Why gentrification is good for lower income people & immigrants

[Centropolis]

in a way, i'm glad that i'm free from the bullshittery of the gentrification shuffle, even though i'm a "professional."

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by POLA

Look, all I'm saying is that every lease if not renewed goes to a month to month lease that can be (at least in theory) not renewed with 30 days notice. Rent controlled or not.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. A lease on a pre-1979 SF apartment can only be terminated by the landlord using one of the 15 just causes that I linked to above. A landlord is forced to allow a month-to-month lease to continue in perpetuity unless the tenant decides to terminate it or one of those 15 just causes for eviction can be used.

A lease on a post-1979 SF apartment (outside of some specific weird examples like Trinity on Market) goes to a month-to-month lease after a year, but the landlord can terminate it at any time with 30 days notice and/or require the tenant to sign a new lease (with the same rental price, lower price, higher price, etc). The landlord does not have this option with a pre-1979 building and must allow the month-to-month lease to remain in effect as long as the tenant likes unless one of those 15 just causes for eviction can be used.

Rent control in SF wouldn't work if landlords could simply terminate a lease with 30 days notice.

[lio45]

Wow, that's very weird.

Is there, then, a big difference in true market value between Building A built in 1978 and its absolute twin Building B built next door but in 1980?

(In any other market, those two buildings would be obviously worth the exact same.)


I suppose investors are really seeking well-located 1980s buildings... old enough to not be too expensive like new and new-ish buildings, yet still free from rent control...

[lio45]

FWIW, in Quebec buildings are free from rent control for the first 5 years following construction. (Which honestly is a pretty low number, but the point is, SF could have a number of years without rent control -- say, 35, which would currently happen to be 1979 but moving by a year every year from now on -- instead of a fixed cutoff construction point in time. Would make more sense IMO.)

[10023]

Originally Posted by fflint

rent control is bad, you ignorant liberal, because your landlord can't arbitrarily throw you out of the city whenever he might make a few extra dollars on your home!

Which is his property.

That's what renting means. You enter into a voluntary contract, for a fixed term, whereby you agree to pay someone money and they agree to let you live in their house or apartment. You don't have some natural right to stay there forever.

[the urban politician]

^. Yep
Too often people forget this. Maybe if more people here owned property they would understand. If the utility companies, the insurance company, the maintenance staff, and property tax assessor all get to raise their rates on me, then how is it fair that I'm not able to do the same?

[mhays]

Why, why, next you'll tell us our JOBS aren't ours for life either!

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by 10023

Which is his property.

That's what renting means. You enter into a voluntary contract, for a fixed term, whereby you agree to pay someone money and they agree to let you live in their house or apartment. You don't have some natural right to stay there forever.

Excellent post, glad somebody else said it!

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 10023

Which is his property.

That's what renting means. You enter into a voluntary contract, for a fixed term, whereby you agree to pay someone money and they agree to let you live in their house or apartment. You don't have some natural right to stay there forever.

Every landlord in San Francisco knows about the city's 40-year old rent control rules and has agreed to live by them.

[10023]

Originally Posted by fflint

Every landlord in San Francisco knows about the city's 40-year old rent control rules and has agreed to live by them.

That's great. I wasn't aware that this thread was specific to San Francisco. I was merely rebutting your apparent view that landlords shouldn't have the right to increase the price they charge for the use of their property in general.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 10023

That's great. I wasn't aware that this thread was specific to San Francisco. I was merely rebutting your apparent view that landlords shouldn't have the right to increase the price they charge for the use of their property in general.

Yeah, it is great. You responded specifically to a comment touching on rent control within the context of a sub-discussion about rent control by someone who lives in one of two big US cities with rent control. 'Who I am' has nothing to do with it, but whatever--yes, I do believe where and when landlords rent property for which they are specifically legally barred from raising rent beyond a certain percentage, they have no 'right' to break the law.

[10023]

That's fair enough. I'm still against rent control because it creates a supply constraint and distorts the pricing of market-rate units, which makes housing more expensive for people that fall between the low end and high end of the income spectrum. And these are the people that cities really need to attract...

