5 ms·

It sounds like she moved there when it was cheap. Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because t

It sounds like she moved there when it was cheap. Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? Housing isn't widgets: it's not easy to move to a cheaper type if your current type gets expensive. There isn't an easy answer to this sort of problem, but to imply that she should simply "move somewhere else" is simplistic in the extreme. Reminds me of panel 3 in http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1992-03-01/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1992-03-01/

lettergram 13y ago
No reason she couldn't have moved 40 minutes out of the city, or perhaps if she does have friends she could move in with them.
jedmeyers 13y ago
How about this strip: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-04-18/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-04-18/
krschultz 13y ago
My parents bought their house in the 1980s. They paid it off 100%. When they retired they moved. Would it have been preferable to keep the house the whole family grew up in? Probably. But they couldn't afford the overhead of utilities, maintenance, etc. They moved to a smaller house in a state with lower property taxes. They too left their friends, contacts, etc. Built up over living there for 35 years. But it was the responsible decision to do it. Why should it be everyone else's burden if they make a stupid decision to stay put in a place they can't afford? Is that a right? Especially when seniors have the dual safety net of Social Security and Medicaid - they are generally in a better shape than many working class people. The landlord paid her $14k just to move out. That with social security would absolutely cover living expenses in most of the country.
- rtpg 13y ago
  >Why should it be everyone else's burden if they make a stupid decision to stay put in a place they can't afford? Is that a right? Obviously utilities going up should be considered in rent, but in a property tax-free world, someone staying is not a burden on the owner, except in the "he could be making even more money". The owner ends up making less because they might not be market value, but considering that what he's doing is rent-seeking anyways, there's not that much moral high ground for the guy who wants to increase rent just because of "the market". Obviously these problems are nuanced (and economists seem to all agree that rent control = bad )
  - Kliment 13y ago
    Someone staying can be a burden if said someone is destroying the property or causing conflict with other people living there.
- refurb 13y ago
  Slight quibble: seniors get Medicare, not Medicaid. Medicaid is for lower-income folks and the disabled, except some disabled who get Medicare. However, you can be eligible for both (so called-dual eligibles). ...I'll see myself out....
  - krschultz 13y ago
    Upvoted for the correction, appreciated.
- cryoshon 13y ago
  Pfft, "responsible" my ass. They left the life they built behind because they couldn't afford to keep it. That's horrendously sad.
  - krschultz 13y ago
    In theory yes, in their specific case they are a lot happier. Moved to a warmer climate, their neighborhood has a lot of people their age and they have many new friends and enjoy it. They still come back and see the old friends & family often enough. Overall a great decision, but definitely influenced by the fact that paying for the house they had owned the last 30 years did not make sense for 2 people - and there aren't really cheaper options in the area.
pilom 13y ago
>Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? YES! Absolutely reasonable. There is no right to live exactly where you want for the rest of your life (especially when where you want to live is an illegal residence). Nor should there be.
- radley 13y ago
  Actually there is. It's called Rent Control and it protects the elderly from stuff like this (because they need the protection). As far as I'm concerned, the landlord simply found a loophole.
  - Crito 13y ago
    loophole ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/ noun: Part of a set of laws that I do not like. Rent control does not give you the right to live in an area for a given amount of rent in any circumstance. The circumstances in which it does not provide assurances are not "loopholes".
    - radley 13y ago
      Think of it this way: she was renting a room in the house, except as a courtesy to each owner she would to come in through the garage. New owner decides he's tired and wants her out. If he suddenly claims the room to be an "inlaw apartment", then it would be illegal. Now he can start the process to evict. Legal loophole. [Update] The timing is suspicious too, since these units could be legal soon: http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/S-F-in-law-units-law-clears-Planning-Commission-5295635.php http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/S-F-in-law-units-law-c...
      - Crito 13y ago
        There was never any question if the unit was illegal. Everyone involved knew that it was (hence my absolutely minimal sympathy for everyone involved, except perhaps^W the cat.) The new owner did not declare the unit to be illegal, the city did. (edit: I definitely feel sorry for the cat.)
nilkn 13y ago
It's not that I don't feel sympathy for her, but yes, cities change and it's something you simply have to be aware of if you're living in one. If you're planning on being a life-long renter, you're really taking a risk that this will happen to you, too, if the prices ever experience a big boom as they have in San Francisco. If she had bought property back when it was cheap, she might be a millionaire today. If over the course of her life she could never afford to buy anything in the city, though, then evidently it wasn't ever really "cheap" relative to her income (or else she just wan't frugal enough). Besides, I moved away from my family, friends, and contacts that I'd built up over the first 18 years of my life in order to attend college. People uproot themselves frequently because they realize that not doing so is just too impractical.
- radley 13y ago
  San Francisco has Rent Control ordinances, so as long as the unit was legal, she could have stayed there for the rest of her life (which she probably expected). http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html
  - nilkn 13y ago
    > so as long as the unit was legal It wasn't, according to this article. She took a risk.
    - radley 13y ago
      What if she was just "renting a room" and the new owner simply labelled it an "inlaw" as a legal loophole? [Update] I didn't see the pic. Yeah, it's clearly in a different building, so an in-law.
      - CocaKoala 13y ago
        Saying that if you change the details of a story, then the details are different doesn't actually mean anything and doesn't have any bearing on the story as it happened.
pyrrhotech 13y ago
I live in Hayward amongst plenty of people making her income or less. She can come be my neighbor if she wants & still be within a bart ride of her friends.
joesmo 13y ago
Is it reasonable to expect her to move out when she can't afford it? I can't think of anything more reasonable. Housing isn't guaranteed. This isn't simplistic. It's how the housing market works. It might not be fair, but that doesn't make it wrong. Plenty of us have had to face a move because of cost. It's not easy, but we don't whine about it, we accept the consequences and we deal with life.
keypusher 13y ago
Yes, it is. Some things in life are expensive, and nobody is entitled to them.

