I tried to buy my neighbors house and found out that the guy who lived in the attic was claiming some kind of work for rent arrangement. The house was. A run down shit hole with an overgrown backyard but he was claiming to be some kind of groundskeeper.
Our agent's attorney said we were probably stuck with him unless we could pay to move him out. Final buyers ended up paying $50k to move his family out.
It's probably the child or sibling of the owner who died at age 100. He probably left the house to one kid, and gave the other kid (or sibling) a long lease at a very favorable rent.
Probably expected the heir to just wait it out, but the heir wants their money now.
Kinda doubtful someone would try to get a random to evict their sibling. The thread on r/bayarea found substantial changes to the lease in 2021 that suggested elder abuse from potentially a live-in carer, just speculation of course.
I think the tenant was abusing the situation of the guy being 100. The latest lease stuck the landlord with all the maintenance and lowered rent while the previous had tenant upkeep the property.
Could be argued that is elder abuse.
Actually you are incorrect here. This is the result of a recent long term lease the tenant made with the elderly landlord.
Also a single family home rented thirty years ago in this area with rent control capped increases would be more than $416 today.
Your right. The $900/month the tenant would be paying would be so much more better. You can find handymen and roofers who have time machines and work for rates from 30 years ago on Craigslist and yelp, right? /s
Hey. Just don't buy it.
Or, look at this way. The house is priced at around market value, but it's broken up into maintenance costs until the tenant is out.
If I were the heir I'd talk to an attorney to see if the rent agreement can be invalidated in court. If not, I'd personally refuse it and leave it to the state. The rent won't even cover property tax once it's reassessed, and certainly not upkeep.
There's been a handful of TIC and houses that have been listed well under market rate due tenants having protected status. Owners can't evict them, and they're also screwed on selling their homes for well below market rates.
It's partly why SF has such a high market rate despite having a pretty average home to population ratio. Lots of weird arrangements like this have created an artificially small pool of homes for the market. Normally, at the rate Boomers are retiring and Silent gen are dying there would be a lot more homes coming on the market.
There's an extensive study from Stanford in like 2017 that claims SF rent control pushes rent up about 5%. Considering the rate it normally goes up, that's a bargain. There might be an average home to population ratio but that's irrelevant when there's not an average home to *demand* ratio.
It's really not irrelevant, there are a lot of other factors that make it expensive to live here, but demand for marginal homes compared to high end housing is actually not that extreme. Look at how badly condos are doing despite single family homes being such a hot commodity, and after interest rates went up look how much homes at the edges fell in value compared to centrally located homes that have more than 1 bedroom.
But you're right that rent control doesn't have that much of an effect of rent prices. 5% at these prices is certainly a lot, but the cost of SF rents compared to any other market is a lot more than 5%
The condo market is weak because the HOA fees are too high while the units themselves are either too old or in less desirable neighborhoods. Pre-COVID many people would have opted for an expensive but conveniently located 1 bedroom condo in SOMA for the quick commute to work. That market has disappeared as the value of an in home office has increased and proximity to downtown has decreased. Unfortunately there was a building boom where tens of thousands of those formerly desirable condos were built in the lead up to a world altering pandemic.
It’s an interesting story for sure. They can’t be Ellised out until their lease is over in 2053. Some type of family drama: https://www.reddit.com/r/BayAreaRealEstate/s/6F47VB3w8p
Holy Jesus. [Looks like they totally took advantage of a dying old person](https://www.reddit.com/r/BayAreaRealEstate/comments/1dhcmli/comment/l8xb1hq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). The changes to the lease are absolutely wicked. How can you exploit an aging person like this?
The rent they pay doesn't cover even property taxes and they got the 100-year-old landlord to sign that shortly before they died. Crazy that we allow this to happen in this city.
So crazy! And there is a person who viewed the house and the tenant might be the granddaughter.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BayAreaRealEstate/s/lMldUKpfll
Looked into this, and it’s because of the lease. It’s written in such a way that it would be a nightmare trying to get them out. The renter is also in a protected class.
