October 7, 2008
Breaking News: SF Rents on the Rise
Despite the fact that penetrating tower after penetrating tower continues to sprout up across SoMa, downtown, and Rincon Hill, San Francisco rent prices are still skyrocketing. According to SF Business Times, [a]sking rents in San Francisco have shot up 6.3 percent since the third quarter of 2007 to an average of $1,827 a month," climbing higher than every U.S. city save for Seattle and Tacoma. Also, except for New York City, the average monthly rent most of you throw away for your charming abode is higher here than anywhere else. No surprise there. This all comes on the heels of three new rental units popping up -- Trinity Properties' 1,900-unit development at 1169 Market St.; Avalon Bay’s 260-unit project at 355 King St.; and Urban Housing Group’s 192-unit project at 555 Mission Rock Blvd -- which most of you, let's assume, just won't be able to afford. (SF Biz Times, via Curbed)
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
It is difficult for me to imagine a more dishonorable occupation than landlord. Money for nothing...must be nice. Rents increase, but the value to the renter does not. By any definition, that is simple theft.
The rent increases to offset the overhead to maintain the building. And our rent laws reflect a reasonable compensation.
The problem is the collective conspiracy of the local market's tactic to continue to raise prices beyond the dynamics of supply and demand. Their goal is to set the bar high for very long term profit at our expense, essentially dodging rent controls. At the very least it's unethical.
For example, there's no real consequence to illegally ellis-act a tenant and settle for $20k so they can remodel and raise rent to current "market value" when in the long run the profit is at least quadruple that. Landlords have adapted so perhaps it's time for the rental laws to also do so.
Turtle - wow.
For most landlords - myself included - being a landlord is not an occupation, it's extra work of an active investment. My rental income does not even come close to paying the bills, but I don't get that income, there is a lot of work and annoyance involved. It subsidizes the costs of owning an asset that increases in value. The alternative could be say, owning stock - is that dishonorable? If stocks go up, that's actually money for nothing. stocks have risk? Sure - so does housing. My place in Tahoe has gone up a lot since I bought it, down a lot in the last few years. What must be included is the $$$ I spend every year to keep the place in one piece - in 10 years a roof, carpet, hw floor, retaining wall for TRPA, furnace, washer/dryer, hot water heater, stove. So my renters have newer nicer stuff.
If the Hot Water heater goes out on Friday at 8 PM, I'm scrambling to have a new one ready to install at 7 AM Saturday.
I certainly know both sides of the picture - I own the place in Tahoe but I rent the house where we live in SF. Our landlord is anything but dishonorable. And as a renter I don't appreciate not getting equity from the money I pay, but I do appreciate a roof over my head for that value and I REALLY appreciate that when something goes wrong it is HIS problem.
Certainly there are slumlords but your catchall statement is very disingenuous.
I can appreciate that there are landlords out there who take pride in their properties and provide value and service to the tenants, but unfortunately, I have yet to encounter one. I would consider your Tahoe tenants to be among the very lucky few.
You bring up an interesting point about risk. Certainly the value of housing property can fluctuate, especially recently, but the tenant should not have the responsbility to pay for that risk.
Travin brought up an interesting point when he mentioned "reasonable compensation". I guess my point was that in many cases, that "reasonable compensation" is not earned through any sort of efforts by the property owners but rather is extracted from the tenant based solely on market forces.
Turtle, how is being a landlord dishonorable? I would think you would appreciate not having to live on the streets? Or do you expect "society" (i.e. other people) to just provide you shelter for free? It is amazing how entitled renters can feel.
You complain that renters should not have to bear the "risk" of housing prices fluctuating. Why not? If rental prices went down, would you feel obligated to continue paying your same rent? Of course not. Again, you are focused just on your concerns and don't understand what property owners are contributing.
As for Travin, the idea that there is some vast conspiracy amont the thousands of landlords in the City that sets rental prices too high, that is just silly. If being a landlord in San Francisco was so hugely profitable more people would want to do it. In fact, the real "conspiracy" is the city rental control laws and regulations that drive people away from being landlords. As a result more and more buildings are owned by large corporate owners who are likely to be much less responsive to tennant concerns than Murphstahoe.
If being a landlord in San Francisco was so hugely profitable more people would want to do it.
Where do you get the idea that more people don't want to be landlords? I agree that the laws which favor the tenant make it more difficult, but laws tend (hopefully) to favor consumers in general, and that has never been cited as a barrier to entry by any serious person.
