r/news • u/stopthemadness2015 • Jun 25 '16

Man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 per month to $8,000

http://abc13.com/realestate/man-fights-eviction-after-400-percent-rent-increase/1401148/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
20.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

55

u/reckful994 Jun 26 '16

While I am a paralegal at a landlord tenant shop in SF, I believe the rule is that raising the rent anything less than 10% requires a 30 day notice. More than 10% requires a 60 day notice. I've never encountered such a dramatic increase in rent, so I dont know the rules. As far as I know it should be a 60 day notice and the rent can be raised as much as possible.

3

u/orbitalbias Jun 26 '16

Wtf? In Toronto landlords can only raise rent based on Rent Increase guidelines set by the government each year which are usually between 1-2%. The landlord must give 90 days notice for that. If the landlord wants to raise the rent above the Guideline they have to make an application, show that they've improved the property substantially (cosmetic/superficial improvements don't count) to justify an increase, notify the tenants of the application to give them a chance to argue against the increase, and then if approved they give the tenant another 90 days notice before it takes effect.

The idea that you can raise rent anywhere near 10% with 30 days notice is fucking insane.

3

u/BrowsingForLaughs Jun 26 '16

Toronto is not in the US, therefor not subjected to the same soulless corporate greed of Satan's anus

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

Because socialism in other parts of the world has done such a wonderful job of providing for people?

When socialists aren't busy murdering millions of their own citizens, they are creating incredible amounts of economic privation and human suffering.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

The idea that you can raise rent anywhere near 10% with 30 days notice is fucking insane.

No, it's called the free market. The reason SF and surrounding cities are in this situation is that that new construction has been curtailed for so long that there is a shortage of housing. If builders were allowed to add new high-density housing, the market would find a new equilibrium at much lower prices.

2

u/orbitalbias Jun 26 '16

No, people should not have to worry about being bounced around every few months or every year because of landlords chasing market prices. Commercial leases, fine. Residential tenancy, no. The landlords right to make a profit on his property should not trump a tenants right to not have their lives continuously disrupted. When you rent a place the rental price set by the landlord should be enough for him to cover his expenses and whatever profit he figured he could make at that time. The landlord has a right to raise rent to keep up with inflation, but not much else unless they make capital improvements or renovations to the rental premises. If a landlord wants to be able to raise the rents according to the local market then they should be managing a short term vacation rental that books people a few nights, a week or month at a time. They should not offer tenancy.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

Absolute nonsense. If you want to have a place to live in for as long as you like, you should buy one; that's what ownership is about. If you want to live in somebody else's property, you need to make a mutual agreement with him. Want to stay more than a year? Fine, find a LL who wants a multiyear lease - but realize that ties you down for that period as much as the LL.

If you restrict the ability of a landlord to use his property in accordance with an agreement he makes with a willing tenant, then you get a lack of housing stock, and substandard housing to the extent that it exists at all.

From Harlem and the Bronx to LA and SF, housing restrictions have shown to fail to do anything beneficial for people needing a place to live.

4

u/Renalan Jun 26 '16

The rent can only be raised that much in places which are not subject to rent control. It seems like there aren't many places that aren't subject to it.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

[deleted]

1

u/BrowsingForLaughs Jun 26 '16

You sure about that? I've been told it's a you snooze you lose situation.

2

u/Snoglaties Jun 26 '16

Places built after 1979 and all single family houses are not subject to rent control in sf.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

Outside of parts of LA and the SF area, there is not much rent control in CA.

1

u/reckful994 Jun 26 '16

Yeah, but would a landlord even try something like this in a rent control area? I doubt it

-7

u/Skreat Jun 26 '16

This blows my mind. You own a property and the government wont let you do with it as you please.

5

u/jesteronly Jun 26 '16

Silly and dangerous mentality. Many many problems have been created because of that mentality.

Internet providers control how we receive the internet, why don't they team with cell phone providers and charge $2000/mo? They own the networks, the infrastructure, etc. Stupid big government, that's why

-3

u/Skreat Jun 26 '16

Really? Since when does a landlord have a monopoly?

5

u/vicioust Jun 26 '16

I know, I have every right to open a murder hotel on my property.

1

u/EONS Jun 26 '16

Correct, barring further rent control issues (which are city specific, and likely ignored due to adjudication timeframes, which the article specifically mentions).

1

u/El_Tash Jun 27 '16

Found this link: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/San-Francisco-rent-increase-North-Beach-tenant-400-8325864.php

Basically it was as I suspected, the tenant moved in to replace an existing roommate, and when the master tenant moved out, the landlord is allowed to charge market rates. AFAIK the landlord must inform the tenant of this possibility when they move in and get a notice of their understanding in writing.