SF Rent Ordinance: Like a Bomb You Don't Hear Till It Hits

Townhall.com ^ | October 26, 2014 | Debra J. Saunders

[morphing libertarian]

What a waste of such a beautiful place

Neutron bomb and start all over

[GeronL]

the Levins served a notice of termination of tenancy and paid their tenant $2,600 -- the first half of a city-mandated relocation payment, with the second half due when the tenant moved out 120 days later. The tenant claimed a disability, which entitled her to a one-year extension and an extra $3,500

I find this alone to be insane. Much less the rest of it.

[GeronL]

Suddenly, the Levins had to pay their tenant $118,000 to leave

Pure evil.

Pretty soon there will be no rental properties in pervtown

[Disambiguator]

I asked Levin about his politics. "I'm a lifelong Democrat myself," he told me. "My wife is, too. We vote that way."

I have no sympathy for this couple. This is what they voted for!

[GeronL]

With rules like that, there will be no rental properties at all. How does this help the poorer residents long term? Oh, there won’t be any.

[Kaslin]

Excellent point

[riri]

I have only visited once and , despite it’s natural beauty, it left me with a depressed sort of feeling. Also the feeling of needing a long, hot shower.

[Kaslin]

[Dick Vomer]

Stick a penny in the fuse box and burn it down

[WKTimpco]

“With rules like that...”

Bingo. The article doesn’t take
an economist’s stance. Tenant
“protections” are the disincentives
for landlords that create lower
supply and higher rental prices.

Pols know that and use it to make
themselves the perpetual saviors of
“the little guy.” The US constitution
was written to allow only property
owners the right to vote for a reason:
“the little guy” can’t figure out why
he’s being had.

[KarlInOhio]

Crazy laws like this are one reason why no one builds new rental property there. Rent to a business? Fine. But never build to rent to someone to live there. And then listen to the city council cry about the lack of affordable housing.

It might be that the only way out of this is eviction by oxidation, where the newly bare lot will be worth more than the lot plus house with the very expensive renter.

[Thank You Rush]

“”On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, found the ordinance unconstitutional””

Is it unconstitutional or not? It is written as tho’ the law is being enforced regardless of the court action and opinion! I don’t get it.

[Thank You Rush]

“”I have only visited once and , despite it’s natural beauty, it left me with a depressed sort of feeling””

I lived in Sacramento for years and always looked forward to trips to “the city.” There was an atmosphere there unlike no other city I’ve ever visited. Just seeing and traveling over the bridges was thrilling to me.

[GeronL]

did you like the Folsom Street Festivals?

[GeronL]

Who knows anymore? It’s hard to get actual answers from “journalists” or columnists any more.

[GeronL]

And then listen to the city council cry about the lack of affordable housing.

exactly

[riri]

It was quite some time ago. It was my first, and possibly only, time seeing a needle drop box at the Safeway. I remember the homeless people traveling in packs. And, always, I remember picking up one of the community newspapers and reading a Dear Abby type article about a guy who worked in the library that had a stump fetish and whether he should approach a patron who always came in that had a stump leg or something.

We were 24 and actually contemplating moving there. We left the east coast and set out for greener pastures. I looked at my boyfriend (now my husband) and said, "I can't live here--let's go back to the Southwest". We decided on Albuquerque, did that for two years and then Phoenix for the next 17--give or take for a few stints here and there.

[Covenantor]

Until I found out they were dems I was going to suggest they speak to one of Oakland’s motorcycle enthusiasts clubs. I understand they can provide personal on-site relocation counseling while providing compelling evidence of the joys of moving and the avoidance of orthopedic adjustments in situ.

All for a nominal cost far less than city imposed costs.

[Mr Rogers]

A tenant is not a parasite. They are paying and you have a contract with them. In this case, the city used the law to retroactively change the contract, which is unjust. But I’ve been a tenant before, and I wasn’t sponging off of anyone. Nor could I be evicted immediately on the owners whim - both the law and our contract prevented that.

[vette6387]

We have friends who bought a four unit apartment house on Telegraph Hill that was fully rented when they purchased it (probably 15 years ago). For the first year or more, when they came to town (their primary residence was out of state) all they could do was stay in a hotel and have lunch on the rooftop garden of their property. Then the city came in and required earthquake retrofitting (which required that they “relocate” the first and second floor tenants at their expense while the work was being done). They managed to “payoff” the second floor tenant so they would agree not to come back. So now, after a couple of years, they could actually stay in their own building. But they wanted to occupy the penthouse, which was at the time occupied by a 60 plus year old single accountant (this is important because the rules are more stringent for people over 60 is SF). After five years, somehow their third floor tenant moved out and they were able to “move up,” but the penthouse seemed elusive. But finally luck hit, the penthouse occupant got himself a girlfriend ( I guess there is sex after 60) who lived out in the Valley and he left. So it took them ten years to get to live in the top floor unit of their own building. Their only other option at the time of purchase would have been to kick everyone out ( with suitable cash for leaving) and agree to not rent any part of the building for ten years.
What’s really funny is that they are a childless couple who are both very liberal RATS, so it’s been interesting to see how laws that seemingly they support (but for thee not for me though) work against them. The other issue is SF’s rent control statutes only allow landlords to raise rents no more than 60% of the actual increase in the COL each year, which results in landlords not having the means to maintain their properties. Go figure.