Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Poor poor bigot (Score 4, Insightful) 1116

For millennia, people have been pair bonding and have called it "marriage". Before the Europeans crossed the Atlantic, the Native Americans had the two-spirit people who lived as the opposite gender, including getting married. You seem to forget that christianity and the rest of the abrahamaic religions are fairly new super-cults. Marriage existed for a long time outside of Europe, in other cultures, and in other religions.

as the church that stated that people are free to marry whomever they chose, with certain restrictions (ie couldn't be previously married, free consent, etc.).

Don't be foolish. Polygamy was banned fairly recently, consent wasn't actually required of the woman who was considered chattel, and even age restrictions are civil not religious. There is nothing in the bible about how old a person, especially a woman, must be to wed.

Why is it illegal? Because the church forbade it

Why did the church forbid it? Because earlier religions forbade it. Why did they forbid it? Because inbreeding resulted in deformed offspring and being ignorant as they were, they attributed it as punishment from the god(s) du jour.

Comment Re:Read your lease... (Score 1) 319

So, because the demand has outstripped supply, we should prevent the suppliers from charging more even though the demand says the product is worth more, yes? So, we should force programmers and sysadmins to work at a legally fixed wage because the demand for their services have outstripped supply, yes?

If you haven't guessed, I am applying what you are saying about rents, renters, and landlords to employees and pay.

Comment Re:Read your lease... (Score 1) 319

But, in your mind, it is OK for the renter to violate his lease by subletting to third parties at 4x the rent, yes? I mean, that is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that the owner of a rent controlled property should not be able to lease the property at market value but the tenant currently occupying said property should be able to violate those same rent controls, as well as his lease, tax laws, and permitting laws.

Comment Re:Airbnb profiting on illegal activity (Score 1) 319

So, you would have no problem if the law said that if you were caught breaking your legally mandated, below market value lease by subletting at market value, you would be required to retroactively pay market value rent back to the day you started subletting and continuing until you vacate the premises, yes?

Comment Re:Airbnb profiting on illegal activity (Score 4, Informative) 319

No. People who sign long term leases are not allowed to the sub-lease said apartment as a "tourist or transient unit". That is actually a very common clause in lease contracts. I have little doubt that it is a relatively common law in many jurisdictions to, among other reasons, make prostitution harder.

This isn't about not allowing people to "to engage in free enterprise without greasing some palms". It is about local laws and one agreed to when one signed a lease instead of purchasing one's own property.

This may clear some things up for you:

So why can tenants rerent their units to tourists at a higher rent than what they pay their landlords? Actually, they can’t. These tenants are violating a multitude of San Francisco ordinances, starting with rent control itself, which affords their own low rent protections. If the “host” tenant is renting out their room or unit at a daily rate that exceeds their own daily rental value, that tenant is violating the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, which states that a tenant cannot charge more rent to a subtenant than what the tenant is paying their landlord.

Moreover, by offering their entire unit or room as a short-term rental (defined as a rental for less than 30 days), the tenant is also violating the San Francisco “Apartment Unit Conversion Ordinance.” That particular ordinance prohibits the rental of residential units to tourists or short-term transients without obtaining a special permit first. Violations of this ordinance has penalties, including fines of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both.

Depending on the neighborhood zoning designation, it is also likely the tenant is breaking zoning laws, which require that hotels in residentially zoned districts obtain a conditional use permit. It is also probable that your tenant or his “guests” are afoul of tax laws because, in 2012, the San Francisco City Treasurer office stated that short-term rentals were subject to the city’s transient occupancy tax (also known as the “hotel tax”). Lastly, assuming the tenant has signed an SFAA lease, they are in breach of the “no subletting” clause of their lease agreement. The most recent version of the SFAA lease is even more explicit, and specifically states in the section entitled “Use” that “No hotel use, such as daily rentals, shall be made.”

Does that clear things up?

Slashdot Top Deals

Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.

Working...