SF Evictions Surging From Crackdown On Airbnb Rentals 319
JoeyRox (2711699) writes "The city of San Francisco is aggressively enforcing its ban on short-term rentals. SF resident Jeffrey Katz recently came home to an eviction notice posted on his door that read 'You are illegally using the premises as a tourist or transient unit.' According to Edward Singer, an attorney with Zacks & Freedman who filed the notice against Katz, 'Using an apartment for short-term rentals is a crime in San Francisco.' Apparently Airbnb isn't being very helpful to residents facing eviction. 'Unfortunately, we can't provide individual legal assistance or review lease agreements for our 500,000 hosts, but we do try to help inform people about these issues,' according to David Hantman, Airbnb head of global public policy. SF and Airbnb are working on a framework which might make Airbnb rentals legal, an effort helped by Airbnb's decision last week to start collecting the city's 14% hotel tax by summer."
Read your lease... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1040
Re: (Score:3)
Not just that... even renters whose leases do not forbid sublet, or actual property owners, are not allowed to rent for terms less than 30 days because they likely have not obtained the permit. It's said that this permit is onerous or expensive to obtain and so "is usually ignored."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the context here is that rental rates in SF have skyrocketed in recent years, and if landlords can evict long-time tenants they can get the unit on the market for 4x rent. This sounds like predatory landlord practices. Hopefully the city will step in to stop this process.
Re:Read your lease... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Read your lease... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actual value as determined by market distortions (i.e. a lot of people suddenly have a lot of money and are willing to throw money at housing because they realize they want a "cool" place to live. Fuck the guys that made it cool, fuck the guys that have been living in there for 50+ years and can no longer afford anywhere else in the city to live).
I mean, seriously, talk about picking the shitty side of the argument.. the rentiers are no heroes, but have some perspective.
Re:Read your lease... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for championing the cause of the people you mentioned, but rent control actually increases market rates and leads to underutilization of the existing housing.
Even rent control, when used for it's intended purpose, doesn't really bother me. But when the below-market renter turns around and rents out at full-market rates, they deserve to be evicted. Rent control gives renters the right to continue living in a property, not the right to profit from a property they do not own.
Re:Read your lease... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe this it or not, but if people are subletting, then they are in violation of their lease. What do you want the city to do? strike down every no subletting contract?
Re: (Score:2)
One thing the city can do is clarify and place a cap on what it means to be "subletting". Renting out your place for a month or three on airbnb? subletting. having someone stay there over the weekend? not subletting. Also I get the feeling that landlords are just searching airbnb for listings rather than proving that subletting is actually happening. not a crime to list your apartment.
Re: (Score:3)
sub-letting is when you let someone pay you ( exchange of anysort ) for the space, be it for 1 minute or 1 year under your contract. just like shared computer time and giving up your cpu priority on the server to someone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Hell no... (Score:5, Interesting)
the context here is that rental rates in SF have skyrocketed in recent years, and if landlords can evict long-time tenants they can get the unit on the market for 4x rent.
Irrelevant. You expect your landlord to uphold his end of the lease, why should he not expect you to uphold your end of lease.
This sounds like predatory landlord practices.
It sounds to me like landlords enforcing the rental agreement. The agreement is between the renter and the landlord, not some unknown unvetted third party.
I'm not sure I want to live in a building where other renters are sub renting to random people on a daily basis. Seriously, these people need to get a hotel room, and if they can't afford a hotel room, well, what could go wrong?
Re:Hell no... (Score:5, Informative)
The landlords have nothing to do with this. This is the city evicting people.
Incorrect.
The city is threatening landlords with fine for the activities of their renters. The landlords are evicting people, not the city.
You should also read this article [sfaa.org] analyzing the issue from an owner's perspective. You'll note that it doesn't suggest that the San Francisco has the ability to evict the tenant... merely to fine the landlord.
The landlords evict to avoid the fine, and also because the renter has clearly violated the rental agreement.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. They won't. Renters are peons. No leverage. The leverage is money. Too many rich people, too many trust funds. Better for the landlords (capital funds will buy up the good units very soon now) to evict and replace with more affluent renters - or even better, write some new laws so the landlords can rent the units out at AirBnB prices themselves. Why not?
Sounds like government is the predator (Score:2, Insightful)
For those of us who aren't in the real estate business, maybe you can explain. How is this a predatory landlord practice, when it's caused by the government enacting laws that say people need special permits to sublet for less than 30 days? Repeal the law and you remove the "predation." Isn't the problem caused by the city government "stepping in" and causing the practice to become illegal?
