The Soviets would have understood this. I don't

[RichardR]

Actually I do understand it. It's just nuts.

See this San Francisco Chronicle article. Apparently, a San Francisco family is being evicted from their rent-controlled home after living there for 25 years. You see, there is a state law that allows landlords to evict renters from their building if they (the landlords) want their building back. This is the nuts part: advocates for the tenants call this a "ploy" that "makes a mockery of San Francisco's rent-control and tenant-protection laws".

Huh?

I'm ignoring, for now, the blindingly obvious fact that (to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Economics), rent control is already a mockery the laws of supply and demand. What astonished me is that this newspaper reports, in shocked tones, that a landlord has the audacity to want to use his own building.

Lets think about this. What is this "landlord" they refer to? Well, seems to me he is the person who found the property, found the money for the down-payment, qualified for the loan, invested the time, paid the legal fees, bought the property, paid the property taxes (whether or not he was collecting rent), paid to insure and maintain the building (whether or not he was collecting rent), assumed liability for what happened in the building, took the risk that prices might fall and provided a place for the renter to live. In other words, he owns the property.

What is this "tenant"? Well, seems to me he wanted somewhere to live, but did not want to, or was not able to: find the property, find the money for the down-payment, qualify for the loan, invest the time, pay the legal fees, buy the property, pay the property taxes, pay to insure and maintain the building, or take any the risks at all. In other words, he doesn't own the property. And yet, apparently some people think he should have the right to stay there for ever, at (get this), a rental price based on what it was when he moved in.

In other words, the tenant should have the same rights and privileges as the owner, but without all the pesky inconvenience of actually finding the property, finding the money for the down-payment, qualifying for the loan, investing the time, paying the legal fees, buying the property, paying the property taxes, paying to insure and maintain the building, and taking the risks.

You wouldn't believe that's what "tenant" and "landlord" meant from this article. Just look at these quotes:

"It's like being stabbed in the back," said Dulalas, 40, whose 11-member family will have to move within the year from the three-bedroom home it rents for about $500. "Where are we going to go, especially in San Francisco? It's so hard to find affordable housing."

Did you pick up on that? These 11 people have been paying only $500 rent a month to this private person who owns the building and who hasn't been able to raise the rent by more than a few percentage points for 25 years. And the fact they can't find similar housing at this knock-down price is, what, the landlord's fault? Must be.

Under the law, which trumps local tenant-protection measures -- owners who want to stop renting their units can petition the city rent board for permission to do so. In most circumstances, tenants who receive written notification of the eviction proceedings have 120 days to leave their homes

Get that? Property owners in SF have to beg the local government for permission to be allowed to stop renting out their own property!

People who are disabled or elderly, which is the case at the Folsom Street property where the Dulalas live, have a year to leave their apartments,

Read that again. Yes, you heard right. These whiners have twelve months to move out. I support legislation to protect tenants – especially long term ones – from being thrown out with short notice. Twelve months is not short notice. (Remember, they don't own the property.)

Dean Preston, Tenderloin Housing Clinic staff attorney, said more needs to be done to protect tenants in high-rent San Francisco, where tenants can wind up being kicked out of rent-controlled apartments with nowhere comparably priced to go.

Yes, something needs to be done. Abolishing rent control and all the rest of this nonsense would be a good start. What's the betting that wasn't what he meant?

Building owners can use the Ellis Act to evict their renters and sell the building

Oh no! A property owner can legally sell his own property? Pass the smelling salts.

No wonder rents have been high in SF – who the hell would ever want to buy and rent out a property here and have the government tell them what they can do with it for the next 25 years?

Seriously, does anyone here not think this tenant protection culture in SF has gone too far?

 

[American]

There's no other way to go but a moderate approach. Crazy high rent sucks, but rent control sucks too. It also sucks having tenants who abuse the law to skirt paying market rates on-time. Sucks too having a bad landlord. Sucks that renters pay and gain no equity. Eviction battles suck.

I don't know what Cali is like, but Massachusetts is doing a decent job at this stuff. Rent's very high, but it's still fair all things considered. As long as you know your rights on both sides, the system works OK.

Seriously, does anyone here not think this tenant protection culture in SF has gone too far?

This is the city where you bring in a 1(?) month old receipt for dog food, and it "proves" that you live there and can get a welfare check for being homeless.


(edit-- there's a lot of gay guys in San Francisco. Hey, I'm just saying...)

 

[Bjorn]

I own property that I rent, and want to be free to do whatever I like whenever I like - including telling the tenant that I want him to move. The reason is none of his business.

However, I have questions: Did this San Fran house owner know the rules/laws when he bought the place? Were they the same? Did he go into some legal agreement and later decided he didn't like the arrangement?

If you sign a deal under laws you know, you shouldn't complain later - even if those laws might not have been your preferred ones.

Or did they change the law during his ownership?

In other words, the tenant should have the same rights and privileges as the owner

No. But he should have the rights he and the landlord were aware of at the time he rented the place, shouldn't he?

When I bought my property and rented it, I had to look into the rules and regulations before I made my decision - I guess that applies to the owner as well as the tenant.

