Landlord wants to kick me out to sell his house--what to do? (San Francisco: 2014, rentals)

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

The landlord hasn't resorted to the Ellis Act yet. OP probably needs an advocate to handle this.

Whether or not he has resorted to that is irrelevant. Based on the limited information given by the original poster, it is the only just cause for eviction the landlord has.

jjj321, I didn't want to extend the post to put all the causes, but I think if you look at the list (which I suspect you've already seen), I'm sure you'll agree with me

https://www.sftu.org/justcauses/

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

As to the broader issue of rent control: it is probably the case that high rents lead cities to enact rent control, not the other way around. Rent control in SF does not apply to new construction. I am very confident that SF rents would not drop if you eliminated rent control. Cf. our only real world example: Boston.

It really doesn't matter what misguided notion the politicians were under (or the "broader issue") when they implemented rent control. The results speak for themselves (and exasperating a problem is not solution). Ironically, rent control was passed in 1979, but the first commissioned study in SF on it didn't take place until early in the year 2000 (most logical thinking people would have done the study first I imagine). The biggest myth is that rent control helps the poor. It helps those poor people who happen to have an apartment when rent control laws are passed -- but it also helps the affluent and even the rich who happen to be on the inside looking out. My previous comment can stand on its merit (I'm not going to sidetrack the thread by getting into an extensive conversation about something that is apparent). I was merely commenting on a misnomer stated by the OP.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

Whether or not he has resorted to that is irrelevant. Based on the limited information given by the original poster, it is the only just cause for eviction the landlord has.

jjj321, I didn't want to extend the post to put all the causes, but I think if you look at the list (which I suspect you've already seen), I'm sure you'll agree with me

https://www.sftu.org/justcauses/

It really doesn't matter what misguided notion the politicians were under (or the "broader issue") when they implemented rent control. The results speak for themselves (and exasperating a problem is not solution). Ironically, rent control was passed in 1979, but the first commissioned study in SF on it didn't take place until early in the year 2000 (most logical thinking people would have done the study first I imagine). The biggest myth is that rent control helps the poor. It helps those poor people who happen to have an apartment when rent control laws are passed -- but it also helps the affluent and even the rich who happen to be on the inside looking out. My previous comment can stand on its merit (I'm not going to sidetrack the thread by getting into an extensive conversation about something that is apparent). I was merely commenting on a misnomer stated by the OP.

An Ellis Act eviction requires the landlord to actually file for an Ellis Act eviction. It also requires 120 day notice and pulling all units in the building off of the rental market. And there are drawbacks to Ellis, like reoccupancy/re-rental restrictions lasting 5/10 years (even if the building is demolished and another built in its place), and extended notice for senior or disabled tenants. A negotiation between the landlord and tenant can help the landlord avoid those drawbacks in exchange for money. And those drawbacks + a relocation payment + the time required are probably worth considerably more than $5,500 to the landlord (keep in mind that it's $5500 per tenant).

To the broader issue: rent control helps people across the income spectrum, certainly--that does not make it unjust or immoral. Rent control helps renters and hurts landlords of old buildings. Your assumption that it exasperates the problem of high cost housing is just that: an assumption.

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

There's very little movement so it doesn't foster competition, and when a unit becomes available, no one is going to rent to you at anything below market because they know they're locked in to that rent as their basis. It also restricts construction of new buildings as investors know their revenue will be capped. It actually does the exact opposite of what you claim.

Market is just that: the price at which seller and buyer agree.

Construction of new buildings is unaffected by 2nd generation rent control.

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

I find it humorous when you read the multiple posts on housing density (which in all likelihood ain't going to happen). If those that post those threads had any clue, they'd realize that if you just eliminated rent control, you would at least temporarily have rents drop.

You have zero proof that rents would drop if rent control were eliminated. San Francisco, and the greater Bay Area, have high housing costs because a lot of people want to live here, there are a lot of high paying jobs, and new housing and transportation infrastructure are not being built.

