The executive director of the San Francisco Tenants Union, Ted Gullicksen, was found dead in his bed today.
From the Chronicle’s report:
Several friends said they knew of no health problems with Mr. Gullicksen, who recently had been working vigorously for Proposition G, a ballot measure designed to deter real estate speculators from evicting tenants and flipping the property by putting a steep tax on the quick resale of multi-unit buildings.
“One thing that’s very clear to me is that he would want nothing more than all of us as his colleagues and his allies in the movement to keep fighting,” [Sara Shortt, director of the Housing Rights Committee] said. “I know that I myself will be fighting harder than ever in Ted’s name.”
Mr. Gullicksen had been a champion for tenants and their rights in San Francisco for over 30 years. And with the shuttering of the Bay Guardian, it’s a one-two punch in the gut for progressives in San Francisco this week.
R.I.P. Ted Gullicksen. You fought the good fight, and if there is a heaven, your advocacy on behalf of the marginal and the less powerful will surely assure you a place there.
He couldn’t stop the current tectonic change in SF, just slow it down.
I agree with the RIP to Mr. Gullicksen, and agree that in his mind, he was fighting a “good fight”.
But I think it’s a highly misguided fight, and has led to incredible hostility between landlords and tenants, and huge inequities – especially when small mom-and-pop landlords got nailed (after they had made their investment), when 2-4 unit owner-occupied properties got put under rent and eviction controls.
Subsidizing people’s rent is one thing when it’s borne by EVERYONE (Section 8, etc), and quite another thing when individual people become the subsidizers of someone who, in many cases, is actually wealthier than the subsidizer.
It’s a recipe for horrible community relations – and was cooked up by Ted Gullicksen and his cohorts. Check out the Tenants’ Union website, and see how cute their logo is – someone bashing a landlord on the head with a sledgehammer.
Rest in Peace, Sir, but you will NOT be missed.
wow, EcceMorons – have some respect. Your mother didn’t teach you right.
I have plenty of respect. I wished him Rest in Peace.
But his work was harmful to the City.
My mother taught me good manners. My brain is astute enough to see the damage that putting small mom-and-pop owners under Rent and Eviction controls has done. They can’t choose who moves into their building – and have to subsidize people with 5x their income. It stinks.
You can respect the man as you respect all humans, but despise his actions
Shame on you. Of course, you troll here under EcceMorons because a decent person who had the guts to sign his name, would not dare such incivility. Shame on you.
I’m sorry, but I am having a hard time seeing why or how EcceMorons’s comments were disrespectful or shameful. I’ve seen plenty of other comments that were pretty harsh and deserve this criticism.
It must be admitted that Mr Gullickson was a V polarizing figure in SF – an angel to some, a devil to others. Just to paint him as an “angel” and trying to deny the other does no one a service.
RIP Ted. I wish I’d seen more of the better part of you ( you rode a bike, you weren’t selfish, and you had the intention to help people); but I did see the other side. Perhaps judgment on his work (and him?) will have to wait.
Christopher, there was nothing incivil about the poster’s comments. He did not say he was glad Mr. Gullicksen had died. Also, he did wish that he rest in peace. What the poster criticized was Mr. Gullicksen’s political stance on a particular issue. I am sorry you cannot grasp the idea that the mere fact someone has died does not suddenly remove their political views from the realm of public criticism.
Mr. Gullicksen may have been a lovely person, but his political views are fair game for criticism, as are anyone else’s views, whether that individual is still living or deceased. There is no shame in criticizing someone’s ideas or actions–this is not a personal attack on an individual. You need to understand what fair criticism is all about.
Ditto EcceMorons…I feel exactly the same way. My husband and I are a Mom and Pop landlord in San Francisco.
I’m sad to hear of Ted Gulicksen’s passing and I hope he Rests In Peace even though I think most of his efforts were misguided and that SFTU are truly scum. They even have a page on how to get away with taking over people’s houses while they are away and then tips for bogus documentation to help squatters “be successful in a face off with the police, even if the owner is there as well.”
I agree this was misguided. He was certainly very sincere though. When you think something is unjust you sometimes go too far.
