
Oakland landlord who owns 3,600 properties raises $1080 rent to $3870/month - doctorshady
http://blog.oaklandxings.com/2015/06/lakeshore-avenue-landlord-raises-monthly-rent-from-1080-to-3870-to-force-tenants-out/
======
roymurdock
The title of this submission is extremely misleading.

The landlord, Russell Flynn, is raising the rent of _10 units_ from $1,080 to
$3,870 per month, ostensibly because they are located near the site of a new
luxury high-rise tower which will generate more demand for those 10 units.

He is not raising the rents 3-fold for all of his 3,600 properties in one go
as the title suggests.

The article is also very light on details - it mentions that the landlord gave
his tenants 1 year notice, and it's doubtful that these were rent controlled
units.

Developers and landlords are going to jack up prices whenever they can, so
this is a pretty common occurrence and shouldn't come as a large surprise.
Cities are apt to go along with these plans because it brings in higher income
families/individuals which means more tax revenue. As long as the landlord
follows standard procedures, the best that these tenants can hope to do is to
raise enough hell so that they get a decently sized settlement, and then
relocate further outside of the city.

~~~
hugh4
Or plan their lives better so they own property instead of renting it.

Buying property in Oakland six years ago was a great idea. Buying it now is
probably still a good one. Renting in Oakland and hoping your rent won't go up
in the next decade is a terrible plan.

------
krisroadruck
Is it just me or... it being his property he should be able to charge whatever
the hell he feels like? If the market can support the rate so be it, if not
it'll be what it is.

~~~
tga_d
I would take issue with the view of somebody's home as a commodity or an
investment. Yes, it gets treated that way legally, but this is where people
live, where people raise their families. There is a huge amount of emotional
investment that isn't reflected in the rent, especially when the people living
there can't afford to pay more. "Oh, you can't afford to live here any more?
Then get wealthier or move some place cheaper" is a pretty cold and
calculating view of how people should live, especially given that in many
cases they've lived here their whole lives, or their families for many
generations. That they should be forced to leave because a bunch of wealthy
developers like the culture they and their families have built and are willing
to pay more for it strikes me as capitalism for the sake of capitalism with no
real concern for the people most affected by it.

~~~
morgante
If housing stability is essential, you should own your housing. As a renter,
the tradeoff you're making is more flexibility for the potential that you
might have to move.

~~~
eropple
Lots of people "should" own their housing. Turns out what one should do and
what is economically capable of doing are rather divergent ideas! As a renter,
the tradeoff is _you can have a roof over your head_ because buying is
absolutely beyond the reach of an alarming number of Americans.

------
finance-geek
Everyone in the Bay Area lobbying against high-density housing is to blame.
Don't blame one guy who happens to taken advantage of this vast collective
"conspiracy" to keep property prices inflated by reducing the inventory of
housing. And no...i dont think low-density has to do with earthquakes,
Engineering has progressed far past that point.

~~~
okigan
It's really funny when somebody claims that "you cannot build multi story
building in Bay Area due to earthquakes".

One only needs to look at SF downtown -- high rises as far as the eye can see.

------
oldmanjay
If I'm reading this correctly, the increase applies to 10 units impacting 16
people. I suppose the 3,600 properties mentioned in the title are to help us
hate him more, since he's wealthy, but they are otherwise unrelated.

------
danharaj
This is great for the 'city', if you define the city as land and property, and
not the people that live there.

~~~
Turing_Machine
The people who live in the Bay Area could certainly change the zoning laws to
allow higher-density/lower-cost housing, leaving this guy (and others like
him) to twist slowly in the wind, but so far they haven't.

There seems to be some movement in that direction of late, but it's going to
take years.

~~~
hugh4
Twist slowly in the wind? More like make a shitload more money by selling his
thousands of properties to developers to put in skyscrapers for gazillions
more than he paid.

Not that spite or envy should be a part of planning calculations either way.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Maybe the first few guys to jump in would, but once there was enough housing
the demand would fall and the landlords with the (now) overpriced rents and
their (now) unsustainable mortgages would be in trouble.

------
erkose
Ain't Capitalism great.

