January 10, 2014
Campos Calls For Mayor To Commit To Regulating Tenant Buyouts
With San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors having unanimously approved a resolution to urge State legislators to amend state law and allow the city of San Francisco to penalize landlords for invoking the Ellis Act to evict tenants, next week Supervisor David Campos will ask Mayor Lee to publicly commit to working with him on legislation to regulate the buyout of tenants as well.
The early framework for Campos' legislation proposed to categorize buyouts as evictions, a categorization which could affect a building's ability to condo convert and restrict an owner's ability to charge market rate rents to new tenants.
First Published: January 10, 2014 7:15 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
LOL. Yet another policy that will result in MORE evictions, MORE TICs, and FEWER things that benefit tenants (there will be no more big buyouts, nor will there be perks like condo conversion to discourage evictions). Furthermore, if landlords can't charge market rate, that will permanently remove those units from the rental market entirely, as those units become TICs that are sold. Campos (and most of the rest of the BOS) continues to impress me with his ignorance of basic economics.
Posted by: J at January 10, 2014 7:29 AM
Something similar was tried before in SF.. it was called proposition G and it was rules an unconstitutional infringement of an individuals right to free speech. I did not go to Haaaah-vard Law School like Mr. Campos but it sure sounds to me like an infringement of an individuals right to contract. Campos is an idiot. Let people make their own choices and agreement between each other.
Posted by: theHitman at January 10, 2014 7:31 AM
More misguided involvement into a deeply messed up market. It doesn't take a genius to figure what will happen next: higher market prices for purchases and rentals.
This means even more incentives for speculators to use all means necessary to evict and resell.
Posted by: lol at January 10, 2014 7:48 AM
bad idea after bad idea on so many levels. issue has been turned over on this site and in public forum so many times. economy here is good; this is where the good paying jobs are (for now), and it will attract the best and brightest.
issue is supply and demand. we are not building enough. short of that, we need to revise rent control. i like the ideas on this site that it be tied to one's income and affordability. if one is taking advantage of market rate income, then they should invest in that growth (by buying themselves and protecting themselves) or risk the (practical) downside of renting - which is exposure to market rate rent as growth and inflation naturally drive prices up.
Agreed, this legislation will only further reduce housing stock, discourage upkeep, and thus further divide income classes (except those aging into their overly protected units). I'm not a lawyer but it has to be unconstitutional and nothing short of government controlled housing.
Posted by: wcsf at January 10, 2014 7:48 AM
I don't understand this. Entrenched tenants won't be able to monetize the 'equity' they have built up through long term leases. Before they could have sold-out easier and received a tangible financial benefit. Such a rule would make it harder to pay for assisted living or whatever the next life chapter is for these tenants. Sad story. This will just drive these transactions into the shadows.
Why does Campos want to hurt the elderly? He doesn't want them to be able to receive 'free money'?
Why does Campos hate old people and the economically weak?
Posted by: soccermom at January 10, 2014 8:25 AM
I like seeing all this nonsense. It's driving up the price of my condo, driving families with their expensive kids (schools and ll that) out and generally gentrifying the city much faster than would otherwise occur.
Of course most of it is either unConstitutional (Campos, being a foreigner, wouldn't understand that) or illegal under state law. Too bad.
Posted by: BTinSF at January 10, 2014 8:39 AM
Speaking of creative evictions, here's a story that happened to a friend of mine. He was refinishing the floors in a property he owned. He's a handy guy (mechanic) so he does it all himself. He applies the final finish coat to the floors, and for some reason, the whole mess bubbles up and looks terrible. So he scrapes it all off while it's still wet, dumps it in a trash can, puts the can on the back porch and goes to watch a movie.
Now, polymerization of this substance is an exothermic reaction. Not normally an issue when it's spread out in a thin sheet... but when it's all balled up in a large mass in a garbage can, you have a problem. Can we guess what happened next?
The newly built house on that property is 3X the size of the old one and the insurance payout paid for most of the construction cost. In retrospect, that incident was just about the best thing that ever happened to him.
Posted by: Jimmy the House Flipper at January 10, 2014 8:49 AM
You all, Campos is trying to protect people from displacement, fueled by landholders' greed (who already have economic advantage over renters). Do you really want the economic and cultural diversity of the city to disappear because of the "virtuous capitalist law" of supply-and-demand?
