General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBurlingame woman, 97, evicted after 66 years
The year Marie Hatch moved into the wood-shingled cottage in tony Burlingame that she calls home, Harry Truman was president and "Goodnight Irene" was a radio hit. Her landlord and friend, Vivian Kruse, told her she could live in the cottage until she died.
Fast-forward 66 years. Kruse is dead, her daughter is dead, and her granddaughter is dead. They each passed down the lifetime guarantee of tenancy for Hatch -- but when the final woman died, so did the verbal agreement, the current landlord says.
That's why he is evicting Hatch, who is now 97, fighting cancer and long both single and retired from her bakery job. She says she will probably wind up in the street if she has to leave.
On Feb. 11, she was served with a 60-day notice to vacate the house or be tossed out by sheriff's deputies. Tenant advocates say her plight is emblematic of a growing eviction and rent-hike horror overtaking non-homeowners in San Mateo County.
"They're trying to take away everything from me here," Hatch said as she sat in her tidy living room, where fading photos of family gaze down on her collections of tiny ceramic bunnies and kitties. "Gee whiz, I don't know what I'll do if I have to leave.
"I have a lot of tears, a lot of happiness, a lot of memories in this house. It is my home. Where can I go?"
Her misery has very close company -- her sublet roommate and friend of 32 years, Georgia Rothrock. At 85, Rothrock also has few options. Between the two of them, they pay about $900 monthly rent, which chews up much of their Social Security checks.
Neither of the women can afford a new, more expensive place to live or have relatives they can move in with.
Landlord David Kantz tells his own version of the turn of events. He says he feels terrible that he is evicting Hatch, but the trust left behind by his wife -- the third of the previous landlord women who are now deceased -- expires in July, and he is duty-bound to sell the property on behalf of his two sons.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/burlingame-woman-97-evicted-after-66-years/ar-BBpMMzO?form=PRHPTP&ocid=mailsignout
StandingInLeftField
(972 posts).....*
I don't think I can legally write what I would like to do.
blm
(113,065 posts)Pulling this rug now should be considered antithetical to everything their mother and her family stood for in their lives.
mfcorey1
(11,001 posts)for the rest of her life. I am sure that a good legal team could draw up the document. Then he can go ahead and greedily access the funds for his 'desperate' sons.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)It's up for sale, but 85-year-old Hef gets to stay for the duration.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Is that his weasel way of making people think he's legally obligated but really isn't?
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)There's no higher power here commanding he toss this poor woman in the streets. This is selfish best interests at work, masked by this flimsy and likely untrue reasoning.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)in the SF Chronicle was "she had 66 years to buy her own house" Fuck you, troll
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I would consider moving to a place where rent is far, far less than $900 a month. I find two bedroom apartments in Lawrence, Kansas (a college town even) for less than $500 a month.
Unfortunately, your home is not "yours" if you are a renter. Sheesh, if she had bought a place 40 years ago, she'd be rich right now.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Burlingame, CA. I've been to both places. Lawrence isn't a good choice for a couple of very old women, really. Really, there aren't a lot of options for you at that age. It's not just the rent cost.
And yes, she probably could have bought a home 40 years ago. However, that is not the situation she is in. Have you no compassion for two elderly women who are being evicted from a place they've lived for decades? How sad...or so it seems to me.