patrick.net

I feel bad for your kids. being uprooted in those years can be tough since I imagine he has friends in the area by now.

unfortunately I dont think you can fight the rent hike because it sounds like if she doesnt get the higher rent she'll just sell and you're out anyway.

tatupu70 says

Well, that's not really true. Housing is more expensive in CA., no doubt. And there are places where you can get a nice house in a nice area for $150K, but mostly in rural areas. If you're OK with that, then you'll do fine. But don't expect to find that near most larger cities.

I can pull up 150k houses all day long withing the metro areas of Nashville, Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Raleigh, and a ton of other places. But let me give a comparison. My parents live in NC. They live about 15-20 minutes from a medium sized city. They own a 2 story house on 14 acres of land, a pool, a greenhouse, an apple orchard, and large workshop. Grand total value of the property now is $175,000. Somehow I think that sounds like a pretty decent deal all considered. I guess that's why I view most real estate in coastal metros as a huge rip-off.

edvard2 says

I can pull up 150k houses all day long withing the metro areas of Nashville, Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Raleigh, and a ton of other places.

Sure. I can probably do the same in LA. Is it a place you want to live in, though?

edvard2 says

My parents live in NC. They live about 15-20 minutes from a medium sized city. They own a 2 story house on 14 acres of land, a pool, a greenhouse, an apple orchard, and large workshop. Grand total value of the property now is $175,000.

Yep-I believe it. Sounds like a more rural area. And probably a nice place to live.

I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't find such a place. Just that most nicer areas cost more than $150K.

tatupu70 says

Yep-I believe it. Sounds like a more rural area. And probably a nice place to live.

I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't find such a place. Just that most nicer areas cost more than $150K.

I would argue that the places you find as "nicer" are not nearly as nice as the property my parents live on. Not everyone wants to live in the heart of some overcrowded city. I grew up in a semi-rural area and have lived in large metro areas for 12 years. Those of you who have only lived in major metros and think those areas are nicer are missing out, sad to say because I can most definitely assure you that the metros I've lived in- even the nicer parts- are merely compromises.

edvard2 says

I would argue that the places you find as "nicer" are not nearly as nice as the property my parents live on. Not everyone wants to live in the heart of some overcrowded city

That's why I said it's probably a very nice place to live. I wasn't saying rural areas are better or worse. Just usually less expensive.

tatupu70 says

That's why I said it's probably a very nice place to live. I wasn't saying rural areas are better or worse. Just usually less expensive.

But you also mentioned that "nicer" areas cost more- nice I'm assuming a inner-metro areas. Thus my counter statement pertaining to preference. I recall as a kid the attitude in my family was that we sort of felt sorry for people who lived in the city or in a suburban area with their tiny little yards. So the feelings of what is nicer flows both ways.

edvard2 says

But you also mentioned that "nicer" areas cost more- nice I'm assuming a inner-metro areas.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I was refering to your statement about finding 150K houses in several metro areas. That the nicer parts of those metro areas might not be that cheap.

edvard2 says

I would argue that the places you find as "nicer" are not nearly as nice as the property my parents live on. Not everyone wants to live in the heart of some overcrowded city. I grew up in a semi-rural area and have lived in large metro areas for 12 years. Those of you who have only lived in major metros and think those areas are nicer are missing out, sad to say because I can most definitely assure you that the metros I've lived in- even the nicer parts- are merely compromises.

Once again, it all depends on what you consider "nice." I enjoy living in the big city for the museums, galleries, restaurants, progressive-thinking people, and just general access to goods and services. Maybe when I'm older, in my sixties and seventies, I'll move to a smaller town. Right now, I think I'd be bored stiff living in a rural community - - and in a Red state, forget it entirely!

I presume you have a signed rental agreement on your current lease that spells out the term, monthly payment, etc. At the end of the term the parties can renew the lease, continue on a month to month basis, raise or lower the rent, or the tenent may move out. Some states require that if the rent will be raised, a thirty day notice must be given. Your landlord looks like she gave you 60 days.

Ignore anyone who tells you to violate your rental agreement by withholding payment, or to lie to a judge about "hardship." Other that the obvious integrity issues of such actions, that behavior will likely have legal and credit ramifications.

