4 ms·

I don't think that's what happened in this case. They removed an illegal (that's the key word) in-law unit, making the unit a single family home. That single

I don't think that's what happened in this case. They removed an illegal (that's the key word) in-law unit, making the unit a single family home. That single family home was no longer under the rent control laws, enabling the owner to jack up the rent. If they had gone by the book, they would have just had to pay the tenant 9.5k to go away, which is what (in retrospect) the owner should have done. 400k seems egregiously high, and designed to pander to populist opinion rather than any reasonable interpretation of the law.

FireBeyond 10y ago
Who installed the in-law unit, the tenant, or the owner?
- sfrailsdev 10y ago
  I believe the previous owner, whom the current owner inherited from.
  - CrossWired 10y ago
    The article indicated an inheritance, thus likely a family member?
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Which is not the current owner's "fault", but not the tenant's either, which to me makes the fact that it was the supposed 'triggering event' rather unfair.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> That single family home was no longer under the rent control laws, enabling the owner to jack up the rent Unreasonable rent increases to circumvent OMI rules are generally prohibited in such rules (since they are the most obvious way to effect an eviction pretextually), which are independent of rent control rules. The legal issue here was the OMI rules, not rent control, so the illegality of the other unit or the change in rent control status is irrelevant. > 400k seems egregiously high, and designed to pander to populist opinion rather than any reasonable interpretation of the law. It's not a 400k award, it's a 400k settlement, which means that the owner clearly thinks that the actual award that survived all appeals plus the cost of litigation (including the cost in the owners time) would be at least that much.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > It's not a 400k award, it's a 400k settlement, which means that the owner clearly thinks that the actual award that survived all appeals plus the cost of litigation (including the cost in the owners time) would be at least that much. Why did you nitpick a point instead of addressing the egregiously high seeming cost? Your point merely buttresses my point, which is that 400k is far more than can and should be reasonably expected.
  - jibalt 10y ago
    Why did you dishonestly call it a nitpick, rather than the essential point that it is? > Your point merely buttresses my point Um, no. That's a ridiculous dishonest claim. > which is that 400k is far more than can and should be reasonably expected. No, the whole point of the "nitpick" is that this is false. The landlord quite reasonably expected to pay more if he were to go to court. There's a good reason for this expectation: because the landlord intentionally violated the law for their own gain at the expense of the interests of the tenant. The landlord is a bad bad person who did a bad bad thing, and should be treated accordingly.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      I guess this is you missing the point. > Why did you dishonestly call it a nitpick, rather than the essential point that it is? You should understand the point being discussed before accusing people of dishonesty. The point buttresses my point, if read using any definition of basic reading comprehension you'd chose to use. > The landlord quite reasonably expected to pay more if he were to go to court. And my point is that the unlawful eviction of somebody, even with punitive damages, shouldn't rise to even the same order of magnitude of 400k, let alone a huge amount higher. That's enough to buy a new house in much of the rest of the country. The punitive damages should be something to do with the total lawyer fees in the case, as well as the expenses to move, as well as a deterrent amount. NOT the ability to buy an entire new house, or an amount which might reasonably requiring the person being sued to sell the house. Now is the point clear to you?
nullc 10y ago
> 400k seems egregiously high, and designed to pander to populist opinion rather than any reasonable interpretation of the law. 400k is what they settled for. They did so, presumably because they were exposed to even worse because they behaved egregiously and if damages did not include a substantial punitive component (at least proportional to the inverse of the successful litigation rate) it would be economically irrational to not break the rules constantly.

FireBeyond 10y ago

Who installed the in-law unit, the tenant, or the owner?

sfrailsdev 10y ago
I believe the previous owner, whom the current owner inherited from.
- CrossWired 10y ago
  The article indicated an inheritance, thus likely a family member?
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Which is not the current owner's "fault", but not the tenant's either, which to me makes the fact that it was the supposed 'triggering event' rather unfair.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> That single family home was no longer under the rent control laws, enabling the owner to jack up the rent Unreasonable rent increases to circumvent OMI rules are generally prohibited in such rules (since they are the most obvious way to effect an eviction pretextually), which are independent of rent control rules. The legal issue here was the OMI rules, not rent control, so the illegality of the other unit or the change in rent control status is irrelevant. > 400k seems egregiously high, and designed to pander to populist opinion rather than any reasonable interpretation of the law. It's not a 400k award, it's a 400k settlement, which means that the owner clearly thinks that the actual award that survived all appeals plus the cost of litigation (including the cost in the owners time) would be at least that much.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> It's not a 400k award, it's a 400k settlement, which means that the owner clearly thinks that the actual award that survived all appeals plus the cost of litigation (including the cost in the owners time) would be at least that much. Why did you nitpick a point instead of addressing the egregiously high seeming cost? Your point merely buttresses my point, which is that 400k is far more than can and should be reasonably expected.
- jibalt 10y ago
  Why did you dishonestly call it a nitpick, rather than the essential point that it is? > Your point merely buttresses my point Um, no. That's a ridiculous dishonest claim. > which is that 400k is far more than can and should be reasonably expected. No, the whole point of the "nitpick" is that this is false. The landlord quite reasonably expected to pay more if he were to go to court. There's a good reason for this expectation: because the landlord intentionally violated the law for their own gain at the expense of the interests of the tenant. The landlord is a bad bad person who did a bad bad thing, and should be treated accordingly.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    I guess this is you missing the point. > Why did you dishonestly call it a nitpick, rather than the essential point that it is? You should understand the point being discussed before accusing people of dishonesty. The point buttresses my point, if read using any definition of basic reading comprehension you'd chose to use. > The landlord quite reasonably expected to pay more if he were to go to court. And my point is that the unlawful eviction of somebody, even with punitive damages, shouldn't rise to even the same order of magnitude of 400k, let alone a huge amount higher. That's enough to buy a new house in much of the rest of the country. The punitive damages should be something to do with the total lawyer fees in the case, as well as the expenses to move, as well as a deterrent amount. NOT the ability to buy an entire new house, or an amount which might reasonably requiring the person being sued to sell the house. Now is the point clear to you?

nullc 10y ago

> 400k seems egregiously high, and designed to pander to populist opinion rather than any reasonable interpretation of the law. 400k is what they settled for. They did so, presumably because they were exposed to even worse because they behaved egregiously and if damages did not include a substantial punitive component (at least proportional to the inverse of the successful litigation rate) it would be economically irrational to not break the rules constantly.