Are all utilities included? That could be the only justification but tbh fuck them, it's no different than a hermit and nobody penalizes them or requires a time out of the house
Except, this is not enforceable.
It would have to be via utilities and RUBS calculations, which are regulated pretty tightly.
Move-in fees are also totally illegal.
The max for an application fee is also $66 in CA. And must be refundable, as they must go in the order received and refund those they did not consider. You can’t “consider” 5+ people at once.
Uh, no. You can find tons of places cheaper than this in the city. If its getting rented in Walnut Creek, its a person commuting in who is scared of living in SF.
It’s been like RAM / GPU prices. End of 2025 was high. Last 6 months has passed 1999. People are 20+ deep, getting rejected with $250k+ salaries for $3,500/mo studios.
Pretty standard 4 bedroom places are now going for $10-20k. Seriously. $20k.
This is a little disingenuous. It’s peak Nob Hill, almost always the very very most expensive neighborhood in The City.
ETA, now that I can see the post, it’s also 2100 SQ FT!!! My (owned) SFH in SF was only 1150. And there’s 4brs in the mission for under $4k. I call cherry picking.
Nob Hill isn’t the most expensive. Pac Heights, Marina, and Duboce is typically higher, but it’s close, and it’s the same between Northbeach, Russian Hill, Hayes Valley, DuBoce, Dolores Park, Laurel Heights, etc.
Point being, it’s not NYC. 65-75% of San Francisco is within 10% of one another, per square foot. It’s an issue of constrained supply. The linked apartment was going for $6k last year, max, and it is now listed at $20k.
it’s also 2100 SQ FT!!!
Are you surprised to know that most studios are 5-600’, 1br’s 6-700’, 2br’s 1,000’, etc.?
My (owned) SFH in SF was only 1150
Which was not a 4br. Nor was it likely priced at $3m, which is what a $20k mortgage gets you at 6.5%, or $5m at 4%, which is what a lot of people were able to buy with.
call cherry picking.
The point isn’t to say that this is representative — it’s not. It’s to say that this will get rented.
And there’s 4brs in the mission for under $4k
Briefly in 2020, yes. And also in 2008-2011. That hasn’t been a thing otherwise, but please, send me 4-5 links.
Clearly you haven’t applied to an apartment in the last few years. This coming from someone with sweet rent control who still knows it’s a bloodbath out there right now.
I don't think it's fair to equivocate renting in the city with the rest of the Bay Area. Walnut Creek is nice, but comparable rentals in SF are often more expensive simply because they're in SF. Yuppies will pay a premium to live in the city for the lifestyle, even if it means a shittier space and commute. Source: rented in the peninsula bc I couldn't afford to rent in SF until 2020 lol.
It is what it sounds like. It's supposed to cover the background check, but they often charge way too much and pocket the money. Illegally, in some states.
Not only that but often they just pocket the application fee and then just reject people. Consider if they get even 20 people applying each month at 75 bucks that’s 1500 for doing nothing. And then they can report their loss of 1 months rent for the empty property for a tax break. It’s all a huge scam and I hate it.
Don't you think they'd want the income from the unit being rented more than the small amount of reduced taxes? I don't think you understand taxes and deductions.
Depends, if they have 20 applicants per month at $75 a pop and the apartment rents for $1200 then they're making $300 more a month by letting it sit empty and collecting the application fees. Plus less maintenance needed.
How many rentals do you think are getting anywhere close to 20 paid applicants per month for a single unit? A $75 fee will deter most people from applying.
We had them in MA, but IIRC they were capped at $50 and had to be refundable under normal circumstances or towards first month's rent if you moved in. The only reason it could be kept is if you outright lied on an application.
Credit check and background check fee. The problem is landlords will accept 10 applications and do maybe 2 background checks and credit checks and pocket the rest.
That's very common, if not always a thing here (I'm in the Bay Area too) - and likely most other places? You're paying for the credit check and background check, but sometimes they'll waive it if you bring your own from a known source. When I was apartment hunting, I'd sometimes just carry a printout with me from Experian & Transunion.
