If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KRON 4)   Dear Ms. Phillips, Happy belated 98th birthday and thanks for being our tenant for 50 years. Please vacate the property in 30 days. Best wishes, The Management   (news.kron4.com) divider line 99
    More: Sad, San Francisco  
•       •       •

10475 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2014 at 11:19 PM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-11 06:19:27 PM
Yay density and development. Yay tenants rights.
 
2014-07-11 07:36:28 PM
You spent the past 50 years not buying a house/condo?  Was there any point that you thought "I should probably do something to get some equity for the money I am spending each month"?
 
2014-07-11 07:45:19 PM
This company, "Urban Green," is disgusting. They have no record of property management in SF, they're just rich farks with money...so they can exploit the "owner move-in" loophole to throw people out of their homes and resell the property to other rich farks. It's Mitt Romney economics: not technically illegal and you're making money, so what could be wrong?

mrmopar5287: You spent the past 50 years not buying a house/condo?  Was there any point that you thought "I should probably do something to get some equity for the money I am spending each month"?


Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc. Shortsighted buyers like to maintain that renters are flushing their money away...meanwhile, renters look at the amount of money homebuyers flush away on homes and laugh. I rent. And I save a fortune (relative) compared to what any livable home anywhere I'd want to be would cost. And part of that fortune goes towards investing. I'd much rather have my money, heavily diversified, tied to the stock markets right now (thanks Obama!) than to have it sunk into a home whose value flops around like a fish out of water.
 
2014-07-11 07:45:35 PM
This one's a tad conflicting, but still pretty clear-cut. On one hand, you have a long-term renter that you'd feel bad about having to cast out to find a new apartment. On the other, should a property owner be essentially held hostage by what they can do with their property and business even if they they follow the rules and give plenty of time for tenants to relocate? Sometimes being a renter sucks for the whole "lack of ownership" thing, and this looks like one of those times.
 
2014-07-11 07:54:25 PM

Scrotastic Method: She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc.


Uh, I'm going to go ahead and say YES she did pay for those things in the price of her rent.
 
2014-07-11 07:54:39 PM

Somaticasual: This one's a tad conflicting, but still pretty clear-cut. On one hand, you have a long-term renter that you'd feel bad about having to cast out to find a new apartment. On the other, should a property owner be essentially held hostage by what they can do with their property and business even if they they follow the rules and give plenty of time for tenants to relocate? Sometimes being a renter sucks for the whole "lack of ownership" thing, and this looks like one of those times.


It's not the property owner, or at least not the traditional one, it's an investment firm that bought the building just to throw everyone out. They're buying tons of property around the city, buildings already full of renters, then exploiting the owner-move-in loophole and throwing everyone out, so they can convert to condos or, even worse, TiCs. The company has no history, in SF or anywhere else, as property managers, landlords, etc. They're just rich guys dicking with people to get richer. Now, it's IS San Francisco so take this next part with the appropriate grains of salt, but at least two Supervisors are on record as being against this company, calling them "predatory" and "unacceptable."
 
2014-07-11 07:59:32 PM

mrmopar5287: Scrotastic Method: She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc.

Uh, I'm going to go ahead and say YES she did pay for those things in the price of her rent.


First, no she isn't, because rent control would have had that place so far under market rate that she's a loss for the landlord. But second, that's the other thing homeowners say, and even if you want to play that semantic argument, I'm telling you, I rent a nice place in a great neighborhood for a fraction of what any mortgage anywhere in the city would cost (literally, including bombed-out shiatholes in gang territory).

The direct comparison is mortgage vs. rent. Most renters pay less than or equal to the cost of a mortgage on apartments/condos, a little more for single family homes. IF they were to buy it you'd then have to factor in all the "extra" bills that aren't their problem right now. Me? I don't even pay gas, electric, water, or trash in my place, and if I showed you where I lived and told you what I paid you'd be shocked...and you'd want to rent :)
 
2014-07-11 08:02:22 PM

Scrotastic Method: Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc. Shortsighted buyers like to maintain that renters are flushing their money away...meanwhile, renters look at the amount of money homebuyers flush away on homes and laugh. I rent. And I save a fortune (relative) compared to what any livable home anywhere I'd want to be would cost. And part of that fortune goes towards investing. I'd much rather have my money, heavily diversified, tied to the stock markets right now (thanks Obama!) than to have it sunk into a home whose value flops around like a fish out of water.