Advocacy for the lower/middle class rent controlled tenants sacrifices the younger generations. That’s short-sighted and one of the reasons SF is gentrifying with no coming back. We now have a 2-tier class system with the entrenched on one side and the rising rich on the other. Nothing in between.
His lasting legacy: San Francisco now has some of the highest rents in the country.
Rent control = Failure
2 tears in a bucket
Yes, with all due respect and RIP and all, I gotta say the guy in my experience was just working the system (and maybe inventing parts of it) — the non-profit mafia in San Francisco. Milking at the teet of our taxes and delivering nada in return. When we needed him to actually do anything he was like a vapor, disappearing into the cracks at the 1st mention of any actual effort. The reason that his ilk are grouped with the Pentagon is simple: more and more and more money provided, and virtually no measurable result delivered. RIP dude, now may you be replaced with a future.
It’s intellectually dishonest to denigrate him for working the system when the system is being worked from all sides.
the system is worked from the other side to try and compensate the excesses of all the new laws added over the year to keep rent-control alive.
A landlord has a balance sheet. He has a business to run and a family to feed. His goal in life is not to feed someone else’s family. Redistribution is the government’s work and the burden should be shared.
If the laws are oriented towards tenants further and further each year the viability of the landlording business is compromised. Don’t blame landlords for wanting to find a legal way to make it work.
The SFTU was not a nonprofit and did not take city funding.
if any of you had ever met the guy, you’d know that he was pretty much an angel in human form. what a depressing day.
I never have and never will think of him as an “angel in human form”.
I sincerely hope this “angel in human form” will reap in the afterlife all that he has sowed in life (particularly what he has done to small property owners).
Hitman – you clearly have never read the Bible (where that Heaven thing comes from). God doesn’t care about small property owners, don’t you remember Matthew 19:24?
Ah, the new “Tenants’ Coalition” – Socialist, Anarchists…. and now even Bible Thumpers!
The whole of the law is do what thou wilst.
Sorry he’s dead, but his “advocacy” was worse than useless. The left wing needs to learn basic economics. His “legacy” is that new tenants are stuck paying the highest rents in the country and working/middle class people are stuck in dumpy below market run down apartments with hostile landlords.
The “economics” you wish the left learned is based on nothing more than tautological faith. The “ism” in capitalism is a glaring beacon that it is an ideology, and like all ideologies is subject to interpretation. Reality is shared, and is more complicated than you describe.
Ideology? Come one it’s all about money. The wolves have sheep’s clothing but at their core they are fighting for their pocketbook, not against some evil capitalist.
Take one building: on one floor you have a long-timer family paying $800 for a 3BR. On another floor you have a family guy paying $5000. Same building, same apartment size, same landlord, same laws governing the units.
What can truly justify this difference? Answer: the family paying $800 has created its own ecosystem with lobbying groups and politicians who will defend their cheap rent.
In the mean time, a middle class family cannot move to SF because they can only afford $2500. Let’s forget about the lower class.
It’s not ideology, it’s just a fight for money. And you are selfishly sacrificing the future working/middle class of San Francisco for your right to cheap rent.
All these methods of organizing human affairs are somewhat arbitrary. I bought a duplex 12 years ago for $700,000. It is worth $1.8M now. Why is my mortgage less than half of someone who would move into the neighborhood today? Why are my property taxes so low? Sure, I invested in my neighborhood but so does the long term tenant. Sure I took more risk, but also have much more gain, since I not only have a low cost of housing but also equity. There is no way that one is more “fair” than the other, except in your perception of it.
1) your mortgage depends on how luck you paid at the time. If anything you deserve the cheap mortgage because you took the chance of buying. The market isn’t just or unjust. It just is. If you purchase while everyone stays away, then there’s a higher potential for risk/reward realization.
2) property taxes are cheap due to prop 13, and this proposition is as unjust as rent control. It should go. If prop 13 was gone overnight, yes some grannies would have to sell, or try and get an income from their property. A friend of mine lives on 3 floors on her own in NV. she bought the house 40 years ago and does OK with her SS check. Her house would cost her 2K/month without prop 13. This means she would have to rent at least one floor, providing much needed supply!
What do you suggest as an alternative genius? Rent control? That sure is fair. Riiiiggghhhttt.
