3 ms·

Are you going to elaborate on that?

by Yver 12y ago

patio11 12y ago
The name of the "loophole" is the Ellis Act. It was passed after the California Supreme Court declared that, under existing law, landlords had no right to evict renters if they wanted to exit the multitenant rental business. The Ellis Act has one purpose: to make legal the eviction of tenants if one wants to exit the multitenant rental business. That is not a side effect, bug, or unintended consequence of the law, it is the exact designed intent. This eviction is an Ellis Act eviction. The reason for the eviction is that the landlord wishes to exit the multitenant rental business, in favor of a condo conversion, something which the Ellis Act was designed to allow. San Francisco tenants rights activists hate the Ellis Act, so they describe this as a "loophole."
- cratermoon 12y ago
  The problem is that there are ways for a landlord to technically take the property off the rental market and evict the rent-controlled tenants and then put the property back on the rental market with all new (much higher!) rates. It's a loophole because the intent of the Ellis Act was for owners to reclaim a property from renters, not to flip it into a new rental market. Edit to add: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ "Tenants activists say that the Ellis Act is instead abused by real estate speculators, who evict their tenants, turn these rent-controlled apartments into tenancies-in-common and sell them at a profit"
  - patio11 12y ago
    Tenants activists believe all manner of fun things, including that supply and demand is a fiction created by evil capitalist bastards. Be that as it may, that article is (despite being from TechCrunch) pretty awesome for its comprehensive treatment of the issue. Thanks for the link.
- patmcguire 12y ago
  Seems like the owner is definitely in the multi-tenant rental business (says so almost word for word) http://urbangreeninv.com http://urbangreeninv.com Either that or it's personal for the CEO. Wasn't clear to me from the article.

Are you going to elaborate on that?

by Yver 12y ago

Are you going to elaborate on that?

The name of the "loophole" is the Ellis Act. It was passed after the California Supreme Court declared that, under existing law, landlords had no right to evict renters if they wanted to exit the multitenant rental business. The Ellis Act has one purpose: to make legal the eviction of tenants if one wants to exit the multitenant rental business. That is not a side effect, bug, or unintended consequence of the law, it is the exact designed intent. This eviction is an Ellis Act eviction. The reason for the eviction is that the landlord wishes to exit the multitenant rental business, in favor of a condo conversion, something which the Ellis Act was designed to allow. San Francisco tenants rights activists hate the Ellis Act, so they describe this as a "loophole."

cratermoon 12y ago
The problem is that there are ways for a landlord to technically take the property off the rental market and evict the rent-controlled tenants and then put the property back on the rental market with all new (much higher!) rates. It's a loophole because the intent of the Ellis Act was for owners to reclaim a property from renters, not to flip it into a new rental market. Edit to add: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ "Tenants activists say that the Ellis Act is instead abused by real estate speculators, who evict their tenants, turn these rent-controlled apartments into tenancies-in-common and sell them at a profit"
- patio11 12y ago
  Tenants activists believe all manner of fun things, including that supply and demand is a fiction created by evil capitalist bastards. Be that as it may, that article is (despite being from TechCrunch) pretty awesome for its comprehensive treatment of the issue. Thanks for the link.
patmcguire 12y ago
Seems like the owner is definitely in the multi-tenant rental business (says so almost word for word) http://urbangreeninv.com http://urbangreeninv.com Either that or it's personal for the CEO. Wasn't clear to me from the article.