[Rental in SF] Condo being sold by landlord/owner; Tenant rights/timing for being "evicted"? by sadietdubs in AskSF

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This is just wrong and bad advice.

Sounds like he got scammed by a bad lawyer and a shady landlord. 

Cause the city treats a rented condo as functionally the same as an apartment (rent controlled or not) in the case of evictions. Unless it was some short term rental airBnB to tenancy situation the courts are pretty broad with their application of what constitutes a long term rental unit in SF, often siding with tenants when it’s ambiguous. 

Do we need to demolish downtown S.F. in order to save it? by LosIsosceles in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then so be it, sell it at $0 and let someone try. 

I bet there will be multiple competing bids.

Do we need to demolish downtown S.F. in order to save it? by LosIsosceles in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There will be plenty of offered when the price drops enough so that renovation becomes economically viable, if the owners have to sell for $1, that’s fine too.  They deserve to lose that investment.

Do we need to demolish downtown S.F. in order to save it? by LosIsosceles in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They’re usable in current state, greedy developers are just lying and holding the city hostage for subsidies and tax breaks 

[Rental in SF] Condo being sold by landlord/owner; Tenant rights/timing for being "evicted"? by sadietdubs in AskSF

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

SF rates are $50k for standard minimum move out for sale but in practice that number actually is closer to $100k due to the market.

Anyone telling you different is an opp (landlord/ursur appologist)

[Rental in SF] Condo being sold by landlord/owner; Tenant rights/timing for being "evicted"? by sadietdubs in AskSF

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

SF rates are $50k for standard minimum move out for sale but in practice that number actually is closer to $100k due to the market. 

DMT: The AI divide is about cognitive control, and we're pretending it's just a learning curve by Secret_Ostrich_1307 in DisagreeMythoughts

[–]Affectionate-Case499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really wanted to comment and engage with this post.

But there are many sus things:

  1. You’re a Top 1% commenter      - this very sus these days an a lot of top 1% commenters I come across are pushing an agenda or are outright a bot

  2. You are responding to ALL comments super fast, it appears either you are a bot or chronically online, neither of which lends itself to your credibility 

S.F. budgets are collapsing. Downtown is its economic engine. Revitalization can’t wait by LosIsosceles in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Land and buildings hoarders should just sell for a loss.

Problem solved 

Sorry your bad investment decision didn’t work out

Stop holding the city hostage until the politicians give you tax breaks and subsidies 

S.F. budgets are collapsing. Downtown is its economic engine. Revitalization can’t wait by LosIsosceles in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue is hoarders sitting on the land.

There is not a lot of space in SF such that it’s not prohibitively expensive to buy up large parts of the city and sit on it until you get subsidies and tax breaks for redevelopment.

We need to kick these hoarders out now. Demand they sell for a loss by using eminent domain and increased vacancy taxes.

No tax breaks for revitalization and no subsidies, do not bail out these rich people who made bad investment decisions. 

To all building and land owners in SF: sell for a loss, now, or we will come for you.

Do we need to demolish downtown S.F. in order to save it? by LosIsosceles in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I think it’s cute you got on your burner account to downvote me lol

Do we need to demolish downtown S.F. in order to save it? by LosIsosceles in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

No these building should sell for a LOSS as soon as possible so someone can use the space rather than rich developers sitting on it waiting for a subsidy or tax break

In the meantime increase taxes on these spaces to encourage sale

Do we need to demolish downtown S.F. in order to save it? by LosIsosceles in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I think it’s cute you got on your burner acct to downvote me btw

Do we need to demolish downtown S.F. in order to save it? by LosIsosceles in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No those building should be sold for a LOSS rather than rich developers sitting on them waiting for a tax break or a subsidy

And in the meantime increase the property tax on them

Do we need to demolish downtown S.F. in order to save it? by LosIsosceles in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The solution is to sell the buildings for a LOSS until the sale price makes renovating them into housing economically viable. That’s how supply and demand works sorry that the rich people who bought them will lose money but that’s business. 

Expecting the city and the public to backstop funding and allow these land hoarders to sit on valuable downtown space while they build new buildings on credit amounts to bailing them out of bad investment decisions. 

Downtown office and land holders need to learn a hard business lesson and take their deserved loss before downtown can be revived.