If your and your landlord are in compliance with a voluntarily signed lease agreement, she is within her rights to raise the rent with proper notice at end of term, and you are free to move. Therefore, I would approach the issue this way:

Send her a letter stating that you would like to stay another term if the rent remains unchanged. Remind her of the difficulty and costs for landlords to find new tenants, especially tenants as good and reliable as you have been. (I presume you pay on time and take good care of the property). Maybe she will comprinise and raise the rent by a much smaller amount than she originally planned.

Is $4,000/mo a comparable rent for your sized home in your area? Why does the landlord think she can get that kind of rent for it? Maybe she thinks that you value the home so much that you would pay that, and was not planning on having to find a new tenant. In that case, the letter about staying if the rent is unchanged and moving if it is raised should be quite effective.

tclement says

spend thousands on moving

I called someone on Craigslist and it cost me $140 to move. Plus some cokes.

Then again, I don't have much stuff.

PasadenaNative says

Once again, it all depends on what you consider "nice." I enjoy living in the big city for the museums, galleries, restaurants, progressive-thinking people, and just general access to goods and services. Maybe when I'm older, in my sixties and seventies, I'll move to a smaller town. Right now, I think I'd be bored stiff living in a rural community - - and in a Red state, forget it entirely!

I guess a good question then would be have you actually lived in a rural area? Have you lived in a red state? Here's a shocker for you: I lived in a "Red" ( I hate that term) state until I went to college. On top of that I lived in a rural area. My parents were for the most part progressive. We had progressive friends. 20-30 minutes down the freeway got us to town which had a symphony, an art museum, and other amenities. We didn't go often. Why? Because we had a HUGE yard and a large workshop. We had 3 large gardens, a woodworking shop and a greenhouse. We spent a lot of time tending to the yard, the gardens, various projects in the shop, and so on. Additionally the area was a hotbed for music. There was probably at least one music festival within an hour from us every weekend.

In regards to politics, well there are conservative and liberal people in every single state and area no matter how liberal or conservative they might be. Its not about the people that you don't know but you you do know. As anywhere else the friends and people we knew were similarly like-minded. That's how friendships tend to work.

All I can say is that I HAVE moved from one area to another- from a rural conservative area to a metro liberal area. Yes- it was a big change. No I didn't care for some of those changes at first. There are good and bad aspects to both types of areas. I could live in either area. My biggest concern are the costs. My experience in regards to liberal metro areas is that whatever positive aspects they might have is almost overridden by their prohibitive costs because let's face it- all of the liberal metro areas are expensive. Given that I have lived in both types of areas I would be perfectly fine moving back.

$3100 is a colossal amount to spend renting while waiting for prices to drop.

If you've got the cash for the 25% DP, this house:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Kensington/88-Norwood-Ave-94707/home/1685368

comes with an average monthly cost of ownership of $2100/mo for the first 30 years (and $1140/mo after).

This doesn't count the opportunity cost on that million in principal, but damn, $3100 a month is over a million anyway.

Agree with HeadSet

The same sort of nonsense has been going on with rents down here (Mountain View area). Demand is way up as hordes of people choose to "wait & save" or just plain cannot afford to buy (but don't want to commute, or do want the schools).

I am sure you have been looking for other places to rent, and you are probably finding that little seems to be available around your current price point. A nice place like the Oakland hills is probably especially competitive. If it is anything like down here, you have to start looking at new listings around 9:30AM and making calls around 10AM. Compared to a year ago, rentals have just gone nutty. If you are dead-set on keeping your son in his current school, you may just have to bite the bullet & pay an exorbitant amount of rent unfortunately.

Moving should not cost $thousands though. If you box things up yourself, you should be able to get a moving crew to load / unload everything for $300-500.

Even though you are angry, try to talk to the realtor/landlady and cut a deal to raise the rent to maybe $3300 or so, and extend the lease for two years (till your son leaves Junior High). If she is determined to sell, and just wants you out, it won't work, but if she just wants to maximize rent, it is a good deal for her because she keeps an existing tenant without having to repaint, deal with a potential vacancy period, etc.

