Responses to "a letter to a heartless landlord"
Tuesday Oct 14 1997
<karyn@asylum.apocalypse.org>
I read your comment on Craig's list, and would like to relate a story
from the other "side of the fence".
A friend of mine just bought a condo in San Francisco, about 2-3
months ago. There was a tenant living there at the time, and this
friend of mine graciously let the tenant live there for an additional
30 days before wanting the place empty so repairs/etc could be done,
so my friend could move in. The tenant didn't have a lease, so 30 days
notice was all the law required.
Well, it's now been about 3 months and the tenant has decided to stay.
The tenant is working on their 2nd month of living there rent-free;
my friend is now homeless (the place my friend was staying at is no longer
available). Eviction proceedings are going on, but my friend has been
told to not expect to be able to move in til after Christmas.
My point in telling this story is that not all tenants are blame-free
when they are evicted.
karyn
editor's note: my reply to Karyn...
Karyn -
Thank you for your reply. My prime concern related to evictions in San Francisco
has to do with landlords using the pretense of "moving a family member into the unit"
in order to remove the current tenant. Many landlords have no intention of family
members living in the unit. They just want an empty unit to put on the market for
double the prior rent. This is precisely what I suspect my new landlord of doing.
It's called predacious profiteering.
Many elderly and sick people have been victimized by this process, which is legal
under SF Admin Code 37.9(a). If you'd like, I'll send you the stats on OMI evictions in
San Francisco. It's nauseating.
Is your friend (the owner?) going to move into the condo, or do they really want the
current tenant removed to take advantage of the out-of-control rent market here?
Please be honest.
Sincerely,
Kevin Barnard
email kevin@whisperdesign.com
home www.whisperdesign.com