I guarantee you that had she bought she would have paid far less than what she has paid out in rent. For one had she bought fifty years ago then she would have paid up her mortgage twenty years ago. Insurance, taxes and maintenance would be considerably less than what she is paying in rent. It has to be since the landlord has to pay for all those out of the rent he gets and still make a profit.

I bought my home twenty years ago. My monthly mortgage is now £150, insurance £30 and tax £100. If I were to rent my home now I'd have to pay £800 a month, and still pay the £100 tax. In five years the rent will be close to £1000 a month but I'll only have to pay the tax and insurance.

And you think I'd be better off renting? I'm saving £600 ever month, and that figure is getting better every month.

Renting can be a good option if you want or need to move a lot. But staying in one place fifty years? Had she bought the place she'd have saved a lot of money and if they want to redevelop the area they'd have to buy her place, giving her the cash to buy another place. But because she rented she has nothing.
 
2014-07-11 08:05:03 PM

Scrotastic Method: Me? I don't even pay gas, electric, water, or trash in my place,


Yeah, I understand that there can be situations where renting is a better option, but you are paying for gas, electric, water, and trash when you pay your rent.  Those are all costs that are built into your rent even if you don't seen an itemized bill for them.
 
2014-07-11 08:13:37 PM
Urban Green Investments has purchased a number of buildings in San Francisco, has evicted its residents through the Ellis Act, and is reselling the buildings for profit.

fark'em. They provide nothing of value.
 
2014-07-11 08:16:17 PM

Flint Ironstag: Scrotastic Method: Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc. Shortsighted buyers like to maintain that renters are flushing their money away...meanwhile, renters look at the amount of money homebuyers flush away on homes and laugh. I rent. And I save a fortune (relative) compared to what any livable home anywhere I'd want to be would cost. And part of that fortune goes towards investing. I'd much rather have my money, heavily diversified, tied to the stock markets right now (thanks Obama!) than to have it sunk into a home whose value flops around like a fish out of water.

I guarantee you that had she bought she would have paid far less than what she has paid out in rent. For one had she bought fifty years ago then she would have paid up her mortgage twenty years ago. Insurance, taxes and maintenance would be considerably less than what she is paying in rent. It has to be since the landlord has to pay for all those out of the rent he gets and still make a profit.

I bought my home twenty years ago. My monthly mortgage is now £150, insurance £30 and tax £100. If I were to rent my home now I'd have to pay £800 a month, and still pay the £100 tax. In five years the rent will be close to £1000 a month but I'll only have to pay the tax and insurance.

And you think I'd be better off renting? I'm saving £600 ever month, and that figure is getting better every month.

Renting can be a good option if you want or need to move a lot. But staying in one place fifty years? Had she bought the place she'd have saved a lot of money and if they want to redevelop the area they'd have to buy her place, giving her the cash to buy another place. But because she rented she has nothing.


Do you know what rent control is? In many cities that can be a factor.
 
2014-07-11 08:36:50 PM

davidphogan: Flint Ironstag: Scrotastic Method: Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc. Shortsighted buyers like to maintain that renters are flushing their money away...meanwhile, renters look at the amount of money homebuyers flush away on homes and laugh. I rent. And I save a fortune (relative) compared to what any livable home anywhere I'd want to be would cost. And part of that fortune goes towards investing. I'd much rather have my money, heavily diversified, tied to the stock markets right now (thanks Obama!) than to have it sunk into a home whose value flops around like a fish out of water.

I guarantee you that had she bought she would have paid far less than what she has paid out in rent. For one had she bought fifty years ago then she would have paid up her mortgage twenty years ago. Insurance, taxes and maintenance would be considerably less than what she is paying in rent. It has to be since the landlord has to pay for all those out of the rent he gets and still make a profit.

