Skip to comments.King of My Castle? Yeah, Right (tenants' rights laws discourage renting)
Posted on 06/07/2013 7:00:07 AM PDT by reaganaut1
SAN FRANCISCO VISITORS have forever left their hearts in San Francisco. But leaving the rest of your body here isnt so easy: theres no place to live.
The City by the Bay is going through one of its worst housing shortages in memory. With typical high demand intensified by a regional boom in tech jobs, apartment open houses are mob scenes of desperate applicants clutching their credit reports. The citywide median rental price for a one-bedroom is $2,764 a month, but jumps to $3,500 in trendy areas.
One reason for the shortage? Me.
Ive recently joined the ranks of San Francisco landlords who have decided that its better to keep an apartment empty than to lease it to tenants. Together, we have left vacant about 10,600 rental units. Thats about five percent of the citys total or enough space to house up to 30,000 people in a city that barely tops 800,000. I feel a twinge of guilt for those who want to settle in this glorious city but cant find a flat. But after renting out a one-bedroom apartment in my home for several years, I will never do it again. San Franciscos anti-landlord housing laws and political climate make it untenable.
My partner and I bought our home in the citys Castro neighborhood in 2004. We live upstairs and theres a smaller rental downstairs. At first we had wonderful tenants, and the income helped make our mortgage payments more affordable.
Then we rented to a man who began as a good neighbor, but who soon became a nuisance and who eventually became destructive and dangerous. It started one night when the tenant forgot his keys and rang our doorbell at 2 a.m. until we let him in. Then it happened again and again and again.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“...My partner and I bought our home in the citys Castro neighborhood in 2004...”
Maybe he should grow up and marry a woman instead of hanging out with faggots in faggotown.
Thank the Lord for a small, paid in full house in a non-demented area (generally speaking). They can keep their high dollar rental birdhouses in the chity dwellings.
“Ive recently joined the ranks of San Francisco landlords who have decided that its better to keep an apartment empty than to lease it to tenants.”
This is nonsense. Landlords don’t keep apartments empty, even where there are really bad tenant ordinances that are stacked against the landlord. It’s just not financially viable to pay the mortgage on a rental property if you are not renting it out.
“Together, we have left vacant about 10,600 rental units. Thats about five percent of the citys total”
This demonstrates my point. Five percent vacancy is well within the natural range of vacancy in the apartment market. Three to five percent of the apartments in any area are usually vacant, not because landlords don’t want to rent them, but because they can’t lease them quickly enough to avoid some vacancy. There is no trend of landlords intentionally not renting, or the number would be higher.
See the Movie Pacific Heights, starring Michael Keaton and takes place in San Francisco.
He played the Ultimate “Problem Tenant” whose ultimate goal was to push the Landlord into an action that would allow him the ‘take’ the house legally. In the movie he failed but the tactics and extreme legal ramifications were discussed very frankly.
Look for the city to either commandeer or compel people to rent out their property through further fascist regulations. I wouldn’t put it passed them in this day and age.
There is an easy way to handle tenants
Put in a high rent in the paper (in this cast $3000 a month should do) and then tall people who come to see that the rent is only $2500 - but you are VERY STRICT, you demand first, last, deposit, license, credit report, on-site inspecions on demand and signing a WAIVER OF THOSE STUPID RIGHTS - its amazing how many people will.
And if you are not intending to screw them yourself, then it is a win-win for all.
Beat me! Great minds think alike. Oh yes, personally I hated the movie. But I watched it because of the premise and learned a lot from it.
9.6....... the Biggun
That will solve all the problems
Maybe he should grow up and marry a woman instead of hanging out with faggots in faggotown.
When you understand that marxists want to abolish private property, this makes perfect sense. They can’t seize it just yet, as they would like to, so they put restrictions on it so that it isn’t private property any more but we can enjoy the illusion that we actually ‘own’ something while we let the government confiscate a portion of it each year in what are called ‘property taxes.’