Real estate should not be a commodity that is seen as a way for people to make money. It is shelter, first and foremost. Play the stock market if you want to make money. Buy a home if you want to live in it. We are losing class diversity in our city, and that encroaching homogeneity will suck the soul out of it.
Posted by: Miah Jeffra at January 10, 2014 9:38 AM
Glad to see Campos cracking down on greedy renters that think they can extract payouts from landlords rather than making the landlord do an Ellis Act eviction. It is about time we started reigning in the profiteering by tenants.
Posted by: Rillion at January 10, 2014 9:52 AM
A friend's ex just got $30k to vacate his apt. in the Mission and used it to buy a HOUSE in the East Bay. Campos just doesn't want to lose any more votes. :-)
Posted by: Stucco_Sux at January 10, 2014 9:56 AM
All the people I personally know who benefit most from rent control are white, educated and have above average income. Lawyer, project engineer in tech, marketing director, interior designer, etc... Are these the people that should be helped?
Rent subsidy should be means tested. And it should be government financed.
That's where your fight should be, not the fight against the "greedy landlord".
The more you alienate mom-and-pop landlords with new constraints, the more likely they will throw the towel and sell their property (with the tenants) to sharks who feed on market imbalances.
In short, the problem is people fighting the wrong fight and acting all shocked that it blew in their face.
Posted by: lol at January 10, 2014 10:13 AM
Will lead to more Ellis evictions - check
Will lead to higher rents - check
Will lead to more decay in the rental stock - check
Will lead to more difficulties for old/sick people
trying to rent - check
Will lead to higher housing prices - check
Campos' response: "I know all that. You think I'm stupid? But I don't care. I care about one thing - getting the uneducated sheep to vote for me against their own interests."
Posted by: anon at January 10, 2014 10:49 AM
"All the people I personally know who benefit most from rent control are white, educated and have above average income."
While I agree with you that rent control should be means tested (if we have it at all), your statement that all the people you know benefiting from rent control are white, educated and above average income is absolutely useless. The only thing it tells us is about the type of people you know. I suspect most of the people you know that are benefiting from home ownership are white, educated and above average income as well.
The majority of people I know in San Francisco that benefit from rent control are white, educated, and gay but I don't think that has anything to do with rent control but is based more on the fact that the majority of people I know in San Francisco are white, educated and gay.
Posted by: Rillion at January 10, 2014 10:53 AM
"Real estate should not be a commodity that is seen as a way for people to make money."
I hope that you do understand that the vast majority of rental housing in San Francisco was built specifically with the intent to make money. Without the profit motive, this city would have little rental housing available at any price.
Posted by: parklife at January 10, 2014 10:59 AM
"Real estate should not be a commodity that is seen as a way for people to make money."
Right, it should all be built and rented by the state for the good of the people. Like it is in North Korea. Face palm.
Posted by: Mark F. at January 10, 2014 11:09 AM
But I am not speaking only of personal friends.
I have also checked quite a few buildings that were sold "as is" with their low paying tenants and all. It's often a mixed bag. Sure the tenants in buildings I have seen in the Mission are a bit less wealthy. Some working class, some bums/artist types, but also 3 generations sharing the large granny flat where the working age adults could afford way more than what granny has been paying.
One day I checked large 5BR that had an estopel with 8 people on it. The original tenant had moved in the 70s with no written lease, but when the estopel had been done in '08 they made sure to include the 2-year old grandson on it. Even if the original tenant decides to downsize and move out, the landlord will be screwed for more decades to come.
That's an abuse of the rent control law in my book. But this law was written to be abused.
Posted by: lol at January 10, 2014 11:13 AM
You just about summed it all up. Campos and the board play to the uneducated sheep!
Posted by: theHitman at January 10, 2014 11:16 AM
Getting rid of renters is like getting rid of rats. You can poison them, trap them, burn them out, or flood them out. Don't imagine for a second that this won't happen. Read about the Bronx in the 1960's and 1970's. It can, and will, happen here. The only thing standing between the status quo and wholesale destruction of renter-occupied buildings is the Ellis Act.
