3 ms·
>-Limiting those under rent control provisions to not make more from home-sharing than their rent (some people are not happy about this one) Hah. Talk about e
by parfe 12y ago
>-Limiting those under rent control provisions to not make more from home-sharing than their rent (some people are not happy about this one)
Hah. Talk about entitled. Complaining they cant rent for market rates while living at below market rates. Not surprising though coming from people who illegally rent out others property.
- sp332 12y agoIf they have a rent-controlled apartment, and they're subletting it, where do they live? And if they're getting "market rates" (which I doubt), and still qualify for a rent-controlled apartment, then I say let them keep the money.
- nedwin 12y agoMy understanding is you don't "qualify" for rent control in SF. You automatically get it when you move into a building built before 1979. Then the landlord can only increase rent (as a general rule) by about 1% per year. So there are people living in 4 bedroom homes in the middle of the best parts of the Mission paying $1000 a month in rent where market rate would be between $6000-8000.
- sp332 12y agoMan, I don't understand anything about SF housing :p At that point, the landlords should be putting all their places on AirBNB themselves! Or arranging for tenants to sublet at market rates and taking a cut under the table, to reduce their chance of being exposed a bit.
- sjg007 12y agoThey can't just kick out the current tenants to do that.