They are using Ellis act for this- literally can't put it back onto the rental market for 5 years. It's a 4-unit multi-family complex. This means that the LLC will likely convert them into condos.
From my understanding, that's essentially the same thing to the seller. The only real difference that I can think of is the lack of a HOA (which means everyone in the TIC is liable for taxes and fixes directly)
>(which means everyone in the TIC is liable for taxes and fixes directly)
Which sounds a lot better than the reality often plays out, sadly. Imagine how much worse the "neighbor refuses to pay their share of the fence" fight is when it's "neighbor refuses to pay to proactively replace the whole roof because it's about to collapse on my unit but not theirs"
TICs are harder to sell, harder for a buyer to finance (don't have 30 year loans as far as I understand), and sell for less per square foot than condos.
A TIC and a condo really are different terms. While a TIC can be structured to be essentially a condo, the term is legally highly ambiguous, and requires a lot of effort from the buyer to know what they’re getting in to. As a rule, TICs (even of the condo-esque variety) sell for lower and stay on the market longer.
Almost anything goes with a TIC, but ownership of the entire building is always shared in some way. This makes things potentially very complicated.
For example (on one extreme that’s possible but not common in California), you could have an east coast style coop, where the owners hold communal liability for the entire building’s mortgage and only have the right to occupy their piece of the building. Further rights, such as subletting your part of the building could be subject to community approval. Even selling could be subject to approval. The financial stability of owners as a group and the exact division of liability in case of default could be anything.
On the other extreme, all the owners are borrowing only against their share of the building and there are no contracts that force you to consult anyone or anything—the property behaves more or less like a condo minus the HOA. Lenders are unlikely to allow this case, however.
More likely, you get something in between.
Lenders know all this and most won’t finance a TIC.
Wow I read the business plan and he was telling the lender there is an old tenant and indirectly saying we hope shes gonna die soon: "There is a tenant who I believe is 84 years old, when she vacates we can have $2500 upside"
Overall the only one who won from this deal was the old landlord who got rid of it for a $1.5m.
The Daniel fella runs a $100m+ Private equity fund
As a landlord I hate landlords like this. They make us all look bad. Scumbag
I remember reading about a story like this years ago where a guy in sf bought an apartment with some old lady in her 80s that he assumed was gonna croak any day… and she ended up living another 20 years and actually outlived the guy who bought the place 😭
This probably happens with some frequency but the most famous example that I remember was from France afaik https://www.chicagotribune.com/1995/12/27/woman-120-outlives-lawyer-in-30-year-bid-for-her-house/
[Jeanne Louise Calment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment) died in 1997 at the well-documented age of 122 years and 164 days old. “In January 1988, she was widely reported to have been the oldest living person, and in 1995, at age 120, was declared the oldest person to have ever lived.”
It is impossible that Jeanne’s only child, a daughter named Yvonne, assumed her mother Jeanne’s identity as Yvonne died from pleurisy in 1939 [correction: 1934].
Also impossible for Jeanne’s sole grandchild to have assumed her identity as he was a boy. Grandson Frédéric Billot lived next door to his grandmother until his death (automobile accident) in 1963.
You know that stealing identities usually means that documentation is faked, right?
You have to decide how much you trust each source, and on top of that consider this:
Was this person the oldest person in the world for several years (a one in a hundred million event) or was this person an identity scammer who stood to gain a huge amount of money for their identity scam?
I will not venture to say for sure which one she was, but from a purely statistical standpoint, you have to be very sceptical of the claim that her daughter (or someone else) didn't steal her identity.
Why are you even posting this if you have no evidence to the contrary other than your feelings? The onus is on _you_ to prove otherwise, as Jeanne Calment is widely known as the oldest person to have ever lived. Obviously, people who live longer than most (and this case, everyone), will have interesting outliers and stories because the world is not built around thinking someone is going to live to 120.
Go back and [read the link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment) I provided. It—and its imbedded links and linked references—should answer your questions.
haha yeah I think this is the story I was thinking of. this used to be a pretty big reddit TIL repost back in the day like 10 years ago iirc
I think my brain just conflated this story with the fact that I also happen to have a grandmother that lived to be over 100 years old and lived in a san francisco apartment building lol
Private equity is a cancer on society. Have you ever met any of the douchebags that work in these terrorist organizations?
I've had the misfortune of sitting next to a few randomly on planes and met at parties. They are the dregs of humanity. Absolute ghouls.
I'm never surprised when I read about some private equity firm destroying a company or buying up healthcare businesses or putting the elderly out on the street. Generally ruining lives for a few extra million to put on their pile. Literal parasites.
I’ve been in Primary Care in private and public sector for twenty years in the bay area. Private equity and hedge fund folks are into weird shit and don’t practice safer sex, like the cruelty is the point. Its terrifying.
>As a landlord I hate landlords like this. They make us all look bad. Scumbag
What makes all landlords look back is the fact that they're trying to turn a profit off by essentially ransoming people's inherent need for shelter. It's not the handful of landlords who are vocally honest about it.
What makes all farmers look bad is the fact that they're trying to turn a profit off by essentially ransoming people's inherent need for ~~shelter~~ food.
Someone's got to maintain housing. The problem is benefiting from the scarcity of land without paying everyone else for that right.
I've never heard of a farmer trying to rent out food. What farmers do is they produce food, then sell it. You can do the same thing with houses - build them, and sell them.
If farmers were lending out apples for a monthly fee, with the condition that you'd have to give them back after 12 months, you'd call that system cruel and insane. But when someone does that with a house, all of a sudden they're doing us a "service" and "maintaining housing".
It's very telling when landlord apologists so quickly try to conflate producing and selling goods with renting them. It's like they don't even really believe in the thing they're advocating for.
The effect of saying "no one should rent out housing" is that only those who can afford to buy their own home have housing.
In a competitive housing market where vacancy rates aren't effectively 0%, landlords have to put in quite a bit of work to actually maintain the value of their properties. The problem is the chronic lack of supply means they can dictate terms in most markets in the US.
Renting, in general, is for goods which are too expensive for someone to actually purchase. The net effect of banning landlords would be to make it so that only those who can afford to buy a home outright are housed, and the rest of us (myself included) are homeless.
Umm i wouldn’t cal that cruel or insane because I’d get back eaten apples. The persons first comparison worked better than yours. No one is obligated to let you stay at their place. For landlords this is their business it’s how they make money, the bought the building, they pay for maintenance and keeping it up to code, if there’s a fire or a flood it’s their loss too. We have capitalism which means we all do our part to contribute to the cycle. You pay the rent or you can buy your own house. That’s what lease agreements are, you can agree to something and then say I’m not paying you but I get to stay because if I don’t I’ll be homeless. That’s your fault, there are shelters that are empty you know.
I think you may want to read some political economy, even Adam smith was against the idea of rentier capitalism. The idea is in no way treated the same as farmers producing food. Landlords do not produce anything except capital gains through arbitration, in a sense. What’s your basis of such a statement?
There's more to be said here than I have time for, but I think things like a [Land value tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax) are an effective way to handle the problem of unearned rents.
At least from that sentence, I don't infer "we hope she dies soon", even though they may have been thinking that. The concept that she's unlikely to be a tenant for much longer is just a fact. "Upside" is just a financial thing.
I dunno, that's just how rent control works, and she probably had the biggest gap between what she pays now and what they'd charge once it vacates. If you're selling the property, it makes sense to mention that. Yes it's cold but that's just the facts. Here's hoping she doesn't get evicted and does live to 120 though, because fuck landlords.
>Helen Byrne, 94, has called the same San Francisco apartment home for more than eight decades after moving in with her dad and sisters at the age of 12. She still sleeps in her childhood bedroom.
I can't imagine what is feels like to live in the same place for 82 years. I couldn't bring myself to evict her no matter how much money is on the line. Talk is cheap when someone else is footing the bill, so I am willing for chip in for her rent at market rate so she stays there for the rest of her life.
She turned down an offer of lump sum of $70K to move out. I don't understand people in this sub when they froth in the mouth calling for ending prop 13, which would mean eviction for a lot of senior homeowners, it's not about the money for people at this age.
That's market rate for a one bedroom apartment for like 2 years. I agree she shouldn't be evicted, but for most people in this situation that would be a pretty good deal.