He was a shakedown artist plain and simple.
I don’t think that’s the case. You are a mostly a product of your environment. If all the people you encounter are giving you tenant horror stories, telling you about evil an greedy landlords trying to get them, you are likely to develop a filter. There’s also your core ideology, but it can change with time.
I think that in the minds of rent control, business takes a back-seat to direct human interest. You see a physical person in distress vs a “fat cat”. Of course this “fat cat” is a human too but your beliefs can dehumanize this person. “Shaking down” this person can look like social justice/retribution to them.
Playing the devil’s advocate here. I am trying to understand how one can have a decent brain and yet make illogical reasoning.
“You see a physical person in distress vs a “fat cat””
I would agree that this is part of the problem with many rent control advocates. It is more of an emotional response to a situation rather than a logical response. Of course, many of the core activists are of the “property is theft” viewpoint and see nothing wrong with expropriating property.
yes. I’d simplify this debate to the following:
Some people cannot afford $2/Lb tomatoes. The can only afford 50c/Lb tomatoes.
– Reaction #1: let’s make tomatoes 50c by decree
– Reaction #2: let’s produce more tomatoes so that prices go down
– Reaction #3: let’s subsidize tomatoes for the people who need it
#1 and #2 are unrealistic. #3 is the compromise we should have.
let me simplify even further for you… not everyone needs to eat tomatoes.
what a bunch of horrible people you all are!! Horrible comments for a man who actually TRIED to do something – WTF have ANY of you done? You disgust me
While granting this is immediately after his death (speak not ill of the dead), the gentleman was a public figure and almost all of the comments have been focused on the citywide impacts of his public career. And the tone is not, overall, as hyperbolic as your content-free defense of the man’s work.
Agree – the death of a person does not suddenly absolve them of all the illogical or counterproductive things they may have done during their life.
Not that I made any “horrible comments”, but I have housed my tenant for years with only nominal increases in rent as allowed by the SFRB. Notwithstanding that, Ted Gullicksen has worked tirelessly to lessen my property rights and to paint all landlords as “greedy” and/or as “speculators”.
BTW, how many people have you housed?
I don’t know if your addressing that to me but YES I too have rental property…..
Rent and eviction controlled? In SF? I don’t think so…..
If you have rental property in SF, then good for you. As do I, and I believe that owning rental property comes with certain reponsibilities and obligations. I can appreciate regulation that allows tenants to have some security in their housing. But the SFTU takes a “no compromises” position and has worked to make providing long term housing an undesirable option. This is created a situation wherein a landlord needs turnover just to keep up with inflation and has not been a net positive for SF.
TG may have been a great friend, lover, son, etc. and I wish everyone who loved him my condolences, but his inability to see the other side of the landlord/tenant relationship has caused immeasurable harm to SF.
This is the ecosystem we live in: permanent antagonism. What you call “horrible comments” shows how deep the antagonism is running.
As they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Rent control advocates immediately said they would continue the fight. Well, there you have it. You fight on, don’t expect the other side to give any reprieve.
By the way, I own rental property in 2 other areas. Only in San Francisco do I have to strategize and view a tenant as the opposition as opposed to a partner.
I am on the other side of your spectrum. I purchased property with the purpose of collecting an income. I knew what the SF rental laws were when I purchased and am trying to make the best of these rules.
What I own could have been on the regular rental market, but it is not. No way. I need to think long term and even though I can collect market rate today, I know I could be screwed 20 or 30 years from now. Why would I ever want to jeopardize my family’s future?
What I am doing instead is furnished rentals, 100% legal since they’re 30+ days. I have a 90%+ fill rate so far.
Now that’s less units on the open market, and an added constraint on market prices since the demand is still very present. Ironically my guests are often complaining they can’t find any decent rental. Maybe I should I’ve them the SFTU and they’ll get the help they deserve?
John, other than perhaps one somewhat rude comment can you cite any “horrible comments?” There is nothing inappropriate or horrible about criticizing someone’s views. We cherish free speech in our nation and that includes the right to state our views and to critique and criticize the views of others (and to be critiqued and criticized by others) this is not horrible, but rather a right we fight to protect.