As long as you know your rights on both sides, the system works OK.

Exactly .....

 

[Phrost]

And that is why I moved out of California.

The more ambitious, motivated, and ultimately successful you are, the more you're penalized.

On the other hand, if you're lazy, inept, or just a screw up in general, you practically get a free ride. Seriously, I know of a woman (related to an in-law) who gets permenant disability from the state for a heart condition brought on by SMOKING CRACK.

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but without rent control, the market would dictate the price of rent, as opposed to government. There would be a healthy rise and fall in rent as people moved away from overpriced areas.

Hippies suck.

 

[American]

And that is why I moved out of California.

The more ambitious, motivated, and ultimately successful you are, the more you're penalized.

On the other hand, if you're lazy, inept, or just a screw up in general, you practically get a free ride. Seriously, I know of a woman (related to an in-law) who gets permenant disability from the state for a heart condition brought on by SMOKING CRACK.

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but without rent control, the market would dictate the price of rent, as opposed to government. There would be a healthy rise and fall in rent as people moved away from overpriced areas.

Hippies suck.

May I recommend:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116225/

 

[RichardR]

Did this San Fran house owner know the rules/laws when he bought the place? Were they the same? Did he go into some legal agreement and later decided he didn't like the arrangement?

I'm not sure as it isn't reported. However, I doubt if the landlord would have freely entered into an agreement to rent his property for 25+ years. The rent control laws have become progressively more oppressive over the years. This law apparently is new, and allows owners, under certain circumstances, to get their property back.

I just love the way these tenant support groups seem to think tenants should have the same rights and benefits as owners – ie can stay forever / price is fixed based on what it was when they moved in, etc. Insanity.

 

[RichardR]

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but without rent control, the market would dictate the price of rent, as opposed to government. There would be a healthy rise and fall in rent as people moved away from overpriced areas.

Agreed. In fact, overall rents would almost certainly be lower.

 

[Phrost]

Another comforting California anecdote.

I know a couple who rented out a house to a family in San Jose. After a few months, they decided to stop paying rent.

A few months later, and after extensive legal action, the case was given to a mediator. After around nine months without paying rent, and after having practically vandalized the house this couple owned, the family was finally forced to leave.

The couple to this day never recieved more than a few hundred dollars for damages and back rent on a house that was renting for nearly $2000 a month.

The state of California to me is the only compelling reason to believe in a God. After having lived there for a few years, I came to the conclusion that God was a possibility because SOME entity had managed to bring together in a single state the worst human beings on the planet, for some unknown purpose.

From PC Nazis, to Hippies, to sociocomunistic leftist welfare state proponents, to the generations of familys content to live off someone else's tax burden and the prison-esque culture that's created, any rational individual would start to wonder if there was a God, and he was gathering all these people for the purposes of sinking them into the ocean.

 

[gnome]

I agree with the new law... a landlord should be able to use their property for other purposes at will, as long as they give sufficient notice.

However, I'm not sure I'm entirely against rent controls in the first place. Is it a case of the less wealthy voting themselves a share of what rightfully belongs to those who could afford it in the free market, just because they can?

Or is there a benifit to set up some property in a high-demand area to be rented to people at a more affordable rate? Isn't there some actual reason this was done? Or is it just a power play?

I guess I should look it up myself... but if someone knows already, it could move the discussion along faster.

 

[RichardR]

However, I'm not sure I'm entirely against rent controls in the first place. Is it a case of the less wealthy voting themselves a share of what rightfully belongs to those who could afford it in the free market, just because they can?

I would ask, why should a small number of private property owners be forced to rent property to the less wealthy at a loss to themselves?

The problems with rent control are:

1) It discourages private landlords from putting property into the rental market. The reduction in supply means overall rents are higher.

2) Some people pay lower rents, but others pay much higher ones. That is because, when a renter moves out, the new rent can (initially) be set at the market rate. Since people in low rent (rent controlled) places will be less likely to move, there is less rental property available and so the new rents are higher than they would have been if there was no rent control. This is in addition to the effects due to point (1)

3) Landlords are discouraged from doing maintenance or improvements on their properties as they cannot pass on the costs to their tenants.

4) Low income people become trapped where they live. They cannot move as they would have to rent at the new market levels.

5) Poor people moving to the area are not helped, as they (initially) have to pay the higher rents.

6) It is corrupt. Rich people can gain the benefits of rent control, and often tenants illegally sub-lease their rent controlled apartments to friends and relatives.

An honest way to help the poor would be in welfare – rent subsidies and the like. But politicians find it easier to enact rent control, that costs them nothing.

Or is there a benifit to set up some property in a high-demand area to be rented to people at a more affordable rate? Isn't there some actual reason this was done? Or is it just a power play?

I think what you mean here is public housing for the less well off. Yes, there is a benefit to doing this Imo. In fact, it is essential. IMO this should be done instead of rent control.

 

[The idea]

[...]I know a couple who rented out a house to a family in San Jose. After a few months, they decided to stop paying rent.

A few months later, and after extensive legal action, the case was given to a mediator. After around nine months without paying rent, and after having practically vandalized the house this couple owned, the family was finally forced to leave.

