On December 7th, the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use Committee will vote
on John Avalos’s ordinance tp extend “just cause” evictions to all
rental units. While many are not aware, eviction protections in San
Francisco only apply to buildings built before 1979. This means tenants
in 16-23,000 units are arbitrarily unprotected. The common sense
ordinance would bring fairness to San Francisco’s landlord/ tenant law,
something that is becoming all the more crucial during these difficult
economic times.
Since its inception, the 1979 San Francisco Rent
Ordinance has been a perennial source of conflict for city landlords
and tenants. Any proposed changes to the law are sure to cause both
sides to draw the battle lines, and legislation being debated at the
Land Use and Economic Development Committee By the Board of Supervisors
is no exception. Introduced in May by Supervisor John Avalos, the
purpose of the legislation is to extend just cause eviction protections
to non rent-controlled units, in effect, protecting every residential
rental unit in the city from arbitrary eviction.
The cornerstone of the 1979 Rent Ordinance is of course rent control,
but of equal importance are its eviction protections, officially
referred to as “just cause” eviction protections”. The protections
allow fifteen reasons for a landlord to evict a tenant, including
non-payment of rent, owner move-in and breach of lease. Any reason
outside of those ‘just causes’ is deemed illegal. Every unit covered by
the rent ordinance, is protected by just cause, thus helping to protect
tenants and their families from arbitrary, discriminatory and
retaliatory eviction.
The idea of just cause would appear to be fairly innocuous and
unobtrusive to a landlord’s interest. The fifteen reasons grant
landlords a wide expanse of reasons to evict, and extending those
protections to every renter in the city is a compelling argument,
especially considering the random reasons as to why some are covered
and others are not.
Currently, no non-subsidized unit built after 1979 is protected by just
cause. So in effect, if you live in a building built in 1978 and your
friend lives in the building next door that was built in 1980, and both
your complexes were in foreclosure, you would be able to stay in your
home and your friend would likely be evicted. It is a glaring arbitrary
inequity, and stems from the compromise struck when the original rent
ordinance was passed.
In order to encourage developers to continue building in the city,
property built after the ordinance was exempted from its provisions so
that high rents could be charged and a higher profit made.
Unfortunately, because the just cause eviction protections were also
part of the ordinance, they were also subject to the exemption.
The past thirty years has seen the number of market rate units built in
San Francisco steadily increase, while the number of units covered by
the ordinance has declined. Since 1979 there have been 31,622 market
rate units built, of which an estimated 16,212 are currently rented. In
contrast, 14,705 units have either been demolished or converted into
condominiums, meaning that overall, the proportion of San Franciscans
protected by eviction protections is irrevocably diminishing. Although
this has been a growing concern for some time among tenant advocates,
it is the recent foreclosure crisis that has highlighted the problem
and demonstrated the need for Avalos’ legislation. Tenant groups have
particularly seen the problem grow in cases where tenants rent condos,
which then go into foreclosure.
Landlord advocates such as the San Francisco Apartment Association, and
the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute have argued
against the legislation based on its apparent lack of necessity. At the
first of many hearings, the common refrain from landlord activists was
that extension of just cause is “a solution in search of a problem.”
They assert that the number of tenants affected by the foreclosure
crisis, and not covered by just cause, is relatively few, and that the
legislation should be restricted to foreclosed property only.
These are poor arguments. If there are only 100 families saved from
eviction by this legislation this year, than it makes sense to do it.
And the truth is, we don’t really know how many are impacted currently.
There are no records of “no cause” evictions, because there is no
requirement to report them. While tenant groups have noticed a rise in
the numbers of post -79 renters being evicted, most of those evicted
for no cause do not seek help, since there is no recourse. And all that
is asked of landlords, is that they give a fair reason to the tenant
when they evict. They still have the ability to take the unit off the
market, move in a family member, or get rid of a tenant who does not
pay rent. Why should landlords of certain buildings not have to follow
the same laws as other landlords?
It’s also important to consider that this legislation is as much
prospective as it is meant to address a current problem. Its need is
rooted in the current glaring arbitrary inequity endured by tenants in
newer buildings, combined with the fact that the proportion of units
covered by this basic consumer protection continues to diminish.
Another important factor to consider is that while we lose
rent-controlled units due to demolition and condo-conversion, more
rental units then ever are being constructed that don’t have eviction
protections. Market changes have meant that, increasingly, buildings,
which were originally built as condominiums are being rented.
For perhaps the first time since rent control was passed, new
construction is actually being built as rental units. Articles in the SF Business Times
and elsewhere demonstrate that we can expect at least another 10,000
rental units in the near future. What will it mean for a city like San
Francisco to gain thousands of households without any eviction
protections at a time when we are still struggling to keep working
families in the city?
Aside from the run of the mill “rent control is bad” and “there is no
need” arguments used against the legislation by landlords and
developers, the other two arguments are also hollow. Developers have
claimed that the legislation would halt new construction, claiming that
banks won’t lend to developers for buildings that require just cause
evictions.
There is no real evidence of this. Developers are having a hard time
right now getting construction loans period. It is doubtful that a bank
would actually consider a change in local eviction laws that still
always plenty of ways for tenants to be removed, including an amendment
that specifically considers sale of the building as a condo to be a
“just cause”.
Landlords claim they will be forced to take units off of the market
because this will be such a hardship. This makes little sense. We do
not see any great decline in units being rented in our other rental
stock, which has had these protections since 1979. It also just dosen’t
pencil out that a landlord who believes they are losing money because
they can not easily evict would chose the path of boarding up their
units and therefore earn absolutely no income.
Some have said they fear that they will no longer be able to move into
their units or move in an ailing family member because of this
legislation. This is simply a false notion being perpetuated by the
landlord lobby. There is nothing in this legislation that will prevent
an “owner-move in” eviction.
Landlords have very little to lose if this legislation passes the Board
of Supervisors. The fifteen just causes cover a wide array of reasons
for eviction and landlords would be still able to charge whatever rent
they please.
The extension of just cause to all rental units in the city merely
amends an oversight in the original ordinance. The purpose of the
proposed legislation is not to create new rights. Rather, the purpose
is to extend rights that have existed in San Francisco for almost
thirty years to a growing population that has no eviction protection by
virtue of the age of their home.
Sponsors of the bill include Chris Daly, Eric Mar, David Campos and
David Chiu. Supervisor Mirkarimi supports the bill. Sophie Maxwell and
Bevan Dufty have no official position.
Organizational supporters include Housing Rights Committee of San
Francisco, SF Tenants Union, St Peters Housing Committee, Chinatown
Tenants Association, Senior Action Network, Eviction Defense
Collaborative, Tenants Together, Coalition of Community Housing
Organizations.
Liam Frost is a volunteer with the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco.
FAIR USE NOTICE. This document may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Tenants Together is making this article available on our website in an effort to advance the understanding of tenant rights issues in California. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.