Criticizing Mr. Gulicksen’s views is not a personal attack on him. And, I am sure Mr. Gullicksen would want his political views to be challenged, discussed, and debated vigorously. Your hysteria is misguided. This is a discussion forum where people debate ideas and even pointedly criticism some ideas. If you cannot handle that, then you do not belong on this site.
I’m pretty lefty and a big supporter of tenants’ rights, and I have little sympathy for rich yet whiny landlords. I’m sure that Gullicksen meant well, but he did far more harm than good in this area. First, his advocacy benefited very few – those RC tenants who had been in their place a very long time, more than 15 years, and who received tremendous private subsidies – at the expense of very many – all other tenants who have paid far higher rents as a result of the scarcity created in large part by rent control.
Second, he helped to create a nasty owners vs. tenants mindset that simply did not exist here 20 years ago. His efforts in keeping owners from living in TICs they own, disallowing condo converting to get cheaper mortgages, etc. did nothing to help renters but created tremendous divisions in this city.
What he should have been doing was encouraging building of rental housing and public housing. He was very misguided and he did about as much as anyone to create anxiety among tenants and disdain and indifference among landlords and owners. For the sake of the city’s tenants, I hope nobody picks up his mantle. But I hope somebody emerges to replace him who has really properly thought these issues through.
Roots owner/tenant animosity (Prop H of 1992 and Prop I of 1994) – proudly summarized by Randy Shaw:
http://www.beyondchron.org/ted-gullicksen-longtime-sf-tenant-hero-dies-57/
There are many Mom and Pop landlords in the City who are not rich by any means. We had a negative cash flow for 15 years, saved our nickels, dimes and tax returns for years to be able to buy the 2 unit place, and didn’t take any family vacations for ten years. We still haven’t put any money in our pockets from the property 26 years later. All money has gone back into the property. It takes years and years before there is any kind of payoff. Oh, and our tenants make a lot more money than we do. The whole rent control thing is ridiculous.
The tenants who have been living in the same property for many years have been getting a free ride at the owners expense. That is BS. Most people invest in real estate to make a profit, not to subsidize someone else. The rent for these tenants was so cheap that they could have been saving to buy their own home, but instead they were living the good life while the “POOR” landlord was barely hanging onto the property.
One can only charge what the market will bare anyway.
I’m no fan of rent control, but if it made it so tough to make a profit, why did you stay in such a bad business for so long?
Because we had a dream. We will be paying our property off soon and will finally be able to start having a monthly income for our retirement. The point that I was trying to make is that all landlords are not rich and they make huge sacrifices to own property in San Francisco.
If we wanted to, we could sell the property for a hefty sum now, but we earned it…big time. If we sold it, thanks to people like Ted, it would never be a rental property again. Most likely it would be purchased as a tenants in common property or purchased by out of the country owners. It wouldn’t pay for the new owners to make it into a rental property.
Everyone makes choices Jake. My husband and I chose to invest in real estate for the long term as part of our retirement portfolio. We have been saving for retirement since we got married at the age of 25. We will be turning 60 next year. We did this on a grocery clerks salary and an accounting associates salary while raising two kids.
Jake, SF made it extremely difficult to exit the rental business. Once becoming a landlord, you have to continue to rent at a low rent. You need to save a big amount of money if you want to stop being a landlord.
Are you suggesting HReising should do an Ellis eviction? Because this is the implication if you do not want to “stay in such a bad business for so long”.
No, I wasn’t suggesting anything in particular.
Rental properties in SF have been sold from time to time over the past 20+ years.
No one is forced to own property, even in SF.
Negative cash flow for 15 years? And still no money in your pocket after 26 years? Well, I’m glad that the SF housing market has boomed so you will do all right when you sell the place. But this is a good case study for simple equity index funds! Way fewer headaches and you would have come out far ahead.
I bought in 2010 and have been cash-flowing right away. I had put 50% down to be true.
The problem for mom-and-pop investors in SF is that they just can’t catch a break.
If you do your “usual” 30-year financing with 20% down, you’re not very likely to cash flow right away under normal market conditions.
But usually rents increase and inflation in general makes your mortgage become much smaller in proportion, bringing you into cash-positive territory.
