2 ms·
In no way am I defending the landlord, and I know nothing about the rents in that area of SF, but the news clip fails to state when the last increase was. It al
by pedalpete 10y ago
In no way am I defending the landlord, and I know nothing about the rents in that area of SF, but the news clip fails to state when the last increase was. It also doesn't mention how large the apartment is, or what a comparable rental in that area would be.
The renter says he's been living there a long time. If the rent hasn't increased in 20 years, there may be an expectation of an increase at some point. That doesn't mean it needs to be 400%, but if the renter has been 'saving' on rent while the rest of the market increases, this may have been inevitable.
At the same time, I'm surprised that there are no limits to rent increase amounts.
- gscott 10y agoIn California if you raise rent by more then 10% you have to give 60 days notice. This article didn't mention if the landlords notice was properly done.
- pedalpete 10y agoBut even still, a 60 day notice on a 400% increase isn't much if you've been living in the residence for 20 years. I'd find it interesting to have a 60 day + 2 weeks per year of residence or something like that. The longer you stay in a place, the harder it can be to leave.
- thephyber 10y agoSan Francisco has a rent control ordinance that caps the rate at which rent can rise. The problem is that about 50% of units in San Francisco no longer qualify for rent control (newer units, rebuilt buildings, and certain types of residences do not qualify). It has become extremely competitive for those rent controlled units and those units distort the rental prices for the non-rent controlled units (the market prices are forced upwards while the rent controlled prices are fairly stagnant). Also, landlords would obviously like to be able to collect more rent for the same unit if that's what the market would allow, thus there is financial incentive to find/create loopholes in that ordinance.