I bought my home twenty years ago. My monthly mortgage is now £150, insurance £30 and tax £100. If I were to rent my home now I'd have to pay £800 a month, and still pay the £100 tax. In five years the rent will be close to £1000 a month but I'll only have to pay the tax and insurance.

And you think I'd be better off renting? I'm saving £600 ever month, and that figure is getting better every month.

Renting can be a good option if you want or need to move a lot. But staying in one place fifty years? Had she bought the place she'd have saved a lot of money and if they want to redevelop the area they'd have to buy her place, giving her the cash to buy another place. But because she rented she has nothing.

Do you know what rent control is? In many cities that can be a factor.


She's paying $418 a month according to the eviction notice linked to in the updated article. Rent control is great, but it only keeps rent from going up each year. You know what else doesn't go up each year? Mortgage payments.
Had she bought fifty years ago she'd have stopped paying anything twenty years ago. And zero is far less than $418. And $418 a month would cover insurance, electricity etc. Plus she'd have a capital asset that she could choose to sell.

A quick look at property for sale in SF, one bed apartments, shows they generally start at $2000 a month rental in this area. In the same area a one bed apartment has sold for $600k, with a monthly mortgage estimate of $2255. The Zillow page estimates the rent for that unit to be $3k.
So even if a monthly mortgage is slightly more than renting now, the fact that the rental will go up each year (barring rent control) while the mortgage will stay the same and then stop entirely means that long term buying is better value.
A mortgage comes with "rent control" built in. You pay the same each month for (here) 25 years and then you get to stop paying anything at all!
 
2014-07-11 08:41:20 PM

davidphogan: Flint Ironstag: Scrotastic Method: Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc. Shortsighted buyers like to maintain that renters are flushing their money away...meanwhile, renters look at the amount of money homebuyers flush away on homes and laugh. I rent. And I save a fortune (relative) compared to what any livable home anywhere I'd want to be would cost. And part of that fortune goes towards investing. I'd much rather have my money, heavily diversified, tied to the stock markets right now (thanks Obama!) than to have it sunk into a home whose value flops around like a fish out of water.

I guarantee you that had she bought she would have paid far less than what she has paid out in rent. For one had she bought fifty years ago then she would have paid up her mortgage twenty years ago. Insurance, taxes and maintenance would be considerably less than what she is paying in rent. It has to be since the landlord has to pay for all those out of the rent he gets and still make a profit.

I bought my home twenty years ago. My monthly mortgage is now £150, insurance £30 and tax £100. If I were to rent my home now I'd have to pay £800 a month, and still pay the £100 tax. In five years the rent will be close to £1000 a month but I'll only have to pay the tax and insurance.

And you think I'd be better off renting? I'm saving £600 ever month, and that figure is getting better every month.

Renting can be a good option if you want or need to move a lot. But staying in one place fifty years? Had she bought the place she'd have saved a lot of money and if they want to redevelop the area they'd have to buy her place, giving her the cash to buy another place. But because she rented she has nothing.

Do you know what rent control is? In many cities that can be a factor.


Anybody who expects to live in the same rent-controlled apartment for 50 years is crazy.  At some point either the cost of maintaining the property or the opportunity cost of not having that money elsewhere are going to make it too expensive for the owner to keep the property.  Typically, one of two things happens.  Either the building goes to shiat because the landlord doesn't make improvements or the landlord sells the building to somebody else.

In the case of San Francisco, with its still booming tech market craving real estate, any smart landlord is going to want to be in the commercial real estate business right now.  I wouldn't be surprised to see more stories like this in the next decade.
 
2014-07-11 09:22:36 PM

Scrotastic Method: Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc. Shortsighted buyers like to maintain that renters are flushing their money away...meanwhile, renters look at the amount of money homebuyers flush away on homes and laugh. I rent. And I save a fortune (relative) compared to what any livable home anywhere I'd want to be would cost. And part of that fortune goes towards investing. I'd much rather have my money, heavily diversified, tied to the stock markets right now (thanks Obama!) than to have it sunk into a home whose value flops around like a fish out of water.



