> When the current owners, the Withrington brothers, purchased the property in 2002, Inge came with it.
> In San Francisco, a landlord can’t evict a current tenant just because they are selling or buying the property; by the time the unit was purchased, Inge had already been living there for ten years, and she had no intention to go anywhere. Since Inge's unit was illegal, her landlord had even fewer options in the way of legal recourse.
If the new owners were willing to come clean to the city about the illegal unit, then I don't see what the issue would have been. Being the new owners, surely they could not be held responsible for the crime that was committed by the old owner, right?
It seems to me that the only reason why their hands were bound is because they decided to not notify the city immediately after the property became theirs.
> It seems to me that the only reason why their hands were bound is because they decided to not notify the city immediately after the property became theirs.
Why would they? They'd immediately throw themselves into the situation where they can't legally evict her, and are fined for failing to evict her. It's not too crazy (or abnormal, given that 10% of SF's housing is illegal) that they'd decide to kick that can down the road for a while.
> In San Francisco, a landlord can’t evict a current tenant just because they are selling or buying the property; by the time the unit was purchased, Inge had already been living there for ten years, and she had no intention to go anywhere. Since Inge's unit was illegal, her landlord had even fewer options in the way of legal recourse.
If the new owners were willing to come clean to the city about the illegal unit, then I don't see what the issue would have been. Being the new owners, surely they could not be held responsible for the crime that was committed by the old owner, right?
It seems to me that the only reason why their hands were bound is because they decided to not notify the city immediately after the property became theirs.