4 ms·

As an SF renter, this makes me happy. I have met too many people personally that have an extra bed room(or even keep their lease and moved to a lower-rent city)

by stbtrax 13y ago

As an SF renter, this makes me happy. I have met too many people personally that have an extra bed room(or even keep their lease and moved to a lower-rent city) that they rent out to subsidize their rent. This reduces stock for actual renters and drives prices up.

dguaraglia 13y ago
On the other hand, that allows some people to live in the city when otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford it. The SF rental situation is not created by the few people that profit from temporarily renting to tourists.
jmzbond 13y ago
I only partially agree with your comment. I wish there were a way to distinguish between people truly profiting off rent-controlled property (as @numlocked said) and sometimes not even living here, and those just trying to get a little extra cash to make ends meet. If you think about a year's worth of rental cost, no matter how much you rent out your apartment for in those short term bursts, you're probably never going to even get close to breaking even. And especially if you're one of those people not in a booming industry, it can really help when you're out of town for a weekend or so to try and defray the cost of living. Because while rent is controlled, nothing else in this city is.
- optimusclimb 13y ago
  Not so sure about your second point - If a person has a place that has been rent controlled for 5+ years, this is quite doable. Additionally, how is renting out a "rent controlled" place at market rates not transferring income from the actual landlord, to the lessee, while defeating the "control" at the same time?
  - toufka 13y ago
    It's curious, because there's no reason to think the 'actual landlord' has a right to that additional income. They signed a lease at a given price for a given term. They could have signed that lease at dramatically higher terms. Just because the tenant made out good on the deal in the long term doesn't negate the initial contract. It's not like the landlord must be the only one that makes out best on any given contract...
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - optimusclimb 13y ago
      Except that most rental agreements allow "use of the premises" or some such wording to the named lessee, and forbid sub-leasing. The contract that you're referring to doesn't give the renter the ability to then turn around and do whatever they want with the living space for their own financial benefit.
pmorici 13y ago
How does forcing someone to leave an extra bedroom empty drive up prices?
- dewey 13y ago
  Supply and demand.
- jrockway 13y ago
  Lowers the effective rent for the apartment. Let's say everyone in San Francisco rents out their apartment for $200 once a month. Now landlords can raise the rent by $200, since people could afford the rent before, but are now making an extra $200 a month. Meanwhile, you, the person that doesn't illegally rent out their apartment, has to compete for apartments with people that can pay more because they break the law. That's where the angst is coming from.
  - pmorici 13y ago
    I'm not sure I agree; by that kind of logic there should be a law banning two income house holds, working from home, or any other creative way people might derive extra value from there living space surely that drives up the cost of housing as well?
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      There's no law that says that if you ban one thing that drives up the price of housing that you must ban all others. At some point people must make a judgement about the human costs and human benefits of a thing.
- bri3d 13y ago
  Short-term tenants generally pay substantially more on a per night basis than real roommates (long-term tenants). Forcing only long-term tenants would thus presumably cause rents to move towards what the long-term tenant market can handle rather than the aggregate nightly rate achievable by accommodating lots of short-term tenants. Naturally the reality is vastly more complicated but I believe that's the basic reasoning behind the "short term rentals drive prices up" line of thought.
lectrick 13y ago
Why don't we just fucking let capitalism run where it may, instead of having all these stupid complicated controls which end up being exploited for profit anyway?
- Nursie 13y ago
  Because unfettered capitalism makes life miserable for a lot of people as externalised costs are not accounted for.
  - abalashov 13y ago
    So does fettered capitalism, apparently, just for different constituencies. :-)
  - lectrick 13y ago
    Maybe someone should start a "certified green accounting" initiative that certifies that the books of the company have taken into account those externalized costs as "costs".
joshuahedlund 13y ago
Doesn't this also reduce the demand for renting by all the people who are renting those extra bedrooms? If all those extra bedrooms stopped being rented out, why wouldn't this increase the demand for renting elsewhere and thus drive the price up?
malandrew 13y ago
Your anger is misplaced. The root cause of housing stock is not how people are using the current stock but the complete refusal to amend the situation to build more housing stock. Many landlords (living in their property or renting out) actively oppose rezoning changes that would permit more housing in the city. Those renting out are very much in favor of current zoning because they earn far more money from units because of limited stock. Furthermore, a lot of those I know who have an extra room and rent out on AirBnB are usually renting out to people actively trying to move to the city and need a place to stay (1-3 months) until they find a unit to live in. For those AirBnB hosts that keep a lease, almost all of them that I know are renting out on AirBnB for more than 30 days at a time (usually to people trying to move to the city), because its not convenient or cost effective to manage back to back short-term stays when you aren't living in the unit. At the end of the day, those subleasing are usually just absorbing the difference between the rent control they secured originally and market value, which would be absorbed by the landlord anyways the moment the lease was given up. i.e. If Bob rents a rent controlled unit from Alice at $1000 a month and then decides to sublet it at $1500 a month 2 years later to Carol, then Bob is making $500 dollars profit. However if Bob gave up the lease, Alice would rent it out again at $1500 to Carol anyways. Either way, Carol ends up paying $1500 a month.

