Subscribe to Louder with Crowder on Rumble! Download the app on Apple and Google Play.

This story gives "long-term lease" a whole new meaning.

In San Francisco, a home has been listed on the market for under $500,000, which would seem like a steal, especially considering adjacent homes are nearly $2 and $3 million. But just because San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live, that does not mean other people don’t have rights to your property.

I know none of that made sense but nothing makes sense in San Francisco.

A home was listed on the market for $488,000, even though it's worth $1.5 million. It was listed so low because potential buyers have to wait at least 30 years to move in, as there is currently a tenant living there with a very long-term lease.

San Francisco home selling for $488,000 but you can't move in until 2053www.youtube.com

According to the New York Post:

The current tenants may also have occupancy rights for the next 29 years, which means buyers can formally move into the home in 2053.

It was not revealed what the unconventional payment method was, but the tenant claims to pay a current monthly rent of $416.67.

I know the city is currently going through a zombie apocalypse but $400 is a steal considering what others pay for rent.

But this doesn't really make sense considering that the owner left someone the ownership of the house while allowing a tenant to live there for 30 years. Why not just give the tenant ownership? Selling at this point has created such a mess.

The only way I would pay for a home and agree to move in 30 years later is if I was five years old.

The buyers have to be at least 30 years old. There is no guarantee they will be alive in 30 years.

Why risk it? Unless they just had kids and this is a way to provide security for their children when they are older….? But even that does not seem worth it, especially considering the tax burden.

Who knows.

Unclear who to blame here; the previous homeowner, the woke city, or the “squatter.” This really seemed like a sloppy way to go about this but it's not like the contract is null just because the previous owner died.

What a mess.

Would you live in San Francisco for $400 a month? Because you couldn't pay me $400 a month to live there.

CROWDER CLOSES: Conservatives Mustn't be Afraid to Dream a Little Bit Bigger!www.youtube.com