Statement of Support for SF Rent Stabilization Ordinance Amendments ("Just Cause 2.0", SFBOS File 150646)

[Mike Ege]

Hey Guys:

Jane Kim and the rest of the Progressive supes have tabled legislation amending the rent control ordinance, that would tighten the rules around certain evictions and also introduce vacancy control in certain cases. It's scheduled to be heard at the Land Use Committee next Monday the 14th. 

‘Just Cause 2.0’ makes several changes to SF’s rent stabilization law intended to reduce displacement, specifically, to stop unfair evictions resulting from sharp practices by certain property owners. It also requires that rent for a unit not increase after certain types of evictions. More information is available here:

https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2358278&GUID=DBC936F1-AC46-44CF-802F-5C0EC25F9B70&Options=ID%7CText%7C

Here is the statement we've (Sonja, Eli Pollak, me) cobbled together. The idea is that we'd adopt it as a group statement of support for the legislation. 

The ultimate goal here is to get the message out that the City needs a more holistic anti-displacement strategy based upon increasing housing supply and enacting more effective tenant protections. Eli especially has been working on this as part of the White Paper. 

Note also that the hearing is the same day as Lafayette. This is advantageous from an optics POV. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The long-term-solution to San Francisco’s housing shortage is to build
more housing. Market rate housing should be available to as many
income brackets as possible, and the only way to get there is to start
building massive numbers of new units at all price levels ASAP. But
any effective policy must also address displacement. Just Cause 2.0
will protect current residents by extending protections to tenants
against unfair evictions incentivized by the current shortage. Just
Cause 2.0 does not interfere with the creation of new housing. We feel
it represents a first step toward a more holistic anti-displacement
strategy, which combines building enough housing to stabilize prices
at affordable levels with more comprehensive and effective tenant
protections. Our city can no longer afford to pit generations of
residents against each other.  The best answer to displacement is an
abundant and fairly regulated supply of all kinds of housing.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you agree with this statement, or some modified version of it, reply here with your comments. Let's discuss.

M

[Ritu Vohra]

This legislative adjustment is absolute crap. If your mind is truly not made up, I'm happy to explain a few scenario's why this is wrong on so many accounts. 

May I also humbly request, before you pick sides with the progressive supes - you all really revisit both sides of the story. Ask a landlord what it means for them!

You're a fairly new organization and I'm proud to be a part of it, mainly because you have a mind of your own. You're not swayed by anyone except facts and you must make your decision based on such, and not sway by popular opinion. 

As a landlord, I can only request you to be the voice of reason. Do not cave into the populous vote that don't own rent controlled properties. If you want to hear it, and off the public record, I will explain how some of this already me personally because these not-instated policies have already been abused. Unless, you can promulgate policies and also have rules to avoid their abuse, no  point just promulgating policies. 

---

From: Mike Ege <able...@gmail.com>
To: SFBA Renters Federation <SFBAren...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2015 11:50 AM
Subject: [sfbarentersfed] Statement of Support for SF Rent Stabilization Ordinance Amendments ("Just Cause 2.0", SFBOS File 150646)

--
This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/d97f518f-0de7-422b-842f-e409136a4822%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[David Gouldin]

When I first started getting involved in SFBARF, I voiced my opposition to tenants' rights and was told the organization was single-issue around pro supply. That said, I realize we're a diverse group of people and that there's room for lots of discussion and organization around issues not directly within the purview of SFBARF itself. Can you clarify whether support of "Just Cause 2.0" would be an official SFBARF stance?

[Mike Ege]

I do believe the intent was to make an official position. I'm not sure what other options we could take, perhaps Sonja or Eli could chime in on this. 

My own personal take on the legislation is that it's not perfect. I have doubts about whether the vacancy control portion will withstand judicial scrutiny, given Costa-Hawkins. And there is no love lost between me and it's sponsors: I've gotten in the face of every single one of them at least once at some point. But I also believe we shouldn't oppose the good in pursuit of some perfect which won't come along in the current environment. 

I'm impressed by the eviction control element. Up until now, much of the focus in the mainstream tenant advocacy community, and among their reps on Supes, has been to protect rent controlled units at all costs, even at the expense of tenants who suffer perversely incentivised actions (such as with the recent buyout ban), and certainly they haven't cared about whether such policy blocks new construction. This lege represents a change towards focusing on tenant welfare, and not just for classified groups. 

