|
From the September 2006 Newsletter:
By David Fix
In our last newsletter I said that the summer would be quiet and we would rest for the election season that is beginning. Little did I know what was in store. Proposition H is, once again, an extreme measure brought to us by the Tenants Union. It is officially called “relocation assistance for no-fault tenant removal.” As you should know by now, if you need to make significant capital improvements, want to occupy your own property, or need to move a family member into the property to take care of them or for them to take care of you, you must pay each tenant who has lived there for at least one year $1,000 to relocate. Whenever I mention this to someone outside of San Francisco, they are incredulous that one would have to pay to live in one’s own property, but we have learned to live with the ridiculous.
Proposition H would increase that payment to $4,500 per tenant (up to a maximum of three) with an additional $3,000 to be paid to any tenant who is senior, disabled, or has a child under the age of 18. This has the potential for a payout of $22,500! It is difficult to believe that anyone would not find that ridiculous, but apparently the Tenants Union found six SF supervisors who did not.
Prop H would also expand the kinds of housing covered by these “relocation” payments. The current law only requires these payments in buildings of two units or more. Prop H would subject single-family homes and condos to these “relocation” payments as well.
Apart from its basic unfairness, the arguments against Prop H seem obvious enough to our members:
• It would hurt tenants who want to be first-time homeowners. Who has an additional $10,000 to $22,000 to pay tenants after scraping together the big down payment?
• It is unfair to extended families, elderly, disabled, and gay residents. Prop H could make it financially prohibitive to provide for one of these family members in one’s own building.
• It would encourage deterioration of the housing stock. We all know how expensive it is to maintain a building in San Francisco, especially older ones. Now imagine paying $10,000 to $22,000 per unit if you need to clear the building to do capital improvements.
• It would require payments to tenants regardless of financial status or length of residence: wealthy tenants who have only lived there for one year would get the same amount as a senior living on Social Security who has lived there for 20 years. Does that make sense?
The law of unintended consequences
Now let’s look at some unintended consequences of Prop H, should it pass:
Unintended consequence one:
Even more properties would be kept off the market. Already 10,000-15,000 units are not being rented due to overregulation. Single-family homes and condos would now be regulated by this measure. If you own a single-family home or condo, would you be likely to rent it out, knowing that you may have to pay a year’s rent to the tenants (and the maximum payment of $22,500 could easily be one year's rent) to move back in or sell the property? Fewer properties available for rent mean higher starting rents. The law of supply and demand applies even in San Francisco, in spite of what some of our elected officials would like to believe.
Unintended consequence two:
More Ellis Act evictions would occur. Prop H would provide a financial incentive for Ellis evictions. If you, the property owner, must clear out one or more units to make capital improvements, and you have the choice of paying “relocation” payments to tenants who will return at the old rent, or paying the same amount and performing an Ellis Act eviction, which are you more likely to do?
Unintended consequence three:
Prop H would add to the encouragements for small-scale landlords to sell out to larger landlords. The growth of absentee rental property ownership is not good for the neighborhoods or for tenants.
A “benign” measure? Hardly!
I have been speaking to various Democratic clubs in the city against Prop H. A member at one meeting stated that this is one of the more benign proposals that the Tenants Union has put forward. “Why,” she asked, “is SPOSF never available for compromise and how can SPOSF be against such a benign measure?” The idea that paying up to $22,500 is benign is mindboggling. “If the increase were $2,000 per person, a 100% increase, or were based on need,” I responded, “we would not be so outraged.” The Tenants Union argues that “relocation” payments have not increased in at least 10 years. So they want a 350% increase, even though we have only been allowed a 20% rent increase over the same 10 years! And we’re the ones not available for compromise? As my 70-year-old high school geometry teacher used to say, “the nerve of some people’s children.”
So what can we do about Prop H?
• Talk to all your neighbors and write letters to the editor opposing this proposition. We are working with other groups to organize a campaign against Prop H and will keep you informed.
• How many of you participate in your neighborhood Democratic or Republican clubs? They put together slate cards and endorsements that many people follow. If our members join these groups, we can get our side heard and influence these endorsements and possibly the election results. So please, get involved with your neighborhood groups to let them know the plight of the small property owner. We must get our message out to have any influence on the outcome of proposals like this.
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 
|