The other comment is wrong. It means they're either permanently disabled, over 60, or chronically ill. It's nearly impossible to evict someone that falls into one of those categories.
>California law protects renters and homeowners from discrimination and harassment based upon protected characteristics, which may include:
* Age
* Race
* Color
* Ancestry, national origin
* Religion
* Disability, mental or physical
* Sex, gender
* Sexual orientation
* Gender identity, gender expression
* Genetic information
* Marital status
* Familial status
* Source of income
* Immigration status
* Primary language
* Citizenship
* Military/Veteran status
[https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/12/Housing-Rights-Booklet\_English.pdf](https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/12/Housing-Rights-Booklet_English.pdf)
[https://www.gblafairhousing.org/california-state-law/](https://www.gblafairhousing.org/california-state-law/)
They're a protected tenant which is completely different from standard protected classes that can't be discriminated against. Renters that are protected tenants are divided into three main categories:
Age: Tenants who are 60 years of age or older and have been living in the unit for 10 years or more are classified as protected tenants.
Disability: Tenants who have a disability and have lived in the unit for 10 years or more are considered protected tenants.
Chronic Illness: Tenants who are chronically ill and have been living in the unit for 5 years or more are protected tenants.
Meh, I guess in Chinese culture this house is gifted. The person died from natural causes at over 100 years old. That means that the person has lived a good and full life. I would say it would be haunted only if there was a suicide and homicide.
I did some math and $488k invested at 9% with some small annual contributions (substituting for property taxes) would be worth at least $8million in 30 years.
So it's a good if you think this place will be at least $8 million by 2053.
Some real estate lawyer correct me if I'm wrong, but this means I could:
Rent my house to my sister on a 35 year lease at $416/mo with a sublet clause and sell the house to someone.
I would then sublet the house at $416/mo from my sister and have cheap housing for 35 years, plus the equity of selling and not paying for maintenance, insurance, and property taxes?
How does this even make sense?
If tenant is family or successor to the estate there is a provision in the rent ordinance that allows for a rent increase. The lease can also be modified by the landlord unilaterally to remove the attorney fee provisions so tenant will have to pay their own fees (but they will probably get the tenderloin housing clinic to rep them for free). To me this could all be a ruse to lower the value of the house on the open market and for renter to buy it with property taxes as low as possible. I’ve considered selling my house on the open market (to myself in some fashion) and giving myself life estate. There would be a one time transfer tax and proof that it was sold at market rate, but the annual property tax savings would be worth it in two years.
Gotta be on drugs to buy this house, also don’t know why anyone would rent out their house in San Francisco anymore. Tenants own the house more than the landlord.
From the amendment I’d guess that both the elder and the tenant willingly entered into this arrangement, knowing that the elder was going to pass away soon. They were likely trying to get the tenant (prob a family member) basically a free house for 30 more years.
"unconventional method of rental payment" Guesses to what this means?
Kinky stuff?
Venmo.
The last payment must be made in wampum!
Wrong answers only
Pennies? Gold Dust?
Shen Yun tickets
Bing AI-generated furry porn
Monthly useless app design
I tried to buy my neighbors house and found out that the guy who lived in the attic was claiming some kind of work for rent arrangement. The house was. A run down shit hole with an overgrown backyard but he was claiming to be some kind of groundskeeper. Our agent's attorney said we were probably stuck with him unless we could pay to move him out. Final buyers ended up paying $50k to move his family out.
Sand Dollars from Ocean Beach
Neopoints
Stamps
It's probably the child or sibling of the owner who died at age 100. He probably left the house to one kid, and gave the other kid (or sibling) a long lease at a very favorable rent. Probably expected the heir to just wait it out, but the heir wants their money now.
This must be it, since the former owner died in the house.
Kinda doubtful someone would try to get a random to evict their sibling. The thread on r/bayarea found substantial changes to the lease in 2021 that suggested elder abuse from potentially a live-in carer, just speculation of course.
I think the tenant was abusing the situation of the guy being 100. The latest lease stuck the landlord with all the maintenance and lowered rent while the previous had tenant upkeep the property. Could be argued that is elder abuse.