Think of the extra rent as "tuition" to keep your child in the same school. The attendance zone for the high school that the junior high feeds into is probably a lot larger than the attendance zone for the junior high. At least this is true if more than one junior high feeds into the high school. If you can stick it out for another two years, prices will probably have dropped by quite a lot.

If you can't afford to pay increased rent (and $3300 is already a
LOT) then look around for a rental in the same school attendance zone, and if that isn't possible, then get a letter from a child psychologist/psychiatrist stating that your child is unable to handle a school change at this point. This won't work if you move to a different school DISTRICT entirely, but it should work fine if you merely move to a different attendance zone WITHIN a school district. (I don't know anything about Oakland Hills.) With a letter from a psych, you can look for a house anywhere in the district.

If your child has good friends and is doing well at school, avoid moving him at all costs. Every time a child changes schools, he starts out at the bottom of the social heap and has to work his way back up. Sometimes, especially at the junior high level, nice kids fail at this process and the results are disastrous. Good luck. . . .

The posts about these crazy high rents is definitely concerning to me. Like I said- we pay pretty cheap rent mainly because the landlord likes us and we take care of the place. That said- I would never pay more than say- $2,500 a month for a house. We pay far less then that now. If we suddenly had to find another rental and found that prices were pushing past the $3,000 mark I think that would be the signal to relocate out of state.

Tenouncetrout says

I would stop paying any rent, and fight her in court with hardship stories, while I saved my money.

Hey, I'd love to, especially given the high handed way she handled this, but I jealously guard my credit and I'm not sure this would be thought highly of by the credit agencies. :)

edvard2 says

have you given thought to locating out of state?

Well, you know, job's here, kids school is here, wife's consulting business is here, extended family is here, tolerable weather is here, fanatic tea partiers are not so much here, etc. But after I retire, yep, but not sure where we'll go.

KILLERJANE says

Pay someone to pack and move you to a new better rental if you can find one that is equivalent.

Yea, that seems to be the plan. I'm mostly just unhappy that it was thrust upon us suddenly and not at a time of our choosing.

Katy Perry says

Man! you must live in a nice place! Call Her bluff,.. tell her good luck with that one. at least scare the crap out of her for a few days. go shop for a new place. moving sucks. I thought Oakland Had rent control? she might not be able to raise the rent that much that fast maybe?

Yea, we like it, but not for $4k/mo. The rental market in the Oakland for 3 bedroom houses in this area seems to start at $2750 and go up from there. On the rent control issue, there is a state law that preempts local ordinances that excludes most single family homes from any rent control. I may have other avenues from a legal perspective (is this a constructive eviction?). One rental agent told me (after I recited my sad story) that their lawyer suggested they never raise rents more than 10% a year because it would be "too aggressive". Not sure what the legal basis for that is.

PasadenaNative says

Jeez, what a meanie!

Yep, she sure is. Makes it easy to contemplate all kinds of treble damages if she screws with us on the deposit.

toothfairy says

I feel bad for your kids. being uprooted in those years can be tough since I imagine he has friends in the area by now.

Thanks for the sympathy. That's the constraint we're operating under. We're not going to uproot our son from his school.

Bellingham Bob says

I called someone on Craigslist and it cost me $140 to move. Plus some cokes.

The cost of my last move was $250. Thousands for moving? doesn't makes sense.

tclement says

Well, you know, job's here, kids school is here, wife's consulting business is here, extended family is here, tolerable weather is here...

The same is true for me as well. Its a decision. That said I don't intend to wait until I retire to make that decision either. As far as political stuff well there are people of every political stripe that live everywhere.

edvard2 says

As far as political stuff well there are people of every political stripe that live everywhere.

Really good point edvard2, I have great friends who live deep in the Ozarks and in spite of the average political opinion there, they have a community of great friends with rational political beliefs.

Bellingham Bob says

If you've got the cash for the 25% DP, this house:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Kensington/88-Norwood-Ave-94707/home/1685368

comes with an average monthly cost of ownership of $2100/mo for the first 30 years (and $1140/mo after).

I saw that one, seems like a beautiful house (although it would pretty dramatically increase my commute) but my big concern is that it's a lot of money to buy and looks like a real money pit. Lots of long deferred maintenance on that one.

