12/9 What's the legal limit on rent increate in SF? Thanks.
\_ What's the % slav-jew ethnicity of your landlord?
\_ Hardy frickin' har.
\_ 42
\_ I thought that the rental market in SF crashed along with
the .com boom. Was that just for commercial property?
If it also applies to residential property you should
tell your landlord "Rent increase? You on crack? BYE" --PeterM
\_ Rents are still way higher than they were even four years
\_ I'm actually considering buying a house and collect rent to
ago, so if you have been in a rent controlled apt, your
rates are less than market.
\_ I'm actually considering buying a house and collecting rent to
cover (part of) the mortgage, and I'm thinking whether I
should buy in SF or in the Fremont area. Houses in SF seem to
appreciate faster, but because of rent control I might be
collecting much-lower-than-market rent 10 years down the road
if the tenant I find now doesn't move out by then.
\_ I wouldn't want to be a landlord in SF, unless it made
it possible for me to be a home-owner there. You have
almost no rights, besides charging whatever the market
will bear when you have a vancancy. Private property
means very little.
\_ Death to landlords! You have an obligation to provide
affordable housing even if it means you're paying more
in property taxes than you're taking in in rent and
losing money. Tax the rich til they aint rich no more!
\_ And yet landlords still find it profitable to
invest in San Francisco rental housing. Ain't
that something?
\_ Nonsense. As a SF landlord you're not allowed to
sell your property. Clue up before opening mouth.
\_ Don't pay more for a mortgage than you are collecting
in rent. That is bad business. --dim
\_ But the higher the mortgage payment is, the faster the
interest goes down and the faster you pay off the
principle. Doesn't this also apply to rental property?
\- if you dont pay taxes on this rental
income that could make a sizable diff
--psb
\_ Is this a troll? --dim
\_ Well, yeah, that is sort of the point of rent control,
isn't it? To stop out-of-town real estate speculators
from profiting from the housing shortage in SF.
\_ No. Not at all. Rent control is there to force private
property owners to subsidize the socialist system in SF.
If it wasn't for rent control, it wouldn't be such a
nightmare to find housing and the housing you'd find
would be better quality instead of the rat infested
closets you get now for an arm and two legs.
\_ Only if you'd made your millions on the tech
bubble. Rent control exists to prevent landlords
from evicting tenants unreasonably and raising
rents to ridiculous levels in boom times. Remove
rent control and the only place a middle-income
family could afford would be a rat-infested
closet costing an arm and a leg. --erikred
\_ do you have any real world examples of this?
on the other hand, high rents would encourage
greatly the creation of more housing, and with
rent control they have little incentive to
improve the buildings because they can't get
more rent than the other guys anyway.
\_ dont ask for evidence/proof of any hot button
socialist issues or you'll get censored.
\_ Don't you read newspapers? I have seen quite
a few articles about this with interviews
with families. I don't like rent control
though. I like building more housing, but
there are a lot of vested interest,
bureaucratic hurdles that makes that
difficult. - !op
\_ Are you actually asking for real world examples
of places with expensive rents that do not have
rent control? How about Los Altos, Hermosa
Beach, Tiburon and The Hamptons. Somehow high
rents have not had the effect you claim in
those places.
\_ Rent control as a short term solution
to housing problems is ok, but the
real solution is building more housing.
When no new housing is built and rent
control drags on and on forever, it
becomes a problem itself. Newly built
housing should not be under rent-
control.
\_ You know what? You don't find many rat-
infested closets in those places. It just
means it's an expensive area...rent control
cannot make an expensive area inexpensive.
It just fucks things up in other ways.
\_ But it does makes expensive areas
inexpensive, for people who have lived
in rent controlled apartments for a long
time. I know a bunch of long time San
Franciscans who would have had to move
if they would have suffered rent
increases like the market in the late
90s. You can argue that is unfairly
pushes the burden onto new tenants, but
you cannot claim that it does not lower
rents for most. Also, study what happened
in Boston after rent control went away.
Median rents went up much faster than
inflation.
\_ Basically what you are saying is
that the owner and new tenants
have to subsidize the "poor"
people because they have a "right"
to live in a nice neighborhood
even though they can't afford to
pay the fair market rate for that
property. Yeah that sounds fair.
I can understand if its someones
fixed income grandma, but most of
the the time its some luser arts
major who can't get a job outside
of food service because (s)he
wasted four years in college taking
worthless courses about envirno
senitivity (subsidized by donations
from eng. alumni) instead of
\- berkeley funding is pretty
float you own boat so i
think you can to some extent
avoid funding the flakes.
