OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
King of My Castle? Yeah, Right
By SCOTT JAMES
Published: June 6, 2013 128 Comments
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
SAVE
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS
SAN FRANCISCO — VISITORS have forever left their hearts in San Francisco. But leaving the rest of your body here isn’t so easy: there’s no place to live.
Enlarge This Image
Sophy Hollington
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (128) »
The City by the Bay is going through one of its worst housing shortages in memory. With typical high demand intensified by a regional boom in tech jobs, apartment open houses are mob scenes of desperate applicants clutching their credit reports. The citywide median rental price for a one-bedroom is $2,764 a month, but jumps to $3,500 in trendy areas.
One reason for the shortage? Me.
I’ve recently joined the ranks of San Francisco landlords who have decided that it’s better to keep an apartment empty than to lease it to tenants. Together, we have left vacant about 10,600 rental units. That’s about five percent of the city’s total — or enough space to house up to 30,000 people in a city that barely tops 800,000.
I feel a twinge of guilt for those who want to settle in this glorious city but can’t find a flat. But after renting out a one-bedroom apartment in my home for several years, I will never do it again. San Francisco’s anti-landlord housing laws and political climate make it untenable.
My partner and I bought our home in the city’s Castro neighborhood in 2004. We live upstairs and there’s a smaller rental downstairs. At first we had wonderful tenants, and the income helped make our mortgage payments more affordable.
Then we rented to a man who began as a good neighbor, but who soon became a nuisance — and who eventually became destructive and dangerous. It started one night when the tenant forgot his keys and rang our doorbell at 2 a.m. until we let him in. Then it happened again and again and again.
One afternoon when he locked himself out, we weren’t home. But rather than contact a locksmith, he borrowed a ladder and a sledgehammer from a construction site next door, hopped the backyard fence and tried to smash his way into our building.
After he was discovered, midswing, he said that under San Francisco’s tenants’ rights laws, he was allowed to destroy our property, as long as he fixed it later.
That might sound crazy, but it is a widely held belief among renters here that laws are so tilted in favor of tenants (and against landlords) that renters can get away with any outrageous behavior. Indeed, in a city where 64 percent of residents are renters — and politicians court these voters — the rhetoric from some in City Hall and from tenants’ rights advocates is often vitriolic toward landlords.
Tensions over housing here are nothing new. From the city’s Gold Rush beginnings — and the many subsequent booms — demand has often exceeded supply. And constructing new residences is difficult because we’re nearly surrounded by water and few locals wish to alter the city’s low-rise charm by building skyward.
To stabilize rents and prevent eviction abuses that are typical when housing is scarce, the city developed some of the nation’s toughest housing policies. Rent-control ordinances, for example, sharply limit rent increases after the initial lease for most housing constructed before 1979. As a result, many leases morph into lower-rent tenancies for life, subsidized by landlords, even when the tenants are wealthy.
In addition, a complex legal structure has been created to make evictions for just cause extraordinarily difficult.
At first many of these rules governed only apartment complexes and larger properties with many units. But in 1994 the city applied the regulations to homes if they included just one rental on the property. In other cities, including New York City, such small-time landlords have far more rights over their own homes.
It’s no wonder that our tenant apparently believed he could act with impunity.
One day, after the sledgehammer incident, the tenant flooded his apartment and submerged a plugged-in appliance into an overflowing sink, shorting out the electrical system. We were lucky a fire didn’t start and burn down the block.
After countless sleepless nights, and worried for our safety, we hired a lawyer who specialized in tenant law. With more than a dozen serious incidents documented, we began eviction proceedings. Three days later, the tenant left on his own. (Destroying property, it turns out, is not actually a tenant’s right — even here.)
A few days later, I happened to receive a call from the city about our property-tax appraisal. Among the questions: was anyone renting our downstairs?
Not right now, I said.
Well, the clerk explained, because of the city’s troublesome rental laws, a tenant-free property is much more valuable.
A check of comparable recent sales in our neighborhood, in fact, shows that empty buildings are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more than those with tenants, and with the current housing-price boom, that profit margin (on paper, anyway) increases each month.