Posted by: Jimmy the House Flipper at January 10, 2014 11:40 AM
^^^ Where is Satchel when you need him to tell stories of the Bronx decline of the 1970s.
BTW Jimmy, by "renters" I think you meant "renters paying far below market". Normal renters are great customers and all businesses need customers.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 10, 2014 12:01 PM
At- or above-market renters are of course what makes my world go 'round. That, and the my most exalted class of customer, the retail home buyers.
Posted by: Jimmy the House Flipper at January 10, 2014 12:11 PM
Oddly enough, I was thinking about the Bronx as well a few days back. How dead end situations can turn for the worse. Nobody, except maybe Jimmy is saying this should happen. The premises are different. The Bronx was decaying, not gentrifying.
But one thing is certain: the "property is evil" crowd fails to comprehend they are dealing with normal human beings who have families, priorities. Same as tenants. And most are overwhelmingly humane and decent.
Why the hate? This is a self-inflicted situation. Rent control activists should look in the mirror first before making any brash judgement and trying to beat up a scapegoat.
Posted by: lol at January 10, 2014 12:42 PM
I think the assumption that you are dealing with "normal human beings" unduly romanticizes property ownership.
For example, when buying a property I never even actually look at it until perhaps a week before the closing. I just drive by to make sure it exists. A piece of real estate is simply a commodity. It has a market value, a rental return, and then there is what I'm paying for it (often 1/2 to 2/3rds of market value). Those are the only three things I consider. It's purely a financial transaction.
I have no emotion attached to the structure, I do not care who lives there, only that the rent is paid and my profits are large.
I spend more time considering what's for lunch.
Posted by: Jimmy the House Flipper at January 10, 2014 1:00 PM
"fine-tuning" rent control will not correct the troubles created by rent control. The city officials can punish the landlords (yet again) with a muzzle, but the housing shortages and elevated asking prices for rental and ownership housing will likely persist until San Francisco begins to practice a reasonably coherent, sustainable housing policy, regulations that are predictable and that incorporate the risks of housing providers and that do not manipulate them to please the politics of today.
Posted by: temporary shortage at January 10, 2014 1:13 PM
Speak for yourself, Jimmy. I have always been very decent and honest to all my tenants. I also try and respect places and the people that surround them. Each and every place I have bought is in better shape today than when I found them.
I think there's a social contract that comes with landlording. You're given freedom and opportunity (and potential for profit) and in return you make sure it provides value to the community. Laws are there to ensure that, in theory. It's a virtuous circle made to function long term.
But local laws that try and push in favor of tenants by denying landlords their freedom, opportunity and the chance to make a buck break that contract. What's left is ruthless speculators and hypocrite tenant advocates.
Posted by: lol at January 10, 2014 1:15 PM
Wow. A cynical bunch here. No one's calling for North Korea or extreme regulation. I'm calling for conscienciousness, for consideration.
Posted by: Miah at January 10, 2014 2:08 PM
People who invested in property in SF and paid taxes for many years are evil. They shouldn't be making money, they should just be thankful for the fact that there are wonderful righteous people willing to do them the favor of living in their properties. Down with capitalism!
Posted by: formidable doer of the nasty at January 10, 2014 2:09 PM
"I think there's a social contract that comes with landlording. You're given freedom and opportunity (and potential for profit) and in return you make sure it provides value to the community. Laws are there to ensure that, in theory. It's a virtuous circle made to function long term."
Spare us your high and mighty, Mr. Self Proclaimed AirBNB master. Let us know when you get the results of your annual survey of neighbors asking if they like you doing short term rentals. Oh wait, that never happens.
Or where the city certifies that you never rent for less than 30 days and are therefore exempt from hotel taxes, and yet also never rent for more than 30 days, so rent control does not apply. Oh wait, that never happens.
Tell us again about Paris. Tell us about how in Greece only the little people follow the rules and we should all do the same here. You've 'cracked the code' and such.
Posted by: soccermom at January 10, 2014 2:44 PM
I don't think lol ever said he never rents for more than 30 days. I suspect he would be fine having a "rent-controlled" tenant stay longer at the elevated short-term corporate rental rates.
