Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-05-2016, 01:07 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,260,344 times
Reputation: 7528

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjj321 View Post
I've been living in an in-law unit on the bottom level of a house--not sure if it's a legal unit or not, the landlord claims it is--and the landlord has served a 60 day termination of tenancy notice because he wants to sell his house.
I don't understand your entitlement attitude. It's not your property you are a renter. If the owner wants to sell that's their prerogative and they gave you a full 60 days to find a new place. That's more than enough time to find a new place to live.

I don't understand where this mindset comes from that you deserve precedence over someones else's property as a renter. The right thing to do is move out. It's not your property and you were given ample time to find a new place.

The things I hear on this forum with respect to renters having more rights than property owners is shocking and appalling. I would never rent out any space in my home in a place with laws like SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2016, 08:06 AM
 
28,115 posts, read 63,672,505 times
Reputation: 23268
^^^ I know at least one triplex that has two vacant units... the elderly owner had so much trouble with her SF renters that she said never again... so the units sit vacant.

In my own family my Uncle has two units that he uses for storage because he simply refuses to deal with everything being a residential landlord has become... Just Cause Eviction, Business License, etc.

Someone from the city actually tried to fine him for not having a current rental license... he was able to have the city verify the units were off the market.

Private property ownership here is an ever increasing list of demands and responsibilities with ever decreasing benefits.

Case in point... I work with a 50+ year old Anesthesiologist... he moved to SF for his residency and rents an apartment in a great location and pays about a third of market rent... HE IS A WELL PAID DOCTOR and is also a legacy tenant... the owners have offered to buy him out and he refuses... crazy... that someone well off is required to be subsidized by a for profit small business owner.

The real kicker is he and his wife have a home in Alamo worth several million and he keeps the SF Apartment to use for their get away and for friends to crash... he was even doing the short term rentals for awhile and making big money...

The situation is just crazy...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2016, 08:13 AM
 
91 posts, read 109,764 times
Reputation: 113
just get out they gave you sixty days to find another place just leave geez
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2016, 01:26 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
2,416 posts, read 2,023,673 times
Reputation: 3999
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjbaby View Post
just get out they gave you sixty days to find another place just leave geez
A pretty fair summation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2016, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Pleasanton, CA
2,406 posts, read 6,040,074 times
Reputation: 4251
From 2009-2014 I lived in a very nice single family home in a neighborhood I loved. I even had really great neighbors. My landlord only raised my rent by $100 the entire time I lived there and I was still paying less than market rate.

In 2014, my landlord decided to sell his primary residence and move back into "my" home I'd lived in for 5 years. How dare he?! (sarcasm)

He more than fairly gave me a 60 day notice to find a new place. It is what it is. He had every right to do that. It was his investment to do whatever he chose to do with it. Even though I treated the house as my own and took very good care of it and even paid for some unneeded improvements, ultimately it wasn't my house.

As a renter, I too think it's ridiculous how many other renters have such a strong sense of entitlement over property they don't own. I'm well aware of how insane the rental market is right now. It's actually even worse now than when I had to house hunt back in 2014 and I had a really hard time competing to find a place back then.

I now pay $500 more per month than I did at my previous house. The house I'm in now is a decent enough place to live but the neighborhood is nowhere near as nice as where my previous house was. Like I said though, it is what it is. It comes with the territory when you're a renter. Your rent can always be raised when the lease is up, the house could always be sold out from under you, the owner could choose to move back in...etc. It's their prerogative to do whatever they like with their own property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2016, 03:59 PM
 
2,379 posts, read 1,815,179 times
Reputation: 2057
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstnghu2 View Post
From 2009-2014 I lived in a very nice single family home in a neighborhood I loved. I even had really great neighbors. My landlord only raised my rent by $100 the entire time I lived there and I was still paying less than market rate.

In 2014, my landlord decided to sell his primary residence and move back into "my" home I'd lived in for 5 years. How dare he?! (sarcasm)

He more than fairly gave me a 60 day notice to find a new place. It is what it is. He had every right to do that. It was his investment to do whatever he chose to do with it. Even though I treated the house as my own and took very good care of it and even paid for some unneeded improvements, ultimately it wasn't my house.

As a renter, I too think it's ridiculous how many other renters have such a strong sense of entitlement over property they don't own. I'm well aware of how insane the rental market is right now. It's actually even worse now than when I had to house hunt back in 2014 and I had a really hard time competing to find a place back then.

I now pay $500 more per month than I did at my previous house. The house I'm in now is a decent enough place to live but the neighborhood is nowhere near as nice as where my previous house was. Like I said though, it is what it is. It comes with the territory when you're a renter. Your rent can always be raised when the lease is up, the house could always be sold out from under you, the owner could choose to move back in...etc. It's their prerogative to do whatever they like with their own property.
It's a whole different ball game in SF. Often in a no fault eviction in SF can entail a legal requirement for the owner to pay a relocation payment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2016, 05:09 PM
 
3,098 posts, read 3,785,557 times
Reputation: 2580
25 to 30% of units in San Francisco sit vacant.if you are in the position to do so with prop 13 it is better to just take the yearly appreciation of $200,000 per year and not rent your property.just my opinion.

Last edited by ssmaster; 05-05-2016 at 05:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2016, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,260,344 times
Reputation: 7528
Quote:
Originally Posted by tikkasf View Post
It's a whole different ball game in SF. Often in a no fault eviction in SF can entail a legal requirement for the owner to pay a relocation payment.
Well who ever voted in these laws are entitlement losers that have no respect for anyone's personally owned property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2016, 07:12 PM
 
2,379 posts, read 1,815,179 times
Reputation: 2057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Well who ever voted in these laws are entitlement losers that have no respect for anyone's personally owned property.
Renting is a ongoing business deal in which both parties to the deal have certain rights and responsibilities. Once engaged in a business the government can place regulations on that business. Probably a case can probably made that perhaps SF has gone too far in regulating this type of business deal. The two remedies to that are the ballot box or the legal system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2016, 07:40 PM
 
4,369 posts, read 3,723,819 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstnghu2 View Post
From 2009-2014 I lived in a very nice single family home in a neighborhood I loved. I even had really great neighbors. My landlord only raised my rent by $100 the entire time I lived there and I was still paying less than market rate.

In 2014, my landlord decided to sell his primary residence and move back into "my" home I'd lived in for 5 years. How dare he?! (sarcasm)

He more than fairly gave me a 60 day notice to find a new place. It is what it is. He had every right to do that. It was his investment to do whatever he chose to do with it. Even though I treated the house as my own and took very good care of it and even paid for some unneeded improvements, ultimately it wasn't my house.

As a renter, I too think it's ridiculous how many other renters have such a strong sense of entitlement over property they don't own. I'm well aware of how insane the rental market is right now. It's actually even worse now than when I had to house hunt back in 2014 and I had a really hard time competing to find a place back then.

I now pay $500 more per month than I did at my previous house. The house I'm in now is a decent enough place to live but the neighborhood is nowhere near as nice as where my previous house was. Like I said though, it is what it is. It comes with the territory when you're a renter. Your rent can always be raised when the lease is up, the house could always be sold out from under you, the owner could choose to move back in...etc. It's their prerogative to do whatever they like with their own property.
This is why id rather live in a car than rent. You actually own the car.

Last edited by Perma Bear; 05-05-2016 at 08:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top