Especially in the current shortage, there is a need to respond to evictions which are the result of sharp practices or arch technicality and that's what this does. From my perspective, if you believe that a landlord is entitled to evict a tenant based upon a technicality for the sole purpose of bringing in another tenant that will pay a higher rent, then you won't support this. The end result of letting stand the current emerging practices incentivised by the current price spike will essentially be at-will evictions. Think about that for a moment. It will accelerate the process of pricing out the City's labor market, which was caused in the first place by obstacles to building. 

Ritu, if you have specific objections to the lege, I encourage you to share them publicly. You don't need to break any confidences, you can use hypotheticals. But mind you, if I were you I'd frame them as predictable results and not make slippery-slope arguments from anecdotes. 

I also believe that not supporting this legislation will also make it harder to put forth the more supply agenda. Right now we're caught in a chicken-egg argument cycle with Progressives and we need to take the initiative and move beyond that. The more (regular, voting) folks concerned with displacement we can reassure, the better. 

M

--

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Version: OpenPGP.js v.1.20130627

Comment: http://openpgpjs.org

xo0EUc2nCgEEALT3RSD2HeUuSf26LoywHs2414kJL82pD6+WOlN8Tp1W6e9z

ZEk7hbO6qEr+JYAYiUIGLgs5p1W98sKrwYlEvYX7kZI8OcJ6Pw5Vs2duUDTM

XQg3UQ0wQx2GMKaVTP0ZaY9ms895WKrzXvlDPmeTjU5CoITmU6LV4+tY+pwX

yEofABEBAAHNIE1pY2hhZWwgRWdlIDxhYmxlZGFydEBnbWFpbC5jb20+wpwE

EAEIABAFAlHNpwsJEPCXFq0CEQW2AAC6wgQAlv7Z+0yG22UzaLA2QmNYOhvs

jsexoGIbLNaMHXt0xVxyi2mV0ovVr5x2YzM8vXb15KNenl0mPeVNP1J/hFOa

6Gxf3eK8elrUnbul86CR0uQdSXkkeQiRHGc7kfkK19ZVwmYMlDfsGS3laE5t

oYJco+2qOFB++3i7Dtsdv056N9M=

=HZmX

-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

[Starchild]

It would be advisable to consider what incentives are being created, and their consequences.

The more difficult and burdensome it is to go into business -- whether as a landlord, or any other type of business -- and the greater the intrusions of government against one's property rights as a consequence of doing so, the fewer people will want to go into that type of business in the first place.

And the fewer people go into business, the worse the market becomes for customers -- whether they are tenants or any other type of customer -- as a shrinking number of business owners are increasingly able to dictate terms due to customers' lack of competing options. The resulting effect of tilting the whole playing field toward sellers or landlords and away from buyers or tenants is a market reality that the law cannot ultimately erase, short of enacting a totalitarian system of total government control.

Present reality already offers many examples of the effects of negative incentives that have been created by existing controls. For instance:


Legislation Consequence
--------------- -------------------
Impose special protections for elderly & disabled tenants --> Landlords will seek to avoid renting to such tenants in the first place
Impose rent controls --> Buildings will slowly deteriorate for lack of proper maintenance
Impose an elaborate bureaucratic process on projects --> NIMBYs will use it to slow everything down and increase costs


It is counter-intuitive, but if you want to help the little guy (or gal) who isn't a business(wo)man, the best way to do it is by *reducing* rules that make it complicated, expensive, and time-consuming to go into business, not piling on more.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAErTFboo9nhH6%2BOjrDOdBc1Py_T_eubcxUsoYecp9c7Utyg9qw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Starchild]

Oops -- please delete the word "will" from each of the three lines listed under "Consequence". I should not have put these things in the future tense, as they are already happening. Also meant to change the subject line.

((( starchild )))

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/33B1CA5C-9103-46CB-ACE1-E657096EFED5%40earthlink.net.

[Brian Hanlon]

I support the Tenant Protection 2.0 legislation and the statement that Eli, Mike, and Sonja drafted. We are the San Francisco Bay Area RENTERS' Federation and should support legislation that benefits tenants. SFBARF correctly devotes the vast majority of its resources to increasing housing construction in the Bay Area, but the proposed legislation does not hinder our pro-build agenda. Rather, the proposed legislation furthers our core mission of making the SF Bay Area affordable for renters.

