January 25, 2010

Just Cause Or Rather Not: Mayor Newsom Vetoes Legislation

As expected, Mayor Newsom has vetoed Supervisor Avalos’ legislation extending "just cause" eviction rights to non-rent controlled units which was approved by the Board of Supervisors by a 7-4 vote in December and affirmed 7-3 in January.

Eight votes would be required to override the veto.

Just Cause Eviction Extension Approved, But With Four Key No Votes [SocketSite]
Carrot, Stick, And Cell Legislation In The Works For San Francisco [SocketSite]

First Published: January 25, 2010 10:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers


Posted by: 45yo hipster at January 25, 2010 10:09 AM

At least there's one voice of reason over there at City hall.

Posted by: marco at January 25, 2010 10:25 AM

Yet more of the same from a self-professed "progressive."

Gavin Newsom is about as progressive as the Gettys.

Posted by: SF Resident at January 25, 2010 10:27 AM

The whole thing was a show.

The politicians did what they were expected to do, their base is overjoyed, NOTHING happened, and it cost nothing. That makes it the ideal political move.

Posted by: tipster at January 25, 2010 10:42 AM

If this had passed, I wonder how quickly someone would have sued the City for passing legislation that constitutes an eminent domain "taking" of property rights?

Posted by: sacdomc at January 25, 2010 10:56 AM

The Gettys are obviously heavy into SF residential real estate....

Posted by: ahnold at January 25, 2010 10:57 AM

Awesome to see The Gavin strike down one of the many misguided housing policies to come out of the Board of Stupidvisors. If only he and prior mayors had done this more often.

Posted by: JimBobJones at January 25, 2010 11:08 AM

@sacdomc, that's an interesting question. I'm wondering how the current rent control laws on properties built before 1979 (or any rent control laws, for that matter) are constitutional. Why aren't they considered a "taking"? Any constitutional law experts know the answer?

Posted by: A Nonny Mouse at January 25, 2010 11:17 AM

A Nonny Mouse:

Many of them are arguably not 'constitutional'.. but it takes someone with very deep pockets and strong will to challenge them. And there are generally easier ways for landlords to get what they want than to go down that road. Hence, they continue to exist.

Posted by: R at January 25, 2010 11:41 AM

They have been tested and they are constitutional. There is a very high bar to clear before regulation can be called a "taking"

Posted by: anon at January 25, 2010 11:44 AM

I should clarify. I wasn't talking just about the 'taking' aspect of rent control, but rather some of the usage issues.

Posted by: R at January 25, 2010 12:34 PM

Sounds like the first action item to try to get folks to pay attention to the November 2010 election has open the gates .... what topics that divide San Franciscans will we see turned into the boogeyman this year?

Posted by: jamie at January 25, 2010 2:14 PM

Courts have ruled...SF not part of the U.S. hence no Constitutional protections. Courts decided... enough was enough...the wackos need a place to call their own.

Laws in SF are allowed to contain presumption of guilt. Rent a building ...go to jail...no get out of jail early and no free pass.

Does anyone know if those two landlords (the Macyes) are still rotting in jail for eviction their tenant?

Think I'm kidding...pick up a copy of the Rent Stabilization act and give it read. Then go to the tenants union website http://www.sftu.org/ for kicks.

Posted by: outofcontrol at January 26, 2010 1:50 PM

Post a comment

(required - will be published)

(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)

(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Cesar Chavez Reconfiguration Update (And Some Objections) | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings And Retail At Market And Sanchez »