Dana-Lee Smirin is facing the possibility of losing her single-family rental home in the Dolores Park neighbor after her landlord doubled her rent from $3,100 to $6,000. The timing couldn’t have been worse for Smirin, who is battling Hodgkin’s lymphoma, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
Smirin’s landlord, Rev. Keenan Kelsey of the Noe Valley Ministry, told the Chronicle that she is trying to sell the home.
“I am not evicting Dana. I need to sell the house, which costs me money and has ever since she’s lived there. In order to facilitate a conversation, I invoked my legal right to raise the rent. We are trying to negotiate a fair settlement for both of us.”
Tenant activists say that as home prices and rents rise across the city, landlords are increasingly exploring loopholes to evict tenants, according to reporter Carolyn Said.
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the
video to make your point. You definitely know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos
to your weblog when you could be giving us something
enlightening to read?
It all seems reasonable to me. If you own a house, you should be allowed to rent it for whatever amount you want, and should be allowed to evict people too. Its sad and unfortunate, but what gives people the crazy idea that by renting you end up with the “right” to live somewhere forever? If you want the “right” to live somewhere, you should buy a house. Otherwise, rent control and anti-eviction laws just mean that you are stealing from a hardworking family that has taken a large financial risk in buying the property in the first place.
I admire your attempt to explain how things work in the real world to this audience, among which the idea that you have some right of ownership due to having lived in a building or neighborhood for some amount of years is astonishingly prevalent.
I bet the tenant is a master tenant and is subletting.
It is sad that either both of them has reasons for doing this. The tenant, who is unfortunately ill, should somehow find ways to rent the home lawfully. However, the landlord should’ve been more considerate and give her tenant time to look for a new place whilst letting her stay for a while. I hope they have gone through a really fair settlement with this.
The landlord has given her 60 days.
Why doesn’t the city create a system which provides direct housing subsidies to those in need? (Similar to Section 8.) The current Rent Stabilization system, which places the responsibility on individual property owners, will never be sustainable.
I hope they find an amicable solution in this instance.
I am absolutely sure Jesus would have done in the same thing in the Reverend’s situation.
Amen!
Jesus wouldn’t have gotten into being a landlord, he chased the money lenders out of the temple!
that’s wrong and sad!
What “loophole?”
From SFGate: Single-family homes, such as Smirin’s rental, are exempt from San Francisco’s strict rent-control laws, which cap rent increases for multiunit buildings. Landlords cannot evict tenants from any kind of unit without just cause, but they can utilize several loopholes – such as big rent increases in single-family homes and violations of the rental agreement in apartment buildings – to create a legal reason to evict tenants or encourage them to move.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Renters-get-boot-with-big-rate-hike-3835648.php#ixzz25RHmdWIc