16 ms·
> 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
by 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 agohttps://sftu.org/justcauses/ https://sftu.org/justcauses/
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoThat 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 agoThat requires the tenant to have done something wrong. The landlord can’t just decide on his own initiative to empty the unit.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoCorrect.
- bubblethink 5y agoThat'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 agoRent controlled tenancies are a whole different animal. A conversation about them probably ought to begin by clarifying it's a RC'd property. I expect that SF's non-rent controlled property is evictable like any other.