I was born and raised here and am a college grad with full time work and am being priced out of the Area- and I'm one of the fortunate ones. It's just heartbreaking what is happening.

DC, NY, New Orleans, London. Housing is inflated by all the global very wealthy who want to invest their big bucks somewhere. Chinese buying up lots of real estate, other nationalities too. Moves out regular workers, bus drivers, teachers, artists, students, the young and elderly who cannot afford skyrocketing prices in cities.

The rich and developers buy up real estate for investment, and convert apts. to luxury condos. Unjust and sickening.

My thoughts in #3 about the lady and owners.

Urban cities are the new habitat and playground for the superrich neoliberal investor class.

and it was difficult back then, Now, it's absolutely outrageous. I love the SFO Bay area, but it's just not worth it to me anymore.

So I think she has 60 days to get out.*In the post there's a missing . after Feb. 11, I'll fix it now.

Landlord/owner feels bad for all, but not bad enough to stop the listing for $1.2 mill that he and 2 sons want, like the realtor and broker with their commissions.

Given that amount of money, her age and circumstances, you'd think the owners could help her find some kind of housing and add in some financial aid to assist. Or can't some organization or tech co. intervene to help her?

Are there no social services or housing help for the poor and ill anymore, esp. in affluent CA?
This is like the 19th century Robber Baron/Gilded Age and early 20th century poverty and misery, when adults and kids like Charlie Chaplin in Victorian England were sent to workhouses and prisons for debtors and the poor.

The elderly then were picked up and taken to work somewhere like slaves if healthy enough. Died on the streets if not. This country is a nightmare..

Why invest in new public housing when you can subsidize rent in buildings that should have been demolished decades ago?

About all the poorer of us can do is move someplace where we can afford rent because there are no local jobs and certainly no amenities.

Just the move alone will be stressful enough to kill this woman.

was born here, but given the option today, I would be someplace else if they would have me.

“A recent study by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors shows that rent in the county for a two-bedroom unit has increased by a wallet-busting 51 percent over the past four years.

Federal guidelines indicate rent is unaffordable when it exceeds 30 percent of a household’s income — which means that in San Mateo County a household must earn at least $106,000 to afford the average current monthly rent of $2,648 for a two-bedroom unit, according to the county study."
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Burlingame-woman-97-evicted-after-66-years-6845657.php

As an attorney, I surmise that the property is now owned by a trust, with the widow/father as the trustee, and with the property for the exclusive benefit of the sons, one or more who are probably minors. The father/trustee has a legal fiduciary obligation to maximize the value of the property for the sons, with little choice as to what he must do (and certainly not willing to take any long-term legal and financial risks to prioritize anyone over his own family).

so why can't that be entered into this? He says he has to do what the will said, which is what is best for his sons, so is that what is monetarily best for his sons or could he do what is morally best for his sons, which would be learning how to be compassionate. I don't know how old his sons are, but money from a house isn't really going to go anywhere. He plans to sell it, so why not rent it for a while and take that money in and then sell it later? Not to sound morbid, but the woman is 97...

.

and by its terms, must benefit the sons as beneficiaries. Particularly if any of the sons are minors, the father is legally obligated as an appointed fiduciary to maximize the financial return on the property. As the article indicates, the market value of the property is well in excess of anything close to the rental proceeds that could be realized from any of the tenants, including the 97 year old woman.

If the tenants and the deceased wife had entered into a written contract providing a life estate to the old woman or even a long-term lease agreement, it would be enforceable without issue. However, the Statute of Frauds in California (and everywhere else) requires such leases and similar contracts be in writing, and oral agreements are simply not enforceable.

I imagine that the lawyers and court will endeavor to provide more time for the woman to locate alternative accommodations. Running the clock is generally not too difficult in real estate litigation, and given this woman's very advanced age, even a year or two may be sufficient to satisfy her needs (but not help the other tenants). However, absent a very creative settlement that will likely require a great deal of donated money, or some new or different facts than those presented in the article, the property will be sold sooner rather than later.

When I was looking for a house that had a guest house, I was told the tenants could stay on if I wanted them to. Now the new owner may not want them to, but I wonder if it's at that stage yet. It doesn't sound like it's on the market yet, though he may want to renovate before listing it to maximize profits which would mean he would want her to move out before listing.

.

there is a long process to remove a tenant, and failure comply with all technical legal requirement is always an issue. I imagine that the man simply wanted to start the process so it would not be an impediment to any sale if he received a good offer and/or the court couldn't construe any month-to-month lease or provide similar bases for delays.

Even without a meritorious claim, as I indicated earlier, any pro bono lawyer will endeavor to delay any sale as much as possible, and a court might not be too annoyed under the particular circumstances. If the man didn't serve the eviction notice, he arguably would be failing in his purported trustee duties.

Lastly, an eviction notice does not require the landlord to actually evict the tenant, it only gives him the right to do so.

and he's "only" 85.

Are we talking children children or adults? If they are adults can't they just say "let her stay"? Or is he just wanting the money? I suspect it's the latter.

I believe it likely that one or more sons are minors and/or insist on the sale. If so, the father as trustee is likely legally obligated to sell the property to maximize the value of the trust's assets, i.e., the property.

now selling another house of a neighbor that they own. The folks have plenty of money coming in. But why sell (both) now, and not after the wife's affairs were settled when she was slain in 2006? Or wait a few more years to sell, to maximize profits as much as possible in accordance with the father's fiduciary duty?

I'd say the family wants or needs the money now. And/or they know to cash in at the top of the market, which is looking like it could be now to many people. And before the stock market, never reformed after 2008 and bigger and riskier than ever, crashes again, anytime now as some economists and financial experts think is possible-Dr. Ellen Brown (recent interview with Thom Hartmann here in Video), some other US and EU economists, and Thom Hartmann who wrote the book, "The Crash of 2016" last year.

Recent post, Subprime Mortgage Whistleblowers Warn Another Crash is on Its Way
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017332047

The Bay Area overshot the Dutch Tulip Bubble of 1637 a couple years ago. Once the bubble bursts on all these ridiculous over-hyped payment processors and useless Uber imitators and web services Bay Area real estate is going to look like Phoenix circa 2008.

to sell at the top of the market which is now. And how another crash is expected by many. The outcome of the anticipated collapse or decline of the market will be major for sure.

about the area's severe income inequality and other conditions that are fairly shocking.

My mother moved to SF to work during WWII when dad was overseas and loved it. We visited in the mid 90s, nice trip.

and are elderly there should be qualified, trustworthy persons to manage the account, the funds and their relocation. And to keep predators away. The article mentioned a legal aid lawyer and another advocate who tried to help them but couldn't do much because of the system. Maybe they could be involved in gofundme, etc., which is a great idea.

another one in GD, and mine in the CA group.

h/t my colleague at our sister agency in next-door San Mateo County, who ferreted it out.

How could I not.