Since rents are capped, you are losing out a lot on this long term reprieve.
Rent control is really screwing with the way things were being done. We never needed it before 1979 and yet SF has always been a boom town. Why do we need it today?
We have diversified our investments. We have other rentals but have invested in other ways too. The problem is most people don’t have the discipline to save and invest. Today’s society is about instance gratification. All of our hard work is about to pay off. Yes, we will leave our real estate, etc. to our children who also did without in order for us to save and invest.
My point is that not all landlords are rich and that there are many other people like us who worked hard and did without to build their real estate portfolio, etc. We are good to our tenants and we look for good, qualified tenants that we hope we can work with. In most cases, we have been very lucky to have wonderful tenants.
Anyone could do what we have done if they wanted to do it. We had decent jobs, but I would say that we were lower middle income when we started out doing this and had 2 babies that we had to pay child care for.
We have no intention of selling the place. We intend on keeping it and using the monthly income from it as part of our retirement after we put in new windows, and do a couple of other things to it.
If we sell it, it will be San Francisco and the tenant market’s loss. We want to leave it to our children.
This is something that Good ‘ole Ted never researched. The other side of the coin. Many of the Tenants in San Francisco have far more spendable income than their landlords do, but at the end of the line, will they really be better off? Its all about choices…
It really is not fair though that the landlords should be expected to subsidize the tenants…in fact, its a bunch of BS!!!
I don’t wish any ill will to Good ‘ole Ted…I wish him peace, but I can’t say that I am really sad that he is gone…I would be a hypocrite…
No, no one is forced to own property in San Francisco Jake. I am just letting you know what it takes for many Mom and Pop landlords to own rental units in San Francisco.
Here is an excerpt from “The Bay Citizen” posted in 2012. But with an estimated 30 percent of the city’s rental properties owned by mom-and-pop investors with four units or less, an unintended consequence of rent control is becoming more prevalent: people of relatively modest means subsidizing the housing of the extraordinarily wealthy.
We have finally reached a position where we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but what do you think would happen to the rental market if people like us threw in the towel? We have been tempted to many, many times because the road seemed so long and we just weren’t getting anything out of it but a bunch of Chit and spending money all of the time. Of course, now we are happy that we hung in there, but almost 30 years is a long time.
Until renters have owned rental property, especially in a place like San Francisco, there is no getting through to them…just because someone owns rental property, that does not mean they are made out of money…it just means that they have managed their money well…
Too bad the SF Bay Guardian isn’t still around to cover this. I’m sure they would hint darkly of a conspiracy of “downtown special interests” that led to Ted’s passing.
I would have jumped straight to the comments section…
Let me proffer a real case scenario:
Chinatown Mixed Use Property: 767-769 Commercial Street
Second floor tenant (long-term tenant): 2 bd/1 bath, Pays about $800 a month
Third floor tenant (long-term tenant): Studio, self built mezzanine to put bed, Pays $400 a month
Street level space being used for storage
Asking price for building: $1.2 Million
Property was owned by a Chinese Association Non-profit, Subsequently donated to Chinese Hospital for a donated value of $1.2M, Chinese Hospital is paying property taxes based on $1.2M so it is losing money. Hospital is in the healthcare industry, not landlording business. How much do you think this building will sell for? What is the best use for the building? Are you going to evict the tenants? Hospital will not evict them, buyer has to.
Great example. Unless one has a VERY long investment horizon there is no way this pencils out without evicting the tenants. Frankly, this doesn’t pencil out at half the asking price unless the tenants are evicted or bought out.
Why would the proponents of these laws care about that? They are not interested in whether or not the landlords profit, or whether they can sell at a profit, or if it pencils out for the buyers. They are interested in making sure that the tenants have a permanently cheap place to live.
That the place was donated to a hospital is largely irrelevant. Ok, it’s a white elephant– so what? Maybe it should properly be valued at $100,000.
They should care because the property tax to the city will be 12x rate if it valued at $1.2M rather than $100k. Further, at the current rental rates there is little, if any, incentive to rehab the building (seismic, etc.). The result is a building that is slowly decomposing while providing little tax revenue to the city to provide services we all use. It’s a pretty sorry housing policy.
