Landlord wants to kick me out to sell his house--what to do? (Oakland: sublease, for rent)

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by likealady

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.

Yes, because there's nothing like a little moral hazard to spice things up. At what point did rent control become only about people you think are deserving?

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by likealady

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.

I bet you this is just as rare as welfare queens.

[johnp292]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

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

Not necessarily true, rents here have been rising rapidly.

Also not the point I was trying to make.

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

This is why id rather live in a car than rent. You actually own the car.

Ummmmmm, no. I think I'd prefer to live in a house rather than live in my car.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat

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.

I don't think it's a huge number but most definitely a factor... learned of another home that is empty... the owner is on a two year assignment overseas... was going to lease if for two years and decided it was not worth the risk...

No matter what anyone says... there are units kept off the market because of SF and Bay Area Draconian rules.

[kgbnsf]

Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat

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.

Bingo,

I own a duplex in Alameda. I usually rent out one of the units for 1-3 years at a time and then reoccupy it. But now with rent control enacted and the exit fees I have to pay a tenant when they leave, I am going to keep it vacant when I am not using it. If further restrictions get voted in this fall, I will consider simply turning the duplex back into a single family home again. It's better for the property value and I won't need to deal with operating under such restrictive conditions. The proposed regulations up for vote in Alameda would make it impossible for me to kick out a tenant so that I could move back into my own home! Absurd.

I was one of the good landlords. My tenants are paying substantially below market rate and if I raised rent at all, it was usually 1-2%. Now, with restrictions, I lose the ability to bring the unit up to near market rates, if needed. What started as being nice and trying to watch out for my tenants, I am now locked into low rent with no control.

Lovely.

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by johnp292

Not necessarily true, rents here have been rising rapidly.

Also not the point I was trying to make.

AZ & CA are nothing a like politically. One only has to compare who gets elected in those states and who has won the states electoral votes in the past several elections. Several years ago there was a proposition on the CA ballot would have phased out rent control, in any city in CA that had it....the proposition was voted down by a large margin

[likealady]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

Yes, because there's nothing like a little moral hazard to spice things up. At what point did rent control become only about people you think are deserving?

Do YOU think that was why rent control was established, body? So people who got in on a deal years ago can have vacation rentals and secondary income streams on property that isn't theirs? Not to mention the people who own the property can't even "evict" the abuser because of stupid laws. Uh huh?

I'm sure most of the world (or at least people who aren't greedy bastards) would be against that situation.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by likealady

Do YOU think that was why rent control was established, body? So people who got in on a deal years ago can have vacation rentals and secondary income streams on property that isn't theirs? Not to mention the people who own the property can't even "evict" the abuser because of stupid laws. Uh huh?

I'm sure most of the world (or at least people who aren't greedy bastards) would be against that situation.

Perhaps instead of flying off half cocked with some hair brain scheme that doesn't work, the politicians and the people that voted them into office could actually THINK about the unintended consequences of their actions...uh huh. And I'll repeat, at what point did rent control become only about people you think are deserving (nice dodge on your retort)? I also find it funny that you apparently don't think a local could be an Anesthesiologist. Imagine that. Also, you might want to define "greedy bastards" (you're heading down a pretty slippery slope there).

[likealady]

I wasn't purposely "dodging" your question, but you love to hound posters who don't respond to your every demand. Ok, I'll take your bait, if only to get you to leave me alone. I'm pretty sure if I don't answer you this thread will go on for 4 more off-topic pages.

At what point did rent control become only about people you think are deserving?

This isn't about what I think. Rent control/stablization was established to assist poor people in obtaining affordable housing in big cities. I don't think I'm off my rocker for believing that.

I also find it funny that you apparently don't think a local could be an Anesthesiologist.

When did I say that? Oh right, I didn't. Nice assumption on your part. I'm specifically referring to Ultrarunner's story. But sure, the story could be changed to be an anesthesiologist in this city, to which I would say, "Ok, the guy makes a lot and doesn't need the assistance, but whatever."

I'm not necessarily against him having the rent controlled unit because he's a doctor. I'm against the fact that he lives elsewhere and yet refuses to give up the unit. If he wants to vacation in SF, he's well off enough to afford a few nights in a hotel. The fact that he is/was profiting off someone else's property via AirBnB/VRBO is wrong and selfish (imho). I'm sure most anesthesiologists would take their money and buy (invest) into the market once they've made a nice nest egg - even if they did start their career in a rent controlled unit. I'm not sure why I need to explain this reasoning to you unless you'd do the same as the guy in Ultra's story.

Not a doctor, but this guy should have bought into the market instead of this woe is me dramafest act he makes after spending 34 yrs benefiting from below market rent.