I'm more than happy to hear Ritu's specific objections, but she is a landlord and I only care about landlords to the extent that limiting their freedom of action harms tenants. I like Starchild, am happy to have him as a SFBARF supporter, and read his critiques, but as a libertarian, his fundamental disagreement with the proposed legislation concerns impinging the freedom of action for landlords and home owners, which are irrelevant concerns for a group of renter advocates. I respect that he is a libertarian, but SFBARF is not a libertarian club. I understand that the proposed legislation will make it marginally less attractive to be a landlord, but given the huge upside to tenants (really, read the proposed legislation, it's short), I do not think any unintended consequences will outweigh the definite tenant benefits.

Brian

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/33B1CA5C-9103-46CB-ACE1-E657096EFED5%40earthlink.net.

[Kyle Huey]

+1

- Kyle

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAH5c7xtUhsDrzBsKqz1Fs2zYMT%2BHbL0cpKXatZ_WvbSBHRQ9FQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Armand Domalewski]

It comes down to how you define technicalities for eviction. I think all of us would agree that folks hanging laundry outside (as happened in Chinatown) is a bullshit reason for eviction if it's been allowed by the landlord, but we've also all heard horror stories of drugged out partying renters tormenting the landlord. Could yall clarify how that's defined?

(Also the occupancy control portion is just not workable, it violates state law)

Sent from my iPhone

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAP045AqCYSu8Pf_JLn%2BzYjwfO_gC9qCUh6Qw2a_m3Q4nP8AE9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Schiraldi]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Brian Hanlon <hanl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We are the San Francisco Bay Area RENTERS'
> Federation and should support legislation that benefits tenants.

I would slightly broaden that to clarify that we're not just looking
to benefit existing tenants, but also potential future tenants. For
example, people often criticize East Bay residents who show up at San
Francisco hearings to advocate for more housing, as if they're an
outsider without a stake in the matter. But if not for the
underbuilding, they *would* be a San Francisco resident.

Therefore, I don't support policies that are biased against newcomers
and in favor of the established. (I do, however, support need-based
subsidies, for low-income folks regardless of their seniority or
status as SF natives.)

During the most recent Iraq war, there were calls to reinstate the
draft, with the theory being that otherwise, rich families can afford
to keep their kids out of the military, and thus send "other people"
off to die. Similarly, laws that protect the establishment insulate
them from the damage of underbuilding. If we put them on an equal
playing field with San Francisco immigrants and would-be immigrants,
they'd be much more likely to vote for more housing.

[Brian Hanlon]

I absolutely agree that SFBARF should defend the interests of newcomers and would-be migrants. As Mike said, the proposed legislation broadens that class of renters that are protected.

[Brian Hanlon]

*Mike Ege

[SK Trauss]

Here's the link to the google doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17YauFFgJV1EfoJmJwoUH-o8CQCM4hWK-TB42bPEp9PA/edit

Look at the first sentence:

SFBARF has no position on rent control however XX members signed onto the following statement in support of Just Cause 2.0.

If you like the statement, sign it. SFBARF is going to stay an officially 1 position organization, but I like the idea of periodically producing statements with the above type of caveat. 

[David Gouldin]

:+1: I won't sign, but I have no issue with anybody else signing or writing up statements like this provided it's clear that it's not an official SFBARF stance.

[Mike Schiraldi]

Yeah, that seems like a good way to handle cases like this.

[Ritu Vohra]

Brian and everyone, 

Brian, I will still assume you don't dislike me but what I represent as a landlord but just a landlord but if overnight you owned a 2 unit building in SF, would you become bad? 

I urge you to look at everyone as people first and then as landlords or tenants. No on needs protection - new or old. But as a landlord, do not make it hard for good landlords to remain good. We can all defend ourselves. If it became easier to be a landlord, many young and nice people would also buy rent controlled properties in SF. This is will create opportunities for the the nice people also to become landlords and change the landscape of the the landlord-tenant mix in SF and we will all benefit. Not all landlords are bad and when you start with looking at landlords in bad light,  it creates inequality. Since this is such a neutral forum, if you know that a landlord was being abused due to rent control, would you step in? Or are you so brain-washed by the media that a few half-baked stories which are one sided is enough for you to form an opinion. 

The more the government interferes with private enterprise, the greater the arbitrage opportunity for potential landlords. As I write this, please note that I benefit from rent control because not everyone wants to deal with, what I deal with but it also means limited supply for folks and a gross abuse of the legislation by tenants unions. Any of the properties I have purchased have been because of bankruptcies/trust sales and tenant abuse of oler landlords. Stories that you will never read because it doesn't even further the journalist who writes them. 