by stbtrax 13y ago

dguaraglia 13y ago

On the other hand, that allows some people to live in the city when otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford it. The SF rental situation is not created by the few people that profit from temporarily renting to tourists.

jmzbond 13y ago

I only partially agree with your comment. I wish there were a way to distinguish between people truly profiting off rent-controlled property (as @numlocked said) and sometimes not even living here, and those just trying to get a little extra cash to make ends meet. If you think about a year's worth of rental cost, no matter how much you rent out your apartment for in those short term bursts, you're probably never going to even get close to breaking even. And especially if you're one of those people not in a booming industry, it can really help when you're out of town for a weekend or so to try and defray the cost of living. Because while rent is controlled, nothing else in this city is.

optimusclimb 13y ago
Not so sure about your second point - If a person has a place that has been rent controlled for 5+ years, this is quite doable. Additionally, how is renting out a "rent controlled" place at market rates not transferring income from the actual landlord, to the lessee, while defeating the "control" at the same time?
- toufka 13y ago
  It's curious, because there's no reason to think the 'actual landlord' has a right to that additional income. They signed a lease at a given price for a given term. They could have signed that lease at dramatically higher terms. Just because the tenant made out good on the deal in the long term doesn't negate the initial contract. It's not like the landlord must be the only one that makes out best on any given contract...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - optimusclimb 13y ago
    Except that most rental agreements allow "use of the premises" or some such wording to the named lessee, and forbid sub-leasing. The contract that you're referring to doesn't give the renter the ability to then turn around and do whatever they want with the living space for their own financial benefit.

pmorici 13y ago

How does forcing someone to leave an extra bedroom empty drive up prices?

dewey 13y ago
Supply and demand.
jrockway 13y ago
Lowers the effective rent for the apartment. Let's say everyone in San Francisco rents out their apartment for $200 once a month. Now landlords can raise the rent by $200, since people could afford the rent before, but are now making an extra $200 a month. Meanwhile, you, the person that doesn't illegally rent out their apartment, has to compete for apartments with people that can pay more because they break the law. That's where the angst is coming from.
- pmorici 13y ago
  I'm not sure I agree; by that kind of logic there should be a law banning two income house holds, working from home, or any other creative way people might derive extra value from there living space surely that drives up the cost of housing as well?
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    There's no law that says that if you ban one thing that drives up the price of housing that you must ban all others. At some point people must make a judgement about the human costs and human benefits of a thing.
bri3d 13y ago
Short-term tenants generally pay substantially more on a per night basis than real roommates (long-term tenants). Forcing only long-term tenants would thus presumably cause rents to move towards what the long-term tenant market can handle rather than the aggregate nightly rate achievable by accommodating lots of short-term tenants. Naturally the reality is vastly more complicated but I believe that's the basic reasoning behind the "short term rentals drive prices up" line of thought.

lectrick 13y ago

Why don't we just fucking let capitalism run where it may, instead of having all these stupid complicated controls which end up being exploited for profit anyway?

Nursie 13y ago
Because unfettered capitalism makes life miserable for a lot of people as externalised costs are not accounted for.
- abalashov 13y ago
  So does fettered capitalism, apparently, just for different constituencies. :-)
- lectrick 13y ago
  Maybe someone should start a "certified green accounting" initiative that certifies that the books of the company have taken into account those externalized costs as "costs".

joshuahedlund 13y ago

Doesn't this also reduce the demand for renting by all the people who are renting those extra bedrooms? If all those extra bedrooms stopped being rented out, why wouldn't this increase the demand for renting elsewhere and thus drive the price up?

malandrew 13y ago

Your anger is misplaced. The root cause of housing stock is not how people are using the current stock but the complete refusal to amend the situation to build more housing stock. Many landlords (living in their property or renting out) actively oppose rezoning changes that would permit more housing in the city. Those renting out are very much in favor of current zoning because they earn far more money from units because of limited stock. Furthermore, a lot of those I know who have an extra room and rent out on AirBnB are usually renting out to people actively trying to move to the city and need a place to stay (1-3 months) until they find a unit to live in. For those AirBnB hosts that keep a lease, almost all of them that I know are renting out on AirBnB for more than 30 days at a time (usually to people trying to move to the city), because its not convenient or cost effective to manage back to back short-term stays when you aren't living in the unit. At the end of the day, those subleasing are usually just absorbing the difference between the rent control they secured originally and market value, which would be absorbed by the landlord anyways the moment the lease was given up. i.e. If Bob rents a rent controlled unit from Alice at $1000 a month and then decides to sublet it at $1500 a month 2 years later to Carol, then Bob is making $500 dollars profit. However if Bob gave up the lease, Alice would rent it out again at $1500 to Carol anyways. Either way, Carol ends up paying $1500 a month.