It is not true that in Greece only the little people follow the rules. Nobody in Greece follows the rules. Hence their present situation.
Posted by: anon at January 10, 2014 3:03 PM
We need to view this from the Campos perspective. He is a politician and has only one real job - running for reelection or securing his next political office (if he is getting "termed out"). Therefore, he wants to be seen acting on behalf of the largest potential group of current/future voters. In San Francisco, that means renters. Campos is only doing what he needs to do to survive in the environment he lives in.
Or said more directly - "don't hate the player, hate the game."
Posted by: JustLooking at January 10, 2014 3:21 PM
In Campos case, I think it's ok to hate the player too.
Posted by: Morgan at January 10, 2014 3:27 PM
Why the aggression? It's Friday, chill out.
But I am feeling a bit cheerful today and I'll address your different points.
1 - Well, the social contract around the landlord business is broken is SF. That's precisely my point. Airbnb is one way around.
Airbnb: I do 1 to 3 months. No I haven't broken the "code" for whatever that means. I just try to navigate the very murky waters of SF byzantine rental laws without putting my family at risk. When I arrived in SF 8 years ago we lived in 2 corporate rental-style places and I would have never ever thought we could walk to the renter's board and try and screw our landlord. I am counting on the same thing from the newcomers that I host. They're wide-eyed, very positive and not yet broken to SF's class war.
One thing about airbnb used as corporate rentals is that they're more expensive than regular rentals and designed to be temporary. GOOGlers who get relocated receive a fixed budget and when that runs out this means the tenant has to pay full price from his own pocket, which he won't.
to anon, no, I would NEVER take a rent controlled tenant even at an elevated rate. A neighbor did just that 2 years ago. Now he has a tenant paying 10-15% under market rate who will probably think twice before leaving his nice pad. He couldn't have known, but better safe than sorry. Who knows what this city will come up with next to punish those greedy landlords? I want to be in the position to pack my stuff and leave if the situation becomes too crazy. With rent control tenants, you lose a ton of freedom.
Posted by: lol at January 10, 2014 3:33 PM
Why do you people all post as anon? Everything is anon.
I regard AirBnb rentals as the equivalent of speeding on the highway. A lot of people do it and unless something goes really wrong, there is no impact on others. That said, no one needs to hear a safe driving lecture from the guy driving 90 in the fast lane. Great, lol rents for 1-3 months and is wearing rent control risk. I stand corrected.
And JustLooking, I do find the game frustrating because 'players' like Campos lead people to assume that something 'anti-landlord' is therefore pro-tenant. Do you understand why? Campos isn't appealing to renters, he's appealing to idiots.
Posted by: soccermom at January 10, 2014 3:41 PM
Well... idiots are abundant in the general population. I'd say that's an excellent demographic to pander to.
Posted by: Jimmy the House Flipper at January 10, 2014 3:49 PM
So did Jimmy the house flippper just tell us that he has a friend (a mechanic who must have some knowledge of chemistry) that committed fraud? Never mind getting rid of a rent controlled unit, what about the impact on the capitalist insurance company? That is a better story than Crown Terrace.
To me the problem is this: I know a lot of older people who are scared and people, mostly single women who can't afford to even rent a studio. That is who I know. People shouldn't have to be scared if they are good, honest, long-time tenants who took care of their landlords property and paid their rent on time. And it is very unfortunate that others who lived here a long time are priced out of the market.
The City should overturn the Ellis Act. Why should housing ever be taken off the market, for any reason? It is an anti-housing measure.
Rents should be tied to the rate of inflation. Social Security recipients should have a special deal. No one should have to pay more than 30% of their income for housing in this country even if it is San Francisco.
Posted by: noe mom at January 10, 2014 4:01 PM
This is so cute. Let me say this: The instant the government steps up and offers to pay the difference between market rent and the rent-controlled rent, I will be first in line to collect my money every month. I'll even offer to compensate the government if market rents decrease below the rent-controlled amount. Since this will never happen, it's an empty promise but it sounds good. I should run for office!
Until then, the abuse will continue.
Did I say abuse? I meant "profit maximization." My bad.
Posted by: Jimmy the House Flipper at January 10, 2014 4:08 PM
"Why should housing ever be taken off the market, for any reason? It is an anti-housing measure."