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

I believe last I checked, something like 70% of the rentals in SF were under rent control. Get rid of that and all those selfish people looking out for their own best interests (just having some fun here since they tend to use that argument against natives), could displace all the people paying low rents and get in at less than the current market price of $3600 for a one bedroom.

Doubtful. And many rent controlled units are near the current market price (i.e., they are recently rented out).

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

An Ellis Act eviction requires the landlord to actually file for an Ellis Act eviction. It also requires 120 day notice and pulling all units in the building off of the rental market. And there are drawbacks to Ellis, like reoccupancy/re-rental restrictions lasting 5/10 years (even if the building is demolished and another built in its place), and extended notice for senior or disabled tenants. A negotiation between the landlord and tenant can help the landlord avoid those drawbacks in exchange for money. And those drawbacks + a relocation payment + the time required are probably worth considerably more than $5,500 to the landlord (keep in mind that it's $5500 per tenant).

Obviously you didn't understand what I posted. Should I repeat it for you?

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

To the broader issue: rent control helps people across the income spectrum, certainly--that does not make it unjust or immoral. Rent control helps renters and hurts landlords of old buildings. Your assumption that it exasperates the problem of high cost housing is just that: an assumption.

No more of an assumption than the people that claim in increase in housing density would reduce rents for a short term (and that is all anyone is claiming so don't try and twist this into something it's not). It's based on the logical assumption of supply and demand.

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

Market is just that: the price at which seller and buyer agree.

Construction of new buildings is unaffected by 2nd generation rent control.

Actually the market is the going rate established by a wide array of buyers in sellers. It doesn't change my comment. My wife and I are landlords out of state. Our tenants pay below market (we could get roughly $150 over market but are pleased with the fact that they are good tenants, take care of the place and pay on time). If we were in a rent control market, there's a good chance our thought process would be different because the ability to move the rent would be restricted (don't think it's that hard to understand)

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

You have zero proof that rents would drop if rent control were eliminated. San Francisco, and the greater Bay Area, have high housing costs because a lot of people want to live here, there are a lot of high paying jobs, and new housing and transportation infrastructure are not being built.

Already stated my reasoning behind this concept. Not much more to say on it. If you choose to deny that, then feel free to share your thoughts with those that are encouraging housing density for the same reason

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

Doubtful. And many rent controlled units are near the current market price (i.e., they are recently rented out).

Got some stats from a credible source on that? Love to see them.

[Ultrarunner]

There are unintended consequences of rent control or many that are intended?

A common provision is that rent increases not used can be banked... a landlord go choose to forego an annual increase but still have the right to apply that increase at a later date.

Now, in some areas, a moratorium on rent increases and caps are in place...

"Nice" owners lose out again when the rules change mid-stream.

About 20 years ago I started to transition into commercial property with no regrets.

[WithDisp]

What are the terms of your lease?

I don't think most SFH have guaranteed lease renewals. Are you month to month or on a lease?

[Luke9686]

This is the reason California is ****. A self entitled douche bag giving an old man crap for wanting to sell his own house.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

What are the terms of your lease?

I don't think most SFH have guaranteed lease renewals. Are you month to month or on a lease?

That does not matter in San Francisco, in terms of eviction protection. The general rule in California is that a lease becomes month-to-month when the lease term ends. Yet, in San Francisco, a month-to-month lease does not mean that the landlord can evict in any given month. The rent control law gives greater protections than a lease term.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by Luke9686

This is the reason California is ****. A self entitled douche bag giving an old man crap for wanting to sell his own house.

Or an old man doesn't want to take the property value hit of an occupied building on sale, but doesn't want to comply with the law, either. The old man is free to sell the house for the market value, and the new owner will take over the landlord-tenant relationship.

[alliance]

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

Or an old man doesn't want to take the property value hit of an occupied building on sale, but doesn't want to comply with the law, either. The old man is free to sell the house for the market value, and the new owner will take over the landlord-tenant relationship.

The point made was that the law is stupid, hence the blame of california in that post.

And I agree. Property owners and business owners basically have no rights in the city, and yet pay for close to 100% of the city's budget through property and gross receipts (formerly payroll) city taxes.

[Ceece]

How long have you been there OP?