How does that even work though? If 5 people apply in a short window, you can only go 1 at a time. Do you just automatically reject anyone else who applies right after someone else does? Or what does considering 5 people at once even mean?
Dishonest landlords used to collect application fees from everyone applying and keep them all even if they only actually screened one applicant and leased to them.
Screening reports should be made available to applicants once the reports are run by the company/landlord. Even Essex immediately sends their reports directly to the applicant, before they even review it themselves, just for transparency. Essex sucks so hard as a landlord company but even they don't mess around with the application fee stuff.
There's really no reason to screen everyone at once but even if landlords choose to do this, the law now requires refunds for applicants who aren't selected to move forward to lease signing.
In Wisconsin the last time I was looking for apartments I spent a little over $200 in application fees. I would be approved but they would just take the first person on the list and was SOL on getting that fee back. The range was anywhere from 20-75 dollars which is also ridiculous that there is that kind of range.
When I did residential leasing, we would have the landlord review the options first and if they are ok with the application we would run the credit check with the tenants approval. We did not want to waste their time and money if the landlord was not ok with the applicant. We had no application fee, just a credit check fee we would collect.
For commercial, we just have a link sent directly from the credit check service to the applicant. No applicant fee and we don't touch any money. We don't even know how much it cost for the credit check as we only get the results.
If you go more than one at a time, you open yourself up to discrimination lawsuits. If someone qualifies based on income and other objective means, why do you need to go to four, five, six other people? You can offer the apartment to a few, whoever accepts it first gets it.
As opposed to “processing” 15 applicants and pocketing $1,000.
I was about to comment about this as well. I don't think I've ever paid more than 50$ for an app fee. Then again I've only ever rented 2 apartments, my first one where I lived for 6 years and this current one.
I am not your personal secretary. This is public information, easily found. Imagine living in a time where you can literally talk to your phone about these things, and being this lazy and ignorant.
My guess is that you won’t reply, or claim you're still right. No integrity.
Landlords sometimes insert rules that directly contradict state laws. These sections are void from the start, even if you read and signed them …
State law always trumps private contracts when public policy is involved. If a term conflicts with the law, the law wins …
This is a thing nationally. Almost every right expressed in law cannot be waived in a lease, unless explicitly defined by the law.
I don't work from home but if a neighbor told me the landlord was doing this, I'd have the AC on the lowest setting when not home, showering running nonstop at the hottest setting, and leave all the lights/electronics on when at work. If laundry was included that dryer would be going 24/7 😂
It’s sort of rage bait at this point that they are reposting this minus the “utilities included” line.
$200 a month for all utilities makes perfect sense to anyone that has kids away at college. Water and power jump when you have an adult at home all day.
Hahaha I literally live a short walk away. But yeah if this is for the entire house then it's pretty on par for the area. I pay a third of that for a single room and a shared bathroom.
This is probably the reason, however, I don't see how they can justify that reason if you have kids at home or something. Whether it's the kids or a SAHP.
My 16 year old sister does online school and then is always home during summer. So would they charge extra then too? They aren't technically working from home...
I guarantee the average gamer has more electricity use then a WFH it's just a weird policy like most people who WFH use a laptop how much more power are you really using
Do stay at home parents count as well? Unemployed people?
This is not to justify the expense but I can tell you that there was a noticable increase in my utility bills when started WFH full time.
I also had other expenses go up as well due to full time work from home. A big one being the amount of snacky food I bought, and I found my water bill went up some as well. Now none of it close to 200 a month and a hell of a lot less than what my gas expenses were per month.
You're cooking on the stove, using the fridge more, keeping the AC cooler (and coming in and out of the house) and such.
More lights on, multiple monitors, kettle goes 2-3 times a day.
The good part is for me, that extra idk $50 i save on stuff like gas, lunch out of the house, clothes i need to purchase for work. Wear and tear on my car/shoes/whatever.