The point: when you only look @ one segment, you fail to recognize the true costs of laws and its unintended consequences. Here, because evicting these tenants have been so difficult, the Chinese Association refused to do it, the rents are so low no repairs or maintenance have been made so the building is a complete gut job. By donating it, essentially it kicked the can down the road and the Chinese Hospital is left holding the bag. It, too, wants to kick the can by selling the building (for as much as it can get.)
So what will be the final selling price? Factor in the costs of the eviction/relocation payments (the amount of which is currently in litigation before the court,) costs of gutting the entire building and renovation, last comparable sales price for properties on the same street, realistic rental value for rehabbed units, carrying costs, and profit for the buyers. It is a good location, closest to the Financial District without the Financial District prices. Maybe AirBnB or corporate type rentals?
Ripe for a properly executed Ellis Act.
Look up the Jasper Alley case, and see what happens when you have a community defending their elderly
It might be worth buying the propert if Rose Pak gives her blessing for a subsequent Ellis
I met Ted a long time ago and dealt with Sara Shortt in a case early in my career. Both have a tendency to beat the drum loudly before looking at all the facts. So I let them throw everything they had my way. None of which included the truth about their clients. Blinded by ideology, complete loss of credibility. When I presented the facts, I never heard from them again and their clients were dropped like a hot potato.
Not happy that Ted or anyone’s life comes to an end but thrilled to see voices smart enough to see Ted’s work was ethically wrong and nasty spirited. Everything these tenants rights groups have done for the last 10 years has reduced the pool of rent control units and increased rent. EVERYTHING! It’s so simple one would think the little minds of stupid bitch Jane Kim and town fool David Campus could even understand it.
Eliminate the rent control for all future rentals across the board, let those that have it now keep it and everyone wins.
also sorry to see his passing but agree that his work was seriously ethically wrong
Comrades Kim and Campos care only about their own political future
Ted destroyed so many peoples lives – rich & poor, whether they were small property owners who owned a single TIC or tenants who could not move on with their lives and are now stuck.
I hope this marks a turning point for the City.
Lets end the entitlements, and animosity he created by voting for moderates who make sense.
And No on G!
Well said. I hope this event will mark the end of senseless rent control.
Something that might work that is cooking, a small apartments acquisition fund, use a combination of funds from market rate developers, property taxes and a housing bond to acquire rent-controlled units at market rate, and have them held permanently as rent-controlled by the City without fear of eviction.
The City will own rent controlled units that will have a tenant mix representative of folks that who couldn’t afford to live in SF other than for rent control (presumably, the City won’t buy the buildings where the lawyer making $200k/year is paying $1,000/mo) and realize around a 4% return on their investment, sufficient to service municipal bonds.
Yes, let’s get rid of rent control, and watch rents plummet to the affordable levels of all those communities in Marin and San Mateo Counties that don’t have rent control. Wait, you mean there aren’t affordable rents in those counties, even though they don’t have rent control? You mean, there are other factors that drive up rents, and rent control isn’t one of them? You mean rent control keeps rents affordable for long-time working-class residents raising families? Can’t we just be honest and admit that trying to get rid of rent control is class warfare being waged by the entitled rich against working people, in an attempt to drive asset prices up?
RIP Ted.
having rent control is class warfare. not having it is treating everyone as equal
The rich are prohibited from sleeping under bridges too!
I’ve worked both sides here – living in a rent controlled house then building a rental that fell outside rent control ordinances in the east bay.
Rent control is bad. It is ineffective and counter-productive.
“Class” warfare, only in the sense of ‘renter class’ – not socio-economic, nor “the poor”, nor even the “working-“. While there will be some of these protected by RC, there are also well paid professionals who take advantage of RC.
RC has a v simple premise (your rent gets frozen), but the resultant ramifications besmirch the “affordable” housing moniker. Lets just be honest and call RC housing “cheaper housing” (provided of course the residents have been in tenancy longer than a year),
Yes, Socketsiters, landlords are all wonderful, put-upon angels.
Ted is the most efficient person to destroy an otherwise beautiful city.
Lets hope he takes the STFU with him.