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]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by 45yo hipster

    Sweet.

  2. Posted by marco

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

  3. Posted by SF Resident

    Yet more of the same from a self-professed “progressive.”
    Gavin Newsom is about as progressive as the Gettys.

  4. Posted by tipster

    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.

  5. Posted by sacdomc

    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?

  6. Posted by ahnold

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

  7. Posted by JimBobJones

    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.

  8. Posted by A Nonny Mouse

    @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?

  9. Posted by R

    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.

  10. Posted by anon

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

  11. Posted by R

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

  12. Posted by jamie

    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?

  13. Posted by outofcontrol

    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.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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