Well, there's a few reasons why your post is off target.  First of all, you are paying for taxes, maintenance, and improvements.  That's what your rent is meant to cover.  You are also paying a margin to the landlord as well.  So while you are not making those payments directly you are doing so indirectly through your monthly rental check.  Finding a place to live that costs less than renting isn't all that difficult given that financing rates are between 4 to 4.5% over 30 years.  Hell, in my neighborhood the cost to rent an apartment the size of the one I own is roughly 50% more than what I pay in mortgage, taxes, and assessments.  So the real measure of whether you are wasting your money is whether it would be cheaper to purchase or to rent based on the relative annual costs of either option.

Second of all, you can be evicted with 30 days notice or your landlord can non-renew your lease.  So while your money is diversified you are fairly insecure housing wise especially since you may be forced to find alternative living arrangements at a less than optimal time (e.g. when few attractive options are available or when you have other personal issues to attend to).
 
2014-07-11 09:26:07 PM

Scrotastic Method: It's not the property owner, or at least not the traditional one, it's an investment firm that bought the building just to throw everyone out. They're buying tons of property around the city, buildings already full of renters, then exploiting the owner-move-in loophole and throwing everyone out, so they can convert to condos or, even worse, TiCs. The company has no history, in SF or anywhere else, as property managers, landlords, etc. They're just rich guys dicking with people to get richer. Now, it's IS San Francisco so take this next part with the appropriate grains of salt, but at least two Supervisors are on record as being against this company, calling them "predatory" and "unacceptable."



Well the city could always threaten to rezone the property for agriculture if the company follows through with the plan.  Creative use of zoning to diminish anticipated value is one way to discourage that kind of abuse.
 
2014-07-11 09:51:21 PM

Somaticasual: This one's a tad conflicting, but still pretty clear-cut. On one hand, you have a long-term renter that you'd feel bad about having to cast out to find a new apartment. On the other, should a property owner be essentially held hostage by what they can do with their property and business even if they they follow the rules and give plenty of time for tenants to relocate? Sometimes being a renter sucks for the whole "lack of ownership" thing, and this looks like one of those times.


agreed and that she is 98 but this is a law that has been on the books almost as long as she has been renting her apt and if is is rent controlled and her rent is dirt cheap then she had a good run. it sucks but sometimes life sucks.
 
2014-07-11 09:55:01 PM

Flint Ironstag: Scrotastic Method: Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc. Shortsighted buyers like to maintain that renters are flushing their money away...meanwhile, renters look at the amount of money homebuyers flush away on homes and laugh. I rent. And I save a fortune (relative) compared to what any livable home anywhere I'd want to be would cost. And part of that fortune goes towards investing. I'd much rather have my money, heavily diversified, tied to the stock markets right now (thanks Obama!) than to have it sunk into a home whose value flops around like a fish out of water.

I guarantee you that had she bought she would have paid far less than what she has paid out in rent. For one had she bought fifty years ago then she would have paid up her mortgage twenty years ago. Insurance, taxes and maintenance would be considerably less than what she is paying in rent. It has to be since the landlord has to pay for all those out of the rent he gets and still make a profit.

I bought my home twenty years ago. My monthly mortgage is now £150, insurance £30 and tax £100. If I were to rent my home now I'd have to pay £800 a month, and still pay the £100 tax. In five years the rent will be close to £1000 a month but I'll only have to pay the tax and insurance.

And you think I'd be better off renting? I'm saving £600 ever month, and that figure is getting better every month.

Renting can be a good option if you want or need to move a lot. But staying in one place fifty years? Had she bought the place she'd have saved a lot of money and if they want to redevelop the area they'd have to buy her place, giving her the cash to buy another place. But because she rented she has nothing.


One also requires a deposit. Therein often lies one of the biggest issues. On low income, in a rent controlled apartment, she may still not have had sufficient income.
 
2014-07-11 10:04:47 PM
As a renter, that is a risk we run. My landlord could tell me to fark off and not renew my lease. It's his property and he has that right.
 