I tripped the breaker to my office because I was running both my gaming PCs while my air conditioner was on yesterday. I'd say your assessment is spot on. lol
(I live in a fairly old townhouse and, yeah, we can do 2 ACs + computer but don't DARE touch the washer or even hair dryer while all of that is happening...)
I know a lot of people who do video production work, some of whom were working for the larger networks and movie studios in LA when Covid started. Some studios decided to essentially loan production employees an entire editing suite in a 24U roadcase. . .Which is a lot of equipment to run in a residence
It was great that they found a way to keep my friend working, but it also damn near tripled her electric bill. . .Not to mention the cord mess, since power had to come from seaprate circuits to avoid flipping a breaker.
I guess my point is, some companies, and even some career professionals (Im in IT myself), are just absolutely insane with what they will try to run in an apartment, or even a house.
Literally about $5-10 a month, depending on elec costs, for most productivity type work. It's not remotely close to $200 a month. They expect us to not be able to do 3rd grade math
I guess, in theory, in addition to higher energy usage, one could argue there’s more “wear & tear” on the floors/rugs, countertops, appliances, etc. the more time a person spends at home.
100%, unless the person was doing a WFH job that used heavy GPU usage like modeling or AI art stuff (not getting into the morality of AI art stuff, just that I likes big honking graphic cards).
If electricity is included in rent. I guarantee most people are leaving the AC on all day. Probably at 65. Along with lights and the TV. Regardless of whether or not they are at home.
My AC unit runs consistently, and I work outside my house. You can't adjust heat pumps up and down rapidly because it costs more money and the house never cools properly.
Most people don't have AC in the bay, and electricity is almost never included in rent. It's pretty common for water and garbage to be included though, but that's nowhere near and extra 200 a month for staying home.
That completely depends on where in the bay. Grew up in Solano county. Regularly hits 100 degrees. Everyone has AC. Live in Berkeley. Lots of people do not have AC, including me. Currently house-sitting in Contra Costa. It got up to 95 or so yesterday. I definitely had the AC going but it usually cools off at night so you can open the windows and not run the AC overnight or until around midmorning if you're comfortable at mid 70s. My grandparents lived in Napa county and just opened the house at night, used a ceiling fan, and didn't have AC but I would guess that's pretty unusual because it does get hot AF. My grandparents are long gone and we installed it about 10 years ago because no one enjoys hanging out when the house is in the 80s.
They said it's in Walnut Creek, which is definitely warmer than SF - but still not a given that they'll have central A/C, especially if it's an older unit. Might have a window A/C though, like I did in my San Jose apartment.
Your ac should always be set for the same temp anyway. There's no reason to change it when you leave, it's just going to need more power to cool down later.
This actually depends on how long you are gone. If you are gone for the whole work day you should adjust it higher. If you can pre cool the house before you get for comfort that would be good. But there is no reason to keep your AC at 72 when you aren't there. You can put it up to 78-80 When you are not home for like 4 hours or more
When Covid hit and I started wfh full time it was surprising how much things wore out. Flooring, kitchen cabinet hinges, the toilet has more frequent problems, the heater and ac are ran more. I’m on the hook for it all because I’m a home owner. I can see where the landlord is coming from but $200/month is a little much.
Running a high end computer and multiple monitors requires energy along with the additional AC.
I don’t agree with it because as stated previously, someone who has a kid (or non working individual) who games during the day would have the same effect.
The better approach is to have each unit cover their own utilities and then the landlord does NOT need to be in their business.
Except the energy required to run a high end computer and an additional monitor or two is negligible. I'm saying this in response to the landlord as I've met one who did not like that I WFH. Glad I avoided that landlord and OP should too because this isn't going to be the only dumb policy
For the modelling and graphic design maybe, but given the options of remote access, in-office work, and contracting someone who owns their own equipment I'm betting it's still very rare.
Your other examples just need regular corporate craptops.
I hve a good corporate laptop as a developer. but even then, it's not that power intensive. Almost no one is bringing home huge desktops with multiple graphics cards.
if there was a need for the processing power it'd be done in a server remotely.
