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 05-01-2016, 10:13 PM
 
1,099 posts, read 895,682 times
Reputation: 734

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjj321 View Post
(and also responding to bodyforlife99) Actually the landlord has made it clear he won't pay any relocation or give me 120 days, just 60 days. So what I'm asking is if it's standard in SF for landlords to pay relocation, or if it's in the minority and most landlords don't pay relocation unless the tenant specifically pushes for it.

Justinbro--cut the patronizing tone, landlords aren't "kind enough to rent people places to stay for awhile"--it's a business arrangement and they make money off of their customers and rent control laws are the only reason they don't raise as much as they can.
Then I would say he's breaking the law and that you need to go to the rent board and seek advice. I don't think it's exactly an option for him as long as the unit is one that qualifies for rent control in SF. I know SFH don't fall under that guideline, but you said you're living in an inlaw, so I'm guessing he either has to pay you or you would have just cause to sue. I thought you were implying you were going to "lawyer" up to get more than what the law entails, which I don't think would be right, but you certainly sound like you're deserving of the relocation fee.

As for your 2nd statement, I tend to disagree. You may be in a good situation yourself, but rent controlled cities tend to have the highest rents. 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. 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. 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.

Last edited by bodyforlife99; 05-01-2016 at 10:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-01-2016, 10:50 PM
 
Location: where the good looking people are
3,814 posts, read 3,980,003 times
Reputation: 3284
I'm not saying you should or should not fight this or what you are entitled too. Only a lawyer can do that, and anyone who does otherwise is attempting to practice law with out having a license to practice law. Which in some circumstances can make people liable to be sued for giving legal advise. It would be like coming on here and trying to get a diagnoses from us for your colon. People would tell you to see a doctor or at the least go to a clinic. Same thing with this, at least go see a lawyer or go to one of those legal aid things.

Most of us are just trying to tell you we have seen this before. You might get this and you might get that, and you can prolong the battle, sure. But at the end of the day if he wants you gone, you will at some point have to go. Either he will do it by legal means, or he will make your life hell until you decide to up and go. If he wanted you to stay, he would let you stay.

Sometimes it is just better to end things on good terms and move on, versus leaving things on a sour note. Even in the East Bay landlords are asking for rental history, their contacts, your credit report, your savings and checking balance, take home pay, etc. The effort of finding a new place in the bay is nearly as taxing as a finding a job, so you are going to have to make sure your rental resume is in good order.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 12:32 AM
 
2,379 posts, read 1,789,011 times
Reputation: 2057
You live in San Francisco and unlike a lot areas of the state, there are community resources for you regarding the issue with your landlord wanting to evict you to facilitate the sale of the house with the inlaw unit you are living in. Your best move at this point, I think, is to avail yourself to the resources available to you in SF. I think one key question is whether or not you are legally entitled to be paid relocation payment. If you are over a certain age or have a disability, I think the payment is higher. Quote below from: https://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol/

"You do not have full rent control protection if you live in a single family home (a single family home with an illegal in-law unit counts as a 2-unit building) or a condominium and you (and your roommates) moved in on or after January 1, 1996. While these units do not usually have limits on rent increases, they do have “just cause” eviction protection (unless otherwise exempt for reasons such as above), meaning you can only be evicted for one of the just causes"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 01:26 AM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,416,351 times
Reputation: 23222
If you want to stay and the owner wants to sell make an offer... maybe become a landlord and rent out the upstairs and continue living downstairs?

SF is very much unique when it comes to tenant/landlord and the rent board is very pro tenant.

By unique I mean it can pay well to be difficult...

That said... eventually you will have to move... this is what being a tenant comes down to verses being an owner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 01:48 PM
 
13,711 posts, read 9,176,847 times
Reputation: 9840
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjj321 View Post
So what I'm asking is if it's standard in SF for landlords to pay relocation, or if it's in the minority and most landlords don't pay relocation unless the tenant specifically pushes for it.

To answer your question, it's quite common for landlords to pay relocation. But your landlord sounds like a pain in the a**, possibly senile, and definitely doesn't know the law or chose to ignore it. It sounds like getting it from him is not going to be easy.
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto, CA
901 posts, read 1,160,554 times
Reputation: 1169
Do you want this legal battle to become your whole darn life? The stress over an extended period of time? Is it worth it to you, just for an ultimate victory of a couple of thousand dollars more? Plus any legal expenses?

No city in the world is worth that kind of stress and constant worry.

I'd listen to Ultrarunner, he's a landlord - but do you have the guts and tolerance for stress to really play this game?

I know people who tried legal maneuvers in NYC on technicalities, and came out about even or even lost a few hundred bucks when fees were accounted for. It wasn't worth it.

If 5k or 6k is on the table, good golly gee, take it and run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 04:16 PM
 
2,379 posts, read 1,789,011 times
Reputation: 2057
As I stated above, I would use the tenant aid resources available to you in SF to advise you. I think the question you need answered is if your landlord legally bound to the relocation payment. It's not a matter of you trying extort the money out of him, it's a matter if the given reason for your no fault eviction entitles you to the relocation payment. Frankly, if I was you and it was determined entitlement to the payment, then I would accept payment and start looking for another place to live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 05:42 PM
 
628 posts, read 615,600 times
Reputation: 1749
The fact that you have to inherit essentially a roommate (let's be honest, most of these folk are paying way below market value, so it might as well be nothing considering the cost of the mortgage) when buying a HOUSE (not an apartment building) here is laughable and blows my mind. I've looked at houses and basically having an existing tenant in a house decreases the value significantly, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on how you do the assessment and calculations.
Yes, I know it's the law, but it still is mind-boggling. Eh, I'd avoid buying it too, so I don't blame him for trying to get you out. A nice bribe could be appropriate (also seems bizarre to me), but it's hardly unfair when considering the ridiculously large numbers behind such a transaction as he is trying to make in the sale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 05:44 PM
 
628 posts, read 615,600 times
Reputation: 1749
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
It looks like the relocation amount you would be due is $5,555.21 (that's as of 2/29 so it may have gone up a little).
That's a bargain. I'd pay that in a heartbeat if I were either the seller or buyer. For either side it will factor in the negotiation. And either way it will be done. Sorry but you might as well start packing, as that $6k is chump change when the transaction will likely be 7 digits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 07:04 PM
 
3,570 posts, read 2,502,471 times
Reputation: 2290
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 and either no one's interested because it comes with a tenant, or he's not getting as much as he wants for it and figures he can get more without a tenant. I went to the SF Rent Board to get more details about the legalities of the situation, and they said technically you're not allowed to force a tenant to leave just because you want to sell, and you can only evict if the reason falls under a specific number of Just Causes. He could do an "owner move-in" or "Ellis Act" eviction but that would require the landlord pay a relocation fee of around $5000. They also said the papers he gave me weren't legit and I could actually file a wrongful eviction claim on him because what he's doing isn't really legal.

The guy is pretty old, he says he wants to sell because he and his wife are too old to take care of the house and move somewhere smaller, at the same time he's been a dick at various times when I've had to interact with him. Ever since he's given me the notice, he's been texting me every day to try and pressure me to sign it, or to ask if I've found a new place yet. I've been looking for other places and everything similar on market now is almost twice my current rent, and moving will cost me a lot.

When I googled it, there's tons of threads and articles about everyone saying you should just lawyer up and go through with a no-fault eviction so you at least get paid some relocation expenses, but at the same time it seems like it would take a big mental and time toll on everyone. Does anyone know of people who have been in similar situations, and what they did? In SF, do most tenants negotiate some kind of buyout, or go through the eviction process, or just suck it up and leave?
Go to the Tenant's Union and/or a landlord/tenant lawyer. There are a lot of eviction protections in San Francisco. Buyouts can amount to a much more significant amount of money than the Ellis Act relocation fee (and your current landlord is probably not in position for an owner move-in, as he is trying to sell). You hire a lawyer so that you don't have to worry about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
60 day notice is more than fair, don't give them a hassle. The market is good to sell now, so why stop them.
Not in San Francisco under the circumstances described in the OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical View Post
I'm just saying sooner or later you will have to leave. And fighting it is going to make your life hell between you and your landlord. You can bet he will probably keep your security deposit and not give you a good recommendation to your next landlord. Any money you get for "relocation" will probably be mostly spent on your "lawyer" fees. You will be lucky to be in the black in the long run.

Why stay somewhere you are not welcome? It's just not worth the sanity. If you you can't afford current market rates and can not wait the 2-5 years it takes to score lesser income housing, just move somewhere you can afford.

The bay area is not worth that type of headache. It's not Paris.
Owner is not entitled to simply keep a security deposit. A relocation fee in SF can be much more substantial than you imagine. Your advice is awful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
If you're in SF, I don't think it's a question as to whether he will need to pay you a relocation fee (he clearly will). You seem like you're versed well enough on it and even stated the avenue he would take to evict you...

Ellis Act evictions which require withdrawal from rental housing use all of the units in the building or a unit detached from another structure on the same lot (e.g. a cottage). Seniors (over 62) and disabled tenants get a one year notice. Tenants evicted for this cause have a right to a relocation payment, and disabled and senior tenants (over 62) get one year notice. All tenants get at least 120 days notice.

It looks like the relocation amount you would be due is $5,555.21 (that's as of 2/29 so it may have gone up a little).
The landlord hasn't resorted to the Ellis Act yet. OP probably needs an advocate to handle this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinbro2002 View Post
If you get relocation money as part of the ellis act and 120 days notice then maybe you can negotiate a little more money to be out in 60 days. Either way you are going to have to move eventually you can fight it and drag it out and punish an old couple who were kind enough to rent you a place to stay for a while. Or you can be a responsible adult and move in a timely manner and not expect this old couple to subsidize your life because you can't afford to move somewhere else.
This is ridiculous advice. Seek professional assistance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjj321 View Post
(and also responding to bodyforlife99) Actually the landlord has made it clear he won't pay any relocation or give me 120 days, just 60 days. So what I'm asking is if it's standard in SF for landlords to pay relocation, or if it's in the minority and most landlords don't pay relocation unless the tenant specifically pushes for it.

Justinbro--cut the patronizing tone, landlords aren't "kind enough to rent people places to stay for awhile"--it's a business arrangement and they make money off of their customers and rent control laws are the only reason they don't raise as much as they can.
It appears that your landlord is trying to bully you, assuming you are ignorant. Your landlord can't just evict you with 60 days notice in SF. They need to either file for an Ellis Act eviction or demonstrate just cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
Then I would say he's breaking the law and that you need to go to the rent board and seek advice. I don't think it's exactly an option for him as long as the unit is one that qualifies for rent control in SF. I know SFH don't fall under that guideline, but you said you're living in an inlaw, so I'm guessing he either has to pay you or you would have just cause to sue. I thought you were implying you were going to "lawyer" up to get more than what the law entails, which I don't think would be right, but you certainly sound like you're deserving of the relocation fee.

As for your 2nd statement, I tend to disagree. You may be in a good situation yourself, but rent controlled cities tend to have the highest rents. 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. 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. 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.
It sounds like the landlord does not have just cause to evict and is trying to scare the tenant into leaving.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical View Post
I'm not saying you should or should not fight this or what you are entitled too. Only a lawyer can do that, and anyone who does otherwise is attempting to practice law with out having a license to practice law. Which in some circumstances can make people liable to be sued for giving legal advise. It would be like coming on here and trying to get a diagnoses from us for your colon. People would tell you to see a doctor or at the least go to a clinic. Same thing with this, at least go see a lawyer or go to one of those legal aid things.

Most of us are just trying to tell you we have seen this before. You might get this and you might get that, and you can prolong the battle, sure. But at the end of the day if he wants you gone, you will at some point have to go. Either he will do it by legal means, or he will make your life hell until you decide to up and go. If he wanted you to stay, he would let you stay.

Sometimes it is just better to end things on good terms and move on, versus leaving things on a sour note. Even in the East Bay landlords are asking for rental history, their contacts, your credit report, your savings and checking balance, take home pay, etc. The effort of finding a new place in the bay is nearly as taxing as a finding a job, so you are going to have to make sure your rental resume is in good order.
It's not necessarily the case that the landlord can/will force out the tenant. And getting legal advice will give you, if nothing else: time to work out your next step.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck5000 View Post
Do you want this legal battle to become your whole darn life? The stress over an extended period of time? Is it worth it to you, just for an ultimate victory of a couple of thousand dollars more? Plus any legal expenses?

No city in the world is worth that kind of stress and constant worry.

I'd listen to Ultrarunner, he's a landlord - but do you have the guts and tolerance for stress to really play this game?

I know people who tried legal maneuvers in NYC on technicalities, and came out about even or even lost a few hundred bucks when fees were accounted for. It wasn't worth it.

If 5k or 6k is on the table, good golly gee, take it and run.
Considerably more than 5 or 6k can often be on the table in SF, especially when a landlord does not have just cause and is seeking to avoid an Ellis eviction (perhaps needing units to remain rent-worthy post-sale).

You don't need the guts or stress if you hire an experienced landlord/tenant lawyer to handle this for you. You can start with the SF Tenants Union.
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