2014-07-11 10:41:33 PM

rugman11: davidphogan: Flint Ironstag: Scrotastic Method: Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc. Shortsighted buyers like to maintain that renters are flushing their money away...meanwhile, renters look at the amount of money homebuyers flush away on homes and laugh. I rent. And I save a fortune (relative) compared to what any livable home anywhere I'd want to be would cost. And part of that fortune goes towards investing. I'd much rather have my money, heavily diversified, tied to the stock markets right now (thanks Obama!) than to have it sunk into a home whose value flops around like a fish out of water.

I guarantee you that had she bought she would have paid far less than what she has paid out in rent. For one had she bought fifty years ago then she would have paid up her mortgage twenty years ago. Insurance, taxes and maintenance would be considerably less than what she is paying in rent. It has to be since the landlord has to pay for all those out of the rent he gets and still make a profit.

I bought my home twenty years ago. My monthly mortgage is now £150, insurance £30 and tax £100. If I were to rent my home now I'd have to pay £800 a month, and still pay the £100 tax. In five years the rent will be close to £1000 a month but I'll only have to pay the tax and insurance.

And you think I'd be better off renting? I'm saving £600 ever month, and that figure is getting better every month.

Renting can be a good option if you want or need to move a lot. But staying in one place fifty years? Had she bought the place she'd have saved a lot of money and if they want to redevelop the area they'd have to buy her place, giving her the cash to buy another place. But because she rented she has nothing.

Do you know what rent control is? In many cities that can be a factor.

Anybody who expects to live in the same rent-controlled apartment for 50 years is crazy.  At some point either the cost of ...


It's the classic Sam Vimes scenario. If she had enough money, she could have had enough for the down payment on that nicer place, end up owning it in 30 years and spent less in the long term. Instead, she didn't and rented for 50 years, paying probably more total and never officially owning it.

Just like a man who can't afford the nice 100 percent dry pair, has to buy crappier shoes every year instead of one nice pair that last ten years and costs him less in the long run.
 
2014-07-11 10:50:34 PM
This is a sad story.

I hate to think some Facebook or Twitter d-bags will soon be moving in.
 
2014-07-11 10:55:09 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: As a renter, that is a risk we run. My landlord could tell me to fark off and not renew my lease. It's his property and he has that right.


I think the rights should necessarily be restricted once you've got people living on/renting out your property.
And it seems they were, but this company is abusing the law by getting into the rental business specifically to get out of it and get scott-free evictions in the process.
 
2014-07-11 10:57:20 PM
So the law is intended to allow landlords to get out of the rental business, but these guys are specifically getting INTO the rental business for the sole purpose of turning around and immediately getting out of the rental business. Meanwhile, they have every intention of getting back into the rental business with their next buyout. Someone's not behaving and I think I know who.
 
2014-07-11 11:13:24 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: As a renter, that is a risk we run. My landlord could tell me to fark off and not renew my lease. It's his property and he has that right.

I think the rights should necessarily be restricted once you've got people living on/renting out your property.
And it seems they were, but this company is abusing the law by getting into the rental business specifically to get out of it and get scott-free evictions in the process.


But there should be some middle ground between "I can kick you out at any time" and "I can never kick you out."  I know this particular situation seems shady, but at the same time, you don't want to prevent a person from being able to sell an apartment building just because the new owner might not want to rent it for apartments.  Any decent rent control law will prevent owners from turning a building back into apartments within a certain amount of time, but if a landlord wants to do something else with the property other than rent apartments, they should be allowed to do so.
 
2014-07-11 11:29:01 PM
If I ever get kicked out because one of these predatory companies buys out my building, they'd better have on hazmat suits before they enter my vacated premises because I'm dead certain to leave a personal "gift" for them to enjoy.

Hell, they'd better bring along a geiger counter too, just in case.
 
2014-07-11 11:31:22 PM
Scrotastic Method: Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc. Shortsighted buyers like to maintain that renters are flushing their money away...meanwhile, renters look at the amount of money homebuyers flush away on homes and laugh. I rent. And I save a fortune (relative) compared to what any livable home anywhere I'd want to be would cost. And part of that fortune goes towards investing. I'd much rather have my money, heavily diversified, tied to the stock markets right now (thanks Obama!) than to have it sunk into a home whose value flops around like a fish out of water.