The profit margin is what makes a thing attractive or not attractive.
I have a great landlord btw, but I've had some bad ones. I don't envy them - what they do is not easy, because let's face it, most tenants *do* suck.
SFBurke, you've misread. I've said nothing of vast conspiracy. I said collective conspiracy, which is a bunch of people deciding to follow each other's lead without their needing to be an coordination.
And by saying that voters adopting laws in their favor is a "real conspiracy" then you really have no appreciation for living in a republic. Perhaps you'd instead prefer the dynamics of being landlord under the auspices of the People's Republic of China.
In stark contrast to your selfless landlord story you've at least shown where your self-interests lie.
Murphstahoe-
So apparently u became a landlord out of...what? a self-defeating desire to cruelly punish yrself with rewardless responsibilities? I find it hard to believe that renting your property is more a burden than a reward. Last i heard, landlording wasn't an institutionally mandated penalty inflicted on all property owners. So here's the good news: U don't HAVE to be a landlord! But u knew that already, right? So why do you continue to do it? obviously there's some form of benefit that makes it very worth yr while. But more importantly...RE: "The alternative could be say, owning stock - is that dishonorable?" YES, disgusting actually. Worker productivity drives stock increases, yet the value created goes to people who DO NOTHING to deserve it. It is literally stolen from the workers who create it. I know there are other factors that contribute to stock values, but this one makes the whole system "dishonorable." As is well known, US worker productivity has risen steadily for 30 years while real wages have actually fallen. Is this b/c hard work no longer produces value? No, its b/c shareholders steal the wealth produced.
"Or do you expect "society" (i.e. other people) to just provide you shelter for free? It is amazing how entitled renters can feel."
WTF is wrong with u people? Housing is a fucking HUMAN RIGHT in the rest of the developed world. There is NO REASON anyone who works full-time should be spending more than half of their wages on rent, barely staying a paycheck ahead of homelessness while others have so many homes they have no personal use for them. Guess what moron, "society" (i.e. productive workers and rent-paying tenants) provides money 9and therefore shelter) to shareholders and landlords for essentially doing nothing. It is the wealthy who live off of the stolen labor and value (albeit, legally stolen) of the less fortunate.
It is the RICH who feel ENTITLED to continue accumulating wealth that they do nothing to create. The RICH who demand that the stock market provide them with a golden retirement made possible by sweatshop workers in China or computer chip manufacturers in the Valley while the poor seem to demand (and only sometimes, and generally very modestly) that they have a reasonably-priced roof over their heads. it'll probably never happen, but I so deeeeeeply hope that one day the exploited in this country (hell, this town!) will wake up and demand what is rightfully theirs. All of the self-destructive behavior (the drinking, drugs, violence, insecurity-based consumption etc.) will be turned outward onto the legitimate target of what had previously been projected onto the self. The soft-handed, mild-mannered, crepe-suckers will swoon and drop before the bullets even start flying in their direction.
Using some of the arguments above, you could argue that hotels are also thieves because they hold property just for the purpose of charging money for a place to stay. How dare they!
Good luck with the ideological battles of the industrial revolution. In the meantime, "the rest of the developed world" accepts cash (though stash or gash are nice, too).
666 my friend... you've found the conundrum. My parents worked their asses off and scraped and saved for 45 years. Now, they are too old to work their asses off, but they saved. Apparently it is dishonorable for them to take the fruits of their labor to buy a house to rent, and dishonorable to buy stock. What should they do with it? The 666 charity fund? Trust me plenty goes to worthy charities from their pockets and mine. The impression you have that houses and stocks are magically deposited into the pockets of the illuminati and not owned by people who work, is silly. So is the illusion of "the worker" who pushes a stone up a hill over and over all day and gets their reward - jobs are things people do because other people want the product.
As for the HUMAN RIGHT of housing. There are 100's of empty homes in Antioch and Stockton. If there are more people that want to live in the city limits of SF than there is housing, someone will not get their wish granted, whether we allocate that by ability to pay or by lottery. This is in large part due to the abuse of the HUMAN RIGHT to have children and the fact that SF, despite its warts, is a nicer place than Stockton. Perhaps we can open a stone pushing hill in stockton for "the workers" to make their imaginary living and they will at least have housing even if no "workers" are producing food.
