Posted on 10/26/2014 6:46:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
I found a video by a Canadian couple living in Seoul South Korea, they hired movers for the first time after the landlord tried to triple their rent (gonna rip off those foreigners, I guess). For about $600-700 these 6 guys and one lady came and packed everything for them, laid down rubber mats in the hallways to keep from scuffing the floors and then carried it all to the new apartment, unpacked everything (You gotta be there to tell them where to put the dishes and stuff or spend all day rearranging it), installed everything, like plugging in the microwaves and TV’s and stuff and then they cleaned the new apartment. Basically they worked all day for about a hundred bucks each. That is some detailed moving service.
(oh they also had to “rent” the elevators in the buildings for this moving out and moving in)
They did give them enough extra for a meal (traditional to feed these guys)
I also learned that you don’t clean apartments when you move out, and they are not cleaned before you move in. (!!) Some traditions are weird.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6VF9Ep60kw
If they seem a bit off, they are Canadian...
“Pretty soon there will be no rental properties in pervtown “
Wrong, the employees of Google and Facebook, with their high-flying salaries are taking over areas of SF that were blighted and turning them into high-end residential areas (Just take a look at Potrero Hill and the Third St. Areas). It’s so bad that those being pushed out are lying down in front of the company motor coaches that carry these people from SF to the Peninsula to their workplaces. And FB is trying to set up Ferry Service for their people to avoid the traffic. FB is located on the Bay in Menlo Park in the old Sun Microsystems “Sun Quentin” facility that was originally supposed to be where Raychem was going to expand, but later sold. It’s fun to watch rich liberals f—k poor liberals. Sorta like Russia under Communism!
We didn’t go there to see the freaks - I guess that’s what you’re asking. Why would anyone seek them out when the city is the attraction, not the people?
My wife and I are currently remodeling her mother's vacant home in San Francisco. When she became unable to care for herself, we took her in for a year, then we placed her in assisted living. A couple of my wife's siblings took legal action against us, trying to wrest control from my wife, because the greedy jerks wanted an early inheritance (trying to borrow against the mom's assets). One of their lawyer's claims was that we were not generating income from renting the vacant house. We successfully fended them off.
We could get easily get $3500 to $5000 a month rent from the property, but see no reason to do so because of the SF rental rules being against property owners. So it's been vacant almost three years while we slowly renovate it for potential sale. Meanwhile, it goes up about ten percent in value every year because of the hot real estate market. That more than offsets any profits from rent. Potential $40,000 a year in rent before deducting expenses, versus $100,000 a year in increasing value while vacant. Home is worth well over $1 mil, multiple bidders common with sales hundreds of thousands over asking prices. Lots of buyers as well as renters. Lots of people afraid to convert to rental market. We're keeping it off the rental market.
It would have been easier for the tenant to have an accident.
This amounts to “exploitation” (to use Rat jargon) of hardworking property owners pure and simple. Of course, Rats with high level political-connections get waivers from these very laws.
It is
naturally, they'd trashed the place. Cost me serious $$ to get everything in shape for the next folks. Fortunately it only took a few days to find and vet new renters.
a few years later when we were living there again, a fellow running for sheriff came by and I mentioned the situation. He knew exactly who I was talking about. Even knew their names. I was not apparently not the first on to be suckered by these lowlifes.
funny thing is, I never actually had to threaten any violence. Texas' laws regarding long guns are excellent. Handguns, not so much.
I don’t quite get it.
What I understand here is that the city supervisors created an ordinance that allows people to essentially live free for two years, with the landlords footing the costs. Then a district judge found the ordinance unconstitutional.
But the article goes on to discuss the ordinance as if it is in full effect? What did I miss?
If the city got a stay of the court’s decision pending appeal, then the ordinance is still in effect.
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.