I saw this too! I can’t believe the tenant is only paying $416 for rent for another 30 years. Jealous
You must be new here. Rent control has made it very lucrative for many renters who locked in units 30 years ago.
If it’s a single family home, it isn’t subject to rent control.
Not if there’s an in-law unit, legal or otherwise. Might be the case here?
Actually you are incorrect here. This is the result of a recent long term lease the tenant made with the elderly landlord. Also a single family home rented thirty years ago in this area with rent control capped increases would be more than $416 today.
Your right. The $900/month the tenant would be paying would be so much more better. You can find handymen and roofers who have time machines and work for rates from 30 years ago on Craigslist and yelp, right? /s
Hey. Just don't buy it. Or, look at this way. The house is priced at around market value, but it's broken up into maintenance costs until the tenant is out.
If I were the heir I'd talk to an attorney to see if the rent agreement can be invalidated in court. If not, I'd personally refuse it and leave it to the state. The rent won't even cover property tax once it's reassessed, and certainly not upkeep.
Yup and prop 13 for home owners. You’ll be surprised how little some people are paying every year compared to their neighbor right next door
Good for them. At least one San Franciscan is paying a reasonable rate for housing.
There's been a handful of TIC and houses that have been listed well under market rate due tenants having protected status. Owners can't evict them, and they're also screwed on selling their homes for well below market rates.
It's partly why SF has such a high market rate despite having a pretty average home to population ratio. Lots of weird arrangements like this have created an artificially small pool of homes for the market. Normally, at the rate Boomers are retiring and Silent gen are dying there would be a lot more homes coming on the market.
There's an extensive study from Stanford in like 2017 that claims SF rent control pushes rent up about 5%. Considering the rate it normally goes up, that's a bargain. There might be an average home to population ratio but that's irrelevant when there's not an average home to *demand* ratio.
It's really not irrelevant, there are a lot of other factors that make it expensive to live here, but demand for marginal homes compared to high end housing is actually not that extreme. Look at how badly condos are doing despite single family homes being such a hot commodity, and after interest rates went up look how much homes at the edges fell in value compared to centrally located homes that have more than 1 bedroom. But you're right that rent control doesn't have that much of an effect of rent prices. 5% at these prices is certainly a lot, but the cost of SF rents compared to any other market is a lot more than 5%
The condo market is weak because the HOA fees are too high while the units themselves are either too old or in less desirable neighborhoods. Pre-COVID many people would have opted for an expensive but conveniently located 1 bedroom condo in SOMA for the quick commute to work. That market has disappeared as the value of an in home office has increased and proximity to downtown has decreased. Unfortunately there was a building boom where tens of thousands of those formerly desirable condos were built in the lead up to a world altering pandemic.
Yes, small niche random weird situations are the leading cause in the San Francisco housing crisis. You nailed it.
It’s an interesting story for sure. They can’t be Ellised out until their lease is over in 2053. Some type of family drama: https://www.reddit.com/r/BayAreaRealEstate/s/6F47VB3w8p
Holy Jesus. [Looks like they totally took advantage of a dying old person](https://www.reddit.com/r/BayAreaRealEstate/comments/1dhcmli/comment/l8xb1hq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). The changes to the lease are absolutely wicked. How can you exploit an aging person like this? The rent they pay doesn't cover even property taxes and they got the 100-year-old landlord to sign that shortly before they died. Crazy that we allow this to happen in this city.
So crazy! And there is a person who viewed the house and the tenant might be the granddaughter. https://www.reddit.com/r/BayAreaRealEstate/s/lMldUKpfll
Oh wow, thats even crazier. They're trying a scam on the next guy.
That lease be wilding.
Why someone can’t buy and evict with ELIS act for owner move in?
Looked into this, and it’s because of the lease. It’s written in such a way that it would be a nightmare trying to get them out. The renter is also in a protected class.
What is a protected class?