What a lot of people don't take into consideration is that houses have carrying costs too. You pay off the mortgage, but you've got taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities and various fees, which is a significant chunk of change which also goes up every year. But you do get an asset , which when sold, can offset your geriatric care.

This woman probably has a reasonable net worth. A purchased house, while quite desirable in many instances, is not quite the path to riches that it used to be.
 
2014-07-11 11:31:41 PM
She obviously violated her lease by failing to make the minimum income requirement.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/san-francisco-landlord-tells-tenants- ma ke-100k/story?id=23611110
San Francisco Landlord Tells Tenants: Make $100K, Have 725 Credit Score
 
2014-07-11 11:32:47 PM
I rent because my pure-evil, shouldn't-have-stuck-my-dick-in-her ex-wife has registered 10s of thousands in bogus "arrears" with the credit bureau.  I can't get a mortgage.  I make good coin, on paper.  My ex wife gets over half of it.

I could "lawyer up", and spend *years* in court trying to get some of this nonsense set right, and spend many 10s
  of K in the process.

For now, it's less stressful for me to live in my rental place where I'm getting a bargain.

I've owned twice before my marriage went all to poop.   We owned a 37-acre paradise for 13 years.  I drive by it
every day on my way to a job I hate.   Makes me cry just about.
 
2014-07-11 11:39:11 PM

Flint Ironstag: She's paying $418 a month according to the eviction notice linked to in the updated article. Rent control is great, but it only keeps rent from going up each year. You know what else doesn't go up each year? Mortgage payments.
Had she bought fifty years ago she'd have stopped paying anything twenty years ago. And zero is far less than $418. And $418 a month would cover insurance, electricity etc. Plus she'd have a capital asset that she could choose to sell.

A quick look at property for sale in SF, one bed apartments, shows they generally start at $2000 a month rental in this area. In the same area a one bed apartment has sold for $600k, with a monthly mortgage estimate of $2255. The Zillow page estimates the rent for that unit to be $3k.
So even if a monthly mortgage is slightly more than renting now, the fact that the rental will go up each year (barring rent control) while the mortgage will stay the same and then stop entirely means that long term buying is better value.
A mortgage comes with "rent control" built in. You pay the same each month for (here) 25 years and then you get to stop paying anything at all!


Don't apartments and condos have monthly association fee? That can be a huge chunk of the monthly expenses.

If you buy a house, you also have to factor in maintenance costs.

Renting and purchasing a house vary by location. In the midwest, renting is throwing money down a hole. In San Francisco, the equation is more favorable for renting and that is not even considering rent control.

But, don't know if she had bought 50 years ago what he situation would be.
 
2014-07-11 11:40:51 PM

mrmopar5287: You spent the past 50 years not buying a house/condo?  Was there any point that you thought "I should probably do something to get some equity for the money I am spending each month"?


I have a close friend who lives out in the middle of Fark-all. His house is currently underwater to the tune of $300k. He's had it on and off the market for the past five years. He's paying $5k/month on mortage and utilities, plus he needs to get the roof redone ($20k).

I live in the center of Berkeley, where I rent. I can walk to light rail in six minutes and there are two bus stops within a block of my place. My rent is currently 1/6 of my monthly income.

Who is in a better position?
 
2014-07-11 11:44:17 PM
 
2014-07-11 11:44:23 PM
Crappy?  Yes.
Shiatty?  Yes.
Uncaring?  Yes.
Illegal?  No.
 
2014-07-11 11:47:44 PM

mrmopar5287: You spent the past 50 years not buying a house/condo?  Was there any point that you thought "I should probably do something to get some equity for the money I am spending each month"?


