4 ms·

This seems backwards. To evict someone you have to swear up and down that you're going to occupy the place yourself. People get prosecuted for e.g. doing an own

This seems backwards. To evict someone you have to swear up and down that you're going to occupy the place yourself. People get prosecuted for e.g. doing an owner-move-in eviction and then selling to a developer. The old owner doesn't have a legal basis to get rid of the tenant, but the new owner does.

xyzzyz 5y ago
From the perspective of the buyer, I don’t care how exactly the owner removes the tenant. It is immaterial to me. What I care about is that no tenant occupies the property I am purchasing. If the owner cannot guarantee that, eg. they cannot legally evict a tenant, that’s fine, I simply wont buy the property, it is the owner’s problem, not mine.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > I don’t care how exactly the owner removes the tenant. It is immaterial to me. What I care about is that no tenant occupies the property I am purchasing. Landlords can't legally evict a leased tenant who hasn't violated their lease. That there are tenants in the home would be part of the MLS listing, along with bed/bath. If you've gotten as far as inquiring about the property, you would know you're buying tenants (at least until their lease is up or they accept your offer to break it).
  - closeparen 5y ago
    A lease has a a duration; absent rent control, the landlord can let it expire. It’s specifically under a rent control regime that the landlord is obliged to offer indefinite renewals.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      All correct.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> To evict someone you have to swear up and down that you're going to occupy the place yourself. Where do you get this from? It's not like any US law I've ever heard of. For the evictions I've worked on, the homeowner simply wanted the tenants out (non-payment, etc) so they could re-rent or sell the property. They didn't ever have to live there.
- closeparen 5y ago
  https://sftu.org/justcauses/ https://sftu.org/justcauses/
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    That doesn't seem to say the landlord can only evict if they themselves are going to personally reside there. The listed causes for eviction all seem fairly typical - like non-payment.
    - closeparen 5y ago
      That requires the tenant to have done something wrong. The landlord can’t just decide on his own initiative to empty the unit.
      - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
        Correct.
- bubblethink 5y ago
  That's very city/state dependent. SF has a lot of tenant protections, which is probably what the parent was referring to. In a lot of SF apartments, the landlord can only evict a tenant under specific conditions, one of which is owner moving in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Act).
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

xyzzyz 5y ago

From the perspective of the buyer, I don’t care how exactly the owner removes the tenant. It is immaterial to me. What I care about is that no tenant occupies the property I am purchasing. If the owner cannot guarantee that, eg. they cannot legally evict a tenant, that’s fine, I simply wont buy the property, it is the owner’s problem, not mine.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> I don’t care how exactly the owner removes the tenant. It is immaterial to me. What I care about is that no tenant occupies the property I am purchasing. Landlords can't legally evict a leased tenant who hasn't violated their lease. That there are tenants in the home would be part of the MLS listing, along with bed/bath. If you've gotten as far as inquiring about the property, you would know you're buying tenants (at least until their lease is up or they accept your offer to break it).
- closeparen 5y ago
  A lease has a a duration; absent rent control, the landlord can let it expire. It’s specifically under a rent control regime that the landlord is obliged to offer indefinite renewals.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    All correct.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

> To evict someone you have to swear up and down that you're going to occupy the place yourself. Where do you get this from? It's not like any US law I've ever heard of. For the evictions I've worked on, the homeowner simply wanted the tenants out (non-payment, etc) so they could re-rent or sell the property. They didn't ever have to live there.

closeparen 5y ago
https://sftu.org/justcauses/ https://sftu.org/justcauses/
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  That doesn't seem to say the landlord can only evict if they themselves are going to personally reside there. The listed causes for eviction all seem fairly typical - like non-payment.
  - closeparen 5y ago
    That requires the tenant to have done something wrong. The landlord can’t just decide on his own initiative to empty the unit.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      Correct.
bubblethink 5y ago
That's very city/state dependent. SF has a lot of tenant protections, which is probably what the parent was referring to. In a lot of SF apartments, the landlord can only evict a tenant under specific conditions, one of which is owner moving in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Act).
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago