Hacker News Reader

Comment by kovrik | Hacker News Reader

Sorry, maybe I'm just tired, but I think I'm missing something.

I live in New Zealand and here it is a normal practice for landlords to offer a fixed-term tenancy agreement for 6-12 month. When it expires, then landlord/tenant can decide whether they want to sign another one (fixed-term), otherwise it becomes periodic.

Isn't it the case in US? I mean what's the point of wasting $250k if you can just wait for 6-12 months?

Or why can't they sell the building with a tenant? Why move out, what's the problem? It is a common practice here in NZ too.

View on HN

You may be surprised to learn that New Zealand has some of the poorest rights for tenants in the developed world.

In most of the US, Europe and other Western countries lease holders have rights to continued lease and reasonable modification of properties (repainting, etc.).

In Germany for example, many apartments are rented without kitchens, and with plain white walls. It's expected lease holders will decorate and install their own fixed furnishings and return the property to its original condition when they leave.

Same in France for the kitchens

In SF, you can only be kicked out for serious violations or when the owners take the unit off the market (and can’t rent it again for 5 years). Otherwise you can stay as long as you pay rent.

As a landlord in SF you lose a lot of rights to your property.

Even taking it off the market induces huge Ellis Act compensation obligations.

Indeed. A few years back SF passed a law that the landlord had to pay the difference between the current rent and market rent (on a new place) for two years.

That could easily be $50-60k or more.

Thankfully the courts struck that law down.

In rent controlled units you're basically able to stay as long as you pay the rent. Attempts to get people out of those units are frequently underhanded and regularly cross into criminal or civilly actionable, but the people targeted are often poor and don't have the resources to fight back.

For more information on some of the tactics used, just search for "Jared Kushner rent control".

That's also true of any property in San Francisco, rent control notwithstanding. As long as one pays the rent, one is at home. There is a lot of jurisprudence around this. For example, if I live in a property for 30 days, I am the tenant. AirBnB dabblers have unintentionally rented their units out this way. Also if I send you a check for the rent, and if I write "rent" on the check, and you cash it, I am the tenant.

Basically, under the law in California and specifically in San Francisco, the home belongs to the person who lives there, not the person who holds the title.

Right, but if you're not in a rent controlled unit my expectation is that the landlord can adjust the rent as high as they'd like at the end of each 6-12 month lease.

> Right, but if you're not in a rent controlled unit my expectation is that the landlord can adjust the rent as high as they'd like at the end of each 6-12 month lease.

Depends on the lease terms; the current place I live we had an un-the-lease $50/mo. limit on increases for the first two annual renewals. Also been in month-to-month leases where in principal the rent could increase at any time without limit for m with 30 days notice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com