While Mayer’s studio is among the 45,820 units built before 1979 that are covered by San Jose’s rent-control law — and limited to 5 percent annual rent increases — its terms don’t help in his situation. Unlike San Francisco and other major cities, San Jose doesn’t have a “just-cause ordinance,” which requires landlords to provide an acceptable reason for refusing to renew a tenant’s lease. San Jose Housing Director Jacky Morales-Ferrand was looking into creating a policy last year, but faced strong opposition from landlord groups who said it would make it too difficult to evict problem tenants.
Another story is used as weapon to change laws to hurt landlord.
Strict rent control will bring more of these kind of news. They will use it to make rent control even more stricter.
If the journalist and government really cares about the 92 year old, they should donate money so that he can afford another apartment, or build a senior housing to house this tenant
The tenant is paying 25% of the market rent. If he’s paying the market rent, I guess he would just move to a similar unit and there would be no housing news for the journalist
2 Likes
I don’t know about the journalists. Maybe his daughter should chip in a little bit.
No, his daughter will push for more rent control. His daughter thinks that the landlord should provide a low cost housing for the old man, his daughter’s duty is using new laws to choke the landlord.
People should depend their retirement on their landlord, not on children or government, nor themselves
1 Like
Mayer’s daughter, Anne Sherman, 59, said her dad wants to remain independent, and doesn’t want to move in with her or go to an assisted living facility.
We all have to face this type of scenario with our elder parent(s) or ourselves (me, no kids). I don’t expect some niece or nephew to help me out. I would gladly go to an assisted living facility if I couldn’t swing it on my own. It sounds like he has options. but he doesn’t see the light. Move in with your daughter, Sir, if the offer is there. My siblings do it with our mom and while it is a lot of work, it is not a problem.
1 Like
The blame should be on the previous landlord who provided “inconsistent charity” to Mr Mayer that shielded him from market rent for so many years but suddenly left to expose him to market by selling the property without any protection to Mr Mayer in the contract. Maybe he/she did not expect him to live this long but upon seeing no end to the charity work they decided to pull the plug by selling in order to shift the burden/blame to the new owner. If Mr Mayer had been consistently paying market rent all along, he wouldn’t have ended up in this situation like this. He might have realized much earlier on that he would have to move in with his daughter, or move elsewhere for cheaper rent at a relatively younger age when in better health, or even buy a place of his own.
The moral of the story is good intentions can become unintended liability. No one is above market and any distortion from market is eventually going to hurt someone in the end, even if all the best intentions were applied.
4 Likes
That was the thinking till the last few generation. We can change the past.
Are you saying that people used to depend on their landlord for their retirement? That’s news to me.
If being a landlord means a lifetime annuity to the tenant, I wonder who would ever be the landlord and how much rent they would require
1 Like
Maybe the previous landlord was not allowed to raise rent due to rent control? In that case, rent control regulation should be blamed
Typing too fast and autocorrect. Opposite of what I want to say. People used to depend on children.
In general rent control does do that (shielding tenant from reality), and that’s why it’s particularly painful when the shield is suddenly lost.
I agree with rent control in general that it’s a policy designed to prevent mass displacement. There is a lot of social benefit at a reasonable cost even though it’s unfair. But my issue with rent control is that it should be to “slow down” the process instead of “completely stopping” it. There is no justification for a tenant to hog an apartment forever paying below market. There should be a path to bring rent to market eventually, maybe after 5-10 years. Forcing landlord to shield a tenant for life is plain unfair and it may not end up as a good thing for the tenant in the end.
Perhaps we should revive our thread on paying forward with your kids (if you have any)…
Even in India, a tenant can get $2.5 million by paying $20 rent for many decades.
The easiest way to become rich is to be a tenant
Mea Kadwani, 78, has lived in the same apartment in the Mukund Mansion in Mumbai since he was a toddler. Thanks to rent control laws, he paid less than $20 a month for decades, and $23 a month recently, for a 2,600-square-foot space in the upscale Nepean Sea Road neighborhood, where rents typically top $2,000 a month. Now he’s moving on: After three years of negotiations, he and his wife pocketed $2.5 million from Orbit, a real estate developer planning to turn the building into a garage for residents of its 29-story Villa Orb tower under construction next door.
Despicable. Not a single word of compassion. Period.
I assume you were talking about the current owner DeMaio. 
What would you expect her to say? Is it better if she uses a lot of words of compassion then still evicts him? Honestly I think she already said too much. If she says the wrong word, or leaves any room for speculation, it will all come back to hurt her later if things go wrong.
Silence is golden. Saying anything will get you into trouble.
All the landlords should buy tape and cover their mouth. All the landlords are despicable, their words are especially despicable 
What about all the 92 year old landlords screwed by their tenants. .I know one who has had enough and will now be screwed by the government and will pay 33% of his inflation gains in taxes
1 Like
with inflated dollars.
First disclaimer I am in favor or rent control in some cases. But not a fan here !!!
When I read stories like this my first thought is wow if your 92 being born in 1925 by the end of WWII he’s only in his early 20’s. The story says he’s been living the the same apt for the last 44 years or about since 1973. But between 1945 – 1973 or between 20 – 38yrs old what the heck was he doing.
Why didn’t he secure permanent housing by buying when homes in every region of the bay area was affordable compared to today. To me whenever an existing property (not new a development ) is turned over with a new mortgage the new owners should never be forced to pay market rate for the property and then get stuck with 1973 rents. It doesn’t matter if your 92 or a 25 yrs old that moved out and runs into money trouble you have to return to mom and dad house in this case he needs to live with his daughter.
3 Likes
No sh*t. I’d give a lot for a time machine to make that decision back then!!!