Are you referring to the person who bought a property knowing about an illegal rental unit and ultimately took their money for years until it was opportune to kick out the nearly destitute leasee?
They "took her money" because they were providing her a place to live at far below market. The only reason they kicked her out is she didn't give them any other option. If you're such a pain in the ass your neighbors report you to the city it's hard to get may people to show up for your pity party.
And she was "nearly destitute" because she refused any and all offers of help. The landlord even offered to give her $14k in go-away money but she refused.
... Or the person profiting from it. If there was a fine of something like 3x all rent you have collected on an illegal unit to the current owner it would take care of itself--no one would buy a place with an illegal apartment in it (like this guy did, fully willing to keep taking the money for 10 years) and no one would be tempted to make any more illegal apartments. Just make it easy to check with the city about the legalities.
Currently it appears while the unit is illegal, there is no penalty for having rented out an illegal unit for a dozen years. The "penalty" is that you get to evict whoever you had been renting to (which means they lose on their renters rights) while you get to keep all the money.
She sounds like an absolute pain in the ass, but neither party was nobel.
1. The Bay Area as a whole has pretty good public transit.
2. There are plenty of cheap single room rentals outside of SF.
3. She wasn't living on public property. It's private.
Sure. It's just the knee jerk reaction that the person not paying rent is the one "screwing someone over" and not the landlord who has collected illegal rent for years and gets to skip out on the responsibilities that entails.
I'm pretty sure that was the best he could at the time. If it was possible, he probably would have evicted her sooner. It's also not like she's completely helpless or didn't know about the home being for sale, and there are plenty of cheap rooms near public transit for rent in the Bay Area.
At the end of the day, it's private property. She's not entitled to live there if the owner doesn't want her to.
Are you actually missing the point this badly or just ignoring it on purpose?
So what is your actual issue? Are you upset someone bought a property with an illegal addition? Once they bought the house, what would they have had to do to retain "nobility"? Let her live there rent free? Immediately kick her out? Re: "until it was opportune to kick out the nearly destitute leasee", again, what is your expectation here? Allow her to perpetually turn your house into a dump, rent free, forever, because she is old and you'd be taking advantage of her in some way by not letting her live rent free in your house forever?
How you make so many intellectually dishonest points in a row while attempting to mock others is just shocking.
I'd expect a hefty fine... It seems like there's no penalty for being the landlord of an illegal unit other than having to cease and desist. He should have had to C&D and pay up a multiple of all the rent ever paid on the unit.
The tenant seems like a giant pain, but the landlord is guilty of illegally renting out a unit for years. She shouldn't have been able to remain there and the owner should not have been able to profit off his illegal dwelling.