[fflint]

Rent control was enacted in San Francisco because rents were already too high and spiraling higher, not vice-versa.

[10023]

Originally Posted by fflint

Rent control was enacted in San Francisco because rents were already too high and spiraling higher, not vice-versa.

Too high for whom?

The point is that rent control makes the city more affordable for the working class but more expensive for young professionals (or others earning that sort of income). In other words, they're beneficial to those making $30k per year and detrimental to those making $60k.

[the urban politician]

^. That's the inevitable result of excessive Government intervention in pretty much anything. The poor and the rich get their handout, and essentially everybody else gets screwed.

Besides, mandated creation of cheap housing for the poor has had the opposite effect by stigmatizing the term "affordable housing" as housing for the poor.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 10023

Too high for whom?

Too high for the electoral majority that directed its government to regulate rent increases. The electorate > the market.

The point is that rent control makes the city more affordable for the working class but more expensive for young professionals (or others earning that sort of income). In other words, they're beneficial to those making $30k per year and detrimental to those making $60k.

Rent control makes San Francisco affordable for people who make $60k. It's simply not affordable for people who make $30k, and rent control doesn't matter to people making more than 100k, which is average for the newly-arriving techies.

[10023]

Then shift my numbers up a bit (as SF is more expensive than average overall). It does affect people making $100k. It reduces the number of available apartments by allowing people to hold onto many of them at lower rent.

[mhays]

San Francisco is the rich and poor, with little in the middle, and much of the gap is their own fault.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by mhays

San Francisco is the rich and poor, with little in the middle, and much of the gap is their own fault.

All rich and poor with "little in the middle"? I often hear people claiming this, yet stats (and my experience living in SF) seem to prove it wrong.

SF household income, 2012:

Total households 340,839
Less than $10,000 - 22,764 - 6.7%
$10,000 to $14,999 - 21,249 - 6.2%
$15,000 to $24,999 - 27,548 - 8.1%
$25,000 to $34,999 - 23,613 - 6.9%
$35,000 to $49,999 - 30,709 - 9.0%
$50,000 to $74,999 - 46,550 - 13.7%
$75,000 to $99,999 - 37,121 - 10.9%
$100,000 to $149,999 - 54,977 - 16.1%
$150,000 to $199,999 - 30,871 - 9.1%
$200,000 or more - 45,437 - 13.3%

Maybe SF has somewhat fewer middle class people than your average big US city (it would be interesting to see some numbers on that), but there certainly are a ton of them here, despite getting squeezed harder than ever before by insane housing prices (remember that a ton--most even--of them already own homes in SF from decades ago, when prices weren't as high, or they have rent control, as most SF renters do). I guess the "lack of a middle class" stereotype can be filed away with the other exaggerated stereotypes, such as "there are no black people" or "there are few children" or "all the poor people live in Oakland!"

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by 10023

Which is his property.

That's what renting means. You enter into a voluntary contract, for a fixed term, whereby you agree to pay someone money and they agree to let you live in their house or apartment. You don't have some natural right to stay there forever.

It's your property, but if you are a landlord and have tenants, there are laws you have to follow, just like employers have laws to follow in regards to their employees. And just like employees have (some) rights, tenants do too.

For example, you just can't evict someone just like that, at least not in California. For example, is someone has fallen behind on their rent, it would be illegal for the owner or landlord to change the locks on them and lock them out, or cut off their water, or gas, etc. You basically have to follow court proceedings to evict a tenant.

My parents used to own a house that they rented out; we had a problematic tenant who had fallen behind on the rent. He and his family were basically living there rent-free for a number of months until my parents were able to take them to court, and they were finally evicted. By the time they were finally gone, the house was a mess.

Also in California, if you intend to raise the rent, depending on the percentage, you have to notify the tenant within a certain time frame. I don't know the exact law, but if you intend to raise the rent by 10 percent, the tenant has to be notified in writing at least 30 days in advance, and if it's more than a 10 percent increase, the tenant has to be notified in writing at least 60 days in advance--something like that.

Anyway, my point is, just because you have property that you rent out, you can't just do anything you want and be a tyrant to the tenants.