4 ms·

I really don't agree with this guy at all. This makes no sense at all: > Don’t ever move into an apartment, TIC, condo, or house that has been cleared by an ev

by lnanek2 12y ago

I really don't agree with this guy at all. This makes no sense at all: > Don’t ever move into an apartment, TIC, condo, or house that has been cleared by an eviction So landlords should be forced to rent to people forever who can't pay? That makes no sense. It is just stealing the property from the property owner. I know a lot of landlords and they hate doing evictions, because the tenants aren't paying their rent the entire time they are being evicted. The ones I know often say to the judge, I don't want money back from this person (which is generally impossible anyway because the person is poor), I just want to be able to rent my property to someone who can pay. Landlords with a lot of property have to do this regularly.

vproman 12y ago
Take into account that at one time these people could pay their rent and now, because of gentrification, they can't. A person too poor to afford a home and has been renting the same place for decades is getting evicted because the wealthy moved in next door.
- cemregr 12y ago
  This never happens in san francisco, the rents go up very little every year.. less than inflation, so in real terms your rent gets cheaper every year.
- cemregr 12y ago
  This never happens in san francisco, the rents go up very little every year.. less than inflation, so in real terms your rent gets cheaper every year.
- justincpollard 12y ago
  I don't think what you've written is exactly true. At least some of the rental property in San Francisco is rent controlled (possibly a lot of it if you believe this site: http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html). If a person/family lives in a rent controlled unit, rent increases aren't necessarily tied to the rental market, but rather are limited to a percentage of the CPI (1.9% increase for the current year - http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1501 http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1501). Wealthy neighbors don't have much to do with it in these cases.
- vobios 12y ago
  If you look at the actual data, poor people are less likely to move out after gentrification than before. Nice article that covers this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
thrownaway2424 12y ago
People who don't pay their rent constitute a minor fraction of all evictions in SF. And when someone doesn't pay their rent there is an effective process for getting rid of them in a finite length of time. Most evictions in SF are not for this cause.
- pekk 12y ago
  Can you share your data? I'm curious what most evictions in SF are about.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=46 http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=46 164 of 1977 evictions in 2014 were for late or non-payment of rent. Almost all of the rest were for pretexts classified under "breach of agreement" which tenants groups have shown to consist of things like parking outside the lines or cooking at night. This is one of the things I really hate about California rental laws: there's not a standard lease. When I rented in Texas there was a statewide standard lease so there weren't weird clauses and other surprises.
    - gojomo 12y ago
      The Rent Board's report notes that evictions for non-payment aren't required to be reported to them. So that's a floor, not a cap, on the actual number of non-payment evictions. You can't sweep all 607 "breach of agreement" evictions away as "pretexts" – those can involve serious issues too, and it's a large category even in years like 2002-2004 when rents were declining. (That suggests it's not just a catch-all for wanting-richer-tenants.) There's also 349 "committing a nuisance" and 42 "illegal use" evictions. Some tenants are truly problematic!
lelandbatey 12y ago
What the author is alluding to is the phenomena of landlords forcing a resident to leave outright, or raising rent beyond the level that existing tenants can pay, resulting in the existing tenant being forced to leave. This is usually done to make more money. However, I agree with what you're saying: what did people think would happen?! In renting a place, the landlord does not have to keep the rent the same. This is a risk that comes with renting. > Don’t assume that because you have more money that you have to right to take someone else’s home away. Don’t treat an existing community like your personal playground. I just... what? No one here is playing dirty, no one is targeting anyone else. The rules of the economic system that we all live in say that these things are possible events, and maybe ones we should all be prepared for. Also, you can't destroy a community. Communities exist when people exist. Communities can change, like when the people that exist in a community change. But humans will still be there, doing their human thing. And I think that's what this is really about; change that the author doesn't like.
- lepto 12y ago
  "Also, you can't destroy a community. Communities exist when people exist." If a neighborhood block has the same residents for 20 years, who have street parties and have their kids play and grow together, and then all those families leave (for whatever reason) and the new residents never talk to each other (for whatever reason), yeah I think you could say a community died there.
  - lelandbatey 12y ago
    I'm not totally sure, let's explore this a bit. There are two definitions for "community" when I look this up: 1. "A group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common." 2. "A feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals." By the first definition, I don't agree with you. If there are people living near one another, then a community exists. By the second definition, you're at least somewhat correct. When the people are gone/have changed, then that "feeling of fellowship" has disappeared/become unrecognizably different. I don't think it's wrong to be frustrated or saddened when we lose things like relationships. But I don't think we should demonize others.
sokoloff 12y ago
Even before you get to the landlords' property rights, it's obvious that the strategy isn't going to work. It's a Prisoner's Dilemma game where you know someone is going to defect (and take the now market-rate apartment). It's all well and good to encourage the principled stand, but it only takes one person (per rental) to defect and, given the supply/demand imbalance, that seems a perfect certainty. So, your principled stand only serves to lock you out of a significant part of the available rental market, make you a more difficult client of real estate brokers, and not provide any lasting change or inflict any lasting pain on the nefarious landlords who have the audacity to charge market rent for the properties they own/manage.

