Hacker News Reader

Comment by WalterSear | Hacker News Reader

I just don't see the news here.

It's totally legal, and done all the time: it's why people lease houses rather than go month to month.

It's not a reflection of the market in SF. This happens everywhere a landlord who isn't getting on with their month-to-month tenants and want them out, for whatever reason. It happened to me in 2005. It's not a necessarily a reflection of anything outside of the personal situation of the poster, and their relationship with their landlord.

If this had happened anywhere but SF, there wouldn't be the flurry of hysterical outrage that's exploding on Twitter and Facebook: there would be crickets.

View on HN

They converted the other unit in the building to storage (after hassling that tenant out).

I don't think it's anything like 'isn't getting on', the landlord wants to convert the building to some other use and simply doesn't care about the tenants, which isn't the same as finding them disagreeable or whatever (one imagines they might want to do something like sell it as a private home).

Legally, it's all under the same umbrella. I never said this was scrupulous. Just legal, and perfectly commonplace. Not news.

It's being used as a rallying cry by people who were perfectly content with capitalism until it started being applied to them.

You really think they will keep it as storage? Once the remaining tenant is out they will renovate everything and rent both units again.

I feel for the renter, but shouldn't the landlord be able to do whatever they want with their property?

Rent is going way up because there aren't enough homes in sf for the amount of people who want to live there. The city is to blame for this problem. Why is sf such a flat city? There should be a lot more tall condo buildings but as I've read it seems the city blocks any structure over 4 stories.

Raising rent will cause lots of low income people in sf to have to move. That's not a good thing--but what is the answer here? How do other large cities deal with this problem?

> shouldn't the landlord be able to do whatever they want with their property?

Not under current SF rent control laws. The issue here is how the landlord is skirting around the law by making space unusable.

It is the law, but to utilize their property how they see fit they have to use a loop hole.

The city is basically making land owners give section 8 rent welfare to tenants, in a bid to keep the city affordable to long time residents during a housing shortage. You'd hope that the city would open up building more high rise housing (high end) to open up more space for the lower end of the community.

I don't know what they will do with the building. I brought up the storage because it makes their motivation clearer, they weren't getting rid of the tenants for any sort of personal reason, it's about using the building for something else (or as you say, putting it back on the market at higher rates).

No, they won't. Please actually read and understand the law: http://www.sftu.org/omi.html http://www.sfrb.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=192...

This is not an OMI/(a)(8) eviction. Please actually read and understand the letter.

The news isn't about the legality of the rent increase - it's clearly legal - it's about the sanity of a world (or rather a city) in which this happens, and of the people who choose to live there.

Part of the outrage is that the owner is apparently being dishonest and provides no justification (and it's hard to imagine any reasonable justification) for suddenly demanding a 3x and security deposit increase.

What additional value has the owner provided the tenant to justify such a large increase?

If the owner wants the tenant out, the owner should say so, not hide behind some ridiculous attorney letter and extortionist rent increase.

Since when do people that own things have a moral obligation to justify their prices?

Since when do people have a moral obligation to anything?

I didn't claim a moral obligation. It is the market's prerogative to demand justification for a seller's price.

>It is the market's prerogative to demand justification for a seller's price.

Bollocks. It's the market's perogative to meet that price or not meet that price.

It is the market's prerogative to do whatever it wishes, including demanding more information before transacting.

I think it's pretty clear in this situation that the justification is "We don't want to rent our house to you anymore so we are raising the price to a point where you will move out."

That was not stated in this notice.

When the girl across the bar holds eye contact with you for a couple of seconds and then looks down and away she wants you to come talk to her.

Not everything is always stated in black and white.

When dealing with real transactions, every thing should be stated in black and white.

If you manage to combine a gender flame war with a rent flame war, you will win high trolling honors.

Hah yes. I almost didn't leave this comment due to tempting that other flame war. But it was the best example I could think of off the top of my head of an unstated but clear communication.

What part of a month-to-month rental contract do you not understand?

I am not completely familiar with SF's laws, but typically rent-control laws state that an owner may only evict a tenant for good cause and that leases are otherwise indefinite, at the tenant's discretion.

In this case, the owner has evaded rent-control to extrajudicially evict the tenant through extortionist pricing.

Why are leases otherwise indefinite?

1) Because that is generally the law. Typically with a 30 day notice of termination required from the tenant.

2) The reason for the law is that people should not be thrown out of their homes on the whims of a second or third party.

The law as it pertains to these contracts or all residential tenancy contracts in the US?

Are 3-, 6- and 12-month leases common? All the residential arrangements I know of here in Australia would be 6- or 12-monthly. Gives a tenant some certainty, but also enables a property owner to move back in, sell, redevelop, etc.

The law as it pertains to rent-controlled jurisdictions.

All lengths are common, though 12-month is perhaps the most common. In rent-controlled jurisdictions, when a lease expires it converts to a month-to-month tenancy where the owner may only evict for good cause (failure to pay rent, gross negligence, illegal activities, etc), but a tenant must provide 30 days notice of intent to abandon.

Often an owner is allowed to require a lease extension be signed, only if the extended lease is materially identical to the current lease except in expiration date (including length of the lease).

Almost everywhere in the US the standard is 12 month leases. Sometimes a landlord will do a 6 month lease. When these leases lapse (or if no lease was signed), the relationship is governed by landlord-tenant law, which usually states that the landlord must provide 14 or 30 days of notice when removing a month-to-month tenant.

I'm not very familiar with rent control practices, but in 99.9% of the US, this thing where the tenant is allowed to indefinitely block the usage of your own home is not done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com