That’s why we’ve joined the ranks of thousands of other small-time landlords here who will never rent again, adding to the city’s housing shortage.
That doesn’t mean the apartment sits empty. This is “Everybody’s Favorite City,” so we’ve had no shortage of visiting family and friends.
No, it doesn’t pay the mortgage. But then, not once have we worried that any of our houseguests would reach for a sledgehammer.
Scott James, a television journalist, is the author of the novel “SoMa,” written under the pen name Kemble Scott.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on June 7, 2013, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: King of My Castle? Yeah, Right.
SAVE
E-MAIL
SHARE
128 Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
ALLREADER PICKSNYT PICKS
Newest
Comments Closed
DaydreamerPhilly
The pendulum of fairness has swung too far against landlords, not just in San Fran, but in many large cities across America. The process is broken. A landlord should be able to oust a non-paying tenant within 30 days. Conversely, a tenant should be able to force a landlord to make repairs within 30 days. The court system is the wrong arbiter for such disputes mainly because someone with home inspection qualifications should be assessing the complaint by a tenant, not a judge who listens to testimony and looks at photos when presented as evidence. But we can't give judge powers to home inspectors either. So, a new process is needed that provides a reasonable inspector combined with an arbiter who is far more accessible than a judge in a courtroom. Perhaps someone along the lines of a bankruptcy trustee; a lawyer who acts in place of a judge for a fee.
June 7, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.RECOMMEND36
CJBerkeley, CANYT Pick
My wife and I lived this same nightmare in Berkeley, CA across the bay from San Francisco. After my father's death in September 1996, we allowed a member of his church to use the house as a caretaker until the following summer. When we asked him to leave in April, he refused. Shortly thereafter we discovered that Berkeley had an entity entitled The Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board. That is when our own version of "Pacific Heights" began. This caretaker claimed that he had a bona fide rental agreement and the Board agreed with him. No one reading this would believe the things he did and the trauma he caused to me and my wife…like how he raised rats so that he could claim the residence was "uninhabitable" (as quickly as we had them exterminated, he'd raise some more) or how he removed the bathroom window, again to show how the unit was "uninhabitable", or how he presented a 12 page list of bogus "building code" violations to the City of Berkeley, and on, and on, and on. Board simply regards all Landlords as "bad" and all Tenants as "good" regardless of the facts. It took us over two years and at least $30,000 to evict this guy. If it hadn't been for the Ellis Act, it would have taken even longer. And, by the way, our father's minister eventually told us that the church had gotten our "caretaker" out of their basement by foisting him off on us. The system is so unfair, I don't blame this guy at all for not renting his apartment.
June 7, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.RECOMMEND89
Doreen MeyerVolcano, CA
In twenty-five years as renter(Manhattan and SF), I had only one 'bad' landlord...who trumped up reasons for keeping her tenants' deposits/cleaning fees. I've tried to keep clean, improve, and paint/professionally clean (when leaving) every unit I've ever rented Now I have two homes--one a townhouse in the SF Bay area. Like the author, I will not rent it. I have no need for my own bad experience -- I see too many tenants who are messy, destructive of property, don't pay their bills, and who (like the article) challenge the owner's right to manage his/her property. So I 'save' it and spend long weeks in SF...what I pay in ongoing community 'fees is less than the cost of a good hotel.
For me it's not legal problems, it's the tenants. If you want to own rental properties, be prepared with agencies to screen/monitor them. For those of us who own one or two potential rental spaces, online searches can give some information, but the personal 'cost' of monitoring the property and dealing with the myriad issues that come up (illegal pets, dangerous pets, noise, drugs--one neighbor rented her unit to a couple who ended up arrested for illegal firearms/running a meth lab...in the suburbs--unauthorized roommates, defaulting on utilities' payments) just takes too much away from daily peace and pleasure.
June 7, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.RECOMMEND19
eghwebster n.y.
My son owned a rental. Rented it to a teacher. She would not pay rent during the summer months:reason, she didn't get paid during the summer, so why should she pay any rent. To get her evicted was a nightmare---the justice system was a joke.