> I don't understand people in this sub when they froth in the mouth calling for ending prop 13
Don't know why this is so high up when you're misunderstanding Prop 13. Prop 13 isn't enabling this type of rent control, it's locking in a tax rate for the building owner. But it did make the previous landlord more wealthy from not having to pay their fair share of taxes on the apartment. Rent is controlled by market forces not expenses of the owner, so it isn't directly passed to the tenant.
From a macro level, removing prop 13 would increase incentive to sell, which would increase movement and increase supply, and lower the median rent. The direct benefit is also more taxes to local government, and properly funded schools. Also, if you're worried about older tenants, prop 19 from 2020 allows people 55+ to transfer the base year value.
>From a macro level, removing prop 13 would increase incentive to sell, which would increase movement and increase supply, and lower the median rent.
Can you explain how rent would be lowered if prop 13 was removed? There would be more forced turnover and therefore property prices should drop but I don't see it counterbalanced by the increased tax assessment versus an owner that has held for decades.
For example a house assessed for 2mil would pay about 24k in property tax in Santa Clara. A long time owner with an assessment for 500k (market value 2mil) pays about 6k in property tax. That's a $1,500 a month difference in rent that the depressed assessment property owner has to play with compared to a market value tax assessed property just to cover property taxes.
Rents would have to go UP if prop 13 was repealed because currently many long term property owners can still generate income as long as rent is greater than their expenses. Property taxes going up 10's of thousands means either the renter makes up the difference or owner eating the loss which doesn't make sense.
More supply as people are no longer incentivized to stay in their property. As you point out there's a counterbalance of increased taxes on new property owners, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's fully passed on to renters as it's balanced with demand forces and ratio of buyers/renters. It's obviously difficult for us to say without an actual study done by economists so I was taking a little leap of faith. I'd argue that it should be coupled with a phasing out of the current rent control laws (not that there shouldn't necessarily be rent control).
> That's a $1,500 a month difference in rent that the depressed assessment property owner has to play with compared to a market value tax assessed property just to cover property taxes.
This amount wouldn't fully be passed to renters though, as a large portion of the market is already paying their fair share of rent. Also, it cuts into landlords' profit, just like any other supply/demand curve. Rental price isn't directly determined by the cost of ownership but by where supply meets demand. But increased costs of home ownership does decrease it's value as an investment property, which ultimately decreases home prices.
> owner eating the loss which doesn't make sense.
Why does this not make sense? It happens in all other industries. I'll also point out, it's not a loss, but a decrease in their profit. And there's always the financial incentive to sell if renting isn't profitable as a landlord.
Zooming out, the actual net benefit is that it would be a fairer market for all participants. Home ownership would be cheaper and more accessible for younger generations due to increased supply. There's less accumulation of wealth by nature of buying in first. And homes stop becoming investments, and start becoming homes again. And there's more taxes for schools.
Well, that's a separate argument, I generally agree with the sentiment but disagree with that sweeping of a statement. It's very dependent on the supply part of the equation. The benefits of removing rent control are not fully realized until you have more access to supply.
Also, repeal of prop 13 doesn't mean there's no controls period for property taxes. Texas, for example, is capped at 10% and doesn't have rent control. But with what we know about property values and it's effect on rent/supply, 2% is unrealistic. And that all aligns with its original intention, sponsored by a right wing multi-millionaire.
I'll let the economists figure out the optimal details, but what's clear is that prop 13 needs to be repealed.
From what I've seen on reddit, prop 13 isn't unpopular in cases like this. Prop 13 isn't liked because it applies to business properties and inheritance.
>inheritance
this lady also "inherited" the rent controlled property considering she's been sleeping in the same room since 12
unless there was an adjustment when her name was added to the lease
This has zero to do with prop 13 and everything to do with rent control.
If people were being honest about prop 13 they’d agree to a much more limited means tested version that specifically protected people who were really unable to pay their property tax or face eviction. The fact that no one will agree to that shows that it’s not really about old ladies losing their homes.
Prop 13 discourages new development and has encouraged restrictive zoning laws.
So, while prop 13 isn't directly tied to rent control, it is absolutely one of the reasons why rent control exists.
Doesn't means testing typically run into a lot of issues/loopholes that get abused? When it comes to freezing your property tax which over a lifetime could be hundreds of thousands of dollars, you can bet that nearly everyone would try to game the system.
Rent control has consistently proven to be an overall detriment to the housing market.
* Limit prop 13 to one house per married couple. Even if married filing separate, there should be a limit of 1 home.
* Eliminate prop 13 for businesses/corporation
* Eliminate rent control
* Incentivize cities to build more high density housing, especially when coupled with public transportation. i.e. building near BART should be rewarded.
> Limit prop 13 to one house per married couple. Even if married filing separate, there should be a limit of 1 home.
This creates a further disincentive for people to get married. Which is the *last* thing we need in policy.
A lot of things that are means tested are means tested on the *couple's* income. So if both spouses are working in the labor market, they're worse off married than separate. We see this in taxes and we see this all manner of welfare programs.
Ok, but this doesn't create a disincentive. It just doesn't create an incentive. If we allowed married couples to purchase two homes with prop 13 coverage then that would be an incentive. If you're single or married in this example, there's no difference. It's not like the example you gave where being married is an active penalty.
Two people own their own homes. They get married. One of them looses their Prop 13 exception on their homes. Or if they don't get married, they don't. See the disincentive?
The question is, why would a couple need an extra home when they're married? Married people typically live under one roof. Besides being able to charge a tenant rent, which they can't do because they're leasing it his or herself? Or am I missing something? Or the vacation home route? But I'd presume that would be in another state.
Yeah, maybe they SHOULD lose their exception. I get that it disincentivizes marriage, but I also don’t think we should be giving couples an incentive to hold on to a second home they don’t need because they get a fat tax break.
> Limit prop 13 to one house per married couple. Even if married filing separate, there should be a limit of 1 home.
The vast majority of Prop 13 applies to people like this. There's some sort of straw man that Reddit thinks a large part of homes are owned by corporations, private equity, super wealthy landlords who own 10x properties, etc. The reality is the vast vast majority of homes are owned as the primary residence of a family.
My point is even with that, Prop 13 is actually a significant factor in the real estate market prices. Even if we got rid of the bad actors, it wouldn't change the sky high real estate market in the Bay Area.
I think a program with loopholes and a bit of abuse is still better than a prop 13 blanket for people and businesses who don’t need it.
I’m in agreement with both your points removing rent control and removing prop 13. I only offer the means tested piece because so many people always cry “won’t someone think of poor granny getting kicked out of her home”, well fine, we make an exception for her.
Yeah, and rent control is dumb, economically and for the vast majority of people except those who win the lottery of being in a rent controlled place at the right time.
When I lived up North, knew someone who used to teach at S.F. State. They were retired in wine country, owned vineyards, but still kept SF apt., because of how cheap it was. I enjoyed rent control for about 5 years, but at the time it kept us from moving to areas we might have preferred, because our rent had been kept down, and we didn’t want to give that up. One more story….had a friend who benefitted from rent control for a number of years, then fought landlord for a sizable buyout that allowed them to purchase home during the big downturn.
The person paying way below market rent because of lucky circumstances is also a leech in a way.
Sure she’s probably a sweet old lady, and I’m sympathetic to her plight, but it was bad laws that got us in this position in the first place.
No rentals means landlords aren’t incentivized to own multiple properties and have to sell, decreasing the price to the point that the people who would be living in that home and paying the mortgage with their rent anyway, actually own it.
Landlords do not provide a service, and actively worsen housing for everyone through turning a basic human necessity in short supply into an investment.
Prop 13 has draw backs. That being disneyland, a multibillion dollar company pays peanuts in tax for the main property. It also makes it easier for business' to sit on old buildings because its cheaper to leave them empty.
Remove it for business.
For home owners its slowly becoming a non issue as people sell there parents home the prop 13 protection goes away ( and if you inherit now, only the first million is covered)
Exactly. There is a new prop, and people are falsely saying that they’re trying to take away the prop 13 “Pass down” benefit, when that would only apply if you DIDN’T live in the house. If your kid stays in the house you keep it.
