New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

Context matters...

According to the article, the lease (rental rate) includes fully paid utilities and internet.

The landlords are then saying - if you're going to work from home full time, we'll raise the rate by $200.

One can dispute the figure/amount but the logic seems reasonable i.e. if you're working from home full time, then you'll probably run the AC for way longer than if you went to the office 5 days a week for at least 6 hours each day, you'll user more internet and/or we might need a higher speed internet/bandwidth, you'll use more power, etc.

▲

rchaud 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Using more Internet at work than at night playing 4K Netflix or downloading 100GB+ games and multi-GB patches? Doubtful.

▲

tom_ 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Who pays per byte for internet?!

The other points are well made, though. The lesson, I suppose: bills included is a bad idea. The incentives are misaligned all round.

▲

NearAP 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Some Internet providers have different rates for different capacities/bandwidth. Last time I used COMCAST, their wizard walked you through different use-cases and you got different packages based on the type of stuff you said you used it for.

▲

skullone 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Comcast is a poor example, and a wizard asking "do you game, you need 1Gb!". Lol

▲

NearAP 6 hours ago | parent [-]

How is Comcast a poor example? It is a major internet service provider in the Bay Area and in some places is the only one available. For better or for worse, you have to go with what is available in your area.

▲

skullone 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Besides a data cap in some areas, it's not really metered, not a variable bill like water or electricity if you wfh

	▲	NearAP 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The point is - they have different plans at different rates (prices) and they base it on what they believe you use it for. So you can’t just be dismissive of someone thinking that internet access for someone who works from home might cost more than if you don’t work from home. It may be wrong but it is logical and possible in the usecase/context being discussed

▲

protocolture 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>then you'll probably run the AC for way longer than if you went to the office 5 days a week for at least 6 hours each day, you'll user more internet and/or we might need a higher speed internet/bandwidth, you'll use more power, etc.

This also covers adult children playing games all day, or a variety of other situations. Seems weird to single out work from home.

▲

NearAP 11 hours ago | parent [-]

The point I think the landlords are trying to make is that if you spend majority of your time at home, they assume (expect) the utilities to be higher.

Keep in mind this is a 1 bedroom ADA and so they’re probably targeting a specific type of tenant.

▲

therealpygon 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the point being made is how this is different from stay-at-home parents? I would also add another example: home-bound elderly or disabled people? Is it acceptable to charge those categories a different rate, given the reasoning being applied is simply “being home more”?

▲

NearAP 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm afraid I don't understand this logic.

Their own logic seems to be - the rent covers all utilities (they have assumed a certain cost for utility based on some logic that assumes the tenant not being at home majority of the time; they're then saying - if you're going to spend more time at home, we assume you're going to go over our utility estimate).

Also, it's a 1 bedroom and they have a target renter in mind. Maybe they aren't expecting (planning) to rent to elderly folks or disabled people; Maybe their target is a working professional.

	▲	therealpygon 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Elderly and disabled people don’t ever live in one-bedrooms or ADUs? Also, where did you find all this information on their targeted renter — did I miss that in the article or did you make it up for your argument?

▲

protocolture 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

IF you are worried someones using too much of the utility bill, find a more equitable way to split it. Flat rate + a massive jump implies that the bills are potentially profit generation for the landlord. Targeting workers makes it seem like its targeting those who are known to be able to pay.

▲

olyjohn 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Fuck this logic. It's a cash grab.

▲

al_borland 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Assuming nothing illegal, it isn't the landlord's business what a tenant is doing inside, working or sitting around watching TV... why does it matter? They should just be happy the person has a job and can pay the rent on time.

▲

crote 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Landlords and HoAs have been doing this for ages, it has just mostly impacted less well-off people until now.

Want to do some nails as a side hustle, sell homemade goods via the internet, or make extra cash repairing people's cars in your garage over the weekend? Sorry, contract says no, enjoy your eviction for "operating a business" or "commercial use of the property".

Banning WFH or charging extra for it is just the logical next step. You're working, so that's commercial use! And you're saving money by not having to rent an office and causing extra wear & tear to the property, so to a landlord it is obvious that you should be paying extra - why should you get to freeload, after all?