I get it that
Re:Read your lease... (Score:5, Informative)
It's banned by the city even if your lease allows it. It's so the city can collect its special 14% hotel tax.
Airbnb to collect hotel tax in some markets (Score:3)
I wonder of the IRS will get into the game too. Rentals more then 14 days are taxable income (minus expenses).
Re: (Score:3)
Do people really not read these things. No subletting is a common clause.
http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx... [sfrb.org]
QFT. I rent out a property and screen my tenants carefully. If I learned they were subleasing to random Internet strangers it would not be ok with me.
Adventure holiday! (Score:4, Interesting)
You can stay with a random SF resident.
Could be a furry, could be a militant lesbian. The only thing guaranteed, it won't be boring.
Re: (Score:3)
You can stay with a random SF resident.
Could be a furry, could be a militant lesbian. The only thing guaranteed, it won't be boring.
Yeah, you'll probably found your car has been towed by the city (even if it isn't there - this is a major source of tourism income)
Re: (Score:3)
OK my mind is blown.
Please explain to me how SF can make money by towing the car that I left behind in my home state?
The fees would have to be quite outrageous just to cover their gas!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah .. could be real fun
Tenant uses Airbnb.com, leads to unexpected sex party that trashes his Chelsea luxury apartment [nydailynews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
could be a furry
What's wrong with that? I'm not a furry as it happens, but I don't quite understand why they seem to be the whipping boys if the internet. It's not like they're Republicans or aything...
Re: (Score:3)
They are not unlike Emos.
If you go through life looking/acting like a refugee from a Dr.Seuss book you should expect to be mocked.
People who fuck through holes (in costumes, bathroom walls or bed sheets) deserve to be laughed and pointed at.
Re: (Score:3)
My guess? They're a minority population with an oft-sexual fascination with something most people find strange or disgusting. What's not to mock? After all we're no longer allowed to mock blacks or gays since they didn't choose to be the way they are. But furries? They're voluntarily weird outsiders, let the tribalistic bashing commence.
What I find slightly strange is that the tendency is in full swing even on geek-oriented sites - you'd think there'd be a certain level of truce between weird outsider
I guess they don't want tourists (Score:2, Insightful)
"'You are illegally using the premises as a tourist"
Tourism is illegal in SF now huh?
Re: (Score:3)
Like Al Capone, the real crime is not paying taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because pointing out racist liberal hypocrisy is racist?
Re: (Score:3)
You must be new here. On slashdot, being against H-1B skilled immigrants is not racist, but being against unlimited low skill immigration is because they don't compete for the same jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Crap comparison. H1B's are workers imported from the other side of the planet for the sole purpose of increasing the technically skilled labor pool for the benefit of corporations, to the detriment of the American worker.
Whereas "illegal immigrants" is a term used by the descendents of white invaders to describe the descendents of native inhabitants. Who have been fucked over by either 1) U.S. trade laws like NAFTA 2) CIA-backed death squads 3) CIA and State Department backing brutal dictators like Pinoch
Re: (Score:2)
"'You are illegally using the premises as a tourist"
Tourism is illegal in SF now huh?
It's not the Tourists that are renting the units that are in violation of the lease clauses and short-term rental laws, it's the tenants that are renting them out that are responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
What about people that aren't tourists?
Are residents exempt from the 14% hotel tax? Do you have to be a San Francisco city/county resident to avoid this tax? What if you're from Daly City?
Preying on tourists is so common that residents of tourist towns often have to deal with it as well. As someone who has lived and still visits tourist areas regularly (despite not being a "tourist"), you get used to asking for "the discount" when you go to restaurants, shop at liquor stores, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Are residents exempt from the 14% hotel tax?
As long as they sign a lease in excess of 30 days, yes. In Florida it's 6 months due to the massive numbers of snowbirds that come down for 3-4 months a year.
And they just consider the occasional resident being hit with the tax a cost of doing business. So long as the resident doesn't get hit with them too often...
Also Oakland (Score:2)
A friend of mine got a similar notice in Oakland last year. Shut down or be evicted. It's a shame. She provided a better place to stay than any reasonably priced hotel.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of mine got a similar notice in Oakland last year. Shut down or be evicted. It's a shame. She provided a better place to stay than any reasonably priced hotel.
So how was her insurance coverage for the guests? Or to protect herself if someone sued her?