You could make this same argument for farmers and doctors. Why should farmers ever allow land to remain fallow? They should be forced by the government to plant crops and produce food. Doctors as well. They should be forced to practice medicine until they die.
After all, food and medical care are as important as housing.
Posted by: parklife at January 10, 2014 4:51 PM
Noe Mom says "The City should overturn the Ellis Act. Why should housing ever be taken off the market, for any reason? It is an anti-housing measure."
This is a perfect example of the uneducated sheep. I don't even know where to start! She does not even know what the Ellis Act is
Posted by: theHitman at January 10, 2014 5:04 PM
Baah. I know what the Ellis Act is. I decided to characterize it as an anti-housing measure because it is, to me. It reduces housing which is a fact, regardless of arguments over property rights, etc. Baah.
I think it is interesting that no one responded to my point about the fraud of the mechanic destroying his house and getting a new and bigger one. Apparently cheating, which I am assuming it was, based on the context of the little story the Flipper told is OK, but suggesting that the Ellis Act should go is not.
That Flipper story reminds me of the old days when white woman with white husbands and white children, and who lived in this neighborhood would stand in front of Bell Market on 24th Street and brag, brag, brag about how they had lied on their SFUSD applications for Rooftop and say their child was black, so they could be assured of a Kindergarten spot.
As for farmer's leaving their fields fallow, it is questionable that the government should pay them for that. It is our tax dollars. It is good farming practice that extends the life of the land.
As for the doctor being forced to practice medicine until they die, I don't see the analogy (Maybe they are practicing on themselves as they die)
Posted by: noe mom at January 10, 2014 8:12 PM
Ellis doesn't necessarily "reduce housing." And again Noe Mom comes through with heaps of anger. Whatevs. Too many crybaby anger mongers in this town nowadays.
Posted by: Truth at January 10, 2014 8:51 PM
How in the world will this thing ever get enforced?
I buy bldg. I talk to tenants. Those that agree, we make a deal. I give $$$ and they move out. You think they will tell the city? Will I?
This idea is pathetic posturing to rile up the sheeple, just like google bus protests- hate the ones you perceive as elite. Nice.
I have an even better idea to screw landlords. Let's pass a law that doesn't allow/makes it difficult for tenants with low rents to move out! You have a good deal, you must stay.
If this nonsense keeps up, landlords should start an "activist" group called "landlords purposely keeping units vacant by choice; so f*ck you." We can get placards to put in windows "unit vacant by choice; not for rent at any price." Then all we need is a kooky billionaire to join us, buy up lots of rental bldgs, Ellis act them and join the cause. Could be more fun-fun in SF.
Posted by: poor.ass.millionaire at January 11, 2014 12:54 AM
"The City should overturn the Ellis Act."
"I know what the Ellis Act is."
@noe mom: Ellis Act is a state law, it cannot be overturned at the city or county level.
Even the SFTU has stated that Ellis Act evictions are unbeatable since they are perfectly legal.
Posted by: geekgrrl at January 11, 2014 1:36 AM
(IMO) Compos and the BOS secretly work for the real estate industry, as do the honchos at the tenants unions. Their secret mission, to drive up the price of San Francisco residential real estate. Be it, RC or Non RC.
Anyone who disagrees need only look to their past legislative track record of passing restrictive regulations relating to: zoning, landuse, landlord/tenant relations and the impacts it's had on price escalation of residential real estate over the past ten years.
Their common goal is to surpass NYC's price per square foot per unit sold and make San Francisco number one in the country.
Without their help and your support our ability to break through the $2000 dollar per square foot bench mark per average unit sold becomes more difficult with each passing year. Please support their efforts in reaching their goal for 2014 by supporting all legislative efforts to further control and restrict the free markets in San Francisco.
This message brought to you by,
SF Association of Better Real Estate Professionals & Elected Idealogs Inc. and Tenants for More Profits for Owners Inc.
The use of the named associations or organizations stated above is strictly by coincidence.
Posted by: Keepitup at January 11, 2014 12:33 PM
I don't think I am angry, or at least not any angrier than the people who seem so mad at Campos and mad at the "crybabies" who don't agree with their view of the market.
