Assuming a recomendation by San Francisco’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee this afternoon, tomorrow the Board of Supervisors will vote on Supervisor Avalos’ proposed legislation to extend “just cause” eviction rights to all rental units rather than just those (for the most part) built before June 1979 and restricted by rent control.
Despite some disinformation making the rounds, the amendments would not effectively render post-’79 rental units in San Francisco “rent controlled.”
And as best we can tell, committee amendments to the proposed legislation address the hot buttons of owner move-in evictions and the ability of developers to remove renters from units that were only intended to be rented for a limited time before being sold:

…by amending Section 37.9 to provide that limitations on [the number of] owner move-in evictions do not apply to these newly protected units; [and] by amending Section 37.9 to add a 16th just cause for eviction, to provide for eviction from a condominium unit with separable title that was rented by the developer for a limited time period prior to sale of the unit, where the developer has given specified advance notice to the renters…

UPDATE: With respect to that 16th just cause and units which were rented prior to the effective date of the new legislation, developers would have 90 days to provide retroactive “advance notice” of their intent to eventually sell.
UPDATE (12/8): From the San Francisco Examiner:

On Monday, the Land Use & Economic Development Committee voted to send the legislation to the full board for a vote Tuesday.

“If what came out of committee today reaches the mayor’s desk, he will veto it,” said Joe Arellano, Newsom’s spokesman.

The Mayor will need four supervisor votes to sustain any veto.
San Francisco Land Use and Economic Development Committee Agenda 12/7/09 [SFBOS]
Just Cause Protection Coming For Non-Rent Controlled Rentals? [SocketSite]
Rent Control In San Francisco: The Real Rules [SocketSite]
Just Cause Eviction Protection For Residential Tenants Proposed Legislation [SFBOS]
Newsom: I will veto tenant eviction legislation [San Francisco Examiner]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by cerky

    if this passes the board, is Newsom going to veto it?

  2. Posted by anon$random

    yes, great. more tenant’s rights. that’s exactly what this city needs!
    stupid rules like this that restrict the free market are what causes stories like this:
    http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/12/the_story_and_faces_behind_the_rise_and_fall_of_the_lem.html#comments

  3. Posted by Jimmy

    another solution looking for a problem…..

  4. Posted by kathleen

    “Sure you can rent it out until you retire than move in” There goes that sale.
    [Editor’s Note: Not quite. As noted above, “limitations on [the number of] owner move-in evictions do not apply to these newly protected units.”]

  5. Posted by Jeremy R

    I am assuming that this amendment still allows landlords to refuse to renew a lease when it becomes up, for any reason, on a non-rent controlled property. If that is the case, doesn’t contract law prevent landlords from breaking the lease agreement and evicting tenants before the lease is up?
    If it does not, then this ordinance appears to violate state law.
    Rent control was enacted in 1979 in SF. The state decided that many aspects of rent control were not lawful, thus they forced most aspects of rent control to only apply to those units that existed when the original ordinance was passed. Am I missing something?
    If it is a just-cause, e.g. an Owner Move In (OMI) eviction, does the landlord still have to pay the 10k+ to evict the tenants in a post 1979 building or can they just evict them without compensation assuming they have a just cause?
    I am really confused.

  6. Posted by CondoGuy

    JeremyR and Editor: wrong and wronger. There are plenty of limitations on owner-move-in in the current draft like there will be a presumption of bad-faith if you move in and do not stay at least 3 years. No you will not be allowed to just refuse to renew a lease. It’s their home, not yours, get it? This ordinance claims to trump state law and they cite a long legal battle in Oakland that resulted in a high-court ruling that allows it. So yes, you condo-owner guys should all have been at the hearings over the last few weeks to protest your rights – where were you all? Be there tomorrow and demand to be heard.
    Gavin is waffling about whether he will veto it or not, likewise the key swing-vote Supervisor Dufty (he’s under a lot of pressure from the LGBT lobbyists).
    [Editor’s Note: The good faith test of three years occupancy would indeed be in effect with respect to defining owner move-in (OMI) evictions, but that wouldn’t preclude the selling point or strategy outlined by kathleen above. To your point, however, we’ve tried to clarify a bit above. Cheers.]

  7. Posted by 45yo hipster

    “rented by the developer for a limited time period prior to sale”
    what the he’ll does this mean exactly. You don’t think this will get litigated. Trust me, it will.
    “where the developer has given specified advance notice to the renters”
    more legal fees! Betcha this will be minimum 3-5 pages of legal jargon that owners will pay lawyers to draft. And, of course, it can and will be challenged by some tenant claiming bad faith.
    This is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem and avalos attempting to flex his [Removed by Editor] muscle towards tenant activists. Pathetic.

  8. Posted by getoutnowbeforeitstolate

    Once upon a time 2-4 unit owners awoke one morning to find that their non-rent controlled buildings were now owned by their tenants. After tomorrows vote condo owners will wake up on Thursday to find that their non-rent controlled units are now owned by their tenants.
    It’s called, asleep at the wheel. (same thing that’s happening on a national level with health care and cap & trade)(higher taxes… lower service levels) So after it’s passed…and it will pass, if you want to move back into your condo you will have to fork over whatever the ransom is and hope that your tenant doesn’t sue you just for the hell if it. Been their done that… got off cheap…only 50K… (get a wrongful eviction rider on your insurance policy before it’s to late).
    A side from the present economy…If this doesn’t chill condo development in this city nothing will. Once everyone wakes up to see that they are standing on quicksand rents should go stratospheric. You think it’s expensive to live in SF today…you ain’t seen nothing yet. This is going to be a taste of things to come….can we all say hyperinflation. So 2012 arrives a little early to SF, buckle your seat belts boys and girls were off to the moon.
    I love these progressives…every thing they have done over the past 10 years have made my rents escalate. Too bad they make it so hard on poor people living in SF. Parking fines have doubled…park fees have doubled… services are declining. And the idiots just keep voting for them over and over again.
    Has anyone checked to see if rents have declined in this recession? Take a look in South Beach where the bulk of the new condos exist today. Wait until those owners figure out what just happened to their property rights.
    I predict average rent going into 2012 for a one bedroom condo to be around $4500. Any bets?

  9. Posted by anon$random

    well said getoutnow…perhaps slightly exaggerated with regards to the pace of rising rents, but your overall point is correct, in my opinion.

  10. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: From the San Francisco Examiner:

    On Monday, the Land Use & Economic Development Committee voted to send the legislation to the full board for a vote Tuesday.

    “If what came out of committee today reaches the mayor’s desk, he will veto it,” said Joe Arellano, Newsom’s spokesman.

    The Mayor will need four supervisor votes to sustain his veto.

  11. Posted by justbecause

    I called supervisor Dufty’s office this morning and asked that he count to see how many toes he has on his foot. I want to know how many are left after he shoots himself in the foot if he votes for this.
    No condo owner in the city will back a future Mayoral candidate that throws them under the bus for a few dirty votes. I’m sure Plan “C” is heating up Dufty’s phone lines. I was surprised I got through to his office…or maybe there asleep at the wheel like the rest of the city. We’ll see this afternoon….

  12. Posted by CondoGuy

    I’m told it went through on a 7:4 vote. All eyes now on the Present Mayor and the swing-vote Future Mayor.

  13. Posted by bg

    condoguy, where is the breakdown of the vote?

  14. Posted by justbecause

    Dufty still has all ten of his toes in tact. What a politician!!! Newsom has his veto…

  15. Posted by sleepiguy

    We should’ve known which way Dufty would vote. He’s got a campaign to finance after all!

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *