If you are in SF, don't you have relatively strong rent control protection, at least if you are content with not changing where you live?
Theoretically, yes. But much has been made lately about a lot of loopholes to get around those laws.
Don't most of those loopholes involve the tenant being paid a lump-sum of cash to be "bought out" of their lease?
Sure, it can be a sob story if you are 70, have only social security, have been paying $200 a month since the 70s, and want to continue living in the city where the lump sum is large but not going to cover the new rents for a long time. But if you are young, FIRE and flexible then even in the worst case where you get bought out of a rent controlled apartment, it could be a nice chunk of money to start a new adventure.
I'm not really familiar with SF rent control other than what I've read in the news, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
She can't legally kick us out, but it could get nasty. I'd be happy to give her the finger and say tough, follow the law, but if it got touchy DH would want to move out immediately. He's too soft hearted to deal with confrontation.
So you see my motivation for continuing a rent vs own debate. I have a lot of psychological factors to consider!
I feel you about the psychological factors; I'd have a tough time with an uncooperative landlord as well, even if I wanted to stick to my guns.
I think the Bogleheads article on
Owning vs renting put's it nicely:
"There is no definitive answer for owning vs. renting a home. There can be a financial answer as to whether it is cheaper to buy or rent. However,
other considerations such as emotional, environmental, and flexibility can sometimes outweigh decisions that may not be financially justified."
I'm not sure I support rent-control from a policy perspective, but if I was looking to rent long term, I would not be opposed at all to taking advantage of it if I could find it :)