San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 per month to $8,000
The virtue of a 15.00 an hour minimum wage. Lets see if we raise it approx 50%, the a 400% ncrease seems appropriate. The same people who rammed the minimum wage disaster down everyone's throat, are also too slow to respond to the guys appeal, eviction comes before decision. Who pays 1800.00 a month in rent for a little place? Oh yea..a millennial...
There are no other issues apart from maybe the laxity of the Rent Board.
I have no fundamental objection to these, tho' they nearly always favor tenants over property owners. If they exist they could at least be timely.
-------------------------------
Increase = New rent - Old rent = 8000 - 1800 = 6200
Percent increase = 100 x Increase / Old rent
= 100 x 6200 /1800
= 344% (rounded)
------------------------------
I suggest the min wage is of little concern to a tenant who was paying $1,800 pm.
Extortion- but maybe the property is worth $8,000pm on the market. In that case the tenant had applied some threat to get it at $1,800pm. (!?)
Without knowing more I am not shedding any tears. The situation appears to be a trade as the word is understood on this forum. The only role of the Rent Board should be to ensure compliance with contract terms. Courts often give themselves an added role in housing matters of requiring common decency or such. If so, that means considering the timing for increases and time for eviction notices.
But there again I am not familiar with SF housing laws (fortunately). I've read about rent control, a measure which reduces the supply of housing, like the min wage reducing available jobs.