Better? Maybe. Riskier? .. Definitely.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much her problem, isn't it?
But, the State knows much better than the citizen I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Another case of people making money by skirting rules and regulation that everyone else in the industry abides by.
JSYK: Hotel guests and tenants have different rights. So to anyone doing this sort of thing with a resident should be wary, you could get a guest you refuses to leave and you will need to go through the tenet eviction process as opposed to the hotel eviction process.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much her problem, isn't it?
But, the State knows much better than the citizen I guess.
If you're going to run a business (which it sounds like she basically was) it behooves you to protect yourself - regardless if you are flying above or below the radar. Anything else is being foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
It behooves one's self to do a lot of things. The State shouldn't be telling me what I have to "behoove".
Re: (Score:3)
That's pretty much her problem, isn't it?
But, the State knows much better than the citizen I guess.
Well no, it's the problem of the person renting the unit when they find out that after some incident happens that the person that rented them the place has no liability insurance and no assets to recover damages from. A short-term renter shouldn't have to do a full background check and insurance coverage check before they rent a place for the night -- that's why we have consumer protection laws like required liability insurance for commercial establishments. The same thing should apply to ride-share service
Re: (Score:2)
Blah Blah Blah...the same old, "you're too stupid and need the State's protection" argument.
Completely wrong summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Completely wrong summary (Score:5, Informative)
"People who rent out space on Airbnb, VRBO and other markets for temporary housing are facing fines by the City Planning Department and eviction on the grounds of illegally operating hotels."
Re:Completely wrong summary (Score:5, Informative)
There's a difference between:
"People who rent out space on Airbnb, VRBO and other markets for temporary housing are facing fines by the City Planning Department and eviction on the grounds of illegally operating hotels."
and
"People who rent out space on Airbnb, VRBO and other markets for temporary housing are facing fines and eviction by the City Planning Department on the grounds of illegally operating hotels."
Can you spot it?
You should also read this article [sfaa.org] analyzing the issue from an owner's perspective. You'll note that it doesn't suggest that the San Francisco has the ability to evict the tenant... merely to fine the landlord.
Finally, the actual code [archive.org] (warning: very large text document) lists several penalties, none of which include eviction. You're looking for Section 41A.5, "Unlawful Conversion," page 3902.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so if you want to be specific, landlords are threatening to evict tenants as a result of the fines being imposed on the landlords as a result of the tenants' behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At that point you may as well announce that the City of San Francisco is aggressively enforcing a ban on dogs in leased apartments, or smokers in leased apartments, or practicing your heavy metal set in leased apartments. Law enforcement will step in in any instance in which someone refuses to leave after a valid eviction.
The article says that there
Re: (Score:2)
SF resident Jeffrey Katz recently came home to an eviction notice posted on his door that read 'You are illegally using the premises as a tourist or transient unit.' According to Edward Singer, an attorney with Zacks & Freedman who filed the notice against Katz, 'Using an apartment for short-term rentals is a crime in San Francisco.'
Re: (Score:2)
BTW: I realize that the GP said that the City of San Fancisco was not enforcing "anything" and that you're correctly rebutting that. However, the substance of GP's post concerned the evictions, not the fines.
The article reads as if landlords are jumping the city's process, particularly since there's no
Re: (Score:2)
In SF, most units are covered by rent control, meaning most people are paying rents far below the market value. Landlord are prohibited from increasing rents or kicking out current tenets unless they violate their lease.
Not quite. Generally, any building built in SF after June 1979 is not subject to rent control. And landlords can in fact raise rents on tenants without a lease violation - they can raise rents once a year (at a rate tied to inflation). Additionally, landlords can also pass on certain capital improvement and operations/maintenance costs to tenants in rent controlled units.
Of course, if a tenant moves out, a landlord may then charge market value rent to the new tenant.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people are paying rents far below the market value
Sounds paradoxical. What's the definition of "market value"?
Market value is whatever price people are willing to pay -- somewhere around $3000 for a one bedroom apartment in a decent area of SF. Long-term tenants with Rent control are paying far below that. When I moved out of SF 5 years ago, I was paying around $1000/month for a one bedroom, if I'd kept it, I'd probably be paying $1100 for it now, while new residents would be paying far more.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the amount a willing buyer and a willing seller will agree on if neither is under any external constraint (such as rent controls).
Re: (Score:2)
Rent control reduces the supply of available apartments. So yes, without rent control those who don't get a rent controlled apartment will save money.
