
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  I can't imagine someone going through this trouble instead of just asking. It is a dick move, for sure. I just don't see GGP's point about making this specific action illegal as the solution. Seems to me that it would the just complicate things and in the end negatively affect everyone.
  - clarky07 12y ago
    We only see one side here. perhaps they did ask nicely, and the renter said no.

forrestthewoods 12y ago

I agree that rent control laws are abuse. And that they cause the most harm to the people they are meant to protect (the poor). That's not what you meant? Oh. That's too bad.

batbomb 12y ago

there are several factors involved in this: 1. Apparently this family has tried this once before and failed, but learned from their mistakes. 2. The lawyer is a real estate broker. 3. This bypasses having to pay for the tenant to be evicted through Ellis. 4. This bypasses other provisions in Ellis and preserves rentability: If they used Ellis, they could not evict the tenant and then rent the place out for 5 years without offering the tenant the option of renting the place at the previous price (other companies bypass this through voluntary evictions by buying out tenants, for, say $30k) At the end of the day: This bypasses the intent of the law but follows the letter of the law. The intent is to sell the house. They pay less by not buying out the tenant. They preserve the rentability. Reclassifying while a tenant is protected under rent control should be prohibited.

stretchwithme 12y ago

It is terrible that an owner is able to do things with their own property. And that those merely paying rent don't have total control over something they haven't purchased. Its an outrage.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]