Title (which is the original article headline, but that's still no excuse) is misleading due to inconsistent capitalization (which is neither standard nor title case). "Google Lawyer" isn't a proper a name, it should be either "Google lawyer evicting third-grade teacher" or "Google Lawyer Evicting Third-Grade Teacher".
It is also misleading guilt-by-association, anyway, since other than the fact that the landlord works for Google, it has nothing to do with Google, but treating "Google Lawyer" as if it were a proper name enhances the already-misleading character.
Seems to me that real estate law in CA/SF is even more asinine than in NYC. With that said, these tenants are compensated between $5k and $18k per unit. Sucks to get evicted, but that sounds like a windfall situation. Guy is probably going to convert it into a mansion: here in NYC, I'm pretty sure if a landlord wants to do that kind of conversion they have to wait for your tenants to move out of their own accord.
These people shouldn't be complaining about Google. They should be complaining about the Ellis Act.
> With that said, these tenants are compensated between $5k and $18k per unit. Sucks to get evicted, but that sounds like a windfall situation.
Depends. If you get kicked out of an affordable place and nothing else affordable is available, compensation only delays the inevitable by a few months.
For the most part I'm inclined to agree that, if landlords are being abusive assholes, it's a problem with the landlords, not with the wealthy tenants or their employers. Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect major employers to assist with the needs of their community, regardless of fault or blame. If Google's policies are indirectly enabling shitty landlords, it would be neighborly of Google to use their clout to lobby for pro-tenant ordinances, and maybe politely ask their employees who are landlords not to be dicks.
>Depends. If you get kicked out of an affordable place and nothing else affordable is available, compensation only delays the inevitable by a few months.
Maybe if nothing is affordable in a strict 121km^2, a more affordable location convenient to public transportation in the larger 9,128km^2 metro area should be looked into. Like Oakland, perhaps?
People get priced out of Manhattan and end up moving to one of the other boroughs all the time (though now that people are getting priced out of Williamsburg, they're moving _back_ to portions of Manhattan like the LES). It sucks, but that's the life of a renter.
> For the most part I'm inclined to agree that, if landlords are being abusive assholes, it's a problem with the landlords, not with the wealthy tenants or their employers.
Depends. If they're being abusive assholes within the law, it's a problem with the law. You can't assume - especially with landlords - that economic actors will choose the path to Nash equilibria. If they're abusive assholes outside of the law, it's a problem with the landlords. IMHO, an Ellis Act eviction isn't abusive - just because it's not abusive doesn't mean it's fair, however. A landlord in Brooklyn recently told his tenants that he was going to do repairs - and instead of repairing the property, he (allegedly) gutted the apartment (removed flooring, plumbing fixtures). All to try and force them to abandon their lease. This was abusive -- and illegal (he's almost definitely going to jail). But it's also an artifact of the extraordinary tenant rights we enjoy here in NYC: we cannot be evicted without cause, and even then the landlord must win an eviction suit in (a very pro-tenant) housing court. If a landlord wants a tenant out for reasons not valid (e.g., to convert to condos or a mansion), they can offer to buy the tenant out of their lease. The tenant, of course, can refuse the buyout until they receive a price they consider fair. These tenants can be a huge headache for landlords that want to improve or demolish the property.
Seems to me that the Ellis Act itself is what's abusive here, not landlords taking advantage of the law.
> Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect major employers to assist with the needs of their community
It might not be unreasonable, but it's extraordinarily unlikely. Corporations are in it for profit. Making sure people have affordable housing in downtown San Francisco doesn't really enter into it.
> If Google's policies are indirectly enabling shitty landlords
What policy is that? Employing shrewd lawyers? Not being punitive when their employees take full advantage of the law?
If you think invoking the Ellis Act is being a shitty landlord, you live in a wonderland of amazing landlords my friend. I'm still trying to get mine to fix my foyer mailbox after six months of it being broken (thank goodness for PO boxes).
> it would be neighborly of Google to use their clout to lobby for pro-tenant ordinances
Google isn't just neighbors with SF. Google is a global company: its neighbors are the entire world. That's why its nonprofit arm builds things like Person Finder, Flu & Dengue Trends, discounted access to its products for non profits. It also invests in research for renewable energy cheaper than coal (though was dropped in 2011), seeds plug-in EVs, prediction & prevention of emerging (climate & disease) threats, uses its information to improve public services in the developing world, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
They've got bigger fish to fry than doing San Franciscan's civic duty for them.
Ah, the comments section is solid gold. Someone drops the real cause of the hate: "Since owning property is theft the landlord is not entitled to his stolen property."
"The real cause"? Are you suggesting that the protesters don't actually care about the lack of affordable homes for poor people, they just want any excuse to promote vague, mustache-twirling socialism?
I submit that if heavy development of new housing started in SF, arguably the cure for the city's rental property drought, these same people would be protesting that as well.
That's an interesting assertion. I'm sure that someone would protest that, yes, and they might share some values with the protesters here. I think you're making the mistake of assuming that anyone who calls themselves progressive, liberal, left-wing, or a Democrat represents a monolithic bloc with uniform opinions. "Some A support X, while some A oppose X" does not demonstrate that all A are confused and inconsistent.
> Sure, it is a dick move that this lawyer is engaging in...but ultimately it is a legal one.
Yep. And an expensive one. SF requires EA evictions to come along with rather large (for a typical renter) compensatory packages.
Seems like if you don't want to get evicted by an asshole landlord for reasons other than delinquency and lease violations, don't live in SF -- or buy instead of rent.
> SF requires EA evictions to come along with rather large (for a typical renter) compensatory packages.
The accusation here is that this eviction is specifically timed to avoid the coming increase in those packages. Which should be an obviously anticipated effect of a large increase -- while it will discourage such evictions once it goes into effect, it will encourage them in the period between when it is passed and becomes effective, because anyone who might want to do them in the near future is incentivized to accelerate them.
Which all points to the EA being the problem and not some random lawyer employed by an enormously wealthy global corporation.
The reasoning behind the Ellis Act is to allow landlords to quit being landlords without selling their property to another landlord. What? Huh? Of COURSE that's going to leave the tenants of their property out in the cold (well, SF, so uh .. chilliness). And of COURSE if you increase the amount the tenants must be compensated you'll get a rush of evictions before it takes effect.
It is also misleading guilt-by-association, anyway, since other than the fact that the landlord works for Google, it has nothing to do with Google, but treating "Google Lawyer" as if it were a proper name enhances the already-misleading character.