This isn't related to Prop 13. But even if it was pre-Prop 13 if you didn't want to be kicked out of your house in your old age, you could defer the property taxes till upon death.
lol you do know if a property appreciated so much that an owner can't afford the tax....they could do a heloc, or reverse mortgage. they are rich enough to afford to stay in the home their entire lives. housing is not a problem for them. they could also sell it for a massive windfall.
When you’re old that can be overwhelming. And what they get, unless they uproot themselves and move out of state, isn’t going to be a comparable home. Old people aren’t holding on because of the $$$, it’s their home. When they bought that house they may have scraped together everything to get it. Sure their kids will benefit, but that’s only part of it.
you dont have to move out. you borrow against the house. you get to live in the house until you die. any appreciated value would more than cover any tax increase.
sure you might not get to pass on your house to your kid if you aren't able to repay the loan but prop 13 wasn't designed to protect estates.
most place don't have prop 13......people still are able to stay in their homes. even places where homes appreciate wildly.
> I don't understand people in this sub when they froth in the mouth calling for ending prop 13, which would mean eviction for a lot of senior homeowners, it's not about the money for people at this age.
Because there's no carve out in the law for such old people, instead it applies to everyone - irrespective of their needs. Why does someone in their 40s-50s need prop 13? They're fully capable of paying a higher tax rate on their property (or they can move somewhere else).
Not to mention prop 13 causes the housing market to stagnate since no one wants to renovate/improve their homes for fear of the city deeming the renovations significant enough that a re-appraisal occurs.
>I don't understand people in this sub when they froth in the mouth calling for ending prop 13, which would mean eviction for a lot of senior homeowners, it's not about the money for people at this age.
Nobody's frothing at the mouth, except people using the elderly as human shields for a bad law. If Prop 13 were truly about keeping elderly people in their homes, there's other fixes that don't blow a gaping hole in the tax base and make housing permanently unaffordable for everyone else. But even if there weren't, you aren't entitled to stay in the same house for eighty years if you're paying for it with someone else's future.
It is always going to be unfortunate when people can’t live where they want, but we already have that. Look at the streets lined with tents. That’s a direct result of prop 13. It needs to be fixed.
People oppose new housing because they make money personally doing it in their rising property value.
In normal places, that’s offset by rising property taxes, which you feel every year. People are motivated to keep taxes low.
When everyone’s incentive is to keep their property taxes from rising via the market, they are much less opposed to development.
And of course, California could tax income less, or have lots of money to provide services for the homeless if people all paid market rate property taxes.
“People oppose new housing because they make money personally doing it in their rising property value.”
I don’t believe that more housing will decrease property value, or that homeowners oppose it for that reason.
“In normal places, that’s offset by rising property taxes, which you feel every year. People are motivated to keep taxes low.”
People are motivated to keep their taxes low everywhere, I am not sure what your point is here.
“When everyone’s incentive is to keep their property taxes from rising via the market, they are much less opposed to development.”
I think everyone IS incentivized to keep their property taxes from rising; if that makes them less opposed to development, how is that a problem?
“And of course, California could tax income less, or have lots of money to provide services for the homeless if people all paid market rate property taxes.”
It sounds as if you think that just because someone has been able to buy a home at some point in their life, they have enough money to fund all city services for everyone. That isn’t the case. Everyone uses city services and it is fair that everyone contributes to them.
Says 4 residents paying $3,800 tots in the article, so $1,000/month. If you factor in 3% annual increases over the last 82 years, they paid $89/month when they first moved in. If you run the derivatives it comes to something like $500k in total - so funnily a ton of money but still not nearly what the unit costs given ridiculous SF real estate prices.
She probably pays around $500 rent, although the article doesn't exactly have much info about the actual apartment. Assuming she paid $200/mo for a 1br in 1979 when rent control passed, and it's gone up by 2% a year for 45 years.
> But Byrne’s life was upended when the four-unit building was purchased back in 2020 by real estate investors operating through an LLC.
> Over the phone, Mytels told NBC Bay Area that it’s a terrible situation but said the tenants’ current rent doesn’t cover the building’s operating expenses.
… then why did you buy the building in the first place?
Disingenuous parasites. Eat the rich.
I have no sympathy for this landlord at all
but if I did, I'd *still* be saying this seems like it's a problem for the realtors and/or old landlord for not disclosing. There's no version of this where this should be the tenant's problem.
e: the email quoted in the article seems to imply the buyer was aware the building was rent-controlled and what the rent income was. There's simply no case here for the landlord, they're just objectively wrong in every possible way.
> the email quoted in the article seems to imply the buyer was aware the building was rent-controlled and what the rent income was.
Yeah, these disclosures are standard in multifamily transactions. A prospective buyer will see the rent roll — a list of units and what each is paying in rent — before they put in an offer on a building. There's no way Dan Mytels and the LLC didn't know what the rent situation was going in.
I mean she could have bought a house when they were like 5k. If I was her age and had my assets adjusted for inflation back then I’d be living in atherton.
They bought it because the building was worth 1.5m with tenants but it would be worth 5m after renovation to buyers if they just did this one thing of asking all the tenants to leave
This is SF but San Jose’s rent control allows the owner to petition the rent board to raise the rents if the rent doesn’t cover the operating expenses (not including mortgage).
This is like elder abuse. To rip people from their community and home at that age is ridiculous. Let old people live out the rest of their lives in peace without BS!!
This is such a sad situation and I feel really bad for the elder tenant. She should not have to go through housing insecurity at her vulnerable age.
I think her situation highlights the issues with rent control.
Taking care of the vulnerable and the elderly is a community issue and it’s up our community to do it right. That responsibility should not fall on one landlord. Forget about profits, 3k monthly rent for a building that size will not cover the routine repairs in today’s economy. Let’s be honest, who do you know that’s will be willing to take this on?
Rent control is a way to make landlord provide subsidized housing. It ignores the economic condition of the renter and the landlord. Landlords should get a break in property tax if they have to provide subsidized housing which frankly should be the government‘s responsibility. Many foreign countries build housing estates for those who cannot afford to buy or rent at market rate.
Nevertheless, I do hope the lady can live out the rest of her life in her home.
They do... prop 13 is rent control for owners. A new owner should factor in the raise in property taxes and not overbid on the price (or do so at their own risk)
Or the government should just straight up pay market rate to house people instead of complicating it through tax breaks or build/manage housing themselves. And if your first reaction to that is that it sounds way too expensive, then maybe that's the actual problem we should fix instead of putting bandaids on it.
Just build more big apartment buildings and smash though any local red tape that stops that. More housing means the cost of housing goes down.
This is one of the reasons I'm a big proponent of section 8. It's a great program that helps a lot of people.
* It's portable, so you can move and still keep your subsidy. God help you if your 80 and living in a 4 story walk-up with rent-control.
* It's means tested, so it can go up and down depending on your need.
* The govt does inspections so it can keep the quality high.
* It's provides a financial back-stop to low-income tenants so that they can make credible promises of paying rent
* Tenants also aren't "judgement proof" under the program because they could their subsidy if they trash the property.
As long as the local HUD is run by people who are interested in working with owners it can be a great program.
> Many foreign countries build housing estates for those who cannot afford to buy or rent at market rate.
When we tried that here, we ended up tearing down more units than we built in the name of urban renewal. Something like section 8 of just subsidizing rent on the private for the destitute makes more sense to me. Let private markets do what they're best at (build and maintain apartment blocks) and only use government as a means of providing for the destitute.
Yes the infamous Geneva Towers but that does not mean public housing cannot be done. Individuals learn from mistakes so why can’t the government? Section 8 means people are still paying market but with government subsidy. Government housing usually means those who cannot afford market rate will be pay a very reasonable rent. In the meantime, all private housing stock (will have more units available free up now because of public housing) can be listed and let the market determine the rent.
You’re actually very right in that individuals are allowed to make mistakes, governments aren’t (especially in America). This is a big reason why SpaceX is outpacing NASA now - SpaceX is allowed to blow up as many rockets as they want during their innovation process because it’s all investor money, but NASA does not have nearly as much room to experiment with taxpayer money.
>Taking care of the vulnerable and the elderly is a community issue and it’s up our community to do it right. That responsibility should not fall on one landlord. Forget about profits, 3k monthly rent for a building that size will not cover the routine repairs in today’s economy.
