4 ms·
> purely a Landlord/Tenant issue Yep. > Sure, it is a dick move that this lawyer is engaging in...but ultimately it is a legal one. Yep. And an expensive one
by warfangle 12y ago
> purely a Landlord/Tenant issue
Yep.
> Sure, it is a dick move that this lawyer is engaging in...but ultimately it is a legal one.
Yep. And an expensive one. SF requires EA evictions to come along with rather large (for a typical renter) compensatory packages.
Seems like if you don't want to get evicted by an asshole landlord for reasons other than delinquency and lease violations, don't live in SF -- or buy instead of rent.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> SF requires EA evictions to come along with rather large (for a typical renter) compensatory packages. The accusation here is that this eviction is specifically timed to avoid the coming increase in those packages. Which should be an obviously anticipated effect of a large increase -- while it will discourage such evictions once it goes into effect, it will encourage them in the period between when it is passed and becomes effective, because anyone who might want to do them in the near future is incentivized to accelerate them.
- warfangle 12y agoWhich all points to the EA being the problem and not some random lawyer employed by an enormously wealthy global corporation. The reasoning behind the Ellis Act is to allow landlords to quit being landlords without selling their property to another landlord. What? Huh? Of COURSE that's going to leave the tenants of their property out in the cold (well, SF, so uh .. chilliness). And of COURSE if you increase the amount the tenants must be compensated you'll get a rush of evictions before it takes effect.