And I don't want to mix up the Ellis Act with Rent Control. They ARE two separate things as I am sure everyone knows.
I just have a point of view about the Ellis Act. It seems to me that if one buys residential property "intended" for the rental market, and the rental market is part of the fabric of a community, then removing that rental housing for any reason, while perfectly legal under state law, (which I knew that it was), is a law that should be overturned by the state (or at least an exemption for SF), i.e. by lobbying by voters, public interest groups and residents who may be property owners who don't care for what is happening. I mean if a City chases out all their tenants, then those people who choose to be landlords may not have an adequate pool of tenants to choose from because renters will stay away. Why would we want to get rid of or diminish the rental market in a major City?
This whole thing about landlords and tenants and closing up apartments sounds like something out of the feudal times and I think we can do better than that but I am not gonna twist anyone's arm to agree with me, at least not in this virtual world.
Posted by: noe mom at January 11, 2014 1:05 PM
Dear (Noe) Mom,
I am sure that you know that the total number of Ellis Act evictions is miniscule compared to the number of apartments, even less compared to the number of people living in SF.
This is all a distraction from the real problems of the city. It is grandstanding by Campos, heir to such statesman as Daly, Peskin, Olague, all of whom believe not just in the nanny city-state, but in the inherent goodness of themselves.
Willie Brown was wrong. De Blasio could not hope to be more leftist than our political munchkins.
Posted by: conifer at January 11, 2014 1:14 PM
No. Most units "removed" by Ellis are potentially more
affordable housing for purchase. Your use of "intended" is also icorrect. You mean "designated." Intent belongs to the owner, as it very much should. And OK, you're not angry. No biggie.
Posted by: Truth at January 11, 2014 2:55 PM
Your point about intended is valid.
However, when the units were built the zoning as intended by the City allowed for certain type of housing, a certain number of units, height and bulk and all that. The pattern was usually for rental units where the zoning allowed that type of construction, meaning more than one unit.
It is only in the last 40 years more or less, and it is probably more like 30 for SF that ownership of pre-existing housing, i.e. condos, arose. So the City "grants" or "intends" the zoning which determines the type of housing that could be built and what would ultimately be owned. Multi-units usually meant rental, with a landlord. Even a pair of flats could have been like that. Condos were something for the suburbs. (Think PUDs). Granted that has changed (think TICs).
And it is nice to think of Ellis Act housing becoming affordable homes for purchase. But I think generally it, the Ellis Act, adds to the grinding of the market that leads to more of this hyper-extensive speculation. The use of the Ellis Act has waned and waxed over the years and when we are in a hot market or a super hot market as we are now, it becomes a real detriment to the viability of the City for a broader range of people, including renters new and long-term. It may even make it hard for someone who wants to buy a pair of flats or a small building for their extended family or just because they want to own some "income property" and can't because Ellis Act potential bids it up. This slicing and dicing of the real estate market is like the whole derivative mess that screwed the country in 2007/8. And that is why, to me, I think the Ellis Act is an anti-housing measure, and it should go bye-bye.
Posted by: noe mom at January 11, 2014 3:46 PM
The Ellis act use in the current market over the past couple years is paltry, though. You are clearly buying into the hysteria that the editors at the Chronicle, Guardian, and SF Weekly, are selling. Two or three highly publicized cases is not an epidemic. And whether you reduce my comment regarding TICs being more affordable to a patronizing "it's nice to think" or not, they're more affordable to purchase by and large. Then there's the main thrust of Ellis. People should be able to stop being landlords if they damn well feel like doing so. Life is complex.
Posted by: Truth at January 11, 2014 4:12 PM
Oh Noe Mom...
Please read and research before you think about speaking or writing then do it again until you are 99% sure you really know what you are talking about - then write your garbage and keep voting for the liberal power seekers that cater to your simple mind. It si clear to me that you can only look at the situation from your own perspective and cannot bother to comprehend the other point of view. The reason is simple - you are a sheep. You think like a tenant and will probably always be a tenant. Resigned in your own head that you will always be servient to another because you just don't have it in you to be your own lord. If you can comprehend all of this, maybe you might come to peace with the fact that there are topics in life too big for you and you will never ever "get it".