^ yeah, I wasn't counting maintenance and improvements on that.

Consider it an investment, LOL.

The lot is probably the best you're going to get in the entire bay area. $1M alone for that is a deal IMO.

I lived down in the flats below this place in the 1970s. The hills looked so nice at night, and when we'd drive up to Arlington Park I loved how everything was so green. Kensington is a special place.

tclement says

I have great friends who live deep in the Ozarks and in spite of the average political opinion there, they have a community of great friends with rational political beliefs.

People with acreage tend to be more conservative. That's understandable.

There's only about an acre of cropland per capita, so we all don't get to be farmers on the dell, tho.

$3000 for SF is not alot of money. I pay $2000 to live in Culver City.

I just moved from LA to Claremont CA this weekend from 3 Bed 2 bath Apt. 1600Sqft to 3 Bed 2 Bath House newly rehabed 1800sqft. Total moving cost $2130. So yes moving my family of 4 cost thousands - unless you do it yourself. Its worth it not to have the back pain.

tclement,
It sucks that your LL would hit you with that now though, but you'll find a better spot.

tclement says

Really good point edvard2, I have great friends who live deep in the Ozarks and in spite of the average political opinion there, they have a community of great friends with rational political beliefs.

I Wasn't trying to pick on you and yes- I've more or less hijacked the thread... But as someone who grew up in a rural conservative area I do hear an awful lot coming from people ( not implicating you specifically) who claim they couldn't live in such-and-such place because of the area's political leanings or notoriety. My take is that if using general terms this is more of a city versus country thing. I have a relative who lives in Memphis. The next door neighbors are a lesbian couple and close friends of hers. The whole street is pretty artsy-fartsy in fact. Its not a city renown for being liberal. Yet there are pretty liberal hot-spots within it. This goes for most cities across the country. On the other hand- yes rural areas tend to be more conservative. But that doesn't mean everyone that lives in those areas are conservative either.

Using less general terms I can say that yes- there were most definitely pretty conservative people that lived around me and my parents. But its not like we hung out over the fence and chatted up politics. I don't do that now even though I know all my neighbors ( Save for a few older folks down the street) are pretty liberal. On the other hand most of the people that we associated with back home were like-minded with us. We had conservative friends too. Generally speaking things were not all that different from the way I interact with people here. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that if the decision ever comes in regards to moving, don't let a state or area's political leanings get in the way. You'll hear noise from people everywhere and besides- the evening news is full of it anyway.

Getting back to your dilemma... have you thought about sharing a house with another couple? I know that probably doesn't sound appealing. We share a house with one other person and as a result our rent is drastically less. The housemate is seldom home and has his own room and bathroom so it works out great. We don't have kids though so perhaps this is not as easy of a decision. It means making a few compromises and perhaps having a tad less privacy. But we've done this for 10 years and its worked out pretty well. Either way, best of luck to your situation.

CA is rent controlled. I don't think she can legally raise it just like that without major improvements.

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/appendix2.shtml - Oakland is there.

Am I wrong here?

FortWayne says

CA is rent controlled

LOL

FortWayne says

CA is rent controlled.

From: http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/when-rent.shtml

Some kinds of property cannot be subject to local rent control. For example, property that was issued a certificate of occupancy after February 1995 is exempt from rent control. Beginning January 1, 1999, tenancies in single family homes and condos are exempt from rent control if the tenancy began after January 1, 1996.

edvard2 says

I Wasn't trying to pick on you

Naw, I didn't feel picked on. Actually, I agree with you. The bigger issues are my work, my wife's well established local consulting business and my son's school.

my goodness, you can spend $3100 just to pay for housing. You definitely can afford a mortgage of a very decent house. You will not catch a falling knife, if you are waiting for the housing price bottom.

FortWayne says

Am I wrong here?

rent control is by the locality, only covers pre-1979 stock, and sucks anyway.

San Jose limits raises to 8% pa. This would take a $1300/mo rent to $1900/mo in 5 years. Some "control".

LA has been historically better, with 3% limits (now it's 4%).

I was paying $700/mo in 1991, I should have stayed there maybe.