June 7, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.RECOMMEND28
mailSan Francisco 94114
Scott James seems to describe an illegal unit in what he calls "our home in the city’s Castro neighborhood. ... We live upstairs and there’s a smaller rental downstairs. " If his rental space was legal, I believe he would have used the phrase "two-unit building". Putting a paying tenant in a home's mother-in-law space, which typically doesn't meet building and safety codes as a separate unit of housing, is often done in San Francisco although it's illegal.
Meanwhile, the problem of this tenant's often-forgotten keys did not need to escalate. After one or two incidents, the landlord could have helped organize a hidden back-up key, for example in a $20 lock-box like realtors use, its combination chosen by the tenant. If the tenant was his mother-in-law, paying no rent, wouldn't Scott James do at least as much?
June 7, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.RECOMMEND22
brave gnew york, ny
this is irresponsible journalism by the Times. implying that policy affecting thousands should be based on a single outlying anecdotal experience might be seen as naive if tenants rights and rent control have not been hotly contested longrunning issues with very high stakes for working people. this kind of story is rather another version of Reagan's "Welfare Queen" rhetoric. It's polarizing and it obscures real issues.
Sorry for the television journalist's inconvenience and bad luck. But if there is fault here, it lies both in the loutish behavior of the tenant but also with the poor selection skills of the homeowner. You don't like your tenant? Well, you chose him. Learn the business before you start. Be smarter and choose more wisely. You are suggesting legislating away the the risk inherent in financial decisions. The way I see it, you screwed up and it cost you. Learn from it. You're the one who chose to buy a house bigger than you needed so you could go into business renting apartments. You weren't doing anyone any favors, your goal was profit. Now you want the government to protect you because it turned out badly, and in so doing screw the thousands of good tenants out there.
Tenant protections have come about because of years of terrible abuses by landlords, and only after much hard fighting and suffering. Landlords do not view living quarters as homes but rather as market commodities. this is the root of the conflict.
June 7, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.RECOMMEND88
NovaNicoleNo. VA
You should be a landlord in Northern Virginia. Mine wants two months notice to move out, but withholds the price of the renewed rent until it's too late to find a new place. And gets away with it.
June 7, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.RECOMMEND10
louiecalifornia
So rather than rent to someone you know to be a good tenant with a good tenant history (which is easily researched), you opt to keep it empty. But don't insult with the premise that being a landlord is a nightmare. You're probably quite pleased that your property value increased, and the dollar signs in your head outweigh any personal desires to contribute to the fabric of good, San Francisco landlords.
June 7, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.RECOMMEND44
melbay area
I am a tenant (though also a prospective landlord) and and my parents/in-laws are landlords. In Oregon, Washington and California my experience is that laws protect the worst. It is appalling how long it takes and how much money it costs to evict a bad tenant. It is equally appalling how much a bad landlord can get away with -- especially when a tenant's most cost-effective option is to uproot family and life to move ... if there is an acceptable place to move to.
I don't know the solution but I do understand both sides have legitimate gripes.
June 7, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.RECOMMEND40
AnonyNot in NY
Many renters are stable professionals, with perfect credit-rating and could even buy a property outright but prefer to rent. Indeed, with housing prices so inflated, it makes more sense to rent (see the NYTimes calculator:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html. Albeit a minority, some renters take greater concern over the maintenance of the property than do the landlords, repairing and improving things without reimbursement. With a tremendous shortage of rental properties in San Francisco, such renters can be found, I have no doubt. The article sounds to me like someone didn't do "due diligence" in screening applicants.
June 7, 2013 at 12:43 p.m.RECOMMEND36
Richard GraysonApache Junction, AZNYT Pick
You can always let a trusted friend or relative live in the rental space, which is what I think many small landlords do. The best strategy for newcomers to San Francisco may be to become close friends or closer family to someone with rental property.
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND6
JPMichigan
A lot of sympathy is expressed for the landlord.
If I had written a similar article about living in (and owning) a two family flat while renting out the upstairs, but with the location being Detroit, I wonder what the reaction would have been?
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND10
MarinaSouthern Cal.
