5 ms·

If you own the building, i'd say you should be free to do what you want. Just because you rented out a unit 5 years ago doesn't mean you want to rent it out for

If you own the building, i'd say you should be free to do what you want. Just because you rented out a unit 5 years ago doesn't mean you want to rent it out forever. You own the building after all. Imagine a building with 20+ units, you'd never be able to clear it out. But, that doesn't make it a fun process to go through for a renter. It sucks. Couldn't the owner just ask the person who is renting the unit to move out in a reasonable amount of time? That seems like the ethical thing to do.

IgorPartola 12y ago
I can't imagine someone going through this trouble instead of just asking. It is a dick move, for sure. I just don't see GGP's point about making this specific action illegal as the solution. Seems to me that it would the just complicate things and in the end negatively affect everyone.
- clarky07 12y ago
  We only see one side here. perhaps they did ask nicely, and the renter said no.
  - tizzdogg 12y ago
    It is fairly standard practice in San Francisco for landlords to offer high tens of thousands of dollars to renters for them to move. I have a friend who paid a tenant $60k to move out. This allows them to avoid the complications and restrictions of the Ellis act or owner move-in (notably restrictions on condo conversion).
alistairSH 12y ago
> Couldn't the owner just ask the person who is renting the unit to move out in a reasonable amount of time? Assuming the original $2145 is below market, the answer would be no, wouldn't it? Or, rather, they could ask, but the tenant would never willingly leave, as they are paying below market.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
DrStalker 12y ago
Why can't they tell the tennet to move out? In Australia residential leases have a fixed term (usually 12 months) and after that become month-to-month, and the owner can ask you to leave with 90 days notice when you're not under a contract.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- charlesdm 12y ago
  They did, in a hostile way. Then again, maybe the tenant refused to move out.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    Someone paying significantly below market rate is almost certainly going to refuse to move out.
- refurb 12y ago
  In SF the only real way to kick someone out of a rent controlled unit is via an Ellis Act eviction. The allows the owner to take the building off the market. Issue is, you need to pay a substantial fee to the tenant (many thousands if they've been there a long time) AND you cannot rent the unit out again for 5 years.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    s/can rent/cannot rent/
  - zobzu 12y ago
    it actually sounds fair, doesn't it?
    - charlesdm 12y ago
      Sarcasm? How does that sound fair for the owner. Not being able to rent out your apartment for 5(!) years is ridiculous.
curun1r 12y ago
> Couldn't the owner just ask the person who is renting the unit to move out in a reasonable amount of time? California has a provision for doing this. It's called the Ellis Act and San Francisco's regulations for Ellis Act evictions require payment of $5k-$15k + $3k per senior/disabled tenant. This remodel + rent increase seems a transparent attempt to circumvent that law. Whether legal or not would require a lawyer to weigh in.

IgorPartola 12y ago

I can't imagine someone going through this trouble instead of just asking. It is a dick move, for sure. I just don't see GGP's point about making this specific action illegal as the solution. Seems to me that it would the just complicate things and in the end negatively affect everyone.

clarky07 12y ago
We only see one side here. perhaps they did ask nicely, and the renter said no.
- tizzdogg 12y ago
  It is fairly standard practice in San Francisco for landlords to offer high tens of thousands of dollars to renters for them to move. I have a friend who paid a tenant $60k to move out. This allows them to avoid the complications and restrictions of the Ellis act or owner move-in (notably restrictions on condo conversion).

alistairSH 12y ago

> Couldn't the owner just ask the person who is renting the unit to move out in a reasonable amount of time? Assuming the original $2145 is below market, the answer would be no, wouldn't it? Or, rather, they could ask, but the tenant would never willingly leave, as they are paying below market.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

DrStalker 12y ago

Why can't they tell the tennet to move out? In Australia residential leases have a fixed term (usually 12 months) and after that become month-to-month, and the owner can ask you to leave with 90 days notice when you're not under a contract.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
charlesdm 12y ago
They did, in a hostile way. Then again, maybe the tenant refused to move out.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  Someone paying significantly below market rate is almost certainly going to refuse to move out.
refurb 12y ago
In SF the only real way to kick someone out of a rent controlled unit is via an Ellis Act eviction. The allows the owner to take the building off the market. Issue is, you need to pay a substantial fee to the tenant (many thousands if they've been there a long time) AND you cannot rent the unit out again for 5 years.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  s/can rent/cannot rent/
- zobzu 12y ago
  it actually sounds fair, doesn't it?
  - charlesdm 12y ago
    Sarcasm? How does that sound fair for the owner. Not being able to rent out your apartment for 5(!) years is ridiculous.

curun1r 12y ago

> Couldn't the owner just ask the person who is renting the unit to move out in a reasonable amount of time? California has a provision for doing this. It's called the Ellis Act and San Francisco's regulations for Ellis Act evictions require payment of $5k-$15k + $3k per senior/disabled tenant. This remodel + rent increase seems a transparent attempt to circumvent that law. Whether legal or not would require a lawyer to weigh in.