From the June 2009 Newsletter:

Changing the dynamics of Board of Supervisors key to improving our lot
By Noni Richen, SPOSF President

This has been a roller-coaster month for us, and those thrill rides always bring on a profound nausea. The restrictive legislative measures to further control our property by dictating rent increases and occupancy limits—or lack of limits—mostly passed through Supervisors’ committees and, with the possible exception of the one restricting rent increases to 33% of a renter’s income, will probably be passed by the full Board of Supervisors after another hearing at it’s Government Audit and Oversight Committee.

We are confident that the Mayor will have the courage to follow through on his pledge to veto these acts of theft of our property. At a spirited Land Use Committee hearing, individual owners far outnumbered representatives of the radical tenant lobby groups. There were only a few actual renters who spoke.

The new inspection tax on small-building rentals, $52/unit, has been sent to the Board of Supervisors after a tie vote at the Building Inspection Committee. We vigorously opposed the tax, thinking it entailed new inspections. After being assured that all inspections were to be complaint driven, we withdrew our opposition. A deluge of letters from you, our members, convinced three of the six Commissioners allowed to vote to reject the new tax. Interestingly, the nominal residential landlord Commissioner voted in favor of the new tax.

Continuing the roller-coaster analogy, we have climbed a bit on the decision in the Prop. M suit filed in State Superior Court by several groups representing, primarily, larger property owners. The judge’s decision struck down some provisions of the heinous ordinance, and declined to rule on others, despite vigorous and cogent arguments by plaintiff attorneys. The remaining items in that suit will be heard in the Court of Appeal. The positive, but narrow, ruling enforces the reasons we filed instead in Federal Court, citing Constitutional grounds. The two suits complement each other, and we congratulate the plaintiffs of the Superior Court suit. Please see the related article in this issue for more detailed discussions of the two lawsuits.

After being slammed by an inexcusable misquote in the S.F. Examiner of testimony at a Supervisors’ hearing on the four Daly amendments, we were delighted to read an article (see p. 4) by Larry Rosen, Examiner real estate writer, describing us as small businesspeople, comparing us with providers of clothing, another basic need. I wonder how the dress shop would function if the proprietor who sold a sassy frock to a customer was then required to dress a group of the customer’s pals, at no charge.

Using accurate—not PC—terminology
Our decision to use owner-subsidized housing as our default term to describe our situation has resonated in an unexpected locale. The president of Small Property Owners of New York writes that she plans to announce to their rent board that in the future they too will adopt the term. Another term we should use in our conversations is housing-hostile to describe tenant radicals and any legislation that destroys the rental market and creates shortages of a basic need. We have allowed ourselves to be defined by the radical tenant groups when we use their term, landlord, an archaic word that brings to mind tyranny and serfdom. We are owners or housing providers. “Rent control” sounds deceptively prudent and reasonable; so let’s call it by its real name: owner subsidized housing. We encourage you to use these terms whenever appropriate.

Changing the political dynamics on the BoS
We are not deluding ourselves that these small steps will make profound changes in our condition. We are a business group, but are not considered a “real business,” despite our having all the attributes of businesses. One of our own active members told me this week that she “approves” of rent control, just not in its extreme San Francisco form. BAH! Let’s not forget: before the “temporary” ordinance was enacted in 1979, we housing providers operated in a competitive market where renters could find another place if we did not meet the level of service they felt was acceptable.
Our only option for real change is to improve the balance of moderates to radicals on the Board of Supervisors.
Over time, the increasing percentage of homeowners to renters may improve our lot. We are working to accelerate the process by aligning ourselves with other groups with similar goals. Our former president, David Fix, is now a member of Plan C’s Board of Directors; the Coalition for Responsible Growth has asked one of their members to act as liaison to SPOSFI, and we are taking part in their group activities. Our goal is to identify a few electable candidates for the 2010 Supervisory elections and to support only those who understand and appreciate the vital role small property owners play in the fabric and economy of our city, and are willing to depart from the tired old political game of vilifying us.

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.