Tenant advocates got a win at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Tuesday with initial approval of a plan to extend eviction protections to rental housing built within the past 30 years - but the victory is expected to be short-lived
Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to veto the legislation, according to spokesman Joe Arellano, and the board, which voted 7-4, was one vote shy of securing a veto-proof majority. The board will give final consideration next week, but Supervisor Bevan Dufty, considered the swing vote, said he plans to remain opposed.
The legislation would bring units built after 1979 - when the city's rent-control law was approved - under the same rules as the rentals built prior. In those older units, landlords are barred from evicting tenants without just cause. There is a list of 15 allowances for eviction in the city, among them nonpayment of rent and breach of a lease.
The proposal would have captured about 15,000 to 20,000 additional units now in the housing market and the estimated 10,000 units in the pipeline.
The proposal would not apply to price controls, which is prohibited under state law.
Supervisor John Avalos, chief sponsor of the legislation, said the change is needed "to assure equal protections for tenants in all rental units, in San Francisco. This legislation's really about fairness."
Avalos - responding to concerns raised by tenant advocacy groups - said he drafted the legislation after seeing the growing number of evictions of tenants living in properties foreclosed on by banks. Foreclosure is not considered a just cause for eviction.
But real estate interests in the city opposed the legislation saying it would diminish property rights and break a promise made three decades ago when San Francisco rent control was enacted.
Colin Gallagher, who owns a condo with his husband in the city's South of Market, said they would not have purchased their home had they known the rules would be changed after the fact. Their plan is to rent out their condo some day and they don't want to be restricted with eviction controls. "We certainly feel this would negatively impact our investment," said Gallagher.
He showed up at City Hall on Monday to testify in the final of four public hearings on Avalos' proposal. He and others opposed to the legislation were vastly outnumbered by tenant organizers and renters who packed the meetings.
Proponents' message: "In a city with 60 percent renters, a severe housing shortage and an economic crisis, this fix in the law should be a no-brainer," said Sara Shortt, executive director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco.
In recent days, she and others stepped up pressure on Dufty, a candidate for mayor in the 2011 election, whose decision would determine whether Newsom's anticipated veto would be upheld or overturned.
Dufty told The Chronicle he would have supported the legislation had it simply addressed foreclosure-driven evictions. He feared that as drafted, the proposed law "would have too many unintended consequences," particularly when it comes to condominium owners who want to move back into units that have been rented out. The burden on owners who try to evict on that basis could prove too harsh when it comes to time and money, he said.
Siding with Dufty were Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd. Voting with Avalos were Supervisors David Campos, David Chiu, Chris Daly, Eric Mar, Sophie Maxwell and Ross Mirkarimi.
The showdown was the latest clash in the long-running battle between the city's landlord and tenant interests. The two sides are expected to return to City Hall on Monday for a committee hearing on Mar's pending legislation to extend owner move-in protections to families with children. Under current law, seniors, the disabled and people with catastrophic illnesses are protected from such evictions.
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.