Comments on: Tenant Troubles: We’re Basically Paying Our Master Tenant’s Rent. That’s Wrong, Right?

By: Eugenia Togiai

Eugenia Togiai — Thu, 12 Nov 2015 22:52:00 +0000

hi, in a nutshell and the motto , “it is what , it is”…my 2 cents, i take care of this house..i do the repairs, and maintain its habbitiability…clean and safe..when you answer my room for rent ad..i give you options…at flat rate…i let you know off top..the house rules…and upon agreement you sign …by your signature you are stating that you are in compliance with all the house rules aside from the lease…when people are looking for a room at a great price…they dont care where its located, or who i am, they beg you to let them have the room and even offer me a non refundable $300 to hold room for them. AND THATS ASIDE FROM THE SECURITY DEPOSIT..if I accept it or initiate it, your in, and i take the post down draw up the paper work and have you sign on move in date. This usually happens when they are not able to move in right away.., i dont run back ground checks or speak with prior landlords…etc..and guess what , they dont either…cable and wifi, common areas are a house courtesy..my rooms are 750 a month..with a security deposit of $500 totally refundable at the end of your stay…one of my house rules are THE PRIVACY OF OTHERS ..RESOPECT OtHERS PRIVACY..you pay for a private room..a private space.. and it should not be violated…and im serious about it…It wasnt a concern of yours about me and my career when you moved in , and you still shouldnt be concerned about it now…i hold my end of the agreement and some..you obviously are in violation of the number one house rule…PRIVACY..I WOULD NOT ONLY BE PISSED OFF, & UNCOMFORTABLE WITH YOU…i WOULD USE THAT RULE AND VIOLATION TO PROPERLY SERVE YOU AN IMMEDIATE EVICTION NOTICE.. if this were my situation ,your plotting ,snooping and sneaking around behind his back, in his home.. if not physically, then mentally,.that is not RIGHT.why dont you try asking him how would he like sharing the master tenant responsibiliy? instead of seeking away to do it behind his back,it wouldnt hurt.. .REGAURDLESS HOW MANY TIMES HE TRAVELS OUT THE COUNTRY…OR WHATEVER HE DOES PRIVATELY..AS LONG AS HE PAYS THE RENT.and its not endangering you..or invading your private paid space..YOU SHOULD not FEEL LIKE , he doesnt deserve to be master tenant,then if your not woman enough to ask or accept rejection, WHAT YOU NEED TO BE DOING IS SAVING UP YOUR MONEY TO MOVE OUT ON YOUR OWN…AND YOU WONT HAVE TO SIT WITH THOUGHTS OF HOW TO JACK THE MASTER TENANT OUT OF HIS PLACE..SO YOU CAN BE THE MASTER TENANT.

By: Elisabet Eriksson

Elisabet Eriksson — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 07:00:00 +0000

I totally agree with everything that you’re saying. Except one thing: we didn’t yet have that revolution against the aristocracy. France did during the French revolution, and all states that are today socialist did too. But the US has always been and is still an open capitalist state. Btw, you can take your master tenant to small claims court and sue him there. However, it’s going to be challenging to then live together after having sued him. So, the best thing to do is to first move out and then sue. If everyone did that things might change some. I am personally against a violent revolution. I would much prefer that things changed on a legal level instead. I think it’s also hard to see a real revolution in the US today because people are too comfortable and sedated with TV and other drugs. But sooner or later, when enough people don’t have money to put food on their tables, we’ll see violence and riots and revolution. So it’s best to start working for changing the laws now instead to avoid any violence. And taking all greedy master tenants to small claims court is a good start. Also, one reason people live in the Bay area is because there are a lot of jobs here. So, the solutions are not easy for sure. But we all need to take action and make things better and more fair.

By: Bryan Kruchten

Bryan Kruchten — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:36:00 +0000

The author and writer of the initial ‘complaint’ are both clearly left leaning in their logic. To be expected in SF. Running off emotion alone, in my opinion. Let logic set in for a moment. You the Roommate by legal definition do NOT have to keep living where you are. You are not forced to live where you are, so move. This is a mostly free society in which you may choose where you spend your hard earned cash. Don’t put the Master Tenant down as evil and greedy. Instead look at yourself and realize, again, you are not forced to reside in a residence that makes you ‘feel’ wronged.

By: Lester Moore

Lester Moore — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 07:42:00 +0000

Of course the MT can impose the increases on you! Otherwise they get stuck paying a greater and greater share of the rent. Again, another crazypants idea propagated by people who are convinced that being the master TENANT is the same as being the landLORD. Think about it. I agree with previous commenters that the original questioner had a responsibility to do her homework before moving in. If she didn’t, shame on her. It also sounds like she never even tried *asking* reasonably for the MT to obey the law. You still have to be human even when you’ve got the law on your side, otherwise everybody hates each other and the courts are clogged and people like Dave make a living writing inaccurate advice.

By: Lester Moore

Lester Moore — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 07:36:00 +0000

Right Lisa, that’s true. But you have to give them 30 days and they can make your life a living hell for 30 days and you have to sit by and do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Your landlord does not have to live with the nut cases/losers that he evicts.

By: cedichou

cedichou — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 16:37:00 +0000

He is evictable, but ONLY if he does not correct the violation. So what happens will be: assume landlord tries to evict. First step is to issue a 30 day notice. Tenant then will lay low for a while, ask the subtenants to vacate (he’s master tenant, does not need just cause), and he’ll be back in conformance with his lease. At this point: he can’t be evicted. There’s no cause any longer. Landlord could try litigation to evict, but most likely would lose.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:22:00 +0000

No… Actually, you do get something big — as master tenant, you CAN evict your roommates without having to satisfy Just Cause, or simply give them 30 day notice to vacate. Your landlord cannot do that. If you had Co-Tenancy, then if you had a crazy roommate who still had it together enough to pay their rent, it would be you moving, not them.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:18:00 +0000

Actually making a profit on rent as a master tenant should be violation of his lease — “Illegal activities” is one of those Just Cause things — and would then make him evictable. As a landlord in this rental climate, any chance to evict someone — you are going to take it. They would all be out.

I think I would tell her instead to confront the master tenant and tell him of the law about proportion of the rent, etc. If he’s such a creep, he probably won’t become creepier because he was confronted — he’s already there.

By: theHitman

theHitman — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0000

So… the property owner is the greedy one? Crow is out of touch with reality.
This is happening all day everyday in SF and the reason rents are so high. Why move when you can let others pay your capped rents.

By: Tim Bracken

Tim Bracken — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:20:00 +0000

More to Mr. Crow’s point, Section 6.15(C)(3) also says that it’s unlawful for the subtenant(s) to pay more to the master tenant than the master tenant pays to the landlord. Translated: you can’t use your rent-controlled 3-bedroom apartment as an ATM machine, gouging your subtenants to make a profit off your lease, all the while reminding them that they’re getting a better rate than the hordes of other desperate people on Craigslist.

Incidentally, I agree with the other commenters in criticizing Mr. Crow’s tirade. This tale isn’t about landlord greed. It’s about the greed of tenants exploiting the rent-control system and ripping off their subtenants.