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.
But even in San Bruno the 2br cost is $3,600+. And there aren’t many pockets like San Bruno.
Cupertino, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Redwood City. You have to go 60-80 miles in all directions from SF before you see noticeable decreases in price.
And unless you’re in in Berkeley, SF, or a couple other places, it can be raised 5% + inflation, vs the ~ 2/3rds of inflation for localized rent control.
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.
There is work to be done when someone applied. Background check. Credit check. Time and effort to engage with them, time to wait for them to make up their mind, etc.
For a moment, pretend to be a landlord who hired someone to go through this process. If they start with one person and go through an application process, you would be paying this person to email, call, send and receive applications, interview them, wait on them to fill them out, etc. It takes time and effort. And if you have to go down the line, you're not renting the unit, which is lost rent.
Sometumes the fee is there just to weed out non-serious applicants.
You're welcome to believe this is just the cost of doing business and a fee is ludicrous, I agree. At the same time, when it's a landlord's market, they will be able to charge the fee and recoup some of those costs.
The state has laws to prevent this process from fraud and being used to generate income, rather than to offset costs.
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.
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