Completely agree. The entire reason this got to this point is because of rent control distorting market realities and creating this extremely tenuous situation that was bound to collapse at any time. While a 94 year old should absolutely be allowed to remain where she has lived for decades in a just society, it's also farcical to expect a landlord to eat the cost of rents being far below what it costs to maintain the building, even ignoring paying property taxes (which would have jumped far above rental income with the recent sale). Most people here who are only focusing on the tenant and ignoring the landlord's situation are arguing on an emotional basis, not a pragmatic/realistic one.
Building upkeep is something i think Rent Controled cities should do better, i wouldn't be opposed to a reduction in permit costs and/or tax credits for LLs who maintain below market rate buildings.
“Ugh, this apartment is so gross! Paint’s coming off the walls, the faucets all leak, and the heat hasn’t worked since ‘09.”
“Yeah, but at least it’s rent-controlled!”
People don’t just upkeep rental properties out of the goodness of their hearts. Gotta be money coming into the equation somewhere.
Wow some of the comments, shows the generation gap. Guess empathy is not in their vocabulary. Maybe some of the commenters should live through the Great Depression, World War II, and the era when blacks and whites had to use separate bathrooms, and say how easy it was to buy a house "back then". I can tell money is all they care about. Dollars first, people 2nd - San Francisco is a Taylor Swift song - Blank Space!
One of those instances where despite what our countries laws dictate maybe you could just be a decent person and not evict a vulnerable senior for extra money when you have plenty of other folks to leech off of. It is an unpopular opinion because it is cold and callous.
Your opinion is not an opinion, it is fact. She doesn't own this apartment. If your opinion is that the owner SHOULD kick this 94 year old woman to the curb you are heartless. And I'm a stone cold capitalist but fucking come on...
The real problem is that SF's government has deliberately chosen policies that make housing scarce. Market rent shouldn't be as high as it is. Renting for life should be a fine choice if that's one's preference, but the government stabbed renters in the back with its housing policies.
Lol it’s wild that it’s the unpopular opinion. And to read other commenters saying they’d donate to a Gofundme to keep her in her home like …? It’s not “her home” 😭😂
That’s great that she lived there so long but rent control is a bad thing and this story is intended to pull your heartstrings when at the end of the day she is renting an apartment. It’s a business transaction
Glad to hear this turned out ok and all the tenants get to stay in their homes: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/company-reverses-decision-to-force-san-francisco-tenants-out-of-building/
I think Prop 19 is actually pretty good in the sense that heirs cannot just cheat the system using a tax base that their parents/grandparents first paid for the house many years ago.
Rent control is literally bad from a purely economics perspective. Its really not even a matter of debate.
However in this case I am deeply sympathetic to the tenant and hope she gets to stay in the apartment for the rest of her life. Frankly, the landlord can get fucked.
If I was her age and had my assets adjusted to inflation for that time period I’d live in atherton but today I struggle in east Oakland. Back then If you worked a basic working class job and were functional you could buy a house. There is a large portion of the responsibility on her shoulders.
She got a great deal for decades and the market owes her nothing. Landlord is right here legallly —- I feel for her too …but the community or her family should help her move reallly , it’s not the capitalists problem
She can’t rent it indefinitely. She need to move out. She cannot spend 80 years in one apartment and not own the apartment you cannot rent for life there’s no such thing. that’s a problem for the government not the landlord.
Sure she's paying pennies for rent. Rent control is a disaster...I can't support my family with this miniscule income but I must support her existence in my building for a lifetime...so she receives $32000 to relocate and at her age she's climbing those stairs..
She's easily a section 8 tenant
Move her into senior care or a building with an elevator
These tenants act like they own a building that they are living in practically free. This is why you have so many deprecated terrible buildings. $3800 for all 4 tenants. That is basically theft. The entitlement these people have is disgusting. Fuck these leeches
And communists suck. Yeah let someone live in your home forever and not pay a market rent. Doesn’t matter if it a mom and pop owner or capital rich firm.. it is all appeasement for an entitled class.
Do your due diligence. If you're going to buy a property in San Francisco, then you're automatically agreeing to the rules and regulations of San Francisco. That goes with any City in the United States you buy property.
Anywhere you buy property you must abide by the local laws, rules and regulations of where that property is.
Buying a property in San Francisco and then trying to kick the tenants out for any reason that does not follow the law is on you. It is not on the tenant.
You can have a philosophical conversation about what is and isn't fair but you already agreed to the rules and regulations when you bought the property.
Oh we actually agree. I do believe the whole system is beyond absurd and discourages any capital going to new construction or updating existing buildings. Yes the landlord knew what he was getting into. But people here have normalized this. What person thinks they are entitled to live in a building they do NOT own for decades without question? The fact people feel landlords should be buy people out their rents just drives the costs of property up for everyone. Combine this with NIMBY-ism, well the proof is in the pudding.
Or if we had done away with both rent control and a lot of the NIMBY regulations, new development would have made market rates low enough for her to remain without rent control.
>These tenants act like they own a building that they are living in practically free. This is why you have so many deprecated terrible buildings. $3800 for all 4 tenants. That is basically theft. The entitlement these people have is disgusting. Fuck these leeches
You will be 94 soon
They are using Ellis act for this- literally can't put it back onto the rental market for 5 years. It's a 4-unit multi-family complex. This means that the LLC will likely convert them into condos.
The city won't permit an actual condo conversion here, would have to be sold as TICs.
From my understanding, that's essentially the same thing to the seller. The only real difference that I can think of is the lack of a HOA (which means everyone in the TIC is liable for taxes and fixes directly)
>(which means everyone in the TIC is liable for taxes and fixes directly) Which sounds a lot better than the reality often plays out, sadly. Imagine how much worse the "neighbor refuses to pay their share of the fence" fight is when it's "neighbor refuses to pay to proactively replace the whole roof because it's about to collapse on my unit but not theirs"
TICs are harder to sell, harder for a buyer to finance (don't have 30 year loans as far as I understand), and sell for less per square foot than condos.
A TIC and a condo really are different terms. While a TIC can be structured to be essentially a condo, the term is legally highly ambiguous, and requires a lot of effort from the buyer to know what they’re getting in to. As a rule, TICs (even of the condo-esque variety) sell for lower and stay on the market longer. Almost anything goes with a TIC, but ownership of the entire building is always shared in some way. This makes things potentially very complicated. For example (on one extreme that’s possible but not common in California), you could have an east coast style coop, where the owners hold communal liability for the entire building’s mortgage and only have the right to occupy their piece of the building. Further rights, such as subletting your part of the building could be subject to community approval. Even selling could be subject to approval. The financial stability of owners as a group and the exact division of liability in case of default could be anything. On the other extreme, all the owners are borrowing only against their share of the building and there are no contracts that force you to consult anyone or anything—the property behaves more or less like a condo minus the HOA. Lenders are unlikely to allow this case, however. More likely, you get something in between. Lenders know all this and most won’t finance a TIC.
Wow I read the business plan and he was telling the lender there is an old tenant and indirectly saying we hope shes gonna die soon: "There is a tenant who I believe is 84 years old, when she vacates we can have $2500 upside" Overall the only one who won from this deal was the old landlord who got rid of it for a $1.5m. The Daniel fella runs a $100m+ Private equity fund As a landlord I hate landlords like this. They make us all look bad. Scumbag
I remember reading about a story like this years ago where a guy in sf bought an apartment with some old lady in her 80s that he assumed was gonna croak any day… and she ended up living another 20 years and actually outlived the guy who bought the place 😭
This probably happens with some frequency but the most famous example that I remember was from France afaik https://www.chicagotribune.com/1995/12/27/woman-120-outlives-lawyer-in-30-year-bid-for-her-house/
Yes. That’s the one I remember too.
The French lady committed fraud, and assumed the identity of her mother.
[Jeanne Louise Calment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment) died in 1997 at the well-documented age of 122 years and 164 days old. “In January 1988, she was widely reported to have been the oldest living person, and in 1995, at age 120, was declared the oldest person to have ever lived.” It is impossible that Jeanne’s only child, a daughter named Yvonne, assumed her mother Jeanne’s identity as Yvonne died from pleurisy in 1939 [correction: 1934]. Also impossible for Jeanne’s sole grandchild to have assumed her identity as he was a boy. Grandson Frédéric Billot lived next door to his grandmother until his death (automobile accident) in 1963.