Why are the new landlords evicting? And who are these new landlords? These new landlords are people who chose to deal with the tenants when the old landlords gave up. Who were the old landlords, lets say for the sake of this eg, in Chinatown? The old landlords in Chinatown were 65-70 year olds who came in SF in the 30's and cannot deal with rent control. In almost all cases of properties sold to new landlords, the old landlords walked away from the inequality in the market and said, I'll sell my $2 m home for $1.2 m and let someone else deal with it because with the $600 /month rent, I'm paying out of my pocket for people to live there and now who are suing me for housing issues, isn't worth it. Did you all know that rent control does not even allow landlords to recover operating expenses for properties? Which means that if the costs of maintaining the property/property taxes/mortgage is $10,000 a year and the tenant pays $6,000, the landlord has to cough up the differential. The government has made a landlord subsidize housing for the tenant, which is great, but at the expense of the landlord. Do they do that to restaurants or other businesses? Why do you pay $3,000 for a studio today in downtown SF? Clearly, rent control failed and the supply got so restricted. 

If there was a legislation, that allowed landlord to merely recover costs, no profit but just break-even, this dynamic in SF would change completely. The current recovery of operating costs at 10% of the tenants rent doesn't do anything for a landlord and that's why buildings are in disrepair. Here are my specifics on the legislation:

1.  prohibit, with certain exceptions, rent increases based on the addition of occupants even where a pre-existing rental agreement or lease permits such an increase; - Increased tenants means increased operating costs. Rent control doesn't allow for recovery of operating costs. More electricity usage, higher water bills, higher wear and tear and overall higher maintenance costs. So, if this were allowed, the numbers would multiply dramatically. People illegally do sub-letting and its detrimental to a landlord. When my property had illegal tenants moved in, my water bills were through the roof. The three bedroom which was supposed to have 5 people was housing 14 and the poor toilets couldn't even handle the toilet paper from 14 asses. Imagine if this was a restaurant with a buffet where you pay $8.99 per person and what if I got more people to eat from the same plate at the fixed price, would the overall consumption not go up?

2. prevent evictions based on the addition of occupants if the landlord has unreasonably refused the tenant’s written request, including a refusal based on the amount of occupants allowed by the rental agreement or lease - Unreasonably is not defined. Call it a technicality but tenants will sue landlords like mad if unreasonably is not defined because landlords are considered unreasonable to begin with. 

3. require landlords, after certain vacancies, to set the new base rent as the lawful rent in effect at the time of the vacancy - That is a precedent of a dictatorial regime and SF claiming imminent domain. Really, do you think the government should do that to private property owners? I also think this is anti Costa-Hawkins. What is lawful rent - someone please explain? 

4. require that there be a substantial violation of a lawful obligation or covenant of tenancy as a basis for the recovery of possession; - Sure that is already the case, saying it twenty times and in twenty different ways will not change the dynamic. 

5. require a landlord, prior to seeking recovery of possession, to provide tenants an opportunity to cure the unauthorized addition of the tenant’s family members to the tenant’s unit;  - I had a 100 sq foot room which I rented out to a single guy who was desperate for housing. One week later the neighbors complained of noise. I find out he has moved his wife and two adult kids into the unit. Now instead of 1 there are 4 people and 2 pigeons as well. My legal costs are already in five figures and the guy was paying $800 a month and had already been staying there 12 days when he moved his family in and stayed a total of approx 19 days. Moving 4 people in that little space is also a housing violation ( remember we talked about the number of people per sq feet ). Its a different matter but I've already been a victim of this scenario. One person moves in and then later moves his family of 4-5 members in. Its rarely the single guy who got married and his wife/gay partner moved in. Its always a family of 4-5 to offset living costs. 

6. Prevent a landlord from seeking recovery of possession solely because the tenant is occupying a unit not authorized for residency; -  I will not explain this one. Why ever have a lease? This is insane. If this goes through, basically anyone can move in with their friend in SF and wreck havoc. And even if you forcibly moved into someone's unit, no one will be able to get you out. If a friend moved in temporarily , lets say for 2 weeks while they were visiting SF and paid you $200 to stay on your couch, they have created a sub-tenancy. Now if they refuse to move out, its the landlord's headache to get them out and their cost to bear. 

