Question about aging Victorians and crumbling sidewalks (San Francisco: rent, neighborhood)

[Malloric]

Union square itself isn't all that dirty. Go a few blocks in the wrong direction, however, and that all changes. I kind of get get a perverse... well, enjoyment isn't the right word, but it piques my interest... watching public housing projects decay. The open up all shiny and pretty decent looking and you're wondering why you're paying this much in rent for some substandard junk heap. Within a month it's covered in trash. Maybe they do graffiti abatement resulting in spotchy miscolored paint or maybe they don't. After a year or two the dirt cake is going pretty good and it gets dingy... rent control is much the same, just not quite as rapid.

[AngusHsu]

Originally Posted by beb0p

At the building where I rented for two yrs, four of the six units were occupied by long term tenants, all of them had lived there for over twenty-five years. One of the long term tenants is paying roughly $500 a month for the same layout that my roommate and I were paying $1,700. After deducting the cost of water, garbage, insurance, property tax, and basic maintenance; I estimate the landlord makes less than $200 profit from each of the long term tenant per month. Essentially, it comes out to roughly $40,000 of profit a year for the landlord (including the two market rate units rented to us and another group of new transplants). The average paint job for a Victorian is $25,000. (see Painter-gives-Victorians-colorful-makeovers) That particular building is big (four stories) so it'll be in the upper end in terms of cost, probably $35,000 and up. You do the math. Basically the landlord has to pay the entire year's rent for the paint job. All that work and he doesn't get to reap the benefit (rent increase). Plus, what the landlord really want is for all the long-term tenants to move away (so he can raise rent to the next occupants), so there is no incentive for him to make the place nice.

Yes, having a high percentage of renters in rent controlled units do add to the blight; it's not the only reason but it is a part of it. With emphasis on renters in rent controlled units. Often a renter stay at the same unit for a long time with only minuscule rent increase that encourages a renter not to move away; the landlord, not getting sufficient return on the rentals, often perform only the minimum maintenance to save on cost; knowing that the renter, being protected by rent control, will not move away even if the building is falling into disrepair. The landlord also do not want to make the building "too nice" because that'd encourage renters to stay when the landlord's goal is to create a lot of turnovers (ideally every three yrs or so) because he is allowed to raise the rent to market after the tenant vacates voluntarily.

NYC's rent control is nowhere as strict as SF plus NYC is a very landlord friendly place.

Why didn't you stay longer than 2 years? If I was to totally take advantage of rent control, I would rent a place for 15 years before buying a house. The savings from rent control allows me to buy. I won't move then for better jobs elsewhere.

It really can be a race to the bottom for some. Place doesn't get maintained because landlords are strapped, can't move elsewhere because of gentrification.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by AngusHsu

Why didn't you stay longer than 2 years? If I was to totally take advantage of rent control, I would rent a place for 15 years before buying a house. The savings from rent control allows me to buy. I won't move then for better jobs elsewhere.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of living with roommates; been doing it since college. It was fun for a long while but at some point I think everyone wants a place to call their own. Plus, the girls that I take home are more impressed now.

Your 15 year plan sounds like a winner. Wish you luck with finding your own place!

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by Isebiel

Sidewalk cleaning seems to be on the owner of the adjacent property. For the most part, in the areas I walk, the sidewalks are pretty clean. (Lower Pac Heights, Pac Heights, the Marina, Cow Hollow, Presidio Heights, Laurel Heights, the Richmond.) But yeah, the Mission is largely filthy, the Tendernob/Tenderloin too. Around Union Square and SoMa it varies block to block. Since there isn't much rain, it can get pretty nasty out there by fall!

They need these guys:




http://thinkbiggersanjose.blog.com/2...e-ambassadors/

Downtown San Jose is many things to many people, but dirty ain't one of 'em.

[Isebiel]

Today I saw a guy carefully, uh, shampooing the Temp Transbay Terminal bus spots.

Not that they seemed dirty. Gotta wonder how that got into a budget somewhere.

[mayorhaggar]

Lots of landlords bought their properties a long time ago and if they get new tenants can charge rates that make them a huge profit. And I assume they benefit from low property taxes due to prop 13. Yet they don't maintain their buildings because there's no incentive to--they could rent out a radioactive, rat-infested shack made of sheet metal and twine and someone would still want to rent it just because it's in San Francisco.

And then there's another class of landlords, people who bought more recently and had to leverage themselves a lot to buy an expensive building, and they don't really have any money to spare to maintain the place.

A lot of the dirt and grime is just because SF is an old city. But I really don't have much sympathy for someone who bought a building back in 1970 for pennies and is now raking in the dough every month and spending hardly anything on maintaining the place and letting it get more and more decrepit. Yeah, they got lucky, but their tenants didn't.

[Ultrarunner]

Several issues come to mind...

The first is every residential rental unit must be habitable as defined by code and this is often enforced via complaints or code compliance inspections.

So, if someone is willing to rent a non-compliant unit... part of the problem is on them.

As to painting... that is not so simple anymore.

For years, painting would be nothing more than getting a crew out with sanders, scrapers and torches to strip, repair, prime and top coat.

Doing this today would lead to serious health and safety violations, mostly due to the probability of lead in the paint.

For some owners, they opt to ignore the problem and do nothing... sometimes there are special funds set aside for lead mitigation that can be tapped into.

Maintaining paint on a 100 plus year old SF wood home is not small task doing it right and according to law... easy to spent tens of thousands on a modest home...

This is why I only own stucco homes... way too much work with old wood siding and now too much liability/cost.

No comment on sidewalks other than the city often ties repairs to permits for other work... if nothing is being done, chances are it has to be really bad for the city to step in unless it is a target area.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Lots of landlords bought their properties a long time ago and if they get new tenants can charge rates that make them a huge profit. And I assume they benefit from low property taxes due to prop 13. Yet they don't maintain their buildings because there's no incentive to--they could rent out a radioactive, rat-infested shack made of sheet metal and twine and someone would still want to rent it just because it's in San Francisco.

And then there's another class of landlords, people who bought more recently and had to leverage themselves a lot to buy an expensive building, and they don't really have any money to spare to maintain the place.

A lot of the dirt and grime is just because SF is an old city. But I really don't have much sympathy for someone who bought a building back in 1970 for pennies and is now raking in the dough every month and spending hardly anything on maintaining the place and letting it get more and more decrepit. Yeah, they got lucky, but their tenants didn't.

It's not just rentals... it is also owner occupied too!

I have friends in the city that have beautifully decorated/maintained interiors while the outsides look dumpy... some cultures are adverse or see spending money on exteriors as wasteful... at least this has been my observation.

In another part of the city that used to have manicured lawns as a mark of pride... they have all but disappeared while the insides of the homes are elegant...

[twins4lynn]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Lots of landlords bought their properties a long time ago and if they get new tenants can charge rates that make them a huge profit. And I assume they benefit from low property taxes due to prop 13.

Just wanted to comment on this one sentence. We've had our rent control property for a long time, all of the tenants have been there for 20+ years and are paying WAY below market rent. One tenant passed away a few years ago and that unit pays low for current SF rents, but much higher than the others in the building. Since the building is under rent control, the value of the building is also lower than non-rent controlled buildings. Our property tax is right on target for our buildings actual assessed value (in spite of prop. 13). In a few years the actual assessed value will be much lower than that indicated on the property tax.

[mayorhaggar]

I'm assuming you knew about rent control when you bought the building.