SPOSFI - Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, Defending the rights of San Francisco's Small Property Owners SPOSFI - Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, Defending the rights of San Francisco's Small Property Owners SPOSFI - Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, Defending the rights of San Francisco's Small Property Owners
Home
Action & Info Alerts
About SPOSFI
Join SPOSFI
Sample Our Newsletter
Volunteer Opportunities
Resources
Education, Outreach & Legal
Members Speak Out
Member Area
SPOSFI Lease
Media Center
Search the Site
Contact Us
Link To Us
Member Log-In




Remember me on this computer.

Sample Our Newsletter

From the May 2007 Newsletter:

New rent regulations just keep on coming; will San Franciso Supervisors ever learn?
By David Fix

If you think new regulations for rental units are
coming faster and faster, you are right. To understand
where we are today, you have to go back to
the beginning. In 1979, inflation was very high—
11%, rising to 13% in 1980. The original rent ordinance
was passed in 1979 as a temporary measure for
six months—a modest attempt to guard against runaway
inflation. The ordinance was extended every six
months until it was made permanent in 1982.

The original ordinance only covered buildings
built before the effective date of the ordinance
because the Board of Supervisors understood that no
one would build rental housing if it would be subject
to rent control. Since then, the state legislature passed
laws that prevent rent control on newly built rental
housing.

Gradually at first, but with increasing frequency,
the rent ordinance has been expanded to be ever
more restrictive and to be used for political purposes.
Since 1979, 82 amendments to the rent ordinance
have been made. During the first ten years, the
amendments were not substantive, passed either to
clarify provisions or to extend the rent ordinance for an
additional six months. All told, in the first 21 years
there were a total of 53 amendments, an average of
2.5 amendments per year. Some of the amendments
even benefited the property owner.

The pace and the scope of the amendments
really picked up in 2000, with the election of the current
Board of Supervisors. In the last six years there
have been 29 amendments, an average of five amendments
per year—twice the rate in the first 21 years of
the ordinance. In the year 2006, there were seven
amendments, the highest number for any year since
the adoption of the rent ordinance. And, as we all
know, none of these was to help the property owner.

I doubt that any other business in the city has
had as many regulations imposed upon it in the same
period of time. Is it any wonder that more and more
property owners are choosing to leave their units
vacant,make use of the Ellis Act to get out of the business,
or sell off units as TICs. The number of regulations
restricting owners’ rights to control their property
has exploded during the past six years; the number of
TICs has also exploded during this period. It seems
pretty obvious that there is a correlation. Maybe one
of these years the Supervisors will see the connection
and pass laws that will encourage small property owners
to stay in business rather than getting out of it;
pass laws where both parties are considered, not just
one; and take the politics out of housing policy.

Some of the most significant amendments to the San Francisco rent ordinance

1982: the rent ordinance is made permanent
1991: a 25% ownership interest is required to perform an owner-move-in (OMI) eviction
1992: the removal of the 4% minimum annual rent increase allowed
1994: the elimination of the exemption for small owner-occupied buildings
1997: the limitation on OMI evictions in the case of senior or disabled tenants
1998: the limitation to one OMI eviction allowed in a building and other restrictions on OMIs
1999: the loss of our right to prohibit subletting
2000: the increase in the relocation payment required under the Ellis Act for low-income tenants to more than the state-mandated amount
2002: the change in the interest rate on security deposits
2003: the limitation of capital improvement passthrough increases
2004: the limitation on rent increases allowed for increased operating and maintenance costs, and also
the loss of our right to determine how many people may occupy a unit;
2005: extending the relocation payment required under the Ellis Act for all tenants to more than the state-mandated amount
2006: the requirement for “just cause” for removal of a housing service; and also, the increase in the relocation payments required for an OMI or relative move-in eviction. In addition, limitations were imposed on the condo conversion process so that certain types of evictions result in making it more difficult or impossible to condo-convert a building.


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.


Back to Sample Our Newsletter