3 ms·

I don’t get this part. I’ve been led to believe tenants have all the power over landlords.

njarboe 8y ago
Of course the housing crisis has many factors contributing to it. This is a major one. If a place has a majority of renters, has a prevailing political culture of socialism and activism, and the rents start going up fast, you likely end up with an erosion of property rights with rent control and other restrictions on landlords. Tyranny of the majority. If landlords are seen by the local culture as bad people this quickly this becomes true. Only assholes and faceless corporations looking for maximum ROI are going to buck the social stigma and be an evil landlord. Oakland used to at least let small landowners who lived at a multiple unit building they owed not to be under the strong tenet laws. Last election cycle a proposition changed that. Now a landowner can't refuse to renew a month-to-month rental contract that is a standard after a year lease. These small landlords were the last refuge for people in many cases. You actually had a relationship with the owner and they would often keep rents way below market because they liked you, enjoyed living next to you, didn't need the extra cash as they bought the property many years ago, and didn't want to try and find somebody else to move in. It is too bad that being a landlord has become so onerous in the Bay area. The state passed a law that forces cities to allow small 600sqft mother-in-law units to be built on properties, if the lot is not too small. This could really help with the housing crisis. As the rents in Oakland have doubled over the last 4 years or so, myself and other people I know were thinking about investing the 150-200k that it takes in the high cost Bay Area to build one of these units or convert a large house into a duplex/triplex. People are not much less interested in doing so now that this new law has passed. Oh well. Maybe cash out and go elsewhere? Who would have thought that Carl's juniors $6 burger would have to be discontinued so soon due to the fact that they would have to charge more than six bucks for it. Now it would be called the $19 burger.
- malandrew 8y ago
  This. I would also add that renters with such strong rights as they have in SF also constitute a mutex on a property. When so many of the units have these mutexes, it makes it basically impossible to develop property in San Francisco. The other policies such as minimum parking requirements, CEQA lawsuits and "you'll block my view" lawsuits, etc. are all basically mutexes on a property held by everyone but the property owner, which is the only person with an incentive to develop their property for profit. And by "develop" I mean build more housing that would help alleviate the shortage.

Of course the housing crisis has many factors contributing to it. This is a major one. If a place has a majority of renters, has a prevailing political culture of socialism and activism, and the rents start going up fast, you likely end up with an erosion of property rights with rent control and other restrictions on landlords. Tyranny of the majority. If landlords are seen by the local culture as bad people this quickly this becomes true. Only assholes and faceless corporations looking for maximum ROI are going to buck the social stigma and be an evil landlord. Oakland used to at least let small landowners who lived at a multiple unit building they owed not to be under the strong tenet laws. Last election cycle a proposition changed that. Now a landowner can't refuse to renew a month-to-month rental contract that is a standard after a year lease. These small landlords were the last refuge for people in many cases. You actually had a relationship with the owner and they would often keep rents way below market because they liked you, enjoyed living next to you, didn't need the extra cash as they bought the property many years ago, and didn't want to try and find somebody else to move in. It is too bad that being a landlord has become so onerous in the Bay area. The state passed a law that forces cities to allow small 600sqft mother-in-law units to be built on properties, if the lot is not too small. This could really help with the housing crisis. As the rents in Oakland have doubled over the last 4 years or so, myself and other people I know were thinking about investing the 150-200k that it takes in the high cost Bay Area to build one of these units or convert a large house into a duplex/triplex. People are not much less interested in doing so now that this new law has passed. Oh well. Maybe cash out and go elsewhere? Who would have thought that Carl's juniors $6 burger would have to be discontinued so soon due to the fact that they would have to charge more than six bucks for it. Now it would be called the $19 burger.

malandrew 8y ago
This. I would also add that renters with such strong rights as they have in SF also constitute a mutex on a property. When so many of the units have these mutexes, it makes it basically impossible to develop property in San Francisco. The other policies such as minimum parking requirements, CEQA lawsuits and "you'll block my view" lawsuits, etc. are all basically mutexes on a property held by everyone but the property owner, which is the only person with an incentive to develop their property for profit. And by "develop" I mean build more housing that would help alleviate the shortage.