Horse hockey (Score:5, Insightful)
"'Unfortunately, we can't provide individual legal assistance or review lease agreements for our 500,000 hosts, but we do try to help inform people about these issues,'
Bullcrap. If they wanted to actually ensure that their rentals were legal, they could do vastly more to ensure that. In NYC, for example, any whole unit rental (where the lessor isn't going to be there as well) of 30 days is illegal if the unit isn't a licensed hotel. If you try to post a property for a non-roommate rental in NYC, they could have the site simply say "Is this unit a licensed hotel? If not, then the rental would violate NYC law. Please confirm that the unit is a licensed hotel unit. Yes/No"
They don't even bother with this level of fig leaf.
Re: (Score:2)
Not their job to enforce laws.
If they aren't doing anything illegal, it's all good. If their hosts can get away with it, it's all good.
Rules were made to be broken.
Cause.... (Score:2)
These are the criminals our police and lawyers need to be expending time against.
Government is a parasite (Score:2)
We don't need protecting from ourselves. We do not need a hotel tax. In fact, we don't need any taxes except sales tax. But as soon as it is allowed to collect taxes, government invents new reasons to tax. That's because government is in business for itself. We're just the suckers who pay for it
Fascists (Score:2)
SF and Airbnb are working on a framework which might make Airbnb rentals legal, an effort helped by Airbnb's decision last week to start collecting the city's 14% hotel tax by summer.
This is what we used to call corruption. Or, before that, "tribute to the king."
These kinds of laws exist all over... (Score:3)
San Francisco isn't the first city to do this, Paris [nytimes.com] for example has had a similar law for years but only until 2010 started enforcing it. It's meant to drive tourism to Hotels for all the tax base benefits and to address the problem of affordable housing. AirBNB is a great idea but like Uber is allowing some cities to start abusing their citizens by preventing them from doing legal commerce that they can't control or tax.
Re:These kinds of laws exist all over.. New York. (Score:3)
San Francisco is no longer an option for we peons (Score:2, Interesting)
Really. Can't rent an apartment there, can't rent a hotel room there, can't breath the air there without a trust fund. Godz forbid we should find a way not to pay the rapacious owners of San Francisco even more money. No, this is not the way the free market goes, Rand Fans. This market will never be "free". It's monopoly of space. Space is limited. There's too much money in the city. Prices go up. Eventually the place is full of empty apartments owned by capital funds and by Saudi and Colombian investors, a
Re:San Francisco is no longer an option for we peo (Score:5, Insightful)
Hotel tax = soak the non-voting visitors. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the usual for tourist areas: You want to soak the tourists, who don't vote in your area, for as much tax money as you can. Thus the double-digit tax percentages on things that only tourists normally use, such as hotels.
Also restaurant taxes specifically aimed at sit-down places that 'tourists' normally visit more often, etc...
Re:Hotel tax = soak the non-voting visitors. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the usual for tourist areas: You want to soak the tourists, who don't vote in your area, for as much tax money as you can. Thus the double-digit tax percentages on things that only tourists normally use, such as hotels.
Also restaurant taxes specifically aimed at sit-down places that 'tourists' normally visit more often, etc...
It's also to benefit the long-term residents. Living in a short-term rental facility (i.e. a hotel) is much different than living in an apartment building with long-term residents. The new guy who moves in down the hall is only going to have to ask you once where the recycle bins are and isn't going to continually dump his trash in those bins because he "didn't know" they were for recycling only, he's not going to come into the building at 1am with his loud talkative family and loads of luggage rolling down the halls, and likely has a 9-5 job just like you so he's probably not staying out late every night to take in the sights.
Well before AirBnb, I lived in an apartment building where one tenant rented his apartment out for short-term stays (and his tenants were guilty of all of the above) -- the long-term residents complained to the landlord and he put a stop to it.
Re: (Score:3)
The condo next to mine (conveniently located downtown next to the ballparks) rents short-term.
It's a never-ending parade of assclowns parking in the wrong covered spot, and every other sort of nuisance described by hawguy above.
I enjoy the idea of renting beds to people backpacking across the country.
I despise the idea of having the door next to mine being a rental.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hotel tax = soak the non-voting visitors. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. In most places, the usual is to tell the client the *FINAL* price, all taxes included. Discriminating sales tax is mostly a US thing only.
Here in Argentina it's illegal to tell a (final) client the price without VAT. For non-final clients (resellers for example), it's usually expressed as "Price (+VAT)", and rarely as "Price (VAT included)".