--psb
learning anything useful.
\_ People shouldn't be suddenly
thrown out of their homes
because of wild market
fluctuations caused by
oppurtunistic speculators.
Squatters are bad, but there
having people evicted all of
the time is a recipe for social
instability and an increase
in the homeless population.
Rent control should prevent
people from suddenly being
booted, but it shouldn't
\_ Restored!
depress prices once someone
moves out.
repairs? That's bs. If some landlord was that strapped he'd have
to sell his building, great. Traffic? The city is already
\_ I know this will sound
callous and insensitive
to you, but its an apt.
not a home. If you want
home buy one. If you don't
own it (and never will)
then its the same as a
motel and the owner can
and should be able to
raise the rates on you
in order to maximize his
roi on the property.
\_ Step #1 - tenant gets notice
of rent increase.
Step #2 - tenant plans to move
Step #3 - tenant moves
I don't see where
"instability" steps into the
process of an adult planning
their future. If you have any
expensive with bad traffic and I really don't think rent control
is keeping that in check. Landlords with a bad record will have
problems, well that's their own fault. I think you're over-
estimating the magnitude of these bubbles. As for a retail
shortage, actually it would just mean high retail prices. Which
is again fine, if people are willing to pay for it, if not, let
them go away.
illusions as to the
replacibility of people,
go visit a graveyard.
Letting markets work, works.
\_ Witness the numerous "family-member wants
to move in, so I'm evicting you" cases that
occurred in San Francisco circa 99-00 where
no such family member moved in and landlords
simply jacked up the rent. Also, according
to Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board,
landlord can raise rents to reflect Capital
Improvements (Reg. 1267C). There are lots
of things wrong with Rent Control, but
trusting the landlords to play fair doesn't
seem to work either. Until we get a better
proposal, I'm for keeping it. --erikred
\_ what's so wrong with letting a landlord
evict/raise rents? as long as they have
to allow enough notice time. why do they
owe you anything?
\_ There is more to life than profit.
\_ If all landlords raise rents to cash
in on economic bubbles, the only ppl
who will be able to live in a city will
be families who bought houses early or
ppl making money in the current boom.
Small business owners and retail
workers, already living on a small
profit margins, will no longer be able
to live in the city, making traffic
worse or resulting in a shortage of
retail services for the boomers.
When the bubble bursts, prices will
remain horribly inflated and no one
will be able to afford them; land-
lords will have to lower rents to
compete with each other, lowering
money available for repairs, and
new tenants will be wary of signing
leases with landlords with a rent-
raising record. It makes the whole
system unstable. --erikred
\_ Wisely spoken.
\_ Acutually, stupid opportunistic
landlords go out of business,
and the system works as usual.
If there was money available for
making repairs before this bubble
why would it not be there *after*
the bubble?
What you say doesn't make sense to me. Why would prices _/
remain horribly inflated if no one could pay them? No money for
repairs? That's bs. If some landlord was that strapped he'd
have to sell his building, great. Traffic? The city is already
expensive with bad traffic and I really don't think rent
control is keeping that in check. Landlords with a bad record
will have problems, well that's their own fault. I think
you're over- estimating the magnitude of these bubbles. As for
a retail shortage, actually it would just mean high retail
prices. Which is again fine, if people are willing to pay for
it, if not, let them go away.
\_ Look what happend to those cities without rent control in
the 1970's: Philadelphia, Detroit, St. Louis, when people
just went away. Look at the cities with rent control:
Boston, New York and San Francisco. Which are better
off today? Societies have a vested interest in keeping
neighborhoods intact. I think this beats out a few
wealthy loudmouths complaining about not making more
money than they already are.
\_ uh, they were better off back then also. but also they
had more heavy industry that suffered nationwide.
keep in mind most people "make money off the current
boom." the wages of "little people" go up to cope.
\_ Agreed. --erikred
\_ I will agree to the correlation, but the causal?
more data please.
\_ What all of you are missing out in this SF rent control thing is
the evils of the rent controlled tenant who sublets out rooms in
the apartment for more money than the landlord is allowed to charge
this primary tenant. WTF makes it ok to let this one person make a
profit off the land lord's property and efforts for doing nothing
but sharing the same place they'd be sharing anyway if the land lord
was allowed to control his own property? Subletting out should be
illegal and instantly force the property out of rent controlled
status.
\_ This is a lot of why I didn't vote for EE. --erikred
Clarification: subletting _with_ the permission of the landlord
is fine. The right to sublet against the landlord's wishes
is not. --erikred |
http://csua.com/feed/