Posted by: theHitman at January 11, 2014 5:37 PM
However, when the units were built the zoning as intended by the City allowed for certain type of housing, a certain number of units, height and bulk and all that. The pattern was usually for rental units where the zoning allowed that type of construction, meaning more than one unit.
Most housing in the city was built prior to zoning such as what you mention was in place. Zoning was a product of the 40s-60s, where most housing units in the city predate that.
Posted by: anon at January 11, 2014 6:19 PM
I want to know if theHitman is actually Donte Whitman the 49er who is getting ready to play Carolina tomorrow morning. You know he is the fellow who wants to legally change his name to "Hitman" dropping the "W" as the first letter in his last name, to illustrate how he can cream his opponents.
I plead the 5th on whether I am a tenant or a member of the landed gentry like my critic and as to what my voting patterns over the course of my life have been.
As for the zoning, I believe San Francisco was very "progressive" and zoning came into being much earlier than you state more like the post-earthquake years of the teens and twenties, and in particular as they created neighborhoods like St. Francis Wood and Seacliff.
Anyway, once again, I think the Ellis Act should be repealed because it is anti-housing.
Posted by: noe mom at January 11, 2014 7:59 PM
I did not see "truth's" comment when I first responded so now I will. No honestly I was not being patronizing. It IS nice to think that people who want to buy property can, but its unfortunate I think that these sometimes come about because of a loss of rental housing in the context of the Ellis Act. That is why life is complex and one can feel bad or good about whatever one wants to feel bad or good about.
Right now I don't feel very good about what I see happening to a lot of San Francisco.
Posted by: noe mom at January 11, 2014 8:07 PM
You are off base on the notion that multi unit bldgs need/should be for renters only. Bldgs are owned by individuals. They can rent them, leave them vacant, sell off as tics, let their family live there, etc. it's private, not public, property. The main issue with "rentals" in this city is rent control. That's is the root of all evil wrt a highly distorted housing market in SF. And those distortions sprouted condo conversions, tics, Ellis act evictions, leaving bldgs empty, etc.
OTOH all these housing distortions have created tremendous opportunities for wealth creation. So in a perverse way, I rather like it. I think what sup Crapos is doing is transparent and cheap pandering, but he's helping me make more bread. C'est la vie.
Posted by: poor.ass.millionaire at January 11, 2014 8:38 PM
Do you have examples of housing that was converted to other uses after an Ellis Act usage?
I only know of a couple examples myself, and in both cases the Ellis Act usage resulted in MORE housing, because buildings were torn down and redeveloped into larger residential buildings. For sale housing rather than rental, sure, but that's still housing.
Are there buildings that are being Ellis'd and turned into offices or something?
Posted by: anon at January 11, 2014 8:40 PM
You meant Whitner, and Hitner. Anyway, what I meant by life is complex is that millions of things can happen in let's say a small landlord's life. Say the husband who always dealt with the 3-unit passes away. How is San Francisco going to say the widow has to deal with being a landlord in perpetuity? That's just one example out of millions of variations. This silly posturing by a likely outgoing city supervisor about a state law is nothing more than the worst type of grandstanding. And from your garbled wording to your inappropriate examples to your incorrect 49 quip, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Truth at January 11, 2014 10:01 PM
Noemom: I think you should move to china. I heard government owns lots of housing there and they can subsidize all renters who want fixed rent from 70's price. Remember, once you get there, you may not be able to leave again, unless you have lots of $$$.
Posted by: MissionGal at January 12, 2014 7:49 AM
Yes, you are right about Whitner. Sorry Hitman, I did not mean to mangle your name, just giving you some props.
However, there have been about two hundred Ellis Act evictions over the past two years where housing was removed from the market. That is at least 2 MUNI buses full of other human beings assuming that there is only one occupant per household and most likely there were at least two per household.
Those are people who probably did not want to leave San Francisco but had to. This fact highlights the ironic response from MissionGal about telling me to move to China.
Again, I think the Ellis Act skews the market in a very negative way for all.