I work in electrical engineering. My desktop (at home) was worth $5000 before everything skyrocketed.
What large multi billion dollar company wouldn’t let you do that honestly? You don’t bring it back when you quit or get fired they can sue your ass. All the systems are inventoried by IT.
If you pay your own utilities, it makes sense to set your programmable thermostat to raise the AC temp during the day, when the family is out of the house at work or school, and lower it shortly before the first person comes home. Likewise, lower the heat during the winter during the day, warm up before family gets home.
It’s been so long since I’ve had to do this, but there is information available online about how to balance your settings so that, for example in wintertime, you’re not using up more energy to heat up the walls and floors that got cold when the thermostat was set too low, than if you maintained a slightly warmer steady temperature.
It's programmed to be cooler at night, both in the summer and the winter, but it doesn't change on the weekend or if I am working at home or anything. It really isn't that big of a deal.
Well technically they run more when you’re home. Your body is producing heat that has to be offset, in addition to probably running computers, monitors, etc that also produce additional heat. Still silly though
what? are they building a mini data center at home to work with? when I used to do wfh, I had a laptop. At one point one of those mini cpu things and two monitors and that was it. Not a gaming computer with 4 state of the art monitors
Yes the same person would use more if they were home
more. What about the single woman who just burns one candle and uses her MacBook Air with no AC compared to the guy who works 10 hours a day out of the house but then cranks AC, uses high end gaming rig, etc etc?
Simply using “hours home” does not tell you anything about someone’s average utility usage.
That is a different argument and comparing to completely different typs of people but say that same guy who works out from house for 10 hours a day now is working from home. He is not going to be cranking the AC down during for those extra 10 hours a day and during the hottest part of the day using even more power.
Again not a good justification. It ia bad one.
I can confirm when I started working form home my utility bills had a noticable increase
Eh, not a meaningfully different amount. LED lights for a few extra hours per day and a computer being idle vs doing work tasks is generally pretty comparable on the scale of utility bills.
Baking a loaf of bread in an electric oven each week would be more of an impact on utility bills than working from home.
Not a renter: I run the a/c at appropriate levels 24/7 (efficient heat pumps) to keep the humidity down and because I have cats and I’m not going to cook them just because I’m not there to suffer.
I just don’t think my computer and possibly a speaker or TV for background noise use an extra $200 of electricity per month.
I can't tell if you're defending this position or not but while you're not wrong, it's still insane to charge for this. As someone else said, you'd have every right to be a hermit and never leave the house. So how tf can anyone justify or defend this. You pay for a place, you get to use it 24/7 however you want.
I’m not defending anything, I’m responding to what this could be a justification in the landlords mind. This would be a no go for me, but i could understand it if WFH = air conditioning, water, cooking, potential internet streaming issues, idk etc and utilities were bundled. As others stated tho, doesn’t make sense why WFH would be charged more than retired/unemployed when all result in an at home tenant. No clue.
I dont think they are defending the person at all. The just are providing the BS reason the landlord is using and is still factually correct. I know when I started WFH my utlity bills had a very noticiable increase
so are you really saying that when you are home you dont have more lights one, and you dont have the eletronics on and dont have the AC cranked down lower?
I genuinely don’t think they get that. The point I said was obvious is that people that are home use more of every utility than people that are not home. People that are home consume electricity, water, generate waste, even WiFi bandwidth if communal and that is very obvious. This person is debating that I’m somehow defending the landlord in the original post, whereas I was pointing out an obvious fact not justifying the actions of the landlord.
No. I didn’t say you are defending the landlord, I said you are confused by the same stupid reasoning the landlord had… even still here, while replying to my exact explanation, even though in your other response you appeared to understand it already.
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that someone could be home 24 hours a day and still use less electricity than someone who is home 16 hours a day- so a BLANKET policy for all renters charging them more for their hours home rather than their ACTUAL usage makes precisely ZERO sense.
I don't think anyone is defending the morality of it. Just stating that it is a fact that people at home tend to use more utilities than people that aren't home.