The couple to this day never received more than a few hundred dollars for damages and back rent on a house that was renting for nearly $2000 a month.

The state of California to me is the only compelling reason to believe in a God. After having lived there for a few years, I came to the conclusion that God was a possibility because SOME entity had managed to bring together in a single state the worst human beings on the planet, for some unknown purpose.

Maybe they were brought together to make noise loud enough to drive their neighbors to another city, another state, or another country.

The state of California to me is the only compelling reason to believe in a God. After having lived there for a few years, I came to the conclusion that God was a possibility because SOME entity had managed to bring together in a single state the worst human beings on the planet, for some unknown purpose.

I like this writing and I hope that someone remembers it when it comes time for the language awards.

 

[Phrost]

Well thank you very much. I'm not sure it would qualify as it's a really bad run-on sentence, but I appreciate the sentiment.

 

[Dancing David]

Even as a socialist and a bleeding heart liberal I don't understand goofy rent control and tenant rights laws.

I mean really if the government card they could subsidise the rent.

In Illinois you pay your rent or they can move for a five day evidt, depending on local regulations. I have heard that in Oregon you can live rent free for nine months while you wait for the landlord to evict you, which is crap.(If true)

In my town I hate the crappy landlords and the crappy tenants.

 

[RichardR]

Even as a socialist and a bleeding heart liberal I don't understand goofy rent control and tenant rights laws.

I mean really if the government card they could subsidise the rent.

Exactly! That would involve raising taxes, though. It's easier for polititians to introduce rent control and then say they are doing something. The economocally ignorant agree with it and the dishonest or lazy politicos legislate for it.

 

[gnome]

Again, I see a lot of assuming about why it is done, and not a lot of checkable information... if they could use subsidies or public housing instead, why didn't they? Dishonest or lazy, perhaps, but they didn't stand in front of the legislature and say "We're doing this because we're dishonest and lazy."... I want to hear the actual arguments of the pro- side, and critique them, before I'm really satisfied on this issue.

 

[Skeptic]

The state of California to me is the only compelling reason to believe in a God. After having lived there for a few years, I came to the conclusion that God was a possibility because SOME entity had managed to bring together in a single state the worst human beings on the planet, for some unknown purpose.

Boccachio beat you to the punch by, oh, 700 years or so.

He tells in the Decameron of an old jew who visits Rome--and instantly converts to Catholicism. Why? He figures that a religion that can actually stand the horrific behavior of the cardinals, pope, and bishops he saw and still exist, must be the true religion.

As for the "unknown purpose"--it's actually pretty clear. When tons of money is spent on drug addicts or repeat criminals without demanding the least accountability in return, that's where they're going to move.

To give an opposite example, Guiliani made New York city great again. How? He slashed welfare and homeless benefits dramatically, making it not worth it for the average hobo to come to NY for free social services, and making it worthwhile for the poor to find jobs.

Don't get me wrong. I am not blaming the poor for "laziness" for relying on welfare. It's just that before Guliani, it was often the case that if you found a job, you'd get less money than by not working and living on the public dole. One can hardly blame anybody, especially the poor, for not finding a job when it, in effect, was something you had to pay for!

When benefits declined, and taxes on low-wages work also declined since there was no need to support so many social programs, the same "lazy" poor were for the most part quite willing to work.

 

[Bjorn]

Don't get me wrong. I am not blaming the poor for "laziness" for relying on welfare. It's just that before Guliani, it was often the case that if you found a job, you'd get less money than by not working and living on the public dole. One can hardly blame anybody, especially the poor, for not finding a job when it, in effect, was something you had to pay for!

When benefits declined, and taxes on low-wages work also declined since there was no need to support so many social programs, the same "lazy" poor were for the most part quite willing to work.

Skeptic, I'm not sure if you are saying that it is still so in California (that you often make less by working than by living on the public dole).

If you are, please advice me where and how to find these wonderful programs, as I'm looking for a non-working, well-paid position.

Please give details, as I haven't been able to find them myself and was starting to think it was a myth.

 

[Dancing David]

[
As for the "unknown purpose"--it's actually pretty clear. When tons of money is spent on drug addicts or repeat criminals without demanding the least accountability in return, that's where they're going to move.

Sorry old bean I call you on your hyperbole, where is money just handed out to drug addicts? As a social worker i am aware of the fact that before Medicaid and welfare reform, the US reformed SSI and SSDI, drug addicts can no longer recieve disablity for having a drug addiction, they can recieve SSI or SSDI for another disabling condition.

So call me a sceptic but , where is this program and how is it run. How do drug addicts get money for being addicted?

Cite your sources and expand my horizons. If you knew a little about substance abuse treatment then you would know that it is a long term process.

I call your bid, show me the source, I am very interested.

 

[a_unique_person]

The difference is that California is a democracy. The majority have voted for people who implement that policy.

They are in effect saying, although in a non targeted way and in a way that is not efficient, we don't think your power should be so great compared to ours.

 

[The idea]

The difference is that California is a democracy.

Too many people vote.