Air BNB tenant refuses to leave- intriguing read for a Saturday morning

goingplacesanddoingstuff said:
Some people in elected positions have adopted an absolute hatred towards real estate investors, and that hatred gets captured in policy.

Despite real estate being one of the few ways a regular middle class person can actually lift themselves into wealth and become free from corporate wage slavery, their philosophy instructs that all rental property owners are sharks preying on the poor.

As such, policies get implemented to “protect” renters but which ultimately protect the mega real estate corporations who can financially absorb instances of abuse like this case. It destroys competition from smaller investors by creating a risk profile that’s too steep to bother with.

It is mind blowing.
Click to expand...
The economics of the votes work like this:

1) There are always more renters than landlords, a fact
2) It is easier to get votes if you pass rent control than investor protections, just easier to pick the deeper pockets.
3) Most people don't care how things go either way if it doesn't affect them personally.
4) We end up with rent controls that exclude single family home
5) Investors know this, so they buy single family homes to rent out (and it is easier to sell as the next buyers will just get a normal loan instead of having to sell to another investor like multi-family units).
6) Home price is propped up, reduced affordability
7) More blame on investors, but more rent control on non single family home
 
fsdork said:
Something like... finding a BS reason to evict an elderly, rent-protected tenant in favor of a more profitable occupant. Perhaps not the same objective financial impact on paper, but still a significant negative effect on someone who is probably ill-equipped to recover.
Click to expand...
There are many types of rent control, some limit rent increase to below inflation or market for the current renter, some limit rent increase to future renters.

The problem is, rent control ASSUME everyone who got into the older rent is the one who needed help, instead of a possible future renter. Also rent control ASSUME the landlord is the rich evil guy instead of a retiree living off the rent, and the renter being the poor person who needed help (instead of a rich retiree refusing to leave because of the good deal).

We used to have a renter who stayed for 40 years, she had 3 investment homes (yes she is a landlord herself as well), even more than us. She stayed till she got Alzheimer and her younger sister finally took her in to care for her. What a great deal she got.

If you want to help the poor, vote for better section 8 or other social program instead. They actually check for the qualification and adjust the aid accordingly, instead of the popular feel good "protection" laws that got hijacked and abused by all but the one who really need help.

Think about this: if government can end section 8 aid when the renters make more money and stand on their own feet, why wouldn't rent control end when the renters make more money and stand on their own feet? It doesn't make any sense.
 
fsdork said:
My point is that things can be done legally which aren't ethical, and vice versa. The squatter in the OP article is doing something which so far, appears to be allowed by law. Most would agree it's far from an ethical move. Likewise, a landlord can do things like evict a tenant legally, but not ethically.

I'm far from being blindly pro-tenant. My parents dealt with an absolute nightmare of a tenant in the 80s when we had to relocate for a few years for my dad's work. Like most things in life, there are good people and not so good people on either side.
Click to expand...

That's the thing about setting up laws willy nilly instead of a careful review of it. All it take is some marketing and emotions and then someone found a loophole to abuse, and then the financial equations won't work (either the renters or the landlords feel abused), and the whole thing falls apart. I was at rent board once and overheard an old landlord (mom and pop, probably 75 years old), telling the staff his tenant got a new roommate and then move out after 30 days, basically sold his rent control right to the next guy for a profit. The staff told him there is nothing he can do because that's allowed in the rent control law. I think he almost had a stroke there.

This kind of things is why nobody intentionally build affordable housing to help address the shortage problem. If someone build affordable housing they would definitely do their homework and rent to section 8 program in a non-rent-control area. Most would just end up building luxury apartments instead these days.

Also: investors won't buy those quadplex but single family home instead, because most rent control exclude them (or most home owners would shoot down any rent control laws). Investors got burn in the past so they are now blending in with the regular Joe homeowners.
 
SunnynHollister said:
The laws in kalifornia are tilted in favor of the squatter and has been for a very long time. This was one of my biggest concerns while owning a vacation cabin in the Sierra mountains.
Click to expand...
The same in NY, and they favor tenants over landlords everyday of the week. We owned rental property for close to 15 years, while it was profitable it was a hassle more times than not. We sold it and won't ever look back. I have a good buddy with 5 rental properties, and when Covid hit and his tenants got the green light [and it wasn't from my buddy] not to pay rent they instantly stopped. Even two nurses he rented to stopped paying, they were working and raking in OT pay and basically told him to pound sand. He's still out all that money. I know a lot of other people with similar stories. The best thing we did was sell our place, zero regrets 25+ years later.
 
demarpaint said:
The same in NY, and they favor tenants over landlords everyday of the week. We owned rental property for close to 15 years, while it was profitable it was a hassle more times than not. We sold it and won't ever look back. I have a good buddy with 5 rental properties, and when Covid hit and his tenants got the green light [and it wasn't from my buddy] not to pay rent they instantly stopped. Even two nurses he rented to stopped paying, they were working and raking in OT pay and basically told him to pound sand. He's still out all that money. I know a lot of other people with similar stories. The best thing we did was sell our place, zero regrets 25+ years later.
Click to expand...
That was insanity. Bankrupt/financially harm one group to favor another. What’s the owner’s legal recourse?
 
