Posted on 06/26/2016 9:18:46 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A San Francisco man is fighting to stay in his apartment, after his landlord suddenly hiked his rent from $1,800 a month to $8,000.
The tenant has appealed this incredible rent hike to the city, but it may be too late. He may find himself out of his apartment before the city's rent board decides if it's legal or not. One thing is certain -- it's one of the highest rent increases in recent history in San Francisco.
The apartment building sits in the heart of North Beach, on the corner of Columbus and Scotland streets.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc13.com ...
Most cities have limitations by code of a percentage allowed per year. Usually 10%.
This is a repeat of a recent FR post. I said there and still say, pay up or move out. This is a rental property and the owner should be allowed to charge whatever they want. It is their property. Period.
There's got to be more to this story, unrevealed facts that need to be reported. San Francisco does have stringent rent control, and there are many limitations against landlords hiking rent. There was a recent similar story a couple months ago in SF. A huge rent increase was warranted because of major work done on a building. If major work was done on this building, the improvements that tenants would enjoy would warrant a rent increase.
I agree, this is between two parties, no one else should be involved. THAT SAID, come on, this is just an evasion of SF's no fault eviction and tenant relocation payout system, and the landlord's gambling that the tenant will willingly move out, then further gambling that he'll get the one judge in SF who says 'well, he got notice about the rate increase, if he objected, the time to do it was then.'
Honestly, I think it was a foolish choice. Calculate in the tenant payout in your plans and just call it a day, a far better plan than this.
Because what is the worst case? Worst case is that the rent board comes back and says 'Nope. Can't raise it. Rent stays at $1,800 a month for the next 3 years before you can attempt to raise it again, and you have to submit that plan to us in writing no less than 90 days in advance,' blah blah blah.
Live by rent control, die by rent control. Move out of evil Frisco.
Frisco is in Texas.
You're correct about the stringent rent control, so I don't understand the HUGE hike. The guy MIGHT be running a business from where he is as well. We aren't hearing the entire story, I think.
No rent control for buildings built after 1979. No rent control for “separately alienable” units [condos being rented and single family homes] for tenancies that commenced after January 1, 1996.
This is a very very very tricky business. There are attorneys who make their living suing Landlords whose attorneys who tried to evict San Francisco tenants and screwed it up.
Rules of thumb or stuff you heard doesn’t work here.
So Boeing bribed Obama and the GOP, to do the Iran deal, so Iran could use some of those billions to buy Boeing jets, but they want a guarantee what Iran will put inside the jets for cargo.
Wow... just wow. With the corporate and political leadership in this country, no wonder we have become a laughingstock.
Dont know if this is the right thread for your comment, but great post!!
It’s a disgrace and treason at every level!!!
Well, the way some people look at this, yes, he has a constitutional right to live in one of the priciest neighborhoods in one of the priciest cities in America. After all, we have to battle the evil 1% and all that. (sarcasm)
Agreed. Any other position is anti-freedom.
Good link, thanks. It explains what can happen. A single tenant in the building falls under a different law, allowing large rent increases. After a secondary tenant moves out, the landlord removes the second unit making it storage space or a garage etc., allowing the building to become single tenant occupied. Makes sense. Your link describes the building being in Bernal Heights in SF. That's where I lived 60 years ago. My parents bought their house in the early 1950s for $6,000 fully furnished with chinaware and silverware, putting $100 down. Same house now goes for $1.5 million. Used to be a blue collar neighborhood, until an influx of yuppies in the mid-1970s gentrified the neighborhood.
I haven’t seen anyone here discuss other factors like “what is the property tax situation on the property for the owner?” “What are the insurance costs?” “What are the licenses, fee and permit costs, if any?”
For $1800/month for a single tenant, SF property taxes could be even higher than that. The city beast MUST be fed you know.
Would it really be worth it to pay 10x as much for an apartment in S.F. than somewhere 30 miles N of Detroit? You’d really have to want to live there and that seems kinda irrational to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.