▲

al_borland 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Operating a business out of your home is a different story. The issue there is customers coming to the home, which means traffic and a general disturbance for neighbors. That's very different than someone sitting at home on a Zoom meeting.

▲

goodmythical 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Is it really so different? What is the difference in impact to the owner/neighbors/community if I am: 1.) Working remotely as an employee, 2.) Working remotely as a contractor, or 3.) Working remotely as an employee of the company I own?

Certainly you can't run a shop front in a residential setting, but it's not the "operating a business" part so much as the "serving customers in person" part that would cause a disturbance.

I only mention it because I have seen people who sell their art on etsy getting these kinds of eviction notices for "operating a business" and the claimed issue is not that the tenant is making art but specifically that they are profitting from it finacially.

	▲	al_borland 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’d be curious to hear both sides of the story on the Etsy thing. I’d imagine for anyone to even know it was happening it would need to reach a level of scale/disruption that made people start asking questions or complain. I think with most of these rules, they are there to give them some teeth incase something gets out of hand in one way or another, and are often only enforced if something becomes a problem. Alternatively, they’re used to get someone out who is a bad tenant/neighbor, and they need to find a technicality to boot them out for everyone else’s sanity.

▲

Grombobulous 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you really want to do something this dumb, I think it would be less dumb as a landlord to implement this as a discount.

Submit a pay stub and job offer letter referencing hybrid/in-office/in-person employment and get a $200/month discount.

The idea of this is not completely crazy. I definitely wear on my home hardware when working from home. However, the rent is supposed to already be covering the typical amount of wear and tear and there’s no need to get this silly about it.

▲

al_borland 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Even as a discount, I don't see the logic behind it. Why should someone get a discount on rent for leaving for work every day? I work from home and there is no way I'm putting an extra $200/month of wear on everything because of it. If anything, being home allows me to catch issues early before they become a bigger problem.

The one place where I've seen something like this, but not framed this way, was with a reverse commute. Someone in the city, commuting outside of the city for work each day. Leaving during business hours frees up parking during the most in-demand times, and they are only there during off-peak hours. As a result, they got cheaper parking.

With this being a house, that wouldn't make sense. The reverse commute thing only really makes sense for a large lot or garage shared with the public or monthly pass holders.

▲

dh2022 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the landlord does that the rent on the listing will be higher by $200, thus turning off potential renters. It is better for the landlord to lead with a smaller rent and tack on charges.

Same business model for restaurants (rely on tips which are not part of the price you see on the menu) and budget airlines.

▲

sitkack 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

what if you are retired? or unemployed? or sick?

what are the limits for all of those?

no the idea is stupid and greedy

	▲	crote 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> no the idea is stupid and greedy We're talking about landlords here. What else did you expect?

▲

guywithahat 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> it isn't the landlord's business what a tenant is doing inside, working or sitting around watching TV

Unfortunately the government is extremely interested in what you do in your property, and this makes it the landlord's business. That said in this case, it seems more like homeowners are renting out a small unit behind their home, and want to disincentivize people who will be there more. Personally if you can work from home I'm not sure why you'd live in a bay area suburb, especially not walnut creek, but to each their own I guess.

▲

13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

b3ing 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the FTC had enough time, people and competence, they could get rid off all the apartment junk fees like: valet trash, forcing you to have a cable subscription plan, package locker fee, etc

▲

red-iron-pine 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

that application fee is a scam man

but one of the pieces that didn't make it to the top of reddit's discussion was that it's a shared-living situation, not your own apartment or isolated basement.

its shitty, but it's not like a landlord trying to regulate how often you're in your own private apartment

▲

notfromhere 15 hours ago | parent [-]

you're renting a space per month, and they're essentially adding an extra fee if you're doing more than sleeping there. kinda nuts

	▲	gtowey 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The expectations of some bay area landlords when renting space in their own home are bonkers I've seen it all: not allowed to use the kitchen, not allowed to have guests, curfews, some are even contingent on not allowing the tenant to be there on the weekend at all.

▲

richwater 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why are we writing articles about some random, single-event rental ad. What are we doing here?

▲

randycupertino 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Here is the screenshot of the original rental ad, with an also dubious $500 move-in fee: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1v3n4kw/...

▲

strathmeyer 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]