—yep—thirty years ago when I lived there , it was already known by tenants that you could get away with about a ‘free’ year by starting the “protest” process-—
If you check out padmapper, 2 bedrooms in SF run from 3000 to 5500. Which is nuts. I don’t get how people afford it; while rent control in old buildings men’s some people are paying little, I don’t get where the people with enough money to rent those places are coming from. You’d have to make 250k+ to actually afford those places. Either people who want to live in so-so apartments are richer than I thought, or they are sacrificing retirement savings and any hope of savaging up enough to buy a home.
...and don't mind stepping in human excrement on the sidewalks, fending off panhandlers, putting up with druggies at every turn, and worst of all existing in the "political climate" that produced everything Scott rales against in this article.
I couldn't wait to get as far away as possible from "Everyone's Favorite City". The last time I was there I left with the first throbbing headache I had had in years.
Every complaint launched in this article results from the mad atmosphere of "liberalism" that pervades San Francisco.
Housing prices are just ludicrous. I pay less than $1500 a month mortgage (including taxes) on a 2900 sq ft $300,000 new home in Texas. You people of the left and the other left coast are just nuts.
“2 bedrooms in SF run from 3000 to 5500. Which is nuts. I dont get how people afford it”
They afford it by having 4 or 5 roommates. I guess that’s OK if you’re 22 and “finding yourself” in SF, but once puberty is completed it gets unbearable.
Plus in Texas you can shoot hookers when they don’t put out...
You must not have read the article (I KNOW!! THIS HAPPENS ON FR? LOL)
It’s a lower small apartment in the home they live in.
“The citywide median rental price for a one-bedroom is $2,764 a month,”
That’s about 5 years of property tax for my house, which has more than 5 bedrooms and cost only 5x more to purchase.
The crime rate here is pretty low too.
Ya might want to zot that comment. It is just bizzare.
We rented to my wife’s sister and BIL until they were able to afford their own home. Then we converted to a one-family. We never wanted to be landlords and wouldn’t gotten this two family house if it hadn’t been for a couple of things that fell into place.
Actually, in a place like San Francisco you can reasonably leave a home unrented.
Victorian era homes, many times, are comprised 2 or 3 dwellings. That is, there may on front door the building with a residence on the main floor and a stair case leading to the other residence(s).
If I had one of those homes and had this guys experience, I can see myself letting the home below me stay vacant. I would use it for storage and guests, while avoiding tennants who do indeed have more rights than landlords and they know it.
Many renters feel entitled to abuse another person and their properly.
The law gives them imprimature and arrogance to trash someone el property and act in all kinds of manner.
I have a friend who owns several homes and she did just that.
No more BS interruptions to her life and if a friendhhas too much to drink they can spend the night downstairs and she is damned proud to be able to let her friends do just that.
Better they use what she calls her in-law home than to get beat up or robbed on the way home.
My bad. Topical not bizzare.
Well, you’re talking about owner-occupied buildings, which usually only have a couple rental units and are a small share of the market. They don’t have much impact on city-wide vacancy figures.
I did read the article, and in it, he makes the claim that people like him refusing to rent are the cause of the vacancy numbers city-wide, which is just ridiculous.
Well, salaries are also proportionally higher in urban markets as well. 3,000 a month looks insane if you live in an area where the average income is 30,000 a year, but not so much when the average income is 80,000 a year.
The average price of a single family home in SF is over 700k. Only 11% of the population can afford to own their own home.
I lived in SF for 25 years and even with rent control I paid $1000/month for a one bedroom apt in a 100 year old bldg. When I left SF in 2002 the rent was adjusted up to $3250/month.
While the physical setting of the city is beautiful the quality of life has deteriorated.
I think the rent control actually contributes to inflated rents, since when landlords finally get the chance to increase rents, they will raise them as much as possible. It actually makes it more of a “seller’s market”, instead of the natural rental market, where what tenants are willing to pay constrains how much rents are raised each year.
The rental prices are also naturally linked to home prices. When the credit is easy or home prices are low, rents drop because there is less demand for apartments. If the prices are high, like in SF, or there is limited inventory of homes, or tight credit, then more people rent and you can charge higher rents without risking vacancies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.