News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Evicted in San Francisco. Parent comment

Re:Evicted in San Francisco by radley on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @05:37PM (#7382334)
San Francisco has Rent Control ordinances, so as long as the unit was legal, she could have stayed there for the rest of her life (which she probably expected).

http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evicted in San Francisco by nilkn on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @05:37PM (#7382339)
> so as long as the unit was legal

It wasn't, according to this article. She took a risk.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evicted in San Francisco by radley on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @05:51PM (#7382424)
What if she was just "renting a room" and the new owner simply labelled it an "inlaw" as a legal loophole?

[Update] I didn't see the pic. Yeah, it's clearly in a different building, so an in-law.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evicted in San Francisco by CocaKoala on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @06:07PM (#7382525)
Saying that if you change the details of a story, then the details are different doesn't actually mean anything and doesn't have any bearing on the story as it happened.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evicted in San Francisco by head_stomp on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @06:08PM (#7382540)
That's incorrect according to your own link:

Illegal Units are covered by rent control. Illegal units, such as in-law apartments, are covered by rent control.

Tenants can only be evicted for one of 15 "just causes." Most of these deal with allegations the tenant can dispute (e.g., tenant is violating the lease) but some are "no-fault" like owner move in or Ellis.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evicted in San Francisco by refurb on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @08:49PM (#7383259)
Not the rest of her life if the owners decided to remove the unit from the rental market.
[ Parent | on HN ]