By now the rent would be $1250, about $300 under market.

tclement says

FortWayne says

CA is rent controlled.

From: http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/when-rent.shtml

Some kinds of property cannot be subject to local rent control. For example, property that was issued a certificate of occupancy after February 1995 is exempt from rent control. Beginning January 1, 1999, tenancies in single family homes and condos are exempt from rent control if the tenancy began after January 1, 1996.

dang, did not know that.

I suppose you are probably better off finding a rent controlled place. Sounds like that lady is trying to racket some more money out of you.

And what are you doing paying someone $3100 in rent? My god, that's more than twice higher than my business loan payments.

FortWayne says

My god, that's more than twice higher than my business loan payments.

Guess it depends on where you want to live. Find me a place in 94602 that's as nice as where we're now for less, and I'll buy you a beer :).

Hmm, searching places with 3 bathrooms I see the supply is constrained. . . 14 results.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Oakland/2575-Charleston-St-94602/home/1962717

Looks nice. Inlaw for your junior-high kid.

$700,000 with 20% down has an average monthly cost of $1600/mo over the life of the loan.

Actual outgo (PITI etc) is $200 less than your current rent, or $150 more counting the 3% opportunity cost on the DP.

Not counting principal repayment, the cost starts out at $2100/mo, and after the loan is repaid will be ~$900/mo.

Looks like your locked into the area so you might as well buy and get on with life.

Bellingham Bob says

I called someone on Craigslist and it cost me $140 to move. Plus some cokes.

Coke party at Troys!

Bellingham Bob says

$700,000 with 20% down has an average monthly cost of $1600/mo over the life of the loan.

How do you figure? Even with a 20% down the bare minimum you'd be paying would be more like $2,200-$2,400 not including insurance, taxes, and so forth. That said- its still a bit better than paying $3,000 a month to rent the same house. Sounds to me like a barely break-even tradeoff

edvard2 says

How do you figure?

With a spreadsheet : )

the bare minimum you'd be paying would be more like $2,200-$2,400 not including insurance, taxes

PITI is $3500, yes. But the I and T in that are deductible at 35% for higher-income California people. That reduces PITI to effectively $2600/mo starting out.

And as principal is paid down, more of that $3500 PITI goes to P, which is a form of savings, so over the 30 year loan the average monthly expense -- interest, taxes, maintenance, insurance -- is $1600.

Here's my 30 year analysis:

Asset Cost 700000.00
Total Interest 402469.24
Prop Tax 262500.00
Other 147750.00

Subtotal 812719.24
Tax credit 234,069.17

Net cost 578650.06

Over 360 months: $1607.36

This approach is bogus since it doesn't count investment gains on NOT paying a mortgage, but with a $3100/mo rent that's kinda minimal LOL.

I'm not a big fan of applying financial engineering assuming that the buyer's financial situation will remain static forever. I'm considerably more conservative and thus I think your $1,600 a month is a bit misleading given that you seem to be doing some serious engineering to arrive at that number. Not saying it can't be done nor that its bad advice. The true cost is probably in the middle for average people.

At the end of the day 700k, for a house- any house- is a LOT of mon-nay. Anyway you cut it.

edvard2 says

At the end of the day 700k, for a house- any house- is a LOT of mon-nay. Anyway you cut it.

Even at 0% interest rates?

The fuzzy math here is dividing the total cost of owning the first 30 years by 360 months.

The interest and property taxes to be paid over this horizon is totally fixed and is not fuzzy at all (Prop 13 limits the appraisal to $1.25M by 2040, but that comes with appreciation so is a win for the buy case).

This doesn't factor in NPV crap and interest rate moves, but the future is unknowable so I'm just assuming everything is static from here on out.

If things inflate, chances are rents and home prices will inflate too, making buying now a good deal.

The only risk is that rates go up and incomes don't. This is possible but hasn't happened since the Fed has been running things AFAIK.

Well, another risk is losing the MID. That would suck, wrt high-end price levels, big time.

tclement says

Guess it depends on where you want to live. Find me a place in 94602 that's as nice as where we're now for less, and I'll buy you a beer :).

Try using http://www.padmapper.com for your apartment search. This home, http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/apa/2582869572.html, might meet your challenge.