Oakland Apartment Renters Refuse to Pay Rent, Forcing Landlord to Sell

Don’t be a slumlord in Oakland. Also the landlord is a Chinese couple. Saw it on Chinese media first.

Is why I didn’t even bother to look at Oakland when so many articles and heard so many people talk about buying in Oakland. All kind of rosy financial metrics. One need to know the profile of the populace to guess what might happen in the future. Can’t just look at financial data like you and @Jil.

What is the other side of the story? Is the landlord truly being a slumlord? If the conditions are truly as bad as the renters described , then renters should withhold rent. This is likely a “land” grab by the tenants but should still ask the questions.

This is a generalization but many Chinese landlords I know are so damn cheap. They are mostly my relatives so I can talk shit.

They nickel and dime everything. Demand pay quick but slow to fix anything. They are almost too smart and watch the numbers too closely. I wouldn’t want to live in their properties.

1 Like

Smart I don’t know but yes to watch numbers too closely.

Many of them…

That applies to tenants too. Quite reluctant to rent to them.

In Singapore, most preferred tenants are Japanese and Americans.

Obviously didn’t use PM. My Austin PM inspects the house twice a year, fix any repairs found, trim trees if necessary, replace too old appliances and even fix roof tiles. Houses need to be maintained, otherwise after a few years, it looks dilapidated.

The current owners bought the circa-1988 building for $717,000 in April of 2019.

demanding that their landlord sell them the building for $3.2 million via the Oakland Land Trust nonprofit.

Sell, sell, sell!

1 Like

How the hell do they buy a 14 unit place for only 700k in 2019?

For 700k, I can barely get a 3 unit in Oakland.

This is probably a family/friends transfer.

“His neighbors showed us their units with dirty carpet and mold in the bathroom.“

How is that the landlords problem? Is the landlord supposed to provide a cleaning service? This is out of control.

Francisco Perez says the monthly cost of his one bedroom apartment has doubled to more than $1,500 in just the last 3 years.

Were those increases even legal? That seems like a lot for a rent control unit?

Was the building exempted since it was built in 1988?

The renters are just doing themselves a favor. There is nothing wrong with protecting your own interests.

The fact of the matter is, Oakland has set up this this fund with public money to buy properties supposedly at risk of losing affordable housing. This is all noble and reasonable, but it also looks like this fund will eventually sell these properties to the occupants at below market prices. So the tenants not only get the guarantee that their rent won’t increase, they will also get the windfall because they get to buy the properties at a discount. I don’t know how the sale price will be determined in these cases, will it purely be based on the affordability of these tenants?

So if you were a tenant, and you’ve heard of this fantastic program, and you somehow understand that the fund is not going to have enough money to make every single tenants in Oakland happy, what do you do? You need to take some actions asap and throw yourself into the media spotlight to get ahead of everyone else. It doesn’t really matter whether you have an actual problem with the condition of the property or not. When there is enough public attention on your situation, pressure builds on the landlord and he/she will crack at some point.

1 Like

Funded by? Not the State government right? Otherwise, I need to protest, with a facial mask of course.

My guess is it’s a mixture of grants from state/county/city and various donations.

“the land trust scraped together a $3.2 million offer from various grants and investors”

I think these “investors” are probably not investors in traditional sense.

You can protest all you want. Do you believe you have a say in this? :slight_smile:

If they can run the RAP leaner, they could probably fund the Land Trust with money generated from the annual fee and business taxes from all the rented properties in Oakland.

@hanera likes to joke but he is definitely not going to protest. He, like most of us here, have too much to lose by showing our faces. He even buys his properties through trusts and have pm’s to shield him. (Smart moves by him)

1 Like

BTW, the 14-plex was built in 1988 so it was not subject to rent control. That’s why that particular tenant’s rent can double in 3 years. Owner was smart to bring it to market before the new law kicked in.

The building is likely not a run-down building since it’s relatively new. No wonder owners rejected 3.2M offer. That’s only 228k/unit (all 1bd/1ba units).

1 Like

Good points. Tough spot for the owners. We’ll see how it plays out.

Personally I can’t double someone’s rent that fast even if they are under market. I’m too soft like that.

$1500 for 1/1 is not that cheap especially if utilities are not included. Maybe market is around 1700-2000 for 1 bedroom but dam $1500 is a lot of money to me.

Late 2012 to now. The rent went from 800 to 1000 for one of my units with 2 bedrooms. lol fuk me. I should get out of this business.

Well, this environment is pushing landlords to either become “hard” or get out of the business. There is not a lot of room for softies to operate. :slight_smile:

1 Like

So damn true. I’m still trying to figure out which camp I belong in.

Honestly, I think many people shouldn’t have gone into landlording in the first place. They think it’s like buying an index fund but it’s not. It’s a business and a business is dam hard sometimes.

1 Like

I have said it elsewhere, I don’t think it’s good business to raise rent that much that fast. We saw in this case the owners got themselves in hot water for doing that. Yes, law is on your side, but karma is not.

Someone mentioned they were thinking about buying a MFH in San Leandro with rent roll 50% below market. Don’t do it. Just walk away even it’s very tempting.

As a landlord I always raise my rent every year even if it’s only $50 to bring it close to or slightly above market. I don’t understand why some landlords just leave rent as is for years.

If you think doubling someone’s rent in 3 years is morally wrong, what do you think of giving a tenant a 60-day notice to move out? Is that also morally wrong? That’s even worse than doubling someone’s rent over 3 years, right?