There’s got to be a way to turn this into a job…
The problem with SF rent control is that it doesn’t even pace inflation. When it becomes better for a rich person to rent someone else’s house and buy their own somewhere else to rent with less strict controls, it’s broken.
I don’t think this is an appropriate comparison. If someone can afford to rent a mansion for $11K, then they don’t need protection. If this were a family of 25 living there, then maybe I’d feel sorry for them, but a couple renting a 7BR house and getting paid like this is eye rolling ridiculous.
2 Likes
I agree this tenant doesn’t need protection. I am simply saying that under the current form of rent control which protects all tenants without means testing, this settlement is actually still inline with other buyouts.
I am totally for means testing for tenants who can receive protection from rent control, but the rent control advocates don’t want that. I don’t think they think it does not make sense. It’s only because they are able to get away without it so why give it up even though it makes total sense. It’s all about power grab and what you can get, doesn’t have to make sense.
2 Likes
This couple is the poster child for getting rid of rent control. Rent control started in NYC in WW2. A National emergency. Rent gouging was unpatriotic. But of course it became a right. And is now pervasive, erosive and UnAmerican. Who are the patriots now? Certainly not this wealthy greedy couple gaming the system. Subsidized rent and a buy out…combined they got a $1m windfall. how does that help the homeless and working poor pay for high rents? The government should tax that windfall and give it to the truly needy. Subsidized rent should be taxed like any other income.
2 Likes
Totally agree that it should be taxable income. Let’s hope the IRS gets wind of it.
Taxation is not a money laundering device. An ill-gotten wealth cannot be legitimized (or rationalized) by paying taxes or paying a part to a charity.
2 Likes
And, it continues…
SF renter gets highest buyout this year, 3rd highest of all-time (sfchronicle.com)
Pacific Heights I can understand, but this outer mission buyout of $450k at 365 Seneca seems out of place. What kind of rent discount does the tenant have in the lease that can warrant this size of buyout?
Well, I can’t speak for that address but I was told that a former co-worker of mine paid $200K to a family in the Outer Mission/Alemany area so that they can sell the home vacant. So, the motivation may not be rent related necessarily. The motivation is to maximize selling price by being able to stage or present a SFH in the best light, which is completely vacant (main home and any inlaws) without any cling on tenants that one has to continue dealing with or also buy-out if buyer needs space.
It’s amazing renters get buyouts that can buy a median home in the US. That’s how broken SF policies are.
Oh, come on, who hasn’t heard about renters who own rental properties themselves while they are taking advantage of their rent controlled units? Totally unfair. Rent control ought to be means tested or pegged to income. If you own any RE, you should not be able to keep a rent controlled unit.
2 Likes
There’s a serious danger to owning RE in markets that are majority rentals.