by lnanek2 12y ago

vproman 12y ago

Take into account that at one time these people could pay their rent and now, because of gentrification, they can't. A person too poor to afford a home and has been renting the same place for decades is getting evicted because the wealthy moved in next door.

cemregr 12y ago
This never happens in san francisco, the rents go up very little every year.. less than inflation, so in real terms your rent gets cheaper every year.
cemregr 12y ago
This never happens in san francisco, the rents go up very little every year.. less than inflation, so in real terms your rent gets cheaper every year.
justincpollard 12y ago
I don't think what you've written is exactly true. At least some of the rental property in San Francisco is rent controlled (possibly a lot of it if you believe this site: http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html). If a person/family lives in a rent controlled unit, rent increases aren't necessarily tied to the rental market, but rather are limited to a percentage of the CPI (1.9% increase for the current year - http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1501 http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1501). Wealthy neighbors don't have much to do with it in these cases.
vobios 12y ago
If you look at the actual data, poor people are less likely to move out after gentrification than before. Nice article that covers this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

thrownaway2424 12y ago

People who don't pay their rent constitute a minor fraction of all evictions in SF. And when someone doesn't pay their rent there is an effective process for getting rid of them in a finite length of time. Most evictions in SF are not for this cause.

pekk 12y ago
Can you share your data? I'm curious what most evictions in SF are about.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=46 http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=46 164 of 1977 evictions in 2014 were for late or non-payment of rent. Almost all of the rest were for pretexts classified under "breach of agreement" which tenants groups have shown to consist of things like parking outside the lines or cooking at night. This is one of the things I really hate about California rental laws: there's not a standard lease. When I rented in Texas there was a statewide standard lease so there weren't weird clauses and other surprises.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    The Rent Board's report notes that evictions for non-payment aren't required to be reported to them. So that's a floor, not a cap, on the actual number of non-payment evictions. You can't sweep all 607 "breach of agreement" evictions away as "pretexts" – those can involve serious issues too, and it's a large category even in years like 2002-2004 when rents were declining. (That suggests it's not just a catch-all for wanting-richer-tenants.) There's also 349 "committing a nuisance" and 42 "illegal use" evictions. Some tenants are truly problematic!

lelandbatey 12y ago

What the author is alluding to is the phenomena of landlords forcing a resident to leave outright, or raising rent beyond the level that existing tenants can pay, resulting in the existing tenant being forced to leave. This is usually done to make more money. However, I agree with what you're saying: what did people think would happen?! In renting a place, the landlord does not have to keep the rent the same. This is a risk that comes with renting. > Don’t assume that because you have more money that you have to right to take someone else’s home away. Don’t treat an existing community like your personal playground. I just... what? No one here is playing dirty, no one is targeting anyone else. The rules of the economic system that we all live in say that these things are possible events, and maybe ones we should all be prepared for. Also, you can't destroy a community. Communities exist when people exist. Communities can change, like when the people that exist in a community change. But humans will still be there, doing their human thing. And I think that's what this is really about; change that the author doesn't like.

lepto 12y ago
"Also, you can't destroy a community. Communities exist when people exist." If a neighborhood block has the same residents for 20 years, who have street parties and have their kids play and grow together, and then all those families leave (for whatever reason) and the new residents never talk to each other (for whatever reason), yeah I think you could say a community died there.
- lelandbatey 12y ago
  I'm not totally sure, let's explore this a bit. There are two definitions for "community" when I look this up: 1. "A group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common." 2. "A feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals." By the first definition, I don't agree with you. If there are people living near one another, then a community exists. By the second definition, you're at least somewhat correct. When the people are gone/have changed, then that "feeling of fellowship" has disappeared/become unrecognizably different. I don't think it's wrong to be frustrated or saddened when we lose things like relationships. But I don't think we should demonize others.

sokoloff 12y ago

Even before you get to the landlords' property rights, it's obvious that the strategy isn't going to work. It's a Prisoner's Dilemma game where you know someone is going to defect (and take the now market-rate apartment). It's all well and good to encourage the principled stand, but it only takes one person (per rental) to defect and, given the supply/demand imbalance, that seems a perfect certainty. So, your principled stand only serves to lock you out of a significant part of the available rental market, make you a more difficult client of real estate brokers, and not provide any lasting change or inflict any lasting pain on the nefarious landlords who have the audacity to charge market rent for the properties they own/manage.