[al_borland]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[guywithahat]

> 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.

[Grombobulous]

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]

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]

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]

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]

> no the idea is stupid and greedy

We're talking about landlords here. What else did you expect?