7. require landlords to state in notices to vacate for certain good cause evictions the lawful rent for the unit at the time the notice is served - I didn't understand this. The tenant pays the rent. What is the need to state this? I'll tell you exactly how this will play out. Do you all realize this redundant technicality is created to create more issues. The day the notice is given, tenants call SF DBI or the rent board for fake or real housing violations and stating that there should be a decrease in rent due to decrease in housing service and that will annul the lawful rent because the calls will determine the new lawful rent to be determined by the rent board or in fact it will invalidate the eviction notice, the day it is served. Ellis will seem like an only option. 

8.  require the Rent Board to prepare a form in English, Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Russian stating that a notice to vacate may lead to a lawsuit to evict and stating that advice regarding notices to vacate is available from the Rent Board -  It doesn't matter but why stop at these languages?

9. require landlords to attach a copy of the Rent Board form in the primary language of the tenant to each notice to vacate; - Many of the landlords do not know their tenants esp ones that are new landlords. How do you know what the primary language is. Many tenants don't fill out estoppels or refuse to provide information. In one segment, you state that new occupants should be allowed to move in, in another we should know the tenants enough to know their primary language. If your tenant refuses to state their primary language, will you invalidate the notice? If the last name is " Lee" can you assume they are Vietnamese or Chinese or infact even American. Are restaurants required to serve Menus in all languages?

10. require landlords to plead and prove in any action to recover possession that at least one of the grounds of Administrative Code, Section 37.9(a)-(b) stated in the notice to vacate is the dominant motive for recovering possession. -  That is already the case. 

PS: I just used the restaurant example in a few cases to make a point on the operation of businesses. Many landlords prefer to keep their units vacant because of draconian laws and constrict housing supply. Like any other business, there should be limited interference of the government else the consequences will be unintended as was the case of the condo-conversion moratorium. 

I've been a tenant for 10 years and landlord for 4 . 

As a pro-housing supply organization, my friends, our support of rent control which restricts housing supply is a double edged sword. I'm not fundamentally opposed to rent control to create reasonable living accommodations for our residents but the magnitude of energy, time and money this has taken, not to mention the loss of housing units from the market-place, makes it a cause that has lost much of the mission it was set up for in the first place. 

Ritu

---

From: Brian Hanlon <hanl...@gmail.com>
To: Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net>
Cc: Mike Ege <able...@gmail.com>; David Gouldin <da...@gould.in>; SFBA Renters Federation <SFBAren...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: [sfbarentersfed] Statement of Support for SF Rent Stabilization Ordinance Amendments ("Just Cause 2.0", SFBOS File 150646)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAH5c7xtUhsDrzBsKqz1Fs2zYMT%2BHbL0cpKXatZ_WvbSBHRQ9FQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Ege]

I just went ahead and updated the Google doc with the most recently approved version of the statement language. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17YauFFgJV1EfoJmJwoUH-o8CQCM4hWK-TB42bPEp9PA/edit

If you support it, sign it. 

M

[Mike Ege]

Adding to last just to be clear: we can modify the statement if enough folx get on board with a change. One thing I'd like to point out is one this we want to do with this is read it into the record at Land Use Committee; b/c of that I'd like to keep it under 250 words.

[Brian Hanlon]

I added my signature, but do we really want to use the word "incentivized"?

Ritu - I read your response and do not find it convincing. 

--
This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/9ca03007-c49a-4299-8728-beccdfadc040%40googlegroups.com.

[Miles Skorpen]

Agreed.

[Mike Ege]

Suggest a replacement word or phrase.

The main reason I use "incentivized" is that not all landlords are engaging in this behavior so it's not automatic.

[Miles Skorpen]

I proposed removing the end of the statement in the Google Doc (so it ends with “unfair evictions”).

[Kate Vershov Downing]

I mean...Ritu's response is pretty convincing in that it leaves me with no desire to ever become an SF landlord. I'd pretty much rather invest in anything else. Why buy property in SF if I can buy it in non-rent controlled areas? Why buy property at all if I can just invest in the market or become an angel investor or a VC or a million other things. 

And at the end of the day, I think that proves the point. If people like me don't want to do it, you can only possibly be left with scumbags over time. And by that I mean that the people who are landlords won't be people anymore- they'll all be faceless corporations lawyered up to the hilt. 

I do think it's a really big deal that people who you never signed lease agreements with can become your tenants. As a landlord, I'd do my best to pick someone who would be a good neighbor towards my other tenants. I can no longer do that if I can't kick people out I've never signed a lease with. 