I was a renter for over 25 years, finally just bought my first property.  To me the freedom to come and go as I pleased without having a huge investment 'owning me' was well worth the money.  My decision to buy now was because, like with the woman in the article, four out of my last five rentals dumped me out against my will.  One was due to a switch to section 8 housing, two were liquidations due to the landlord(s) divorcing, and one was a complex refusing to renew me because they didn't like my repeated complaints about a billing issue. So after the second landlord divorce I decided enough was enough, time to master my own residential fate. People ask me if I'm glad I'm finally getting something for my money and I say right now the only value-add to me is knowing I'm not going to get that surprise letter in the mail that ruins my next couple months.
 
2014-07-11 11:50:51 PM

lostcat: mrmopar5287: You spent the past 50 years not buying a house/condo?  Was there any point that you thought "I should probably do something to get some equity for the money I am spending each month"?

I have a close friend who lives out in the middle of Fark-all. His house is currently underwater to the tune of $300k. He's had it on and off the market for the past five years. He's paying $5k/month on mortage and utilities, plus he needs to get the roof redone ($20k).

I live in the center of Berkeley, where I rent. I can walk to light rail in six minutes and there are two bus stops within a block of my place. My rent is currently 1/6 of my monthly income.

Who is in a better position?



You're in a fortunate position but those two anecdotes sound like the exceptions for each location. He sounds like he bought a very high-end house right at the top of the bubble, and you're either making more than the median salary or have a very inexpensive apartment or both.

$5k/mo on a 30-year is a $900k house, that's way out there on the high end for any market (Except S.F.).
Berkeley median rent for a 1-br as of 2012 was $1325, and that's 1/6th of $95k/yr salary. (Assuming you are in a 1-br)

That said, you're in a good spot, keep on keepin' on. But your examples aren't very representative.
 
2014-07-11 11:51:41 PM

Scrotastic Method: This company, "Urban Green," is disgusting. They have no record of property management in SF, they're just rich farks with money...so they can exploit the "owner move-in" loophole to throw people out of their homes and resell the property to other rich farks. It's Mitt Romney economics: not technically illegal and you're making money, so what could be wrong?

mrmopar5287: You spent the past 50 years not buying a house/condo?  Was there any point that you thought "I should probably do something to get some equity for the money I am spending each month"?

Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc. Shortsighted buyers like to maintain that renters are flushing their money away...meanwhile, renters look at the amount of money homebuyers flush away on homes and laugh. I rent. And I save a fortune (relative) compared to what any livable home anywhere I'd want to be would cost. And part of that fortune goes towards investing. I'd much rather have my money, heavily diversified, tied to the stock markets right now (thanks Obama!) than to have it sunk into a home whose value flops around like a fish out of water.


But...but...but... captalism.
 
2014-07-11 11:54:45 PM

mrmopar5287: You spent the past 50 years not buying a house/condo?  Was there any point that you thought "I should probably do something to get some equity for the money I am spending each month"?


Yes Just want to put money into something that will.
1) Collapse in an earthquake
2) Burn in a wild fire
3) Get buried in a mudslide
4) Get screwed out of by the bank
5) Inanimate Domain
 
2014-07-11 11:55:48 PM
She can probably tie them up in court for the rest of her life.

/aisle seat please
 
2014-07-11 11:56:40 PM

rugman11: But there should be some middle ground between "I can kick you out at any time" and "I can never kick you out." I know this particular situation seems shady, but at the same time, you don't want to prevent a person from being able to sell an apartment building just because the new owner might not want to rent it for apartments. Any decent rent control law will prevent owners from turning a building back into apartments within a certain amount of time, but if a landlord wants to do something else with the property other than rent apartments, they should be allowed to do so.


Yeah, there's always a middle ground. Just tend to err on the side of the tenant because we're talking about people's homes. An apartment is still a home and the landlord should have some responsibility besides "It's my property, get out." when he's chosen to get into that business in the first place. If he's selling the building to someone who won't continue to rent out the property, I think it should fall to one of those parties to relocate the tenants. After all, the tenants don't have any say in the decision making process. The landlord can still do what he wants with his property, but he can't just screw people over after he's already agreed to let them live there. Most people probably won't need more than notice that the building is changing hands and a recommendation or deposit for someplace else, but some, like the woman in the article, require a more complicated solution.
 