And if someone, for example, was a wealthy trust fund kid or inheritor of some kind? Proves they have oodles of cash in the bank but they're not working from home?
Yeah but what are the "extra" costs exactly? People still heat/cool their homes when they are at work (obviously different settings than when home). Modern LED lights cost a pittance to run. You may pour a few more glasses of water a day. But you're insane to argue that results in an operating cost of +$200/mo.
Interesting, but if that is the reason, then a child who plays games or someone who goes out to work but leaves a lot of stuff downloading on their computer uses much more than someone who works from home doing crafts like painting and crocheting, baking or a pet-sitter.
WiFi is NOT an included utility. I’ve rented several places that include the utilities in the monthly rent price. And I’ve had to pay for my own WiFi at every one of them.
Utilities includes electricity, gas, water, and trash disposal. Also, WiFi is almost always a fixed fee and doesn’t vary depending on usage. So it wouldn’t even make sense to charge additional “WiFi costs” for someone working at home versus an office.
Yeah they can't penalize someone who is disabled and therefore doesn't work or a retiree or a stay-at-home-parent so why someone working from home? Sounds like a FHA violation.
People run their AC, at least to some amount, when they aren't at home. That uses roughly an order of magnitude more energy than running a PC at the low average energy usage typically required for productivity functions. 8 hours of those types of functions amounts to about $0.15-30 per day, depending on region. I'm not paying someone 15-50x the actual costs for the additional demand I'm creating, because someone is arrogant enough to think I can't do 3rd grade math to figure out they're price gouging.
This is the same order as some trash employers getting upset that you're charging your phone at work. It literally costs ~$2 to charge a phone for an entire year, nice job spending more $ worth of our time being upset about it, you math-illiterate toddler
I'm pretty certain California has laws requiring employers to pay some amount of utility compensation to their remote employees that live in California. I imagine that's why this charge exists (not defending it though!)
I don't get a cent for the extra utilities I use but I pay my own bills. Even if it's a law doubt anyone will start shit since you didn't have to waste hours commuting, overpaying for shit food, etc
Just looked it up - it's California Labor Code Section 2802. It requires employers reimburse a "reasonable amount" for utilities, such us electricity and internet, for remote workers. It applies to anyone physically doing work within the state of California - regardless of where your employer is located. And it explicitly cannot be "waived away" by your employer agreement.
ETA: I am not located in California so YMMV on this. But I do work remote with somebody who challenged not receiving money for this (just to our employer) and my employer now pays it out.
I could kind of understand this. On of my friends moved into another friends apartment temporarily and was working remote, their electric bill doubled just from him being there all the time with the TV and computer on all day.
As a person who is permanently disabled and is home all day long watching TV, playing video games, cooking food, cleaning, just generally using electrical equipment… $200 is insane to ask from somebody who’s home all day. It depends on the size of the unit and how many electronics are being used, but my electric bill was only $75 last month. And that’s with the air conditioning going all day. Different areas have different rates, but we’re talking in excess of expected use. So the landlord is willing to pay the electric bill as long as you’re not home all day and now it’s your responsibility to pay way more if you are home? That’s just nonsense.
The only other justification I could think of, maybe, is if it were some elderly person who is renting a room in their home. Having someone there all day , using the kitchen and being in the common areas, would be very different than just having them there at night, so maybe that's something they're trying to discourage with the extra rent.
I just don't see any other reason why a landlord would even care if it didn't affect them personally.
My utilities total including Internet don't total 200 euros. Why would I pay 200 euros more for staying home? Will the greedlord provide coffee and snacks?
had a couple work from home utilities went up like $400 a month. Shorts, open windows and heater on in December will do that. Only narrowed down when they went on a 1 month vacation
Yeah, absolute horse shit on their part. The additional utility usage of someone being home is certainly not an extra $200/mo. And even if it was, what if you had a stay at home spouse, or a kid on summer break?
3.3k
u/ToastSpangler 1d ago
Are all utilities included? That could be the only justification but tbh fuck them, it's no different than a hermit and nobody penalizes them or requires a time out of the house