December 9, 2009
Just Cause Eviction Extension Approved, But With Four Key No Votes
As a plugged-in reader reported shortly after the vote yesterday, while the Board of Supervisors approved Supervisor Avalos’ proposed legislation to extend "just cause" eviction rights to non-rent controlled units by a vote of 7-4, the four "no" votes from supervisors Alioto, Chu, Dufty and Elsbernd should sustain an expected Mayoral veto.
BeCause Eviction Vote Scheduled For Tomorrow [SocketSite]
∙ Just Cause Protection Coming For Non-Rent Controlled Rentals? [SocketSite]
First Published: December 9, 2009 8:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Posted by: ok at December 9, 2009 8:09 AM
This is totally meaningless. These are non-rent controlled units.
Once the lease term has expired, the landlord can raise rents to $50k a month. If the tenant wants to pay, awesome, if not, they get evicted for non-payment.
Posted by: anon at December 9, 2009 8:42 AM
Interesting how Chris Daly kicked out the tenants of his Fairfield house...I guess there is no such legislation there...
Posted by: You gotta luv Chris at December 9, 2009 9:05 AM
The board of stupidvisors (exept our chosen 4 here) really need to get a clue as to how they are ruining our city with these extreme policies they try and put into place. Where the hell is their common sense ?
Posted by: radar at December 9, 2009 9:06 AM
total f-ing morons (with the exception of the four).
Will Bevan Dufty be our next mayor?
Posted by: anon$random at December 9, 2009 9:39 AM
Soon to be moot. Gubmint Sachs will own 90% of American housing by 2012. And don't bitch or complain about it, because it was the fault of every one of you flippers, landlords, developers, realtors, etc. You greedy sods cooked your golden goose, so shut up and eat it.
Posted by: realist at December 9, 2009 9:42 AM
@ anon - that's not exactly how it works. The landlord in your example could very well be deemed to have "constructively evicted" the tenant by raising the rents that high, which would be grounds for an action against the landlord. In SF, it has happened.
Posted by: sflandlord at December 9, 2009 9:46 AM
And don't bitch or complain about it, because it was the fault of every one of you flippers, landlords, developers, realtors, etc.
Whatever. Don't believe everything you read on the internet, "realist."
Posted by: anonn at December 9, 2009 9:47 AM
Cool, dufty is proving to have some balls (aparently he was AC/DC on this issue.) As for the other 7- complete wankers! Let's hope the mayor sticks to his veto.
Posted by: 45yo hipster at December 9, 2009 9:48 AM
…because it was the fault of every one of you flippers, landlords, developers, realtors, etc. You greedy sods cooked your golden goose, so shut up and eat it.Don't forget Mortgage Brokers.
And it doesn't matter if the government or any other entity owns a majority of the real estate in The City, if this legislation passes and is signed (which as the editor notes, is highly doubtful), the rules would also apply to that entity, although the inevitable litigation would be fun for a first year civil procedure course case study :-)
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at December 9, 2009 10:13 AM
This was doomed from the start. This was all just a show to make you think about donating to their campaigns and to make tenants think the "Yes" voters were on their sides, all of which was accomplished, and in the end: NOTHING HAPPENED.
The supervisors are all laughing about it right now. Stop being such easily manipulated tools and see this for what it really was.
Posted by: tipster at December 9, 2009 10:20 AM
The guy says, "Shut up and eat the future eventuality of Gubmint Sachs owning 90% of America" and you agreed. LOL. Everybody even tangentially related to real estate is at fault except for your friends and neighbors who bought above their means, right? LOL X 2. I'd say that flippers and developers who still claim to be flippers and developers are the least guilty. They're still doing what they do because they were right all along, and built in negative eventualities.
Posted by: anonn at December 9, 2009 10:21 AM
anon & sflandlord: note that the wording of the Rent Ordinance says "In an action to recover possession of a rental unit, proof of the3 exercise by the tenant of rights under the law within six months prior to the alleged act of retaliation shall create a rebuttal presumption that the landlord's act was retaliatory". This would have been made to apply also to post-1979 units/condos. This would mean that, if the tenant just complains about anything once every six months, you will never be able to raise the rent beyond what the tenant says they can afford i.e. no OMI, no Ellis Act, no nothing.
Posted by: CondoGuy at December 9, 2009 10:22 AM
It's amazing how the BoS can manage to make even Gavin Newsom look rational and even-keeled.
Posted by: g at December 9, 2009 10:45 AM
No way that blocking rent increases would hold up if it were challenged at the state level.