I will also say that it's easy to dismiss Ritu's comments about about the notices and languages and all that because you may think of that as small and insignificant, but as a lawyer I'm here to say that that's actually a really big deal. If you create a paper process that is either impossible or extremely difficult to navigate, that actually will be improper procedure and mean a loss for the landlord even if they're trying to evict for proper reasons.

If it helps- flip this around a bit. Let's say you're a tenant and your next door neighbor is the worst neighbor ever. Leaves his poor dog howling all alone all day long. Has parties that go into the morning hours on weekdays. Makes the whole building smell like dead raccoon. You're setting up a process where even the very real complaints of other tenants can't get them anywhere because ultimately it's the landlord who has to get rid of that guy. And if that landlord accidentally sends him a notice in Cantonese and not Mandarin (even though we all know he speaks English just fine), guess what, now you're stuck with that guy for who knows how much longer. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAH5c7xvcn%3D%3DS%2BB4iPFv%3DO8GAmJ%3DF_FJRy09tgeTw3Vpmzdto3A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert R. Tillman]

I very much agree with Kate that there are two sides to this issue.

Robert R. Tillman

RRT Partners LLC

14 Sunshine Ave.

Sausalito, CA 94965

415-332-9242 Telephone

415-332-2639 FAX

415-297-9242 Mobile

rr...@pacbell.net

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CACy9qbeq%3D145Jvm98VWdnHcOVrKFYGCstDJD9GBAHXXYKKjfrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brian Hanlon]

Re: Language - I'm fine with Miles' suggestion. If we wanted to tie the housing shortage to evictions, we could say "Just Cause 2.0 will protect current residents by extending protections to tenants against unfair evictions, which have increased due to the current housing shortage."

Re: Being a Landlord - I agree that there needs to be a fair and knowable process for evicting bad tenants. A good friend of mine is leaving his current apartment this weekend because two of his housemates are horrible and emotionally abusive. I was looking for housing earlier when a housemate continued to steal from me, but quite frankly, my monthly losses were much less than I'd pay to move, so I just unhappily stuck it out until she moved. Just Cause 2.0 may not be perfect legislation, but I think it's a solid improvement over current law. If certain requirements make complying with procedure unnecessarily difficult, then please take your concerns to the BoS and lobby for clearer language.

[Robert R. Tillman]

By the way, I spent the past year successfully fighting to stop the unfair eviction of a friend’s legacy Mission business who had a long-term lease at below-market rent and was paying her rent on time. I understand that landlords can be abusive and understand that greatly increasing market rents incentivize such abuse. At the same time, had my friend NOT paid her rent or had been an unrelenting nuisance to the landlord in other ways, I would not have fought on her behalf. There are a great many instances of tenants abusing the system as well as of landlords abusing the system. Any legislation should finely balance between the two interests.

Robert R. Tillman

RRT Partners LLC

14 Sunshine Ave.

Sausalito, CA 94965

415-332-9242 Telephone

415-332-2639 FAX

415-297-9242 Mobile

rr...@pacbell.net

[Jon Titus]

There are definitely parallels between this debate and that around development: when development becomes an extremely time-consuming and arduous process, it becomes harder for smaller developers to build new housing, and consequently larger companies make up the majority of development (and locals then complain about "big faceless out-of-town developers swooping in and destroying Their Neighborhood™"). 

I'm sympathetic to tenant's rights advocacy, since there's no way we can build fast enough to have rents go down (or even plateau) in the short term, but making it prohibitively difficult to landlord doesn't strike me as a solution. It was only a month or so ago that we were criticizing Jane Kim for adding tons of qualifications on ADUs that would've made it much more difficult to build them!

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CACy9qbeq%3D145Jvm98VWdnHcOVrKFYGCstDJD9GBAHXXYKKjfrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Starchild]

Brian,

What do you have against the word "incentivized"? As noted in my recent post, it's very important to consider what the incentives are.

I'm not crazy about the overall statement -- why should the law override existing contracts by prohibiting "rent increases based on the addition of occupants even where a pre-existing rental agreement or lease permits such an increase"? Will the same standard be applied to hotels and motels, to prohibit them charging more for additional people sharing a room, or is the idea to favor people renting by the night over people renting by the month? Is that a violation of the 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law, or does the 14th Amendment only protect people with more politically correct causes?

But "incentivized" seems perfectly appropriate and accurate in the context in which it is used. Evictions, whether "unfair" or not, *are* being incentivized by the government policies that have created the housing shortage.