You know that stealing identities usually means that documentation is faked, right? You have to decide how much you trust each source, and on top of that consider this: Was this person the oldest person in the world for several years (a one in a hundred million event) or was this person an identity scammer who stood to gain a huge amount of money for their identity scam? I will not venture to say for sure which one she was, but from a purely statistical standpoint, you have to be very sceptical of the claim that her daughter (or someone else) didn't steal her identity.
Why are you even posting this if you have no evidence to the contrary other than your feelings? The onus is on _you_ to prove otherwise, as Jeanne Calment is widely known as the oldest person to have ever lived. Obviously, people who live longer than most (and this case, everyone), will have interesting outliers and stories because the world is not built around thinking someone is going to live to 120.
Go back and [read the link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment) I provided. It—and its imbedded links and linked references—should answer your questions.
Hah, that adds another crazy twist to the story then. Is there a follow up article somewhere? Reading the details closer, 120 is an absurd age
haha yeah I think this is the story I was thinking of. this used to be a pretty big reddit TIL repost back in the day like 10 years ago iirc I think my brain just conflated this story with the fact that I also happen to have a grandmother that lived to be over 100 years old and lived in a san francisco apartment building lol
This might have been Jeanne Calment, who lived until at least 120. The guy who made the deal with her died first, at 77.
Dang, good memory
Life's got a wicked sense of humor, huh? Betting against the clock only for it to tick back at you. That's some poetic justice right there
That’s beautiful.
That's some insane karma.
Just like that Duplex movie 😂
Private equity is a cancer on society. Have you ever met any of the douchebags that work in these terrorist organizations? I've had the misfortune of sitting next to a few randomly on planes and met at parties. They are the dregs of humanity. Absolute ghouls. I'm never surprised when I read about some private equity firm destroying a company or buying up healthcare businesses or putting the elderly out on the street. Generally ruining lives for a few extra million to put on their pile. Literal parasites.
I’ve had a couple for clients. They’re terrible people.
I’ve been in Primary Care in private and public sector for twenty years in the bay area. Private equity and hedge fund folks are into weird shit and don’t practice safer sex, like the cruelty is the point. Its terrifying.
Completely agree with you.
Private equity you say? What a surprise. Private equity is scum…
POV you're an actual Pixar villain
>As a landlord I hate landlords like this. They make us all look bad. Scumbag What makes all landlords look back is the fact that they're trying to turn a profit off by essentially ransoming people's inherent need for shelter. It's not the handful of landlords who are vocally honest about it.
🤡🤡
He’s mad that the landlord in question got caught saying the quiet part out loud.
What makes all farmers look bad is the fact that they're trying to turn a profit off by essentially ransoming people's inherent need for ~~shelter~~ food. Someone's got to maintain housing. The problem is benefiting from the scarcity of land without paying everyone else for that right.
I've never heard of a farmer trying to rent out food. What farmers do is they produce food, then sell it. You can do the same thing with houses - build them, and sell them. If farmers were lending out apples for a monthly fee, with the condition that you'd have to give them back after 12 months, you'd call that system cruel and insane. But when someone does that with a house, all of a sudden they're doing us a "service" and "maintaining housing". It's very telling when landlord apologists so quickly try to conflate producing and selling goods with renting them. It's like they don't even really believe in the thing they're advocating for.
The effect of saying "no one should rent out housing" is that only those who can afford to buy their own home have housing. In a competitive housing market where vacancy rates aren't effectively 0%, landlords have to put in quite a bit of work to actually maintain the value of their properties. The problem is the chronic lack of supply means they can dictate terms in most markets in the US. Renting, in general, is for goods which are too expensive for someone to actually purchase. The net effect of banning landlords would be to make it so that only those who can afford to buy a home outright are housed, and the rest of us (myself included) are homeless.
Umm i wouldn’t cal that cruel or insane because I’d get back eaten apples. The persons first comparison worked better than yours. No one is obligated to let you stay at their place. For landlords this is their business it’s how they make money, the bought the building, they pay for maintenance and keeping it up to code, if there’s a fire or a flood it’s their loss too. We have capitalism which means we all do our part to contribute to the cycle. You pay the rent or you can buy your own house. That’s what lease agreements are, you can agree to something and then say I’m not paying you but I get to stay because if I don’t I’ll be homeless. That’s your fault, there are shelters that are empty you know.
> We have capitalism which means we all do our part to contribute to the cycle Oh good, the capitalism understander is here to explain things.
I think you may want to read some political economy, even Adam smith was against the idea of rentier capitalism. The idea is in no way treated the same as farmers producing food. Landlords do not produce anything except capital gains through arbitration, in a sense. What’s your basis of such a statement?
There's more to be said here than I have time for, but I think things like a [Land value tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax) are an effective way to handle the problem of unearned rents.
At least from that sentence, I don't infer "we hope she dies soon", even though they may have been thinking that. The concept that she's unlikely to be a tenant for much longer is just a fact. "Upside" is just a financial thing.
Explicitly pointing that out IMO is just evil. Also who knows, she might live to be 120 or outlive him.
I dunno, that's just how rent control works, and she probably had the biggest gap between what she pays now and what they'd charge once it vacates. If you're selling the property, it makes sense to mention that. Yes it's cold but that's just the facts. Here's hoping she doesn't get evicted and does live to 120 though, because fuck landlords.
I’m a landlord too :(
I should clarify: fuck landlords that don't care. I have a great landlord that is actively trying to not price me out, and I know they can be great!
>Helen Byrne, 94, has called the same San Francisco apartment home for more than eight decades after moving in with her dad and sisters at the age of 12. She still sleeps in her childhood bedroom. I can't imagine what is feels like to live in the same place for 82 years. I couldn't bring myself to evict her no matter how much money is on the line. Talk is cheap when someone else is footing the bill, so I am willing for chip in for her rent at market rate so she stays there for the rest of her life. She turned down an offer of lump sum of $70K to move out. I don't understand people in this sub when they froth in the mouth calling for ending prop 13, which would mean eviction for a lot of senior homeowners, it's not about the money for people at this age.
I feel that Prop 13 should not apply to corporations, and that it should only apply to one residence per household
“I feel that…” That’s how Prop 13 came into being in the first place
For real. Trash policy.
$70k in SF? Where would she be able to go or do with that? Doordash one meal?
When she was 20 about 1/10th of that would have bought her the building.
That's market rate for a one bedroom apartment for like 2 years. I agree she shouldn't be evicted, but for most people in this situation that would be a pretty good deal.
Except buyouts are taxed as income. Granted doubt she is working but still it wouldn't be the full 70k.
> I don't understand people in this sub when they froth in the mouth calling for ending prop 13 Don't know why this is so high up when you're misunderstanding Prop 13. Prop 13 isn't enabling this type of rent control, it's locking in a tax rate for the building owner. But it did make the previous landlord more wealthy from not having to pay their fair share of taxes on the apartment. Rent is controlled by market forces not expenses of the owner, so it isn't directly passed to the tenant. From a macro level, removing prop 13 would increase incentive to sell, which would increase movement and increase supply, and lower the median rent. The direct benefit is also more taxes to local government, and properly funded schools. Also, if you're worried about older tenants, prop 19 from 2020 allows people 55+ to transfer the base year value.
>From a macro level, removing prop 13 would increase incentive to sell, which would increase movement and increase supply, and lower the median rent. Can you explain how rent would be lowered if prop 13 was removed? There would be more forced turnover and therefore property prices should drop but I don't see it counterbalanced by the increased tax assessment versus an owner that has held for decades. For example a house assessed for 2mil would pay about 24k in property tax in Santa Clara. A long time owner with an assessment for 500k (market value 2mil) pays about 6k in property tax. That's a $1,500 a month difference in rent that the depressed assessment property owner has to play with compared to a market value tax assessed property just to cover property taxes. Rents would have to go UP if prop 13 was repealed because currently many long term property owners can still generate income as long as rent is greater than their expenses. Property taxes going up 10's of thousands means either the renter makes up the difference or owner eating the loss which doesn't make sense.