And once the lessee inevitably lost the case, they would be on liable for a fortune in back rent. It would be a pretty big gamble for a lessee to want to take it that far.
Anyway, from what I've seen in many of the newer high-end highrises, tenants don't generally stay that long, usually no more than a couple years and frequently less. Doesn't make that much sense to pay $50k a year in rent year after year.
Posted by: anon at December 9, 2009 11:12 AM
Communism is alive and well in San Francisco
Posted by: Mystery Realtor at December 9, 2009 11:19 AM
When it comes to the board, the fix is always in. This bill was never in any danger of passing. Dufty's vote was the only one really for sale. It takes a lot of money to run for mayor. He has to set himself up as a semi-moderate if he wants money from the big donors - i.e. landlords, developers, property owners, etc...
Posted by: sleepiguy at December 9, 2009 11:45 AM
This bill and extensions of rent control to follow (e.g., adding families with children to the protected class of tenants) are all part of a game setting up the next mayoral election-- Dufty's votes will be contrasted to whoever will be the progressive alternative.
Posted by: Dan at December 9, 2009 11:50 AM
@Dan: You mean regressive alternative. Regressive. Somehow their version of progress never actually takes us forward.
Posted by: Dede at December 9, 2009 12:15 PM
Dufty is limiting contributions to $200 per person, so I think your interpretation of his motivation is probably wrong sleepiguy.
If you appreciate his actions, you might want to show him some love. I think this was actually a pretty courageous stand for him to take, considering that 60% of the electorate are renters.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at December 9, 2009 12:18 PM
Really? That's very noble. I'm not sure how far noble is going to get you in this election.
Posted by: sleepiguy at December 9, 2009 6:02 PM
"Once the lease term has expired, the landlord can raise rents to $50k a month. If the tenant wants to pay, awesome, if not, they get evicted for non-payment."
That is where you would be wrong. Even though it is not rent controlled, there is a limit to how much you can raise rent. An owner can raise the rent to "MARKET VALUE". Market value is subjective. A tenant can file a grievance stating that the rent was increased to above market value in order to force an eviction.
Now, I may be confusing this with the law that allows single family homes with tenants who moved in after 1996, to have their rents raised to "market value".
Posted by: Jeremy R at December 9, 2009 6:42 PM
"No way that blocking rent increases would hold up if it were challenged at the state level. "
Who is going to pay the landlord's lawyer? How long would it take to overturn a local law? With so many families thrown out onto the street (i.e. forced to rent) these days, what judge would favor less rent control?
Laws are not as black and white as you think. Increasing rent by 10% to market rate would certainly be upheld by state courts, but if you are renting out a non-rent controlled unit, your already renting it for market rate! I don't think state courts would overturn SF's local laws if the plaintiff(landlord) raised rents to ridiculous levels (e.g. 50k).
I hope the mayor vetos this.
Posted by: Jeremy R at December 9, 2009 6:52 PM
The hidden agenda of the Avlos rent control legislation...and you thought this was about evictions....Ha..
I am dealing with final sign off on my condo doc's and guess what folks?
Banks chill to the thought of tighter rent control laws in SF. If the rent control laws are broaden to apply to post 79' buildings in SF you can kiss TIC and condo conversions goodbye.
Anyone that was lucky enough to win the right to convert their TIC or 2-4 unit to condo is in for a rude awakening. Lenders, gun shy of the SF conversion market, are now carefully watching to see how this legislation ferments at the BOS.
It was bad enough having to jump through every hoop in the universe to get lenders to sign off on existing mortgages when converting 2-4 unit buildings. Now the lending community is having second thoughts about continuing the process.
If ever there was a bad idea embraced by Newsom or Newsom wannabe Bevan Dufty (they announced their own form of this legislation)it's this one. As always with goofy ill conceived legislation oozing forth from the social programmers on the BOS, there will be unintended consequences hoisted upon the unsuspecting public if this passes.
Warning to Mr. Dufty, embrace "any" form of post 79' rent control on the city, and see where it gets you in 2012. Suggestion, have a sit down with the lending community (and not just one bank) and hope you come away with some understanding of reality. Oh, and maybe a conference with the guys and girls at Plan C wouldn't be a bad idea. Putting a chill into condo conversions that folk have painfully waited for....some for 10 years or more is not going to win any friends.
This bad policy needs to be put to death without modifications.....
Posted by: hopeitsnottolate at December 25, 2009 1:24 PM
Most voters are renters, so being too pro-landlord is not going to get you elected either. If you really have a useful opinion to share, you know how to contact Bevan, he is very good at returning email.
What is Bevan's proposal?
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at December 25, 2009 3:32 PM