Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmcer | Hacker News Reader

This also might open many landlords eyes to how ugly their situations can get when they want to remove a tenant in Oakland/SF/Berkeley even if a tenant stops paying rent. I have two friends who are currently refusing to leave in-law units and it is quickly getting bad for their landlords ($30k deal to get one of them to leave). That said I totally welcome this, part of the reason why our communities suck in the bay area is because everyone is renting. Owners have a vested interest in creating a nice place to live while landlords and renters have less reasons to care.

View on HN

In Germany about half the population is renting. That in itself doesn't mean they're not fostering a community. The difference of course is, that in Germany there are very stringent renter protections, so tenants do usually plan to stay for long times (a good share for a lifetime).

Generally it isn’t a huge leap to assume that a resident will stay longer in a home they bought vs one they rent...

We have similar pro-tenant protections in the Bay Area to Germany.

No way. Berlin passed a FIVE YEAR RENT FREEZE in January. Our protections aren't on the same planets as Germany's.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/world/europe/berlin-gentr...

The German housing laws are protective with rent spikes.

California now has statewide rent control. San Francisco has had it for years.

You can't even evict people right now due to the emergency regulations. I wonder why the landlords are even bothering right now? Wait until after, evict for non-payment (one of the only easy ways to evict), then either try to collect or send back rent to collections and claim it as a loss and move on.

We were once evicted from an in-law unit without cause. They wanted the space back for use as a home office. (I suspect that’s extremely common these days)

In hindsight, we should have held out for a “make us move” offer. $10K’s is typical for that sort of situation in Berkeley.

We’re too nice, and moved without a fight, in return the landlord came up with some BS reason to withhold our security deposit.

Before the bump in the move-out offer minimum, they could have done an Ellis Act eviction if they wanted to recover for their own use while paying you the minimum possible. (Actually, Ellis Act is one of the only eviction types allowed right now.) That said, it sounds like they wanted to have their cake and eat it too, so it's too bad you didn't feel like taking them to task.

Umm... while they can't withhold your security deposit, squatting someone's in-law unit is obviously immoral. It's not your property, if they want it back, you have to move. Holding them hostage for $10k is scummy.

If you don't to give up some of your rights to others over some property, don't rent it out.

California isn't a feudal society, yet.

It's not squatting. They are tenants and have rights to the property as well. The landlord can get them out, but has to follow the legal process.

The GP didn’t mention a lease so I assumed it was month to month, in which case the landlord terminated the lease and the renter moves out.

If they had a longer lease, then I’d agree the landlord can’t force them out before the lease ends.

Rent control throws a wrench in this simple model. In Berkeley, the tenant almost exclusively has the right to terminate the tenancy. Expiration of lease or month-to-month term is not actually grounds for the owner to terminate the tenancy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com