Slashdot Mirror
SF Evictions Surging From Crackdown On Airbnb Rentals
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."
Do people really not read these things. No subletting is a common clause.
http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1040
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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...
I don't read AC A human right
Like Al Capone, the real crime is not paying taxes.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
unless you are from mexico, than its just called "enjoying the dream"
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The city of SF is not enforcing anything - it's the landlords. 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. So any lease violation, such as subleasing, can be used as an excuse to evict the tenet and get one that will pay the current market value.
"'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.
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.
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.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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 services, patrons of such services should be able to rely on the drivers having adequate insurance to cover them in an accident.
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.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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.
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?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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!
"Illegal activity" in this case, being that the little people aren't allowed to engage in free enterprise without greasing some palms.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
San Francisco isn't the first city to do this, Paris 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.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
So don't live there, "problem" solved.
S.F. is one of those markets.
I wonder of the IRS will get into the game too. Rentals more then 14 days are taxable income (minus expenses).
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 municipal governments want their hotel tax revenue. Presumably they would also like to have a "red shirt tax" too. That doesn't mean it's sane for people to support such a government, though.
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 buyer of the property signed when
he purchases the property AND which the tenant must read his portion of his restrictive rules when
he's a tenant.
The tenant laws are really tough, not easy to evict a tenant once they are in unless they break the
lease ( the rules get you fines but the association can not kick you out 99% of the time ) .
in southern Florida, Broward county mostly ( and some parts of Dade-Miami ), it's common on the lease to pay
first month and security ( one month ) to the landlord, and 1 month to the association as a security deposit.
realtor get's paid by the landlord.
ALSO, when you belong to a restrictive association, you bought in to those rules. I know whom lives on my
floor, building and general area. rentals are only 1 time per year, 1 year min. Weekly or daily rental would
increase some basic cost ( mostly water consumption, and extra security ).
now daily and weekly rental buildings have that option, but they have a higher cost to purchase, if I can rent
a place out 52 times a year, I should be able to maximize my income yield, but I will be subject to a higher
vacancy rate.
Just to state, I went and spoke to an owner that was doing these short term rentals in my building. he stopped knowing
that the fines he would get were not in line with the income he would generate.
Also, Airbnb is a great service, just don't get caught in those restrictive buildings.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
And New York City.
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.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
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!
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
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.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Is it possible that there is more going on here than the city protecting the city's revenues? If I were the neighbor of someone engaging in the short term rental of a property that was not in an area zoned for short term rentals, I would be very glad that the municipality was cracking down on them. I like to know who my neighbors are; I don't want new ones showing up every week.
In addition to the fact that airbnb hosts are, in many locations, operating illegal hotels (under current law), liability is also a massive concern. Airbnb boasts about their insurance for hosts but if you read the fine print you'll see that when it really matters their insurance is worthless to you. If a guest trashes your place the insurance helps you out... but the real issue a host needs to be worried about is liability. Airbnb's fine print specifically excludes liability coverage. What if a guest is injured or dies on your property. Now you've got serious issues. Most property owners have liability coverage through their homeowners policy (renters can also buy liability coverage). However, if a claim is made the insurance company is going to tell you to take a hike as soon as they find out you were running an illegal hotel and that's the reason the claimant (or the family of the deceased) is suing you.
California is not going broke because of businesses not paying; the State brings in about $5000 per man, woman and child (in the top 10 across the nation, per capita). Localities add even more to the revenue stream. It's not a lack of revenue, it's decades of continued excessive spending that has California in continual budget crises.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Here's a New Orleans take on the issue from an alternative periodical. Your supposition seems to be substantiated by the article: the issue's not just the money but the culture. (I don't claim it's the best article ever, but it's not the voice of "the man" either.) The points here are compelling and not out of line with what I'm seeing in my neighborhood.
http://www.antigravitymagazine...
The market clearly wants to move in direction on this one. When the market is restricted in one area it flows out in another. So where will the money flow instead? AirBNB needs to assist in automatic tax collection.
We have the same problem in Spain. Millions of people bought homes here and have been subletting them to cover the cost. Then the hotel licensing law became enforced and this has helped depress the market even more.
This effects everyone including myself in a number of ways even though I don't own a home.
I am in Spain for 6 months a year, 2 months at a time. As a result of this 3 month law I have to live in hostels estranged from the local population. I want to buy a place but factoring in being unusable to use my home for what I want, such as renting out when I'm not there, I will only pay 40% less the previous prices.
This is really crashing the market even harder than it already is. People, the market are trying to come up with ways to survive and they're being crushed at every turn - just like like in Argentina.
There comes a point when people have nothing left to lose - I see a lot of homelessness and squatting now in the empty houses. People are ready to change these rules through violence.
With the financial switcheroo in the world this is only going to become more common. I suggest studying criminality so at least you are prepared when you finally can't play by the rules any more.
A blog I run for the wealth
The choice is yours the future is clear - you can chose good or chose to burn to death. Chose to win or lose and die. Its real freedom and a real choice. Its a true hypothetical vision or real hallucination of San Francisco and the Universe, pick one:
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, smelly, street people who contribute vomit and graffiti for a fair city life.
Not so fast ! Its a trick question ! Geek humanity won't possibly survive AynRandtopia if it can't get laid !
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 Pinochet.
For the Mexican who's farm you put out of business with NAFTA-dumped crops, the Nicaraguan who lost half his family to Reagan-backed death squads, or the Chilean who's parents were dropped out of a helicopter over the ocean by Kissinger's BFF, the least you can do is let the poor bastard work at a McDonalds in Kansas City.
*Most* people who live in San Francisco are renters. A little over 60%. For many of those people, rent control is keeping them there. Their costs aren't going up by much year over year. . . though as pointed out it does keep one tied to a particular rental unit.
As far as quality of life, that's subjective. In San Francisco you have access to great parks, decent beaches, a huge range of restaurants, bars, cafes, and even bookstores, neighborhoods with more than a bit of diversity, it's possible to live in the city without a car, and all the good and bad that comes of living in a city.
Just outside of the city you have access to the Redwoods, with a relatively short drive wine country, you're not far from the mountains if you want to ski. There's a reason so many people want to move to the city. Oh, and for the moment, at least in the tech sector, there are a fair number of jobs to be had.
I think there are more homes in San Francisco setup to be multi-family homes than there are places setup to be single family homes, though I could be mistaken on this point. Even if that's not the case, it's certainly a large percent that are setup this way.
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?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
You sound like an anarchist. If you are, you probably think that the law prevents you from doing what you want. What you don't understand is that the laws exist to protect people like you from people like me.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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?