I think it would change things for the worse. A landlord who is responsible will be responsilbe whether there are three or four or five people in the house. A landlord who is irresponsible will be irresponsible, no matter how many tenants there are. As it stands now, these houses are HUGE. There is no reason to punish people who don't live with thier spouse, dog and 2.7 children. Limiting these enormous houses to a max of three unrelated people is not necessary.
ELISABETH DUBIN hillier ONE SOUTH PENN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 TEL: 215.636.9999 FAX: 215.636.9989 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: HarvestMoon3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:50 PM To: Dubin, Elisabeth Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] Movie Shoot in Clark Park A landlord could do as you suggest, but it would be risky and foolish. Only those who actually sign the lease would be responsible for the lease. The others would be "visitors" or tresspassers, and there would be no landlord-tenant relationship to enforce. After one bad experience trying to enforce the lease with the non-signers, the landlord would say, " I've learned my lesson, and won't do that again". Contrary to your assertion that it would be impossible to enforce occupancy limits, I believe it is in most cases a simple matter, if the resources are devoted to it. And, I believe (perhaps naively) that most landlords would obey the law if it were enforced and publicized. As of now, there is no attempt at enforcement. And the law is not publicized at all. It wouldn't be 100% enforceable, but it would change the landscape of things in UC. Neil Lifson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dubin, Elisabeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "HarvestMoon3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Elizabeth F. Campion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:04 PM Subject: RE: [UC] Movie Shoot in Clark Park You can't be serious about enforcing occupancy limits in this way. It would be almost impossible to do, and would require some kind of big-brother system. I've lived in college towns where landlords would only agree to put, say, two people on a lease for a $2000 two-bedroom house with a dining room and living room. But that didn't mean that there weren't four people living there, in reality. Same results, in the end, even though the landlord is legally not doing anything wrong. This is barking up the wrong tree, it's just impossible to enforce. ELISABETH DUBIN hillier ONE SOUTH PENN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 TEL: 215.636.9999 FAX: 215.636.9989 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: HarvestMoon3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:22 AM To: Elizabeth F. Campion Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] Movie Shoot in Clark Park I've seen ads and listings for SF houses in UC ranging up to $4000/mo. These high prices are typically paid by groups of 5-8 students living in the house. This practice (allowing more than 3 unrelated individuals to occupy a housing unit), as Liz Campion correctly points out, is illegal. It is never enforced, however. NEVER. As Liz also correctly points out, it can be difficult to get the higher rents from young families. (I think it's difficult to get that kind of rent on a SF house from "old" families or couples or singles, too. These rents might be realized in luxury apartment situation such as the Left Bank Apartments). The rent structure in UC is outrageously skewed upward due to the city's lack of enforcement of the occupancy limits. If these limits were enforced, a SF house could not / would not rent for the high prices that are now being charged. ($2500/ 5 people = $500 per person. $2500/ 3 people = $833 per person. Students will balk at this.) It also probably would bring down the selling prices of homes in the area (at least in the short-term). If landlords were truly prohibited from renting SF houses to large groups, the rents would fall, and many landlrods would probably chose to sell the houses (increasing the supply of SF houses on the market and reducing the prices). I think this should be brought up as an issue to be addressed by the Mayoral candidates. Unequal enforcement of the law benefits/enriches the few, and those few are typically (though certainly not always) absentee landlords. The rest of us (residents) are essentially being indirectly taxed (higher rents, higher housing prices, more trash, more noise, etc., often a lack of maintenance on the rental houses -- resulting in lower quality of life for nearby residents, etc.) This has been a major concern of mine for years, and Spruce Hill CA has attempted to deal with it (unsuccessfully) through L&I and Councilwoman Blackwell. It always simply comes to a dead-end. To my way of thinking, this is a major scandal. Who is directing L&I to keep these regulations unenforced? Also, Liz Campion's referal to cabbies who buy and sell Medalions and therefor have high incomes is not typical. I don't know the details of Medalions, etc., but I know they can sell for many thousands of dollars ($50k? $100k?). A typical cabdriver, from my understanding, does not own a medalion, but must rent it. They do not get to keep all the fares paid to them, as I understand it. Can anyone shed some light on this? We can always pick out some specific wealthy secretary or nurse or other (you name it), but this doesn't mean that people with those occupations typically have high incomes. Does anyone have insight into the "typical" cabdriver's income? Finally, David Morse (in "Hack") does not appear to own his cab or a medalion. He's on the low end of the scale, certainly doesn't appear to have much of anything, and seems to not spend much time picking up cab fares.Call me crazy, but I don't see how he can afford to purchase or rent a SF home in UC unless he has large savings or an inheritance or somethng. This info, so far as I know, has not been offered on the TV show (though, I haven't seen all episodes). Neil Lifson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth F. Campion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Movie Shoot in Clark Park > I know that I was able to help one young family rent a home on the very > desirable 4600 block of Hazel for $1,800.00 / month for a 2003-2004 > School Year Lease. Folks should be aware that the City has a housing > code which limits occupancy to three or fewer unrelated. It can be > difficult to get the higher ($2,500) rents from young families, but > neighbors who are suffering from unsupervised "groups" may have some > recourse. And Landlords who have suffered even one horrendous clean-out > / make-ready after a bad "group" may find that staying within the law and > accepting a slightly smaller rent is more cost effective in the long run. > > Best! > Liz ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