Re: (Score:2)
What is the logic behind that?
Protection for the incumbent providers, sold as protection for the consumer
Typical pitch: don't rent from an unlicensed provider. There could be bedbugs or poor service, or it might be a fire trap or something.
Typical reality: You are lucky to escape alive with bed bugs and food poisoning when the licensed provider burns down.
Kinda funny this is what became of the original gold rush town, where anything went. Airbnb, lyft, etc... kinda like Napster and YouTube in meat s
Re: (Score:2)
Typical reality: You are lucky to escape alive with bed bugs and food poisoning when the licensed provider burns down.
Unrealistic scenario, as burning the place down would actually fix the bedbug problem! And we know that won't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs and prostitution happen in SF units regardless. Marijuana growing operations happen too. The motel tax and licensing does nothing to prevent those activities. It's already illegal to do that stuff. Airbnb just attracts more attention because it's the kind of thing that most people assume is OK. Many people naively think that we live in like... the land of the free or something, where you can use your property as you see fit as long as it doesn't harm the neighbor. Of course running a saloon or a
Re: (Score:2)
There is the probably reasonable assumption that this type of activity often comes with drugs, prostitution, etc.
Typically it's much more mundane stuff like tourists taking up parking spaces in the neighbourhood,
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tax. It's so some people can spend money without going to the trouble of earning it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tax. It's so some people can spend money without going to the trouble of earning it.
It takes a lot of money to run a city. Several of California's larger cities are near bankrupt (yeah, yeah, don't honor contracts on retirement, blah, blah, blah) Keeping SFO afloat means the city is always looking for a way to stick it to people. One of these days Golden Gate Park will be crammed with parking meters (or those pay stations) The city is becoming less friendly to tourism. Why bother with festivals and stuff when you keep robbing visitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Many local governments invest in attracting tourists. Hotels benefit, so they should pay a share.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the logic behind that?
In the case of San Francisco, the hotel tax is used to fund the arts -
http://www.sfgfta.org/about/hi... [sfgfta.org]
Tourists don't vote, so you can fund the arts without annoying taxpayers who might not otherwise want to.
Re: (Score:3)
hey. kim jung il said you can't use your private property as you see fit. be glad the glorious leader allows you private property at all.
now pay up 14% for the pleasure of using your own property!
If you're renting it from your landlord, it's not "private property". If a landlord wants to go into the short-term rental business, he can follow the legal process to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're renting it from your landlord, it's not "private property".
It's still private property. It's just not your private property—it belongs to the landlord. You've just contracted to use it for a time.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're renting it from your landlord, it's not "private property".
It's still private property. It's just not your private property—it belongs to the landlord. You've just contracted to use it for a time.
Well yeah, I thought that part was obvious. You've contracted to live in it for a while, not sublet it, which is prohibited by most rental contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't own any land you will not have to worry about paying taxes on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Or don't pay your condo association fees for a month. Or homeowners association fees. They can confiscate.
There's no place in the world you can live where a bastard can't figure out a legal way to steal your home. Never was. Government or private. Remember the hundreds of thousands of faked refinance agreements that banks and capital groups used to steal people's homes in the last ten years? Got clean away with it. Kept the houses, too. We can't touch them anymore. Red handed, and they walked away with tiny
Re: (Score:3)
I would feel threatened by the new competition and would do everything I can to crush them, including lobbying politicians to impose barriers to entry disguised as consumer protection measures. Pretty much standard operating procedure.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they aren't evicting you if you own it, that would be where fines or other sanctions come into play.
Good way for landlords being ripped off by rent controls to evict renters, though. I like it!
Re:Airbnb profiting on illegal activity (Score:4, Insightful)
"Illegal activity" in this case, being that the little people aren't allowed to engage in free enterprise without greasing some palms.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't free enterprise also include the freedom to enter contracts. If your contract with your landlord says you cannot sublet, are you arguing that the contract should be unenforceable?
As for the tax, we rely on a number of services that are paid for through taxes. It's fine to object to the bedroom tax, many hotel owners do. It's less fine to opt out of taxation.
Re:Airbnb profiting on illegal activity (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct, but one thing disturbs me - from TFS:
Notice the word "crime". What in the unholy fuck is the City of San Francisco doing by saying that subletting is a crime? I get the whole tax angle (but seriously, I don't; WTF is so special about a hotel that a city - any city - needs a special tax for one?), but damn... just something about calling it a criminal activity that is way the hell wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
My baby sitter doesn't have a licensed daycare facility. She watches my two kids in her private home. Should she be hauled off to the gulag as well?