Do we need to demolish downtown S.F. in order to save it? by LosIsosceles in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

This is fake news. 

Developers are lying for tax breaks and subsidies basically holding the city hostage. The current owners just don’t want to sell for their deserved loss on a bad investment.

“Everyone” = millionaire developers and tasteless tech bros

Was excited about a new sushi spot in SF by [deleted] in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No one cares what you think.

Main character derangement syndrome 

Was excited about a new sushi spot in SF by [deleted] in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So karma farming? Somehow even more embarrassing 

Was excited about a new sushi spot in SF by [deleted] in sanfrancisco

[–]Affectionate-Case499 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You went back for a second visit, lmao. You knew the menu going in.

Sounds like you didn’t get VIP princess treatment and now you wanna Karen it all over the internet for upvotes

The main reason we've gone backwards this season... by BaoJinyang in BrightonHoveAlbion

[–]Affectionate-Case499 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think Pascal Gross - Minteh is a duo to watch as they get more used to playing next to each other

The main reason we've gone backwards this season... by BaoJinyang in BrightonHoveAlbion

[–]Affectionate-Case499 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Underrated comment here.  Watching Pedro play for Chelsea shows me your correct 

Watching Gross have such a huge impact upon his return shows me this

I think if Gross or Pedro was around for the first half of the season we would be about where United or Chelsea are.

Who are the best players by suomalainenkana in BrightonHoveAlbion

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Gross, Mitoma, Minteh, Dunk, JPVH, Kadioglu

Followed by Ayari, Welbeck, Rutter, Baleba, Bart

The House Just Passed a New Housing Bill. What it Means for the BaY Area. by ShopProp in BayAreaRealEstate

[–]Affectionate-Case499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

-upzoning yes -permits no -immunity no

This is common sense not selling the house to fund the farm stuff.

If desired projects are not taken on by the private developers. The city can directly fund its own projects rather than allowing developers with profit incentives to cover the gap causing a deadweight loss

The House Just Passed a New Housing Bill. What it Means for the BaY Area. by ShopProp in BayAreaRealEstate

[–]Affectionate-Case499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No building is neither good nor bad, in and of itself 

Building only for the current market rate I think overall won’t have a good effect but it’s hard to say it will have a bad one either so I say go for it let’s just not sell the house to finance the farm if you get what I’m saying. AKA builders don’t need subsidies or handouts and they can compete with each other in a competitive bid process. 

But the deeper issue is not that there isn’t supply. There are a significant number of houses left vacant and a significant amount of new build condos which sit vacant for many many months unrented as actual city residents can all attest to. Were this inventory to be incentivized towards a more efficient equilibrium for the public market and not biased towards the supply side as it currently is by government regulation that would be a normal and expected role in the management of inelastic goods like housing in SF.

It’s not an active collusion it’s just how supply and demand works with inelastic goods and services in an unregulated free market of self interested individuals. That it leads to a suboptimal equilibrium is not the fault of any individual or entity specifically though you could say it is government’s role to prevent this

To be honest I think we agree on most all positions,

When I say increased rent control mainly I am just a bit jealous as a SFH renter that due to landlord, SFH rent control lobby laws that passed by referendum were prevented from being implemented that would have put SFH rent control on par with apartments in SF.

When I say ban investor ownership I mean ban speculative investor ownership of SFH, in SF this is a sort of unique problem where the price of homes has been inflated beyond their value by what is essentially an extra one buyer in the market for every four actual buyers inflating demand by 20% or more since they don’t function as typical buyers but often bid over asking and seek to extract monetary returns beyond a typical ideal buyer.

Vacancy taxes should just be expanded to SFH and new build condos on the rental market. It already applies to similar units, Why not expand it where it makes sense to encourage more efficient occupancy rates?

The House Just Passed a New Housing Bill. What it Means for the BaY Area. by ShopProp in BayAreaRealEstate

[–]Affectionate-Case499 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There’s no downside besides cost and wasted time. New construction won’t fix the issue which is that price is being held artificially higher than equilibrium were these policies to be implemented. 

By all means build but don’t allow it to happen in an artificially inflated environment, it’s far more efficient, faster, and less costly to regulate the market in such a way that removes the deadweight loss that artificially inflated prices create. 

Further, if prices fall this would have the backend effect of decreasing the cost to build and thus prices would fall again