Dont really have the patience to respond to poorly thought out one-liner responses, but since i dont have to go to work for a little while (and I'm bored): Hotels provide a luxury service. they are a place where those who presumably already have a home and all of life's staples and who have a surplus of money to spend on enjoyments well-beyond the mere subsistence-level comfort of the RIGHT TO NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HOMELESS BECAUSE RENT IS SO HIGH. A renter has the choice of paying for an apartment or sleeping in the street. A hotel-goer has the choice between staying in a hotel or staying in their home. So no, the "arguments above" cannot be used as yr saying.
You GO 666, FIGHT THE POWER, TEAR DOWN THE SYSTEM... ONE MODERATELY-READ INTERNET BLOG POST AT A TIME.
In other words, lighten up Francis, or go out and actually DO something about it.
yeah, well u know: everyone's parents "worked their asses off," but the vast majority can afford to own neither rentals nor stocks. i didnt say all stocks were owned by people who dont work, but rather those who profit off of them are not doing the labor that creates the profit. someone else is creating that value and its being taken from them. the 'conundrum" u bring up is valid. yr (presumably middle-classish) parents have to invest a lot of money to retire comfortably. they've been fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time, maybe. millions of other californians i'm sure worked just as hard and have nothing to show for it but a collection of landlord-cashed rent checks. the truly not only siphon off the pool of value created by working people, but their insanely disproportionate wealth (to actual work they've done) creates a situtaion where housing prices, rents, and services have skyrocketed beyond the means of most people.
as far as stockton and antioch..of course thats bullshit. why should anyone be forced to leave their homes and live in some unfamiliar place against their will just b/c some rich goon from some orange county suburb who makes money doing something as banal as tracking the effectivity of online advertisements thinks sf is "funky" and wants to live in the mission district apartment of someone who actually did something useful for this town--like cleaned its streets or built its infrastructure?
given the state of the infrastructure in this town I have trouble believing anyone is alive who participated in that buildup. I'm down with the street cleaners - and the meter maids who hand out the street cleaning tickets - they can stay.
Why are rents so high?
There's new housing stock, and the housing market is slow, so there should be a lot of new rental stock, right?
Then again, maybe no one wants to permanently turn their house into a rental-- which is a serious risk in SF. Hang onto it for a couple years and sell, or rent it now, and potentially get stuck with a 20 year tenant?
Perhaps Turtle is a Muslim who assesses the profession of landlord in terms of Sharia law.
News flash .. there are more cities and towns in the United States in which to live besides San Francisco - many of which (save one or two) are more affordable.
But they're not here.
Travin: Oh I see, your definition of conspiracy does not require anyone to actually conspire. I am sorry, I thought you understood english. Also, I thought that you would understand the use of quotation marks to represent irony. My bad, I thought people on this board were functionally literate.
As for 666 etc., I am very sorry that your rents are too high but I still don't understand why you believe veryone else in the world is obligated to provide you with a place to live.. Maybe you should do something productive rather than demanding that those who are productive provide you with a place to live.
oh, 666, the orange county hate ! so unexpected ! so fresh and unique ! so ... deep.
SFBurke, your talents in Jackassery are duly noted.
SFBurke: "you should do something productive rather than demanding that those who are productive provide you with a place to live."
yes, well isn't that precisely what I'm saying landlords and stockholders who produce no money, but rather steal the money that renters and workers produce ought to do? Look:its understandable that someone might disagree with my definition of productivity - that's just fine. But you seem incapable of actually understanding my basic position and therefore i can't really argue with you, can I?
SFX: Yes, OC hatred is a time-tested and true source of entertainment for me! It just never never EVER gets old. Everytime I think that I might just be over it, i find something new - some unnoticed nuance; some shade of utter vileness in the place and its people that keeps it fresh. Let's say that the OC is my White Album.
666 -- whew, well, good thing you aren't judgemental. of course, why not be judgemental when you're always correct?
oh yes, heavens! i'd hate to be "judgemental"(sic). that would mean taking a position; a stand on important issues and using the faculties of logic and reason to judge whether something is good or bad. judgment: how uncouth, impolite, and barbaric. much better to be non-judgmental as so many native Californians pride themselves on being. apparently, everything is cool with them. they're just so "mellow" and "laid back" and don't have time for "negative vibes." everybody wins! the non-judgmental have figured out a way to eliminate social conflict. they simply don't talk about it or face it so it might as well not exist.
btw, just b/c some 5th grade teacher told u it was bad to be judgmental doesn't make it bad. have you ever seriously considered the merits/cons of judgment on yr own or did you just internalize this choice piece of triteness at an early age and never really think it through?