lettergram 13y ago

No reason she couldn't have moved 40 minutes out of the city, or perhaps if she does have friends she could move in with them.

jedmeyers 13y ago

How about this strip: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-04-18/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-04-18/

krschultz 13y ago

My parents bought their house in the 1980s. They paid it off 100%. When they retired they moved. Would it have been preferable to keep the house the whole family grew up in? Probably. But they couldn't afford the overhead of utilities, maintenance, etc. They moved to a smaller house in a state with lower property taxes. They too left their friends, contacts, etc. Built up over living there for 35 years. But it was the responsible decision to do it. Why should it be everyone else's burden if they make a stupid decision to stay put in a place they can't afford? Is that a right? Especially when seniors have the dual safety net of Social Security and Medicaid - they are generally in a better shape than many working class people. The landlord paid her $14k just to move out. That with social security would absolutely cover living expenses in most of the country.

rtpg 13y ago
>Why should it be everyone else's burden if they make a stupid decision to stay put in a place they can't afford? Is that a right? Obviously utilities going up should be considered in rent, but in a property tax-free world, someone staying is not a burden on the owner, except in the "he could be making even more money". The owner ends up making less because they might not be market value, but considering that what he's doing is rent-seeking anyways, there's not that much moral high ground for the guy who wants to increase rent just because of "the market". Obviously these problems are nuanced (and economists seem to all agree that rent control = bad )
- Kliment 13y ago
  Someone staying can be a burden if said someone is destroying the property or causing conflict with other people living there.
refurb 13y ago
Slight quibble: seniors get Medicare, not Medicaid. Medicaid is for lower-income folks and the disabled, except some disabled who get Medicare. However, you can be eligible for both (so called-dual eligibles). ...I'll see myself out....
- krschultz 13y ago
  Upvoted for the correction, appreciated.
cryoshon 13y ago
Pfft, "responsible" my ass. They left the life they built behind because they couldn't afford to keep it. That's horrendously sad.
- krschultz 13y ago
  In theory yes, in their specific case they are a lot happier. Moved to a warmer climate, their neighborhood has a lot of people their age and they have many new friends and enjoy it. They still come back and see the old friends & family often enough. Overall a great decision, but definitely influenced by the fact that paying for the house they had owned the last 30 years did not make sense for 2 people - and there aren't really cheaper options in the area.

pilom 13y ago

>Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? YES! Absolutely reasonable. There is no right to live exactly where you want for the rest of your life (especially when where you want to live is an illegal residence). Nor should there be.

radley 13y ago
Actually there is. It's called Rent Control and it protects the elderly from stuff like this (because they need the protection). As far as I'm concerned, the landlord simply found a loophole.
- Crito 13y ago
  loophole ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/ noun: Part of a set of laws that I do not like. Rent control does not give you the right to live in an area for a given amount of rent in any circumstance. The circumstances in which it does not provide assurances are not "loopholes".
  - radley 13y ago
    Think of it this way: she was renting a room in the house, except as a courtesy to each owner she would to come in through the garage. New owner decides he's tired and wants her out. If he suddenly claims the room to be an "inlaw apartment", then it would be illegal. Now he can start the process to evict. Legal loophole. [Update] The timing is suspicious too, since these units could be legal soon: http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/S-F-in-law-units-law-clears-Planning-Commission-5295635.php http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/S-F-in-law-units-law-c...
    - Crito 13y ago
      There was never any question if the unit was illegal. Everyone involved knew that it was (hence my absolutely minimal sympathy for everyone involved, except perhaps^W the cat.) The new owner did not declare the unit to be illegal, the city did. (edit: I definitely feel sorry for the cat.)

nilkn 13y ago

It's not that I don't feel sympathy for her, but yes, cities change and it's something you simply have to be aware of if you're living in one. If you're planning on being a life-long renter, you're really taking a risk that this will happen to you, too, if the prices ever experience a big boom as they have in San Francisco. If she had bought property back when it was cheap, she might be a millionaire today. If over the course of her life she could never afford to buy anything in the city, though, then evidently it wasn't ever really "cheap" relative to her income (or else she just wan't frugal enough). Besides, I moved away from my family, friends, and contacts that I'd built up over the first 18 years of my life in order to attend college. People uproot themselves frequently because they realize that not doing so is just too impractical.

radley 13y ago
San Francisco has Rent Control ordinances, so as long as the unit was legal, she could have stayed there for the rest of her life (which she probably expected). http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html
- nilkn 13y ago
  > so as long as the unit was legal It wasn't, according to this article. She took a risk.
  - radley 13y ago
    What if she was just "renting a room" and the new owner simply labelled it an "inlaw" as a legal loophole? [Update] I didn't see the pic. Yeah, it's clearly in a different building, so an in-law.
    - CocaKoala 13y ago
      Saying that if you change the details of a story, then the details are different doesn't actually mean anything and doesn't have any bearing on the story as it happened.

pyrrhotech 13y ago

I live in Hayward amongst plenty of people making her income or less. She can come be my neighbor if she wants & still be within a bart ride of her friends.

joesmo 13y ago

Is it reasonable to expect her to move out when she can't afford it? I can't think of anything more reasonable. Housing isn't guaranteed. This isn't simplistic. It's how the housing market works. It might not be fair, but that doesn't make it wrong. Plenty of us have had to face a move because of cost. It's not easy, but we don't whine about it, we accept the consequences and we deal with life.

keypusher 13y ago

Yes, it is. Some things in life are expensive, and nobody is entitled to them.