San Francisco tenants get 6-figure buyout to leave luxury apartment

Whatever you do, don’t be a landlord in SF.

The $475,000 voluntary buyout is considered to be the largest in city history and reflects the high-value of the apartment.

1 Like

Completely crazy, only-in-SF special :joy::joy::joy::crazy_face::crazy_face::crazy_face:

1 Like

I bet NYC has this kind of numbers too. They are just not well publicized.

Rent control has its merit, but after 30 years the landlord should be able to get a break. It’s the reasonable thing to do. Nothing is forever, and rent control shouldn’t be either.

Also tenants enjoying the benefit of rent control should be means-tested. It’s the right thing to do, and it reflects the spirit of rent control.

The fact that nobody is even asking these questions speaks in volume, just like Simone Biles is the greatest athlete of all time, according to the MSM, even after the recent withdrawal, or maybe the withdrawal made her even greater. I don’t know, maybe we are all indeed fools and need to be brainwashed some more. It’s like in certain countries where everyone should and needs to have only one opinion, and that’s the opinion they are told to believe in. We are looking more and more like that.

1 Like

We’ve been headed that way for quite some time. Anything that’s not the left leaning thought is racist or some other label that makes people afraid to say it. People get fired for not being PC enough (eg, the google guy who said women don’t prefer careers in tech). Any look at comp sci and engineering degree attainment by gender would show that. Yet, he was fired for stating it. There’s one allowable thought, and everything else is shamed by the PC police.

It is what happens when people have no real worries in the world. They come up with labels to identify themselves. Then they go around looking for anything said about those labels and twist it into being something offensive to get upset about it. I’m blown away by how upset people get over things a total stranger says.

What merit does rent control have?

Rent control is appealing because it lets the real culprits of housing crisis off the hook: NIMBYes and anti-growth nutjobs. We should not prioritize one person’s access to afternoon sunlight over affordable housing for families. But that’s what SF and other big cities do. It’s unconscionable. Decades of rent control has proven not able to make a dent on the housing problem. Instead, it has made the problem far worse.

1 Like

“Paying a half-million dollars to a wealthy person who’s been keeping a rent-controlled apartment in a city with a housing shortage and an affordability crisis kind of speaks to the way in which our local rent control distorts the market,” he said.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

1 Like

And I can bet the home for which half-million dollars were paid to a wealthy tenet would be one of those NIMBYes types homes. That homes that are build into someone elses backyard despite opposition and by stacking one home over the other. And not to mention in tent parks in the city of ADUs (another example of building in own backyard)

Looking at the figures it is completely crazy but the landlord will be able to raise the rent double
to scoop up the compensation in 3 years, still not bad…

The merit of rent control, as I understand it, is to prevent mass displacement when rents are rising fast. So as a landlord I do support some form of rent control because I think it’s the reasonable thing to do. But as I argued earlier it should not be forever. Nothing should be forever. Something like a rolling 5 or 10-year (or maybe 20) rent control makes sense to me. The idea is to offer protection to tenants, but asking landlords to offer protection to tenants FOREVER seems very unfair. Ditto for means testing.

The $475k number seems large, but it’s only because this is a very high-end apartment that’s renting for $12500 when market rent is $25k/month. If the tenant was paying $1250/month while market rent is $2500 and tenant got $47.5k buyout offer it wouldn’t have made the news. But the scale is the same. So in the end this is just a typical buyout and not out of the ordinary.

A clueless rental justice type argument?
Do you not write eviction and rental increase terms in your rental agreement?

Can you explain why it looks clueless to you?

I do write eviction terms in my rental agreement, but I don’t write rental increase terms. It’s typically for one year and you can’t increase rent within that year anyway. If the lease were for multi-year then it would make sense to add increase terms.

You answered your question yourself. It is just that you cannot process the true meaning of what you wrote. Is that not a description of someone clueless?

Ok, I can take the insult, no problem. But if you don’t add some more explanation I will continue to be clueless. I am actually more clueless now. What is the true meaning of what I wrote?

1 Like

If you do not know something and you are called out on that, why do you call it an insult?

I felt it was an insult because you have not proven that I don’t know what I am talking about. You said I don’t know the true meaning of what I wrote, and I said you need to give it some explanation other than just saying I don’t know what I am talking about. Do you think my logic makes sense?

If you feel you were insulted, I will take it back and say sorry.

Ok, apology accepted.

Now can you explain what the true meaning of what I wrote is? I welcome different opinions and I actually want to know why. :slight_smile:

I have given my answer already. The key points of my arguments are still the same. I just do not want you to feel I was trying to insult you. Why do you not spend sometime and think over this discussion again. We can revisit this subject when some time is given to this idea. ( I noticed you were concerned about mass evictions and trying to solve it by rent control).

I have given this some more thought and my opinion has not changed. Rent control is the most effective way to prevent mass evictions/displacements in a fast-rising rental market. It changes the dynamics and shifts more power from landlord to tenant. The issue with the present form of rent control is it shifts too much power to tenants and in my view should be adjusted to rebalance the power back toward landlords to some degree.

If you prove that I don’t know what I am talking about, then it’s not an insult and it’s just a fact that I am clueless. That’s fine. If I am clueless I am clueless. No need to sugarcoat it.