From the April 2008 Newsletter:

2008 could be pivotal political year for SF's small property owners
By Noni Richen, President

Throughout the seven years I've been updating our database and entering your dues payments, I've often wondered what our Board of Directors does with the information and money. In the last month I've discovered that there's a lot more to being on the Board than just planning entertaining and informative meetings. Thanks to the efforts of outgoing President David Fix and the persistent guidance of Executive Director Peter Reitz, I've attended meetings, met with journalists, and written and edited numerous articles and letters. I've enjoyed the generous support of our Board, as each member accepted an area of responsibility and has followed through with prompt assistance.

Our members, who often live in the same buildings with their renters, have a different perspective on tenancy issues from the "big guys," who have property managers to handle the job. We have met with representatives at the Mayor’s Office, with various Supervisors, and with an Assistant District Attorney, and have asked that when they are discussing policy and legislation that affects rentals that we have a seat at the table. The District Attorney’s office responded promptly by meeting with us concerning possible upcoming legislation (see article, page 3). We also met with representatives of other property owners’ groups and with the Executive Director of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) to discuss how our perspective might mesh with their goals.

The elections in June and November are vitally important to us. We sent questionnaires to candidates for various state and local offices so that we can make our endorsements. We have filed ballot arguments on two issues: We argued against the school parcel tax on the June ballot. Because it is a parcel tax, not a bond issue, we cannot pass it through to our renters. That means that property owners are bearing the entire burden, while 65% of San Francisco residents are exempt from this new tax. Our argument was entered into a lottery, but was not chosen. We also submitted a paid argument in favor of Supervisor Sean Elsbernd’s legislation extending the time city workers must be employed before they become eligible for lifetime healthcare. Although this is not strictly a property rights issue, it is a worthy attempt to bolster the fiscal health of our city.

Eminent domain legislation will occupy a major portion of our efforts through the June election. We want to promote Prop. 98, which protects most private property from being taken by eminent domain for other private uses. It also phases out the monetary portion of rent control when renters vacate their units, but retains all eviction protections. We want to add our support without further inciting the local tenant lobby that is already predicting mass evictions of renters—a total lie. We have decided, therefore, to ask members to support the state-wide effort of Californians for Property Rights Protection with your checks, and to emphasize that the opposing measure, Prop. 99, only protects single-family homes. Prop. 99 is supported by the League of Cities, comprised, in part, of redevelopment agencies, the primary beneficiaries of the eminent domain process.

Please continue to e-mail and write; we read every message. Tell your friends about our issues and ask them to join SPOSFI. Our members number in the thousands now, rather than the dozens when we were formed, so we need participation from each member to work toward our primary goal: achieving fairness for small property owners. We appreciate your support.

Like what you're reading?

Join SPOSFI now to receive our complete newsletter each month, as well as access to our on-line newsletter archive located in our Member Area.