Love & Liberty,

                                ((( starchild )))

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAH5c7xvcn%3D%3DS%2BB4iPFv%3DO8GAmJ%3DF_FJRy09tgeTw3Vpmzdto3A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert R. Tillman]

I think that you actually might be talking about this:

TAKING, UNJUST

When the government acquires private property and fails to compensate an owner fairly. A taking can occur even without the actual physical seizure of property, such as when a government regulation has substantially devalued a property.

Robert R. Tillman

RRT Partners LLC

14 Sunshine Ave.

Sausalito, CA 94965

415-332-9242 Telephone

415-332-2639 FAX

415-297-9242 Mobile

rr...@pacbell.net

From: SFBARF Google Group <SFBAren...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Starchild <sfdr...@earthlink.net>
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 4:11 PM
To: Brian Hanlon <hanl...@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Ege <able...@gmail.com>, SFBARF Google Group <SFBAren...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [sfbarentersfed] Re: Statement of Support for SF Rent Stabilization Ordinance Amendments ("Just Cause 2.0", SFBOS File 150646)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/19EAEF3A-2432-4B90-AC01-11433724EC06%40earthlink.net.

[Starchild]

Well sure Robert, that too! "Taking the 5th" has become a stock phrase in popular culture, but people often forget that the 5th Amendment is also about *not* taking!

What I had in mind however was the recent Supreme Court decision finding that criminalizing same-sex marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment (a ruling that would have done better to cite the 9th Amendment, on the grounds that the failure of the Constitution to enumerate the right to marry whom you choose, should not be used to deny this basic civil right). 

If government can't legally discriminate in favor of one type of couple over another, why should it logically be able to discriminate in favor of nightly or weekly rentals over monthly rentals?

Love & Liberty,

                                ((( starchild )))

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/D214BA75.6C4E3%25rrti%40pacbell.net.

[Brian Hanlon]

It was a question of style, not substance. Many style guides discourage use of the term "incentivized." Really, I was mostly giving Mike Ege a hard time - I also use that word.

[Kyle Huey]

It makes the author sound like an economist.

- Kyle

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAH5c7xsbuKN0QCDcij%2Brfy_EX%3Dc0f0%2B7Pm3TQ2H9jUvabv88Vg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Ege]

I may not be an economist, but I do subscribe to The Economist.

[Robert R. Tillman]

Does that mean that I can be a playboy if I subscribe to Playboy? :-)

>>> ŒJust Cause 2.0¹ makes several changes to SF¹s rent stabilization law

>>>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/19EAEF3A-2432-4B90-AC01
>>>-11433724EC06%40earthlink.net.

>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list:
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and
>> unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups
>> "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>an
>> email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>

>>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAH5c7xsbuKN0QCDcij%2Brf
>>y_EX%3Dc0f0%2B7Pm3TQ2H9jUvabv88Vg%40mail.gmail.com.

>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and
unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SFBA Renters Federation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/33DF272D-EF76-4BA5-B8C1-DE
787E0471DD%40gmail.com.

[Kate Vershov Downing]

If only :)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/D214D208.6C4FE%25rrti%40pacbell.net.

[Armand Domalewski]

I'm a big fan of Portable Restroom Operator Monthly myself 

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-magazines-that-shouldnt-exist.php

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CACy9qbcmSMAAiZLOsi0qLNcWL8g%3DawndALF0WVHea6W7xqBzVQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Ege]

Don't laugh. I once considered founding an SF affiliate of the World Toilet Organisation. 

[Mike Ege]

Okay Comrades, I'm bumping this one back up for the weekend.

Add your name if you support. Suggest changes. The hearing is Monday.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17YauFFgJV1EfoJmJwoUH-o8CQCM4hWK-TB42bPEp9PA/edit

M

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 11:50:53 AM UTC-7, Mike Ege wrote:

Hey Guys:

Jane Kim and the rest of the Progressive supes have tabled legislation amending the rent control ordinance, that would tighten the rules around certain evictions and also introduce vacancy control in certain cases. It's scheduled to be heard at the Land Use Committee next Monday the 14th. 

‘Just Cause 2.0’ makes several changes to SF’s rent stabilization law intended to reduce displacement, specifically, to stop unfair evictions resulting from sharp practices by certain property owners. It also requires that rent for a unit not increase after certain types of evictions. More information is available here: