Landlord wants to kick me out to sell his house--what to do? (Alameda: lease, hotel) - San Francisco - Oakland - California (CA) - Page 5 - City-Data Forum

johnp292 · 05-05-2016, 07:51 PM

I haven't read the whole thread, and forgive me for butting in, but just to add a little perspective...OP may not realize how lucky he is to be in CA in this instance. In AZ, and most other states, he'd be out on his butt in 30-60 days without a dime from the landlord.

I'll go back to my own state now.

fluffythewondercat · 05-05-2016, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

^^^ 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.

I have an empty Bay Area house as well. I will never rent it out again. I would much rather it stay empty. It's paid for. And we make too much money to be able to deduct any of the expenses involved with renting it out, so why bother?

Wonder how many other people feel that way. Wonder how many other houses lie fallow due to the crazy housing and taxation laws.

I'm just doing my own little bit to drive up rents for those of you who voted for those laws.

mysticaltyger · 05-05-2016, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

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.

Just to add to this, strong rent control laws also mean more vacant units, as landlords feel the tenants aren't worth the hassle. One bad tenant can really burn a small time landlord. As many as 10,000 units in SF may be vacant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/op...ight.html?_r=0

mysticaltyger · 05-05-2016, 08:07 PM

Quote:

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.

That's a little harsh. If it were easy to pick up and get another apartment for a similar price, that would be one thing. But that's most likely impossible. As other posters alluded to, the OP could ostensibly be forced out of the Bay Area entirely.

mysticaltyger · 05-05-2016, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

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...

My sister lived in a building in NYC where some units were rent controlled (hers wasn't), and she encountered some people in similar situations. They owned homes in upstate New York, yet were paying well below market rents.

mysticaltyger · 05-05-2016, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnp292

I haven't read the whole thread, and forgive me for butting in, but just to add a little perspective...OP may not realize how lucky he is to be in CA in this instance. In AZ, and most other states, he'd be out on his butt in 30-60 days without a dime from the landlord.

I'll go back to my own state now.

Apples to oranges comparison. In AZ, it's much easier to find a comparable apartment with similar rents.

tikkasf · 05-05-2016, 08:16 PM

CA, NJ, NY are the primary states with rent control cities....specially the latter two. It's also exists in several western European countries.

Almost nobody in the UK is opposed to rent controls for housing | UK Politics | News | The Independent

Rent control: a success across Northern Europe

Matadora · 05-05-2016, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnp292

I haven't read the whole thread, and forgive me for butting in, but just to add a little perspective...OP may not realize how lucky he is to be in CA in this instance. In AZ, and most other states, he'd be out on his butt in 30-60 days without a dime from the landlord.

I'll go back to my own state now.

That's the way it should be. If you own property and rent it out with a leasing agreement that spells out clearly the conditions of renting that does not violate either the renter or the owner then the renter should have no rights over the owners wishes to do whatever they want with their property. If you don't like the lease agreement then don't rent from them. Seems pretty simple to me.

60 days is ample time for a renter to get out.

The "I'm entitled to control how you own your property" is just disgusting to the core. CA is full of this mentality and there is nothing right about it.

ambient · 05-06-2016, 12:01 AM

Sorry to break the news to OP, but the owner of the property is not in fact obligated to lend you his house for half the market rate for the rest of your life.

likealady · 05-06-2016, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

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...

This makes me livid. That apartment could house a local who actually needs it, not this entitled jerk. I'm mostly against rent control because of people like that who abuse the system.

OP - Honestly, your landlord is giving you plenty of notice, and given the gloom and doom predicted ahead, who'd blame him really. Sucks, but that's a renter's life. Tenant laws have partially put you into the situation you're in. Twisted how that works out.