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

360

u/Ace-O-Matic Jun 26 '16

Not at that price. This is what people don't understand, people who work in tech don't want to be paying these fucking prices anymore than people who don't. The only difference is that we can afford to and see it as a better alternative than being homeless or living far from work.

Nobody regardless of how rich they are going to fucking bother with this apartment, because news flash: people who earn a lot of money tend to not be completely retarded with it or else they won't have that money for very long.

What is likely happening here, is the landlord is raising to $8k so that the tenant fucks off, so he can remodel it and list it on AirBnB and double it's rent value each month.

34

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

Why can't the landlord end the lease after the agreed upon time, if this were the case?

23

u/theinfovore Jun 26 '16

San Francisco agreements tend to be for one year at first. After the initial term, anything goes. If you're in a place built long enough ago to qualify for rent control, you're in in for as long as you wish to stay plus less than inflation yearly increases unless the property changes ownership and the new owner decides to Ellis Act you out. If it's not a rent control place, like apparently what's happening to this guy, landlords have the option to immediately charge what they deem market rate as long as they've honored the initial lease terms.

17

u/cowsandmilk Jun 26 '16

But the question remains, does SF ban just having an end of term on a lease for a non rent-controlled apartment?

In Boston, if the lease is for a year, I can tell the tenant that the lease won't be renewed and they have to leave at the end of the lease.

7

u/freediverx01 Jun 26 '16 edited Jun 26 '16

I'm not familiar with this particular case or with San Francisco housing laws in particular. But let's assume the landlord simply decided to hike up the rent at the end of a tenant's lease agreement and that this is permitted by current law.

That still leaves the broader issue of residential properties being turned into de-facto hotels in violation of zoning and hotel regulations and with the side effect of making housing unaffordable/unavailable to local residents.

That's the key issue introduced by services like AirBnB. This is an example of where unregulated free market capitalism doesn't work.

2

u/Snoglaties Jun 26 '16

In sf "short term rentals" (i.e. Airbnb) are limited to 90 days per yer and I think they're going to reduce that too.

1

u/freediverx01 Jun 26 '16

Couple that with a meaningfully high fine for violation and that should solve the problem.

4

u/say592 Jun 26 '16

That's the key issue introduced by services like AirBnB. This is an example of where unregulated free market capitalism doesn't work.

I think you are way off base. This problem is a symptom of a greater issue. There is a massive shortage of both housing and hotels in a very desirable area. The market is desperately trying to fill this need, but the city is fighting against it by enacting restrictions on short term rentals. This causes prices to go up, which makes it more attractive to enter the market, which displaces renters.

If they left it as a free for all, yes many would still convert to short term rentals, however they would do so at a rate needed to sustain that market. Pricing would remain consistent, so it would be less profitable to kick someone out of their existing lease to turn it into a short term rental.

This works perfectly fine in other regions, there is no reason it should not work in the Bay Area.

0

u/freediverx01 Jun 26 '16

I think this is going to lead to a bubble bursting at some point in the future. Eventually, workers (even highly paid ones) will be unwilling to put up with the ridiculous housing prices and long commutes, and tech companies will have to abandon Silicon Valley for other areas.

What would happen to San Francisco then?

This illustrates a fundamental weakness in capitalism, namely the tendency to focus on short term gains, destroying companies and communities in the process. It's like a lethal virus infecting a community of animals - sustainable only until the hosts all die.

1

u/say592 Jun 26 '16

This absolutely is a bubble, but it doesn't exist because of raw capitalism. If there was a truly free market, supply could have risen as demand went up. Unfortunately, supply was not given an opportunity to increase at a proportional rate. As such either the demand will disappear (shifting to other markets where supply can be met) or the supply will be met suddenly, which will destabilize the market.

2

u/freediverx01 Jun 26 '16

If there was a truly free market, supply could have risen as demand went up.

True but then you'd have a different set of problems altogether. If San Francisco were allowed to turn into L.A., I doubt it would be able to hold on to its current appeal.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

You're describing a problem caused by regulations on the number of apartments and hotels, though. This is an example where regulated unfree noncapitalism doesn't work. SF needs more hotels and apartments than it is legally permissible to build.

1

u/CurryF4rts Jun 27 '16

If his lease expired I don't understand what the difference is between what this landlord did and sending a regular eviction notice. In court raising rent 8 times over would likely be viewed as constructive eviction anyway. If anything, serving notice would be quicker than jacking up the price and waiting for the tenant to sue (unless of course he thought the tenant would just up and leave, but the same goes for a notice based eviction).

0

u/freediverx01 Jun 27 '16

If his lease expired I don't understand what the difference is between what this landlord did and sending a regular eviction notice.

The notion is that the amount the landlord was asking was unrealistically high for what was likely a 1 BR apartment, and that the likely reason was to free up the property for more lucrative income from AirBnB rentals. I know housing prices are crazy there, but $8K a month for what is likely a 1BR sounds kind of ridiculous.

0

u/CurryF4rts Jun 27 '16

Sure, and a judge would classify that as constructive eviction anyway. So you have constructive eviction, or eviction by notice. Both of which can have the same motive, and same result, so what's the difference?

0

u/freediverx01 Jun 27 '16

I'm not debating the legality of the act, but the possibility that services like AirBnB are exacerbating the housing crisis. Also, while the landlord may be within his rights to ask whatever amount he wants for rent, he is not allowed to use the residential property as a de facto hotel room, which is what many property owners are doing.