JHZR2 said:
That was insanity. Bankrupt/financially harm one group to favor another. What’s the owner’s legal recourse?
Click to expand...
According to my friend, and others, nothing. Thankfully I am no longer in the group. As far as it being insanity, that's putting it nicely. One could also call it unfair distribution of wealth. Maybe the city could have housed people in vacant hotels/buildings, sound familiar? That could have been done instead of sticking landlords.
 
PandaBear said:
There are many types of rent control, some limit rent increase to below inflation or market for the current renter, some limit rent increase to future renters.

The problem is, rent control ASSUME everyone who got into the older rent is the one who needed help, instead of a possible future renter. Also rent control ASSUME the landlord is the rich evil guy instead of a retiree living off the rent, and the renter being the poor person who needed help (instead of a rich retiree refusing to leave because of the good deal).

We used to have a renter who stayed for 40 years, she had 3 investment homes (yes she is a landlord herself as well), even more than us. She stayed till she got Alzheimer and her younger sister finally took her in to care for her. What a great deal she got.

If you want to help the poor, vote for better section 8 or other social program instead. They actually check for the qualification and adjust the aid accordingly, instead of the popular feel good "protection" laws that got hijacked and abused by all but the one who really need help.

Think about this: if government can end section 8 aid when the renters make more money and stand on their own feet, why wouldn't rent control end when the renters make more money and stand on their own feet? It doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
Everything you said makes sense. Like most forms of social aid, it's extremely difficult to filter through the parasites and schemers to get to the truly needy. I do think there should be more publicly subsidized housing as a fail-safe for those who truly need it, and are making an effort to improve their situation (or have genuinely maxed out their capacity to do so).

I also agree that mom and pop-type owners should not be forced to subsidize the rental market, beyond reasonable controls on rent increases. Relating to your examples of rent control abuse, the need to close those loopholes is obvious.
 
ripcord said:
Against the law. Huge fines would ensue.
Click to expand...

Is the owner required to continue to pay for the utilities even when they aren't being reimbursed for them? Nothing preventing the squatter from putting the utilities in their own name, is there?

Somewhat related: Years ago I had a tenant who stopped paying rent AND stopped paying the electric bill. She wanted me to call the power company and tell them she was a new tenant so they'd turn the power back on. Needless to say, I didn't bother. Even if I were inclined to do something like that, I sure wouldn't do it for a deadbeat tenant that owes me money. She also stopped paying the water bill and got that turned off...and she continued to use the toilets. I was glad to see her go.
 
brianl703 said:
Is the owner required to continue to pay for the utilities even when they aren't being reimbursed for them? Nothing preventing the squatter from putting the utilities in their own name, is there?

Somewhat related: Years ago I had a tenant who stopped paying rent AND stopped paying the electric bill. She wanted me to call the power company and tell them she was a new tenant so they'd turn the power back on. Needless to say, I didn't bother. Even if I were inclined to do something like that, I sure wouldn't do it for a deadbeat tenant that owes me money. She also stopped paying the water bill and got that turned off...and she continued to use the toilets. I was glad to see her go.
Click to expand...
So this is how it works in San Francisco, not sure about other area:

There's a concern that bankrupting landlord is not really good for tenants either, so in addition to the regular rent control, landlords can petition for cost increase and pass them directly to the tenants. 100% immediately for the monthly expense, over 20 years for capital improvements related to the unit.

Say your water bill increase from 50-100 per unit, you can file to increase this amount in addition to rent control allowance. Electricity for common area is the same (total increase divide by number of units). A replacement fridge would have to divide the price + tax by 240 months. Safety improvement like fire extinguisher with 5 years warranty? 60 months....

Without these kind of pass through I'm sure landlord will just decide to fold and say I no longer want to rent, or abandon the unit and let the bank foreclose it, etc. Not the best for the tenants. I don't know how mortgage would work but I won't be surprised the interest part of the mortgage would be passed through directly.
 
ripcord said:
What could an owner do that could possibly be as bad as essentially stealing six figures worth of cash?
Click to expand...
A smart landlord these days would definitely mortgage the rental home to the max and let the bank deal with a tenant from hell, and hire management company to periodically check on things and have the experience to prevent things going out of control and be punished by an abuser (i.e. suing you for discrimination against this or that, not fixing this or that in time, no long term employment history so you can't collect on past due rent, getting caught cutting corner and being threatened by tenants to not whistle blow on you, etc).