Retiree here;
my last job before retirement (for 3 years) was in SF (2008-2012)
I was SO fortunate to be able to rent one of the co-op units in Fontana Towers (next to Ghirardelli Square - stellar views!). There would be more units for rent there, b/c so many owners are part-time residents, but the co-op board severely limits rentals.
I'm a long-time homeowner, but from time to time I've also had to be a tenant (out of state for school; out of town for work). I have always treated rental property like my own (well, really better in many ways). When I was in grad school ten years ago in New Haven, my husband and I were in a rental that had been seriously neglected, since the landlord could easily rent to young students who had few choices in a tight market. We re-stained the wood (there was quite a bit), repaired the closet doors and locks, cleaned years of grease from kitchen cabinets. In exchange, the landlord graciously looked the other way when we took in one foster cat (lease specified no pets). I can assure you that, when we left, the place looked better than it had in years.
My SF landlord was great too. I've been lucky. But now I read the many articles about SF rents and tight rental market and realize, with regret, I could never afford to move back. Let me rent your little place part-time. We'd all be happy.
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND5
JohnNew Jersey
Sounds like, as a landlord, you are running a business (per se). And doing your best. Now you find that the political maching in San Fran has, over time, put in a series of rules that result in you not able to effectively rent. Who, exactly, has voted in those politicians?
When we enable/support the political machine to help the little guy - in this case, the renter - its usually the mob perception that all landlords are scum (as are all bankers, corp execs, and generally anyone successful enough to NOT be on the dole).
It's actually simple to change your situation - vote out the moochers.
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND8
itsaboutimeRhode Island
I had a tenant once who threw cig butts in the bathroom sink drain and then complained it wouldn't drain...and once I went in the basement and water was running through the floor boards, I had to enter the first floor apartment only to find they were defrosting the refrig by just leaving the freezer open, letting the water run out onto a pile of dirty clothes, disgusting. I will never be a landlord again or how about the tenant that got a pit bull that ate all the wooden baseboards ....nice people. Or painted the walls black? or ripped out the solid cherry kitchen cabinets? Or peed out the window? or snored so loud the floors shook?
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND15
John S. Brookes IIISan Antonio, TX
It's quite the opposite here in Texass. Once, I moved to a new apt. within the same complex I had been in for over a year. There were issues in this apt., one of which was a potential electrical fire hazard; so, I presented a list to the front office. After several months of no response, I presented my next rent check, unsigned while indicating that I would sign it when the items were tended to. Next day, an eviction notice appeared and I was forced to move. And, you don't buy much time fighting it in court.
I'm surprised that some of these unhappy S. F. home owner/landlords do not engage in short-term, no lease rentals to tourists, business travelers, etc. much like a motel or bed & breakfast arrangement. There are Internet sites to facilitate this. It would seem that a thriving business could result from such a practice.
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND9
BookishGirlBehind the Orange Curtain
This illustrates that when government intervenes in a market (housing) that it corrupts the regular flow of supply and demand.
Much of what has happened in San Francisco's housing market will now start taking place in the medical marketplace. There will be fewer providers as the cost of doing business rises. There will be long waits for service. There will be increased demand as millions are added to the insurance ranks, yet nothing has been done to increase the numbers of doctors and nurses, etc.
The agriculture market is corrupted by the government's intervention and subsidies. Farmers grow what they are paid to grow through subsidies. Corn, wheat, cotton, rice, canola (rape seed), etc. Meat prices are subsidized through the subsidies on feed grains. Healthy diets require fresh veggies and fruits, yet there are no subsidy programs for fruits and vegetables.
But, McDonald's gets subsidized burgers and corn sweetener for their sodas and shakes.
I would really like to see the U.S. have a true market based economy. We haven't has a market based economy in about 85 years. What this means is supply and demand would equalize; jobs would be created where needed; wages would correspond to need rather than politicians whims; etc.
Right now we have an economy of smoke an mirrors. The problem is the smoke is clearing and the funhouse mirrors are cracked.
