I apologize for this comment. I got caught up with the “if you don’t like president Twhitler leave the US” thingy.
The number of Ellis Act evictions in LA rose again in 2016
More than 1,370 rent-controlled units were removed from the market.
I apologize for this comment. I got caught up with the “if you don’t like president Twhitler leave the US” thingy.
I will give you a dollar if you post something real estate related on this real estate related site…
(In my defense for the occasional OT item, I like to think I do way more than my share of contributing real estate topics to earn a semi pass…)
It may take months or years to do Ellis eviction. The legal bill is huge. No seller would accept an offer with an eviction condition. The seller should Ellis first and then sell a vacant building for top dollars, either for owner to live or to demolate and rebuild
Here is just some of the info on Ellis Act procedures on the SF Rent Board site. It looks like min 5 years of no renting. That may be ok for a SFH and the new buyer plans to live there anyway but others who are investing will not touch these properties. Obviously protected tenants are a different class altogether but if one is looking at a home with a tenant in there I don’t see why he/she can’t condition offer accordingly that building be provided fully vacant. Let the seller try to get the tenant out somehow for that sweet offer price…
Pursuant to the Ellis Act, the Notice of Constraints imposes a 5-year period of vacancy control from the effective date of withdrawal. If the Ellis filing is rescinded, the 5-year period of vacancy control runs from the date of filing of the Notice of Intent with the Rent Board. Upon written request to the landlord, the displaced tenant has the right of first refusal if the unit is put back on the rental market within 10 years of the effective date of withdrawal - the landlord can charge only the rent-controlled rent within the first five years, but can charge market rent during the next five years.
Pursuant to state law amendments to the Ellis Act, the Board of Supervisors amended the Rent Ordinance in February 2005 to provide for relocation payments of $4,500 per tenant up to a maximum of $13,500 per unit, with an additional payment of $3,000 for each elderly or disabled tenant. The amendment also requires that the relocation payment amounts be adjusted for inflation on March 1, 2006 and March 1 of each year thereafter. Information regarding current relocation payment amounts can be obtained from the Rent Board by calling (415)252-4602 or by visiting our website at www.sfrb.org. A list of relocation payment amounts is also available at our office.
Well, people are doing them. Here is some stats for our buddies in So Cal. I am pretty sure I posted some stats for the Bay Area or SF proper before. Will look again.
More than 1,370 rent-controlled units were removed from the market.
Interesting, even more detail for 16 years worth…
The Coalition for Economic Survival (CES) today released an online map, viewable here, that chronicles the number of evictions of tenants in Los Angeles under the Ellis Act from Jan. 1, 2001 through Dec. 31, 2016. The map was created by the...
I will give you a dollar if you post something real estate related on this real estate related site…
(In my defense for the occasional OT item, I like to think I do way more than my share of contributing real estate topics to earn a semi pass…)
Who would have thought of it. Hemp is a natural product and it needs to be used. It has many industrial uses. Why not use it for housing? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-06/house-of-hemp-calls-for-a-processing-plant-in-wa/8325130?WT.tsrc=Facebook&smid=Page:+ABC+News-Facebook_Organic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf60582799=1
I will charge you 1% compound interests, make sure you pay me right away or you will owe me big time in a year.
Nice job…keep it up
We obviously need some updated stats (since probably more) but here is a snapshot again.
Wow, hardly worth crying about, no???
Evictions filed using the Ellis Act increased from 113 to 154 between the March 2014 to February 2015 and March 2015 to February 2016 period. Other significant increases include owner move-in evictions, which rose from 343 last year to 417.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-francisco-evictions-continue-rise-year-since-2010/
There is asymmetry of information here. We landlords may know the inside and out of eviction process, but regular Janes and Joes do not. People are busy. That’s why ready-to-move-in houses sell at a premium. People pay more to have problem taken care of for them.