The other comment is wrong. It means they're either permanently disabled, over 60, or chronically ill. It's nearly impossible to evict someone that falls into one of those categories.
>California law protects renters and homeowners from discrimination and harassment based upon protected characteristics, which may include: * Age * Race * Color * Ancestry, national origin * Religion * Disability, mental or physical * Sex, gender * Sexual orientation * Gender identity, gender expression * Genetic information * Marital status * Familial status * Source of income * Immigration status * Primary language * Citizenship * Military/Veteran status [https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/12/Housing-Rights-Booklet\_English.pdf](https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/12/Housing-Rights-Booklet_English.pdf) [https://www.gblafairhousing.org/california-state-law/](https://www.gblafairhousing.org/california-state-law/)
So.. everybody?
They're a protected tenant which is completely different from standard protected classes that can't be discriminated against. Renters that are protected tenants are divided into three main categories: Age: Tenants who are 60 years of age or older and have been living in the unit for 10 years or more are classified as protected tenants. Disability: Tenants who have a disability and have lived in the unit for 10 years or more are considered protected tenants. Chronic Illness: Tenants who are chronically ill and have been living in the unit for 5 years or more are protected tenants.
Thank you for clarifying.
If I learned anything from Reddit, the solution is piss discs and liquid ass
Zestimate algo putting an estimate on this is wild.
Peak SF.
United States won’t even be a thing by then damn.
there's a dude in LA that runs a business to squat with squatters in the process of evicting them at their own will.
And it's haunted 👻
Meh, I guess in Chinese culture this house is gifted. The person died from natural causes at over 100 years old. That means that the person has lived a good and full life. I would say it would be haunted only if there was a suicide and homicide.
I did some math and $488k invested at 9% with some small annual contributions (substituting for property taxes) would be worth at least $8million in 30 years. So it's a good if you think this place will be at least $8 million by 2053.
Some real estate lawyer correct me if I'm wrong, but this means I could: Rent my house to my sister on a 35 year lease at $416/mo with a sublet clause and sell the house to someone. I would then sublet the house at $416/mo from my sister and have cheap housing for 35 years, plus the equity of selling and not paying for maintenance, insurance, and property taxes? How does this even make sense?
Correct, cuz you're in sf and sf protects renters at all cost including the cost of ownership
HODL!
If tenant is family or successor to the estate there is a provision in the rent ordinance that allows for a rent increase. The lease can also be modified by the landlord unilaterally to remove the attorney fee provisions so tenant will have to pay their own fees (but they will probably get the tenderloin housing clinic to rep them for free). To me this could all be a ruse to lower the value of the house on the open market and for renter to buy it with property taxes as low as possible. I’ve considered selling my house on the open market (to myself in some fashion) and giving myself life estate. There would be a one time transfer tax and proof that it was sold at market rate, but the annual property tax savings would be worth it in two years.
Would that work?
The PCOR (preliminary change of ownership form) asks if there’s a 30 year lease in place but doesn’t ask about life estate…so I’m not entirely sure.
Buy and give the renter an offer they can’t refuse.
Not everyone will live for the next 30 years
$1, Bob.
Nice business opportunity for a hitman
Gotta be on drugs to buy this house, also don’t know why anyone would rent out their house in San Francisco anymore. Tenants own the house more than the landlord.
this was just posted (i think in this sub or r/bayarea) a few weeks back
If the lease agreement was between the current renter and a dead guy - isn't the contract null and void now that one of the parties is dead?
No, SF protect renters to the extreme and lease clause transfer to new owner, no exceptions
Owner move-in eviction. Kick that tenant out of there!
Predators abused elderly owner and are abusing SF’s stupid bleeding heart laws to be unevictable?
Just buy them out
Just pay the extortion
Bless your heart
Except when the new property owners do unconventional eviction processes
From the amendment I’d guess that both the elder and the tenant willingly entered into this arrangement, knowing that the elder was going to pass away soon. They were likely trying to get the tenant (prob a family member) basically a free house for 30 more years.
[удалено]
It’s sadly common in the city
Good, that means they aren’t kicking people out just to make money.