5 ms·

So, there's no mention of the tenant's salary in this story. Does rent control in SF or the US in general not stipulate that rent control is also a function of

So, there's no mention of the tenant's salary in this story. Does rent control in SF or the US in general not stipulate that rent control is also a function of the tenant's ability to pay? Here, in The Netherlands, this is an important criterion in determining what the maximum increase is in rent for a given property [1]. My general understanding of the law in The Netherlands based on having rented once during university is that it heavily favours tenants. The bottomline is that no one is allowed to end up on the street, with the main exception being if the landlord is in dire financial straits. Apart from that, the law sides with the tenant. This even goes to the extent that fixed-term contracts are more or less useless, because if a tenant doesn't want to leave, they don't have to. Is it considered reasonable in SF that the tenant will be able to find alternative accommodation within 60 days? [1] http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/huurwoning/huurverhoging http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/huurwoning/huurverho... (Laws on rental increase in The Netherlands in Dutch) [2] https://www.jurofoon.nl/huren/huurovereenkomst-voor-bepaalde-tijd.asp https://www.jurofoon.nl/huren/huurovereenkomst-voor-bepaalde... (Fixed-term contract rules for housing in Dutch)

phil248 12y ago
In San Francisco, only residential units constructed prior to 1979 are subject to the local rent control law. This is for market housing, government subsided housing follows different (and differing) regulations, which often do take income into account. http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html
ageek123 12y ago
Ability to pay is not factored in. I know many, many Google/Facebook/Apple software engineers living in rent-controlled apartments in San Francisco.
nedwin 12y ago
if only SF rent control was linked to the income of the renter! Plenty of well paid engineers and execs living in significantly below market apartments when they could easily afford market-priced housing. If the aim is to create affordable housing for low income earners, rent control is not the solution.
- simoncion 12y ago
  Most new places (and some old places in desirable areas) in SF are going for ~$3000->$4000/month. In order to cover $3000/month rent, average power, internet access, and $400/week spending cash, you need to gross $100k/year. If you pull in less than that, then you run out of money and get evicted. Notice that no provision has been made for savings. I know of a great many programmers working for successful Bay Area companies who would just barely have enough money to pay market rents on their apartment.
  - nedwin 12y ago
    Here's the thing - imagine what it's like if you're making median income in the city of $75k. Or if you're one of the thousands of service workers who are earning sub-$50k yet people on $100k+ also get access to $1000pm apartments. Doesn't make sense if we're trying to achieve equality (I still don't know what it's really trying to achieve - some kind of nativism) There is an argument that removing rent control would actually reduce the price of rent through San Francisco but it would take a few years to stabilize.

phil248 12y ago

In San Francisco, only residential units constructed prior to 1979 are subject to the local rent control law. This is for market housing, government subsided housing follows different (and differing) regulations, which often do take income into account. http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html

ageek123 12y ago

Ability to pay is not factored in. I know many, many Google/Facebook/Apple software engineers living in rent-controlled apartments in San Francisco.

nedwin 12y ago

if only SF rent control was linked to the income of the renter! Plenty of well paid engineers and execs living in significantly below market apartments when they could easily afford market-priced housing. If the aim is to create affordable housing for low income earners, rent control is not the solution.

simoncion 12y ago
Most new places (and some old places in desirable areas) in SF are going for ~$3000->$4000/month. In order to cover $3000/month rent, average power, internet access, and $400/week spending cash, you need to gross $100k/year. If you pull in less than that, then you run out of money and get evicted. Notice that no provision has been made for savings. I know of a great many programmers working for successful Bay Area companies who would just barely have enough money to pay market rents on their apartment.
- nedwin 12y ago
  Here's the thing - imagine what it's like if you're making median income in the city of $75k. Or if you're one of the thousands of service workers who are earning sub-$50k yet people on $100k+ also get access to $1000pm apartments. Doesn't make sense if we're trying to achieve equality (I still don't know what it's really trying to achieve - some kind of nativism) There is an argument that removing rent control would actually reduce the price of rent through San Francisco but it would take a few years to stabilize.