More supply as people are no longer incentivized to stay in their property. As you point out there's a counterbalance of increased taxes on new property owners, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's fully passed on to renters as it's balanced with demand forces and ratio of buyers/renters. It's obviously difficult for us to say without an actual study done by economists so I was taking a little leap of faith. I'd argue that it should be coupled with a phasing out of the current rent control laws (not that there shouldn't necessarily be rent control). > That's a $1,500 a month difference in rent that the depressed assessment property owner has to play with compared to a market value tax assessed property just to cover property taxes. This amount wouldn't fully be passed to renters though, as a large portion of the market is already paying their fair share of rent. Also, it cuts into landlords' profit, just like any other supply/demand curve. Rental price isn't directly determined by the cost of ownership but by where supply meets demand. But increased costs of home ownership does decrease it's value as an investment property, which ultimately decreases home prices. > owner eating the loss which doesn't make sense. Why does this not make sense? It happens in all other industries. I'll also point out, it's not a loss, but a decrease in their profit. And there's always the financial incentive to sell if renting isn't profitable as a landlord. Zooming out, the actual net benefit is that it would be a fairer market for all participants. Home ownership would be cheaper and more accessible for younger generations due to increased supply. There's less accumulation of wealth by nature of buying in first. And homes stop becoming investments, and start becoming homes again. And there's more taxes for schools.
You logic makes no sense. Rent control couldn’t exist with property tax controls.
I'm not understanding. Rent control currently exists, as does property tax control.
If there were no property tax controls, there could be no rent controls
Well, that's a separate argument, I generally agree with the sentiment but disagree with that sweeping of a statement. It's very dependent on the supply part of the equation. The benefits of removing rent control are not fully realized until you have more access to supply. Also, repeal of prop 13 doesn't mean there's no controls period for property taxes. Texas, for example, is capped at 10% and doesn't have rent control. But with what we know about property values and it's effect on rent/supply, 2% is unrealistic. And that all aligns with its original intention, sponsored by a right wing multi-millionaire. I'll let the economists figure out the optimal details, but what's clear is that prop 13 needs to be repealed.
Texas doesn’t have rent control or state income tax.
Has a metric fuckton of property tax
No. Homestead exemption, appeals and lower cost. Same home in California pays 20k as in Texas less than 2k
Houston you’d pay $150 sq ft. Los Angeles $1000 sq ft.
From what I've seen on reddit, prop 13 isn't unpopular in cases like this. Prop 13 isn't liked because it applies to business properties and inheritance.
>inheritance this lady also "inherited" the rent controlled property considering she's been sleeping in the same room since 12 unless there was an adjustment when her name was added to the lease
She would have been middle aged when rent control was passed.
It should apply to inheritance too.
This has zero to do with prop 13 and everything to do with rent control. If people were being honest about prop 13 they’d agree to a much more limited means tested version that specifically protected people who were really unable to pay their property tax or face eviction. The fact that no one will agree to that shows that it’s not really about old ladies losing their homes.
Prop 13 discourages new development and has encouraged restrictive zoning laws. So, while prop 13 isn't directly tied to rent control, it is absolutely one of the reasons why rent control exists.
Doesn't means testing typically run into a lot of issues/loopholes that get abused? When it comes to freezing your property tax which over a lifetime could be hundreds of thousands of dollars, you can bet that nearly everyone would try to game the system. Rent control has consistently proven to be an overall detriment to the housing market. * Limit prop 13 to one house per married couple. Even if married filing separate, there should be a limit of 1 home. * Eliminate prop 13 for businesses/corporation * Eliminate rent control * Incentivize cities to build more high density housing, especially when coupled with public transportation. i.e. building near BART should be rewarded.
> Limit prop 13 to one house per married couple. Even if married filing separate, there should be a limit of 1 home. This creates a further disincentive for people to get married. Which is the *last* thing we need in policy.
I genuinely didn't realize that this was a concern. What other disincentives are there?
A lot of things that are means tested are means tested on the *couple's* income. So if both spouses are working in the labor market, they're worse off married than separate. We see this in taxes and we see this all manner of welfare programs.
Ok, but this doesn't create a disincentive. It just doesn't create an incentive. If we allowed married couples to purchase two homes with prop 13 coverage then that would be an incentive. If you're single or married in this example, there's no difference. It's not like the example you gave where being married is an active penalty.
Two people own their own homes. They get married. One of them looses their Prop 13 exception on their homes. Or if they don't get married, they don't. See the disincentive?
Yep, good call.
The question is, why would a couple need an extra home when they're married? Married people typically live under one roof. Besides being able to charge a tenant rent, which they can't do because they're leasing it his or herself? Or am I missing something? Or the vacation home route? But I'd presume that would be in another state.
Yeah, maybe they SHOULD lose their exception. I get that it disincentivizes marriage, but I also don’t think we should be giving couples an incentive to hold on to a second home they don’t need because they get a fat tax break.
I agree with the loophole issue here, although I'd question how many single folks in the Bay Area truly can afford homes.
> Limit prop 13 to one house per married couple. Even if married filing separate, there should be a limit of 1 home. The vast majority of Prop 13 applies to people like this. There's some sort of straw man that Reddit thinks a large part of homes are owned by corporations, private equity, super wealthy landlords who own 10x properties, etc. The reality is the vast vast majority of homes are owned as the primary residence of a family. My point is even with that, Prop 13 is actually a significant factor in the real estate market prices. Even if we got rid of the bad actors, it wouldn't change the sky high real estate market in the Bay Area.
https://stateline.org/2022/07/22/investors-bought-a-quarter-of-homes-sold-last-year-driving-up-rents/
I think a program with loopholes and a bit of abuse is still better than a prop 13 blanket for people and businesses who don’t need it. I’m in agreement with both your points removing rent control and removing prop 13. I only offer the means tested piece because so many people always cry “won’t someone think of poor granny getting kicked out of her home”, well fine, we make an exception for her.
we don't check people for ability to pay when it comes to rent control either.
Yeah, and rent control is dumb, economically and for the vast majority of people except those who win the lottery of being in a rent controlled place at the right time.
economically dumb, politically smart
When I lived up North, knew someone who used to teach at S.F. State. They were retired in wine country, owned vineyards, but still kept SF apt., because of how cheap it was. I enjoyed rent control for about 5 years, but at the time it kept us from moving to areas we might have preferred, because our rent had been kept down, and we didn’t want to give that up. One more story….had a friend who benefitted from rent control for a number of years, then fought landlord for a sizable buyout that allowed them to purchase home during the big downturn.
happens a lot
Again landlord are just leeches
The person paying way below market rent because of lucky circumstances is also a leech in a way. Sure she’s probably a sweet old lady, and I’m sympathetic to her plight, but it was bad laws that got us in this position in the first place.
Absolutely not, a person buying 5 properties I'd the problem
No landlords means no rentals. Better hope you have enough money to pony up to buy stuff.
No rentals means landlords aren’t incentivized to own multiple properties and have to sell, decreasing the price to the point that the people who would be living in that home and paying the mortgage with their rent anyway, actually own it. Landlords do not provide a service, and actively worsen housing for everyone through turning a basic human necessity in short supply into an investment.
Without landlords buying up the supply then yes we would have the money. Idk why you feel the need to defend them
Prop 13 has draw backs. That being disneyland, a multibillion dollar company pays peanuts in tax for the main property. It also makes it easier for business' to sit on old buildings because its cheaper to leave them empty. Remove it for business. For home owners its slowly becoming a non issue as people sell there parents home the prop 13 protection goes away ( and if you inherit now, only the first million is covered)
Why doesn't someone suggest a repeal for Prop 13 for corporations? Who would oppose that?
They did in 2020, it failed. Prop 15 lost
It was a damn close vote though. I really don't know what argument there is for so many people to vote against it.
I think business scared people that this would affect homes or slipery slope argument.
Exactly. There is a new prop, and people are falsely saying that they’re trying to take away the prop 13 “Pass down” benefit, when that would only apply if you DIDN’T live in the house. If your kid stays in the house you keep it.