2014-07-11 11:57:35 PM
 
2014-07-12 12:04:35 AM
Fark investment groups who own rentals. They care about money, not their tenants.
 
2014-07-12 12:05:39 AM

Scrotastic Method: Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc.


Yeah nobody figures that shiat into the rent, especially not landlords
 
2014-07-12 12:06:15 AM
"Person who doesn't own property asked to leave it by person who does".  More accurate headline... because she's 98 that makes it much worse than if she was 28? She still doesn't own it. Sucks for her, but there's no reason for outrage here.
 
2014-07-12 12:09:44 AM
But the company name has the word 'Green' in it. Doesn't that mean they are awesome?
 
2014-07-12 12:10:29 AM

moothemagiccow: Scrotastic Method: Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc.

Yeah nobody figures that shiat into the rent, especially not landlords


With maintenance and improvements, it's not just the money, it's the time.  'This thing is on the fritz can you come fix it'.  The time it takes to read that sentence is how long I'd personally spend on any maintenance issue as a renter.
 
2014-07-12 12:18:12 AM

EnormousGreenRageMonster: "Person who doesn't own property asked to leave it by person who does".  More accurate headline... because she's 98 that makes it much worse than if she was 28? She still doesn't own it. Sucks for her, but there's no reason for outrage here.



Just because you own the property does not mean a rich person cannot take it away and build a stadium on it.

www.whitemountainpuzzles.com
 
2014-07-12 12:18:31 AM
I bet Romney bought the building.
 
2014-07-12 12:24:16 AM

Abox: moothemagiccow: Scrotastic Method: Yeah, she did get something. She got to not pay property tax, maintenance, improvements, probably even utility bills, etc.

Yeah nobody figures that shiat into the rent, especially not landlords

With maintenance and improvements, it's not just the money, it's the time.  'This thing is on the fritz can you come fix it'.  The time it takes to read that sentence is how long I'd personally spend on any maintenance issue as a renter.


You sound like you have a decent landlord. Most of them completely ignore maintenance requests. Had a friend who went without gas for 7 months. Another had a constantly failing air conditioner - in Texas. Personally I had a toilet that wouldn't flush after a heavy rain. I couldn't shiat and the manager said "it wasn't fair" to the owner that he had to call the plumber. Also gave me "they don't work on the weekend" and I quickly called and confirmed they did.
 
2014-07-12 12:24:25 AM
Abox:
With maintenance and improvements, it's not just the money, it's the time.  'This thing is on the fritz can you come fix it'.  The time it takes to read that sentence is how long I'd personally spend on any maintenance issue as a renter.

This is one reason I really don't mind renting. Due to some unforseen expenses, my savings account is looking a little sad right now. However, if the A/C goes tango uniform tomorrow, all I have to do is make a phone call to the property manager and if it needs replacing, well, it's on them. Same for the furnace, or if some shingles blow off when a big dust devil goes over the house, whatever might otherwise be a pain in the ass for a homeowner...not my problem.

Having looked at buying in this neighborhood (built in 2006) mortgage payments would be pretty close if not equal to what I'm paying in rent, but I have none of the hassles. Since I don't plan on living here forever, this arrangement just makes sense.
 
2014-07-12 12:27:36 AM

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Just because you own the property does not mean a rich person cannot take it away and build a stadium on it.


I believe the 'fark you, pay me' clause applies there though.
 
2014-07-12 12:27:41 AM

Flint Ironstag: You pay the same each month for (here) 25 years and then you get to stop paying anything at all!


You mean once I pay off the mortgage I can just stop cutting checks for electricity, garbage, water, sewer, maintenance and property taxes?? AWESOME!
 
2014-07-12 12:27:42 AM

BalugaJoe: I bet Romney bought the building.


A lot of these investors are working for your retirement fund. I understand the hedge fund managers are evil, and that's why I refuse to support the whole wall street shiatty gambling shenanigans and watch my savings deflate into nothing, but they're not all billionaires making billions for billionaires.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report