In other word, let others have your profit and hopefully take the blunt of a potential liability. So why bother? The only reason to do it is home may appreciate in value in the long term.
 
PandaBear said:
Say your water bill increase from 50-100 per unit, you can file to increase this amount in addition to rent control allowance. Electricity for common area is the same (total increase divide by number of units). A replacement fridge would have to divide the price + tax by 240 months. Safety improvement like fire extinguisher with 5 years warranty? 60 months....
Click to expand...

Makes sense when there isn't a separate water/gas/electric meter for each unit, but when you're renting out a house or condo which has it's own individual utility account for water/gas/electric, I can't see how the landlord can be held responsible for those utility bills because they are for the exclusive use of the tenant, and there's nothing stopping the tenant from putting them into his/her own name.
 
brianl703 said:
Makes sense when there isn't a separate water/gas/electric meter for each unit, but when you're renting out a house or condo which has it's own individual utility account for water/gas/electric, I can't see how the landlord can be held responsible for those utility bills because they are for the exclusive use of the tenant, and there's nothing stopping the tenant from putting them into his/her own name.
Click to expand...
A lot of older buildings have just one meter for the whole unit. I think individual meter is something started in the late 70s or early 80s. Water used to be cheap or almost free, but now they are like $6/CCF (to fund the water way earth quake improvement), or like around $400 for a family of 4 per month.
 
PandaBear said:
A lot of older buildings have just one meter for the whole unit. I think individual meter is something started in the late 70s or early 80s. Water used to be cheap or almost free, but now they are like $6/CCF (to fund the water way earth quake improvement), or like around $400 for a family of 4 per month.
Click to expand...

That's how the older units are here. I think the newer ones are all individually metered. Water (actually, the sewer part of it) got much more expensive here due to a very expensive sewage treatment plant built in the 1970s.
 
brianl703 said:
Is the owner required to continue to pay for the utilities even when they aren't being reimbursed for them? Nothing preventing the squatter from putting the utilities in their own name, is there?

Somewhat related: Years ago I had a tenant who stopped paying rent AND stopped paying the electric bill. She wanted me to call the power company and tell them she was a new tenant so they'd turn the power back on. Needless to say, I didn't bother. Even if I were inclined to do something like that, I sure wouldn't do it for a deadbeat tenant that owes me money. She also stopped paying the water bill and got that turned off...and she continued to use the toilets. I was glad to see her go.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got rid of both of my rentals a while back. I have not looked back since.

What I haven't seen in this thread so far is the impact on banks and the advantage of having a note on the property. A bank can get repossession and eviction much faster than the "little guy".
 
ripcord said:
Against the law. Huge fines would ensue.
Click to expand...
Sad but true. My FIL did that many years ago to a tenant in his mother/daughter set up. The tenant, a female was trouble from day one, noisy, nasty, and as it turns out spiteful. She came home drunk one night stumbling up the stairs with her boyfriend, and was loud the whole night. The following morning my MIL asked her to be quiet after 11:00 PM. The tenant told my MIL to go, f*** herself and mind her business. About an hour later she decided to turn on the shower and aim the shower head at the bathroom floor. Water was dripping into my in-laws kitchen and down to the basement. My FIL shut off the water to the apartment, and called the girl to inform her. She wouldn't answer the phone or the door. She vandalized the apartment and was behind with the rent, so the security money was gone. She moved out a day or so after the water incident. My FIL took her to court to sue for damages and rent. The apartment was a mother daughter, technically not legal, but a lot of people in the area do it. After my FIL stated his case, the judge asked the girl if she had anything to say. She said my FIL turned off her water, and stated he cannot do that. The judge agreed and explained to my father in law the law. Bottom line, he lost the case, got nothing for the damages or back rent. In fact if the apartment was legal, he still would have lost. Just another of many reasons why we sold our place and have no regrets.
 
brianl703 said:
Even if it was necessary to stop what appeared to be at the time a major plumbing leak?
Click to expand...
LOL that's what my FIL thought. Here's where my FIL might have gone wrong. When the girl said he turned off the water the judge asked my FIL if he did. He replied yes, she was flooding the house. Did you tell her what was happening, he said no he turned the water off then tried to call her and knock on the door and she wouldn't answer. At that point the judge dismissed the case. I was there as a witness to the damage. I basically sat there and learned how the legal system favors tenants, which I knew already from the horror show two family I owned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top