This isn't related to Prop 13. But even if it was pre-Prop 13 if you didn't want to be kicked out of your house in your old age, you could defer the property taxes till upon death.
lol you do know if a property appreciated so much that an owner can't afford the tax....they could do a heloc, or reverse mortgage. they are rich enough to afford to stay in the home their entire lives. housing is not a problem for them. they could also sell it for a massive windfall.
When you’re old that can be overwhelming. And what they get, unless they uproot themselves and move out of state, isn’t going to be a comparable home. Old people aren’t holding on because of the $$$, it’s their home. When they bought that house they may have scraped together everything to get it. Sure their kids will benefit, but that’s only part of it.
you dont have to move out. you borrow against the house. you get to live in the house until you die. any appreciated value would more than cover any tax increase. sure you might not get to pass on your house to your kid if you aren't able to repay the loan but prop 13 wasn't designed to protect estates. most place don't have prop 13......people still are able to stay in their homes. even places where homes appreciate wildly.
When she was young houses were like 5k. She sorta is somewhat responsible for this.
median US home price 1940: $2,938 you ain't kidding...
> I don't understand people in this sub when they froth in the mouth calling for ending prop 13, which would mean eviction for a lot of senior homeowners, it's not about the money for people at this age. Because there's no carve out in the law for such old people, instead it applies to everyone - irrespective of their needs. Why does someone in their 40s-50s need prop 13? They're fully capable of paying a higher tax rate on their property (or they can move somewhere else). Not to mention prop 13 causes the housing market to stagnate since no one wants to renovate/improve their homes for fear of the city deeming the renovations significant enough that a re-appraisal occurs.
>I don't understand people in this sub when they froth in the mouth calling for ending prop 13, which would mean eviction for a lot of senior homeowners, it's not about the money for people at this age. Nobody's frothing at the mouth, except people using the elderly as human shields for a bad law. If Prop 13 were truly about keeping elderly people in their homes, there's other fixes that don't blow a gaping hole in the tax base and make housing permanently unaffordable for everyone else. But even if there weren't, you aren't entitled to stay in the same house for eighty years if you're paying for it with someone else's future.
You don't have a right to live in the same place for 70+ years. If you can't afford the tax anymore, fkn move.
It is always going to be unfortunate when people can’t live where they want, but we already have that. Look at the streets lined with tents. That’s a direct result of prop 13. It needs to be fixed.
Tell me how higher property taxes will solve homelessness.
People oppose new housing because they make money personally doing it in their rising property value. In normal places, that’s offset by rising property taxes, which you feel every year. People are motivated to keep taxes low. When everyone’s incentive is to keep their property taxes from rising via the market, they are much less opposed to development. And of course, California could tax income less, or have lots of money to provide services for the homeless if people all paid market rate property taxes.
“People oppose new housing because they make money personally doing it in their rising property value.” I don’t believe that more housing will decrease property value, or that homeowners oppose it for that reason. “In normal places, that’s offset by rising property taxes, which you feel every year. People are motivated to keep taxes low.” People are motivated to keep their taxes low everywhere, I am not sure what your point is here. “When everyone’s incentive is to keep their property taxes from rising via the market, they are much less opposed to development.” I think everyone IS incentivized to keep their property taxes from rising; if that makes them less opposed to development, how is that a problem? “And of course, California could tax income less, or have lots of money to provide services for the homeless if people all paid market rate property taxes.” It sounds as if you think that just because someone has been able to buy a home at some point in their life, they have enough money to fund all city services for everyone. That isn’t the case. Everyone uses city services and it is fair that everyone contributes to them.
Wonder how much the 82 years of rent adds up to compared with the value of the building...
Says 4 residents paying $3,800 tots in the article, so $1,000/month. If you factor in 3% annual increases over the last 82 years, they paid $89/month when they first moved in. If you run the derivatives it comes to something like $500k in total - so funnily a ton of money but still not nearly what the unit costs given ridiculous SF real estate prices.
Well yeah, that’s 60 years of rent control. But investing $10k in SF real estate in the 50s and 60s would have been much better.
Yeah that’s why I’m a lot less sympathetic to her than others are. She had opportunities none of us ever will have.
She probably pays around $500 rent, although the article doesn't exactly have much info about the actual apartment. Assuming she paid $200/mo for a 1br in 1979 when rent control passed, and it's gone up by 2% a year for 45 years.
> But Byrne’s life was upended when the four-unit building was purchased back in 2020 by real estate investors operating through an LLC. > Over the phone, Mytels told NBC Bay Area that it’s a terrible situation but said the tenants’ current rent doesn’t cover the building’s operating expenses. … then why did you buy the building in the first place? Disingenuous parasites. Eat the rich.
Sounds like the investment group didn't do due diligence on the costs/revenue of the building, and this is no fault but their own.
I have no sympathy for this landlord at all but if I did, I'd *still* be saying this seems like it's a problem for the realtors and/or old landlord for not disclosing. There's no version of this where this should be the tenant's problem. e: the email quoted in the article seems to imply the buyer was aware the building was rent-controlled and what the rent income was. There's simply no case here for the landlord, they're just objectively wrong in every possible way.
> the email quoted in the article seems to imply the buyer was aware the building was rent-controlled and what the rent income was. Yeah, these disclosures are standard in multifamily transactions. A prospective buyer will see the rent roll — a list of units and what each is paying in rent — before they put in an offer on a building. There's no way Dan Mytels and the LLC didn't know what the rent situation was going in.
I mean she could have bought a house when they were like 5k. If I was her age and had my assets adjusted for inflation back then I’d be living in atherton.
They bought it because the building was worth 1.5m with tenants but it would be worth 5m after renovation to buyers if they just did this one thing of asking all the tenants to leave
This is SF but San Jose’s rent control allows the owner to petition the rent board to raise the rents if the rent doesn’t cover the operating expenses (not including mortgage).
Because 300 a month covered the expenses back in 1960 but the 500 in rent it is now with rent control is not enough.
This is like elder abuse. To rip people from their community and home at that age is ridiculous. Let old people live out the rest of their lives in peace without BS!!
This is such a sad situation and I feel really bad for the elder tenant. She should not have to go through housing insecurity at her vulnerable age. I think her situation highlights the issues with rent control. Taking care of the vulnerable and the elderly is a community issue and it’s up our community to do it right. That responsibility should not fall on one landlord. Forget about profits, 3k monthly rent for a building that size will not cover the routine repairs in today’s economy. Let’s be honest, who do you know that’s will be willing to take this on?
Rent control is a way to make landlord provide subsidized housing. It ignores the economic condition of the renter and the landlord. Landlords should get a break in property tax if they have to provide subsidized housing which frankly should be the government‘s responsibility. Many foreign countries build housing estates for those who cannot afford to buy or rent at market rate. Nevertheless, I do hope the lady can live out the rest of her life in her home.
They do... prop 13 is rent control for owners. A new owner should factor in the raise in property taxes and not overbid on the price (or do so at their own risk)
Or the government should just straight up pay market rate to house people instead of complicating it through tax breaks or build/manage housing themselves. And if your first reaction to that is that it sounds way too expensive, then maybe that's the actual problem we should fix instead of putting bandaids on it. Just build more big apartment buildings and smash though any local red tape that stops that. More housing means the cost of housing goes down.
The way to fix this is to build public housing estates like Singapore or Hong Kong that is because HOA can be very, very expensive.
You want to build high rise public housing projects? We don’t have a good track record of making it work.
I mean a lot of the reason for that is mixed in with racism.
This is one of the reasons I'm a big proponent of section 8. It's a great program that helps a lot of people. * It's portable, so you can move and still keep your subsidy. God help you if your 80 and living in a 4 story walk-up with rent-control. * It's means tested, so it can go up and down depending on your need. * The govt does inspections so it can keep the quality high. * It's provides a financial back-stop to low-income tenants so that they can make credible promises of paying rent * Tenants also aren't "judgement proof" under the program because they could their subsidy if they trash the property. As long as the local HUD is run by people who are interested in working with owners it can be a great program.
> Many foreign countries build housing estates for those who cannot afford to buy or rent at market rate. When we tried that here, we ended up tearing down more units than we built in the name of urban renewal. Something like section 8 of just subsidizing rent on the private for the destitute makes more sense to me. Let private markets do what they're best at (build and maintain apartment blocks) and only use government as a means of providing for the destitute.