Sellers should DEFINITELY Ellis Act out the tenants before selling. SFH selling at 1.5M never make any sense as rentals anyway. Why worry about investors buying? No investors worth their salt will buy them. I agree with @ptiemann. Tenant-occupied can easily carry a 30% discount in SF.
Sellers should DEFINITELY Ellis Act out the tenants before selling.
SFHs maybe… Multi unit buildings??? I don’t think so.
Multi unit buildings??? I don’t think so.
You aren’t supposed to buy those in SF to begin with.
If that were the preferred way of doing it, then explain to me those very, very low number of Ellis Act evictions over the years. Proof is in the pudding…
Most people are not stupid. Actually a regular person can become brilliant when their own money is involved.
You need a deep pocket to stand the large and unpredictable legal bill for Ellis.
Anyone has done or consulted lawyers about Ellis?
Manch, you can go ahead buy a tenant occupied, Ellis out and sell for top dollars. If that’s feasible, you can become a serial Ellis and become famous. You better pull off your picture from Internet to avoid your picture published on SF newspapers when you become famous with the help of tenant rights protesters
I have been wondering why no lawyer is doing serial Ellis and make huge gains. Maybe it’s not easy, or not as profitable.
Manch, why not get a law degree and become a serial Ellis evictor? At least you do not need to pay a huge legal bill
Maybe it’s not easy, or not as profitable.
I suspect chasing ambulances is much, much easier work for them suits…
Legal activism has made justice so expensive. Many middle class people are deprived of their justice by legal activism.
This is one reason for Trump’s win
We are talking about this because a judge has ruled in favor of Ellis act. So maybe there are some “ultra liberal” judges out to get us landlords but this case is not that.
Maybe there are already many sellers choosing the Ellis act route. I don’t know. But don’t they have to disclose it? It’s certainly material to the transaction.
But don’t they have to disclose it? It’s certainly material to the transaction.
I would think most def disclosure is necessary. Hence, some buyers will walk to another property that has no conditions…
Legal activism has many forms. Most of the times, it’s in passive agressive form. When you do a Ellis eviction or non-payment eviction, the judge can’t deny the eviction, but he can allow the tenant’s free lawyer to extend the case to many months, thus running up the landlord’s legal bill and force the landlord to settle with the tenant. This is prevalent in SF and Oakland.
If your legal bill is 100k, plus 16k tenant relocation fee, plus any settlement you may need to pay the tenant, plus many months of low rent tenancy, it would make Ellis not as attractive.
The best strategy is to buy a tenant occupied property and do owner move in. But you need to move in and live there for a few years.
Courthouse being politicized is the saddest development from the liberal movement.
This judge made the right call, that’s comforting. This case is pretty much as expected since SF’s regulation is laughably unconstitutional. Even lower court judge has ruled that SF regulation is unconstitutional. Every judge in each level has ruled SF regulation as unconstitutional. SF city attorney can continue to waste taxpayer money to appeal to state Supreme Court and the federal Supreme Court, ruling will be the same.
This is why Trump is still helpful to SF landlords. If the Supreme Court become legal activism driven, just like what happened in Californian courts, USA will be in deep trouble, and landlords will fall into shit hole
When you do a Ellis eviction or non-payment eviction, the judge can’t deny the eviction, but he can allow the tenant’s free lawyer to extend the case to many months, thus running up the landlord’s legal bill and force the landlord to settle with the tenant. This is prevalent in SF and Oakland.
If your legal bill is 100k, plus 16k tenant relocation fee, plus any settlement you may need to pay the tenant, plus many months of low rent tenancy, it would make Ellis not as attractive.
Perhaps one of our members can chime in, but I don’t know for a fact that all Ellis Act evictions end up taking forever and thus costing that much. It is not a vague form of eviction, the owner simply wants out of the business. Pretty clear cut. And I agree, there is a string of instructions that one must follow exactly (and should really) just so if anything it goes relatively smooth. I personally might go into murky water and get the tenants (non protected, Mom would probably frown on doing anything to old people) out somehow semi legitimately. Why deal with lawyers?