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND18
M.Y.westport, ct
I'm about to shatter your sense of security about house guests, friends, and family,
having been through a nightmare with a houseguest. My son, 10 at the time, had a lifelong friend who he had play dates and overnights with. When I learned that the house he and his mother lived in caught fire and they were living in a motel, I offered to let them stay as houseguests till their situation was better. Especially since she had a broken ankle from jumping out a window and couldn't get her son to school or get herself to work. Wouldn't anyone do the same? besides, we we getting ready to move anyway. After another (90days) I asked her what she intended to do. 90 days later I told her we had found a buyer for our house and she needed to move. In the middle of the night she returned with 2 police officers claiming we were illegally evicting her (she paid no rent). The police told me, I could leave HER house or go directly to jail. I was evicted from my own home at 5am in the morning. They told me to go to TENANT court even though she was NOT a tenant. Two lawyers later, 6 more months, and 10's of thousands of dollars in legal fees and damages to the home we just finished primping for sale she moved away to NYC. The lawyers could do nothing but negociate with her lawyer when she was leaving. Winter had come and we were faced with paying heating bills of thousands of dollars because she would turn up the heat and open the windows for fresh air. In all it cost 250K. You feel safe now?
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND41
mmzmeDavis, Ca
Ditto. I also will never again take on a tenant in SF. My tenant was awarded $350,000 after he surreptitiously moved out, got a mold report that exceeded any realistic values from a disreputable source and got to choose his own allergist to diagnose asthma. Inspected by the housing authority, I was told a tenant is owed perpetual housing from his landlord. I was also required to build another garage since the house had two units. However, this was a typical SF house with no space between adjacent buildings and the width of my house was sufficient for only one car.
The lawyer appointed by my insurance company set me up for trial by jury. Suspicious, I hired my own attorney, was told my Chinese face would be incriminating in the minds of an SF jury. My real lawyer filed an amicus brief, my insurance company paid off and dumped me. Without renting, I couldn't afford the mortgage. There was a paper profit but this was less than my out of pocket costs during the litigation.
That's why I'd sooner put a gun to my head than take on another tenant in SF.
MMZ
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND29
brianegmont key
sounds like you rented to a good old fashioned alcoholic with a bipolar cherry on top. my record for eviction for non-payment here in a certain midwestern state is 26 days from start to sheriff taping the restitution writ on the door. life is too short to live in ny or sf
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND12
ScottChicago
Great article. Always interesting when policies meant to help a group (renters in the city) somehow perversely harm this very same group. This article demonstrates this unintended consequence quite well.
My sister lives in San Francisco, and I have lived in Seattle and Chicago, two nice cities without many rent laws, and relatively liberal building rules. I was trying to convince my sister that rent control is a bad idea. I explained that whenever I have wanted an appartment, I just go on Craigslist, there are tons of options, and and can move in by the end of the month -- one time in Seattle I moved into an in-law unit (like the one described in this article) the day after shaking hands with the owners. It was great, but something quite foreign for my sister.
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND9
workboxsfSan Francisco, CA USA
I know plenty of landlords in SF, and they're all doing fine, financially. When they start complaining about rental laws, I ask them three things: 1. Did you know about the laws before you bought your building? 2. Did you know the rent rolls? 3. Did someone force you to buy the building against your will? Yes. Yes. No.
Gimme a break.
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND24
CalypsoArtHolllywood, FL
The poor landlords, theirs is such a difficult life. All that caring and kindness spat upon by the uncouth ungrateful. Please, cry me a river.
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND20
rflancaster
I have to wonder what would drive anybody to become so destructive. Naturally we don't hear anything about any prior negative interaction between the "bad" tenant and the author of the article.
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND6
V.I.Washington, DC
Those of us living hand to mouth feel your pain. How horrible it must be to be forced to allow the value of your property accrue hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of collecting rent money for no extra work. You're really between a rock and a hard place here.
June 7, 2013 at 12:41 p.m.RECOMMEND31
READ MORE COMMENTS
Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics
San Francisco (Calif) Renting and Leasing (Real Estate)
Real Estate and Housing (Residential) Landlords
Ads by Google
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/king-of-my-castle-yeah-right.html