Re:Airbnb profiting on illegal activity (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally when municipalities go after micro-rental users (particularly en masse), it's not to enforce the main tenants' leases, but to enforce hotel taxes. A reasonable analysis would say it's a typical case of a private citizen unwittingly crossing the line into small business, a cynical one would say that real hotels lobby for these taxes and push for their enforcement to inflate hotel rates.
Re:Airbnb profiting on illegal activity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Disclosure I am a realtor and do a fair amount of rentals : ...
While you might think you are correct, You must first look at the contract that the tenant signed.
All the leases we use in Florida that are binding by the FAR-BAR ( Florida Lawyers and Florida
association of realtors create the contract to make it equal weight and fair to both landlord and tenant )
specifically state if you can sub lease. That's just half of the problem
the other half is
Condo or Homeowners or gated community restrictions which the
Re:Airbnb profiting on illegal activity (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an apartment. I am legally prevented from charging "market value" for my property due to rent control laws, especially for long term residents.
Now you happen to be a tenant and you got a really sweet deal on an apartment. However, because you're an asshole, you decide to exploit the difference between what I actually charge you and what the market could actually bear*. And now you're bitching about my actions, which are limited by the law with which I must abide by to do business in the location? Nevermind the no-subletting clause in the contract *you* signed. Because, fuck you, I'm getting mine.
Jesus fucking christ.
Self-entitlement is strong in this one.
Re:Airbnb profiting on illegal activity (Score:4, Insightful)
This is precisely the problem going on in San Francisco. I come across so many tenants that feel they are doing nothing wrong, all the while bragging on how low their rent is on their rent-controlled apartment. Hypocrisy to the max!
Re:Airbnb profiting on illegal activity (Score:5, Informative)
I wish I could mod you up.
As a landlord, I dislike rent control enough that I won't be a landlord in a rent controlled area.
The city enforces how much the rent can go up, but can't enforce how much property taxes go up. The city won't cover my losses when rent goes down of course. It's a one way street. I keep my places clean, and things in good order. I make repairs, with a licensed contractor, quickly. I have given people a break on many occasions (late rent, giving young renters without a credit history a chance to *start* a rent & credit history, etc).
My wife was a HUGE supporter of rent control, until we bought a house and she began to understand how much money it costs to keep a house in good condition, and how often the city or state raises some random tax on home owners.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Airbnb profiting on illegal activity (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't about not allowing people to "to engage in free enterprise without greasing some palms". It is about local laws and one agreed to when one signed a lease instead of purchasing one's own property.
This may clear some things up for you:
So why can tenants rerent their units to tourists at a higher rent than what they pay their landlords? Actually, they can’t. These tenants are violating a multitude of San Francisco ordinances, starting with rent control itself, which affords their own low rent protections. If the “host” tenant is renting out their room or unit at a daily rate that exceeds their own daily rental value, that tenant is violating the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, which states that a tenant cannot charge more rent to a subtenant than what the tenant is paying their landlord.
Moreover, by offering their entire unit or room as a short-term rental (defined as a rental for less than 30 days), the tenant is also violating the San Francisco “Apartment Unit Conversion Ordinance.” That particular ordinance prohibits the rental of residential units to tourists or short-term transients without obtaining a special permit first. Violations of this ordinance has penalties, including fines of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both.
Depending on the neighborhood zoning designation, it is also likely the tenant is breaking zoning laws, which require that hotels in residentially zoned districts obtain a conditional use permit. It is also probable that your tenant or his “guests” are afoul of tax laws because, in 2012, the San Francisco City Treasurer office stated that short-term rentals were subject to the city’s transient occupancy tax (also known as the “hotel tax”). Lastly, assuming the tenant has signed an SFAA lease, they are in breach of the “no subletting” clause of their lease agreement. The most recent version of the SFAA lease is even more explicit, and specifically states in the section entitled “Use” that “No hotel use, such as daily rentals, shall be made.”
Does that clear things up?
Re: Its easy, take your pick (Score:3)
A) Over paid, under worked, black, real market bureaucrats who live large and plump when you cook 'em
B) Well-paid, Geeky, blooming better bus and uber car riding historians who never get in the way unless you're a legit taxi
C) Zero paid, hopeless, s
Re: (Score:2)