Posted by: noe mom at January 12, 2014 11:53 AM
That did not bolster your argument. 200 Ellis Act evictions over two years is a small amount, negligible, and in keeping with the argument that it could largely be a set of landlords whose life situations have changed. Look. They got you. Campos, Nevius, Richmond, et al. Fine. But don't come on here acting like you have a legitimate position.
Posted by: Truth at January 12, 2014 1:32 PM
However, there have been about two hundred Ellis Act evictions over the past two years where housing was removed from the market.
Um, no. There have been about 200 Ellis Act evictions, but we have no idea if housing was removed. The units could have been sold as housing or the land is being redeveloped into higher density housing. Do you have evidence that these Ellis Act evictions are being used to convert the uses from housing to office or some other use?
Posted by: anon at January 12, 2014 2:21 PM
Noemommy, girl you is thick!
None, zero, nada, zippo of those Ellis evictions resulted in loss of housing. There are different people living in all those bldgs.
As for low rent tenants being displaced (which is what happends, not loss of housing), how would you like it if the bldg that YOU owned had tenants paying you $500 per unit, when the market rents are $3500? I'd love to hear your explain action on that one.
Posted by: poor.ass.millionaire at January 12, 2014 3:00 PM
poor.ass.millionaire: how would you like it if the bldg that YOU owned had tenants paying you $500 per unit, when the market rents are $3500? I'd love to hear your explain action on that one.
She will never own anything. I don't thinks she believes in personal belongings.
Posted by: MissionGal at January 12, 2014 5:34 PM
I'd never touch a bldg like that unless I could buy out the tenants. I'm not an Ellis act typa guy- too much headache and then all you can do is flip it as tics. I only buy and hold, with tenants I select, paying (at least close to) market rents.
Posted by: poor.ass.millionaire at January 12, 2014 6:02 PM
I apologize for talking down to you. Anyone that loves Donte Hitner cannot be that bad. However, I was the Hitman before he was Hitner.
Nobody wants to see anybody else who is a decent and honorable human being be forced from their housing without it being their choice. However, from the other perspective, nobody should be forced to subsidize another individuals' housing. This problem does not occur anywhere else in the bay area. It only occurs in SF because the combination of all the sill laws that have come to play with respect to rent control have created the situation. Further, this hodgepodge of laws is called "rent control" to fool some into believing it achieves it.
In fact, rent control places the burden on small landlords that own the majority of pre-1978 housing and transfers the benefit to: (1) legacy tenants and (2) corporate developers like Jay Paul, Essex etc... the ones that own all the post-1978 non-rent controlled product. This is inequitable. Make it all subject to rent control or make none of it rent controlled! I favor the latter because the market is the most efficient and fair mechanism.
Posted by: theHitman at January 13, 2014 1:42 AM
the market is the most efficient and fair mechanism
I am a very vocal critic of rent control laws and yet I will not go as far as saying that the market is the only solution to our current housing problems.
If we were in a perfectly controlled closed environment if would work. But pure luck or lack of luck happens.
That's the whole point of the game "Monopoly". Some people are smarter, more adapted, react more efficiently to whatever bad stuff that is thrown at them. And in that game, only one person wins, usually the one that had all these qualities. In real life, what should we do with the other players? Soylent Green?
Now, I personally hate rent control because it digs from the wrong pockets and does so to replace a social policy that is all hat and no cattle. The City of SF wants to be progressive in its housing policy, allowing artists, social workers and others to live within its borders but does not want to use taxes to do it.
Instead they dig from a minority that has virtually no voice: mom-and-pop landlords. That's cowardly and unjust. As the people voting the supervisors such as Campos in office are mostly tenants, no wonder there's a growing backlash from small landlords towards the tenant population.
Tenants made it a game of "us vs. them". Ellis is the only tool landlords are left with. You reap what you sow.
Posted by: lol at January 13, 2014 9:42 AM
It always has been easiest for politicians to build their careers on the backs of the weak, in this case small landholders. Campos is just the latest in a long line. He deserves to be defeated, even if the only other choice is Chiu.
Note also that the rules against formula retail apply only in neighborhoods where the property owners are weak. Have you noticed that there is hardly a new store within two blocks of Union Square that is not formula retail? De Beers and Prada, Burberry and Saks, Graff and Brooks Bros.
Posted by: conifer at January 13, 2014 10:18 AM