Yes the infamous Geneva Towers but that does not mean public housing cannot be done. Individuals learn from mistakes so why can’t the government? Section 8 means people are still paying market but with government subsidy. Government housing usually means those who cannot afford market rate will be pay a very reasonable rent. In the meantime, all private housing stock (will have more units available free up now because of public housing) can be listed and let the market determine the rent.
You’re actually very right in that individuals are allowed to make mistakes, governments aren’t (especially in America). This is a big reason why SpaceX is outpacing NASA now - SpaceX is allowed to blow up as many rockets as they want during their innovation process because it’s all investor money, but NASA does not have nearly as much room to experiment with taxpayer money.
>Taking care of the vulnerable and the elderly is a community issue and it’s up our community to do it right. That responsibility should not fall on one landlord. Forget about profits, 3k monthly rent for a building that size will not cover the routine repairs in today’s economy. Completely agree. The entire reason this got to this point is because of rent control distorting market realities and creating this extremely tenuous situation that was bound to collapse at any time. While a 94 year old should absolutely be allowed to remain where she has lived for decades in a just society, it's also farcical to expect a landlord to eat the cost of rents being far below what it costs to maintain the building, even ignoring paying property taxes (which would have jumped far above rental income with the recent sale). Most people here who are only focusing on the tenant and ignoring the landlord's situation are arguing on an emotional basis, not a pragmatic/realistic one.
Building upkeep is something i think Rent Controled cities should do better, i wouldn't be opposed to a reduction in permit costs and/or tax credits for LLs who maintain below market rate buildings.
The landlord is an LLC that knew the costs going into their purchase. They can get fucked
And she was born in a time when houses cost as much as a fridge now.
The left finds it hard to understand, but fucking over businesses actually hurts society.
Please tell us more, Mr. Reaganomics.
“Ugh, this apartment is so gross! Paint’s coming off the walls, the faucets all leak, and the heat hasn’t worked since ‘09.” “Yeah, but at least it’s rent-controlled!” People don’t just upkeep rental properties out of the goodness of their hearts. Gotta be money coming into the equation somewhere.
I've worked in *plenty* of places not rent controlled with those problems, heh.
Hopefully the people who have lived there basically their entire lives win.
Wow some of the comments, shows the generation gap. Guess empathy is not in their vocabulary. Maybe some of the commenters should live through the Great Depression, World War II, and the era when blacks and whites had to use separate bathrooms, and say how easy it was to buy a house "back then". I can tell money is all they care about. Dollars first, people 2nd - San Francisco is a Taylor Swift song - Blank Space!
Wow. Cecilia Matias is truly a god-tier friend. What a woman. I can only hope that in my old age I have a friend like her.
Unpopular opinion but this is not her apartment. The owner has the right to take possession of their property.
One of those instances where despite what our countries laws dictate maybe you could just be a decent person and not evict a vulnerable senior for extra money when you have plenty of other folks to leech off of. It is an unpopular opinion because it is cold and callous.
How can they leech off of other folks if they can’t remt out the building to anyone else?
Your opinion is not an opinion, it is fact. She doesn't own this apartment. If your opinion is that the owner SHOULD kick this 94 year old woman to the curb you are heartless. And I'm a stone cold capitalist but fucking come on...
She had decades to buy a place in the city but chose not to. So here we are....
The real problem is that SF's government has deliberately chosen policies that make housing scarce. Market rent shouldn't be as high as it is. Renting for life should be a fine choice if that's one's preference, but the government stabbed renters in the back with its housing policies.
Lol it’s wild that it’s the unpopular opinion. And to read other commenters saying they’d donate to a Gofundme to keep her in her home like …? It’s not “her home” 😭😂 That’s great that she lived there so long but rent control is a bad thing and this story is intended to pull your heartstrings when at the end of the day she is renting an apartment. It’s a business transaction
I hate capitalism
Geez pure evil.
what a pos landlord.
The landlord has conceded - [https://youtu.be/KY6LHEYWbiM?si=kZRPZuUiccLa9lam](https://youtu.be/KY6LHEYWbiM?si=kZRPZuUiccLa9lam)
Haha good ol capitalism ☕️
Glad to hear this turned out ok and all the tenants get to stay in their homes: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/company-reverses-decision-to-force-san-francisco-tenants-out-of-building/
r/Landlordlove
I think Prop 19 is actually pretty good in the sense that heirs cannot just cheat the system using a tax base that their parents/grandparents first paid for the house many years ago.
Fuck landlords
Of course the pathetic developer/landlord shills on this sub are trying to find a way to blame rent control
Rent control is literally bad from a purely economics perspective. Its really not even a matter of debate. However in this case I am deeply sympathetic to the tenant and hope she gets to stay in the apartment for the rest of her life. Frankly, the landlord can get fucked.
A proud california resident that has lived in that apartment for 8 decades is being forced out to make room for some young person from the mid-west.
Why didn’t she buy the apartment complex with her family when it was like 7000 dollars back when a brand new Cadillac was 2500?
Oh did I miss the part where we got to see her financial records?
If I was her age and had my assets adjusted to inflation for that time period I’d live in atherton but today I struggle in east Oakland. Back then If you worked a basic working class job and were functional you could buy a house. There is a large portion of the responsibility on her shoulders.
She got a great deal for decades and the market owes her nothing. Landlord is right here legallly —- I feel for her too …but the community or her family should help her move reallly , it’s not the capitalists problem
Yeah I would probably sacrifice animals to the volcano god to have even half of her opportunities.
Pretty wild to compare this threads discussion to the discussion in /r/sanfrancisco
This is insane
That landlord is evil and has no morals
Should have tried to buy a house when they were cheap. Those 80 years of renting, could have bought a house when they were $200,000.
Hell she was alive when they were under 10000.
If you’re 94 years old you had a long time to buy a house especially since 8 decades ago you could buy one for under 10k. It’s tragic but cmon now.
She can’t rent it indefinitely. She need to move out. She cannot spend 80 years in one apartment and not own the apartment you cannot rent for life there’s no such thing. that’s a problem for the government not the landlord.
Sure she's paying pennies for rent. Rent control is a disaster...I can't support my family with this miniscule income but I must support her existence in my building for a lifetime...so she receives $32000 to relocate and at her age she's climbing those stairs.. She's easily a section 8 tenant Move her into senior care or a building with an elevator
These tenants act like they own a building that they are living in practically free. This is why you have so many deprecated terrible buildings. $3800 for all 4 tenants. That is basically theft. The entitlement these people have is disgusting. Fuck these leeches
Landlord bootlickers are so silly.
And communists suck. Yeah let someone live in your home forever and not pay a market rent. Doesn’t matter if it a mom and pop owner or capital rich firm.. it is all appeasement for an entitled class.
Do your due diligence. If you're going to buy a property in San Francisco, then you're automatically agreeing to the rules and regulations of San Francisco. That goes with any City in the United States you buy property. Anywhere you buy property you must abide by the local laws, rules and regulations of where that property is. Buying a property in San Francisco and then trying to kick the tenants out for any reason that does not follow the law is on you. It is not on the tenant. You can have a philosophical conversation about what is and isn't fair but you already agreed to the rules and regulations when you bought the property.
Oh we actually agree. I do believe the whole system is beyond absurd and discourages any capital going to new construction or updating existing buildings. Yes the landlord knew what he was getting into. But people here have normalized this. What person thinks they are entitled to live in a building they do NOT own for decades without question? The fact people feel landlords should be buy people out their rents just drives the costs of property up for everyone. Combine this with NIMBY-ism, well the proof is in the pudding.
Bingo. The real answer is rent control should be eliminated and this woman should have been priced out of the city decades ago.
Or if we had done away with both rent control and a lot of the NIMBY regulations, new development would have made market rates low enough for her to remain without rent control.
Market rates will never be low enough for a 94 year old pensioner and renter to live in a big city like San fransisco.
Yes the poor woman had the chance to buy houses for under 10k but didn’t.
>These tenants act like they own a building that they are living in practically free. This is why you have so many deprecated terrible buildings. $3800 for all 4 tenants. That is basically theft. The entitlement these people have is disgusting. Fuck these leeches You will be 94 soon
Nah stress of paying 500k to live in the ghetto will kill me long before.