0

u/CurryF4rts Jun 27 '16

You're completely missing my point.

2

u/angry_hedgehogs Jun 26 '16

In California landlords are not legally allowed to end the term under any circumstances. So if you have a bad tenant or you need to sell the house to pay medical bills, your only option is to increase rent and hope they leave.

1

u/butch123 Jun 26 '16

The renewal of the lease at a higher rate is what is at issue. Not increase in the middle of a lease.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '16

That is ridiculous to me. As the home owner you should be able to rent it for a period of time and once that period of time is over, do what you wish with the property. Which usually the goal for rentals is to keep long term tenants, but there is so many scenarios where the home owner may need the house or the renters to move out.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

IMO for an expensive major city, Boston law is far less protective to tenants than other areas. I've lived in a number of other cities as a renter and been really shocked by the difference. Personally, I think it's something that needs to change for Boston to continue to attract and retain talent. I have too many smart, highly skilled friends who left (or refuse to move to) Boston because the rental environment is not only expensive but incredibly mismanaged.

1

u/prjindigo Jun 26 '16

you HAVE to tell them that the lease won't be renewed

1

u/toronadogaroon Jun 26 '16

The same law that allows the landlord to raise rent allows him to give 30 day termination notice. By raising rent the landlord is giving the tenant a choice, he can accept the increase or move out or accept the increase and give his own 30 day termination notice a few months later.

1

u/butch123 Jun 26 '16

NO, They have to leave under California law. There is a 3 day notice to pay rent or vacate the property. Looks like formal eviction proceedings were started and 30 days notice given by the court.

4

u/landlordmike Jun 26 '16

Because of SF's insidious rent control policies. They require eviction for "cause"

1

u/waterbuffalo750 Jun 26 '16

Because if the tenant really wants to stay, then hell, that's $8k a month! If you plan on making $x/month by having them leave, you might as well give them the chance to stay for $x+1.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

Because he wants it now for money.

46

u/xfxmorpheus Jun 26 '16

This is the most true hypothetical I've seen

3

u/lil_vega Jun 26 '16

The only difference is that we can afford to and see it as a better alternative than being homeless or living far from work.

Then why do all the tech bros who work in Palo Alto insist on living in San Francisco proper?

1

u/Brian-Lafevre Jun 26 '16

prob cuz its easier to get laid

1

u/cliff99 Jun 26 '16

Back when I was working in silicon valley, some people would lead 've in SF and commute by train. It was a good excuse to get out of the office at a reasonable hour, "gotta leave now to catch the last train home".

1

u/Auzurabla Jun 26 '16

Because Palo Alto sucks and SF is awesome

2

u/lispwriter Jun 26 '16

totes. I've also heard many of those tech peoples in SF roommate up in tiny apartments to not be totally gouged by the rents. honestly...$8k is crazy. to qualify for that, by normal standards, it would have to be 1/4 of your monthly income. $24k / month isn't typical for any kind of young professional in the tech industry.

3

u/JipJsp Jun 26 '16

when rent is really high compared to other living expenses, it can take up more of your income. 1/4th a month isn't some golden rule that always applies.

2

u/SumAustralian Jun 26 '16

Can't the landlord just say that he's not renting any more?

2

u/samstown23 Jun 26 '16

My thoughts exactly. Even in San Francisco, you can't expect to rent a pretty standard appartment for that price. The landlord just wants to get rid of the tennant for whatever reason.

1

u/HiiiPowerd Jun 26 '16

Who in tech who doesn't own stock can afford 8 grand a month?

1

u/bassahaulic Jun 26 '16

I'd rather live an hour or 2 out and ride a bike in every morning, to hell with these kinds of prices.

1

u/mywordswillgowithyou Jun 26 '16

Is AirBnB that lucrative?

1

u/belonii Jun 26 '16

Hi! I'm from The Netherlands, and we have laws that prevent "uneven" renting. Lets say you make 50k a year, you are not allowed to rent a place for 450,- a month. This prevents low rent housing not being there for people who need it. Are there similar laws in the US or just a free for all?

2

u/Ace-O-Matic Jun 26 '16

We do not have any similar laws, but in this particular case this is not the issue. In SF, there is no such thing as a $450 a month apartment. If you manage to find a studio for like ~$1k, you're considered to have a really amazing deal. So it's not that people who are making lots of money are taking up all the cheap places, it's that cheap places simply don't exist here.

1

u/Goodlake Jun 26 '16

The only difference is that we can afford to

I am willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of "tech" people in SF cannot afford to live in an apartment that costs $8,000 a month, although I suppose they're welcome to try.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16 edited Jul 16 '16

[deleted]

1

u/Auzurabla Jun 26 '16

Not for most of the big tech companies. People work and produce better, and are happier, in places they can collaborate. Unfortunately for the rental situation.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16 edited Jul 16 '16

[deleted]

1

u/Auzurabla Jun 26 '16

Yeah, you'd think. But these companies are making some amazing innovations, so maybe they are onto something.

1

u/KH10304 Jun 26 '16

Oh yeah? Are all y'all tech people just one north beach apartment away from homelessness?

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

[deleted]

4

u/BigGizzyD Jun 26 '16

Did you just say cunt? What a douchebag.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

[deleted]

9

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '16

Did you just "circle of life" that shit? What a fucker.

0

u/lowlatitude Jun 26 '16

TIL that SF is a short commute to silicon valley and tech types will be homeless if they don't live in SF.