From the August 2010 Newsletter:

Small property owners: We have our work cut out for us!
By Noni Richen, SPOSFI President

The defeat of Prop. F in the June elections was a major victory for the principle that property owners are not responsible for picking up all the pieces of economic slowdown. Housing and moderate groups banded together to fight the ballot measure that would have had us supporting to an even greater extent households whose income had dropped. Our victory was assisted by several factors, including:(1) an extremely low voter turnout, which favors more conservative voters; (2) the extensive mail and print campaign sponsored by the San Francisco Association of Realtors, of which our Board member Ilse Cordoni is past president; (3) and efforts by SPOSF and other moderate groups. Our signs were visible all over San Francisco. Every printed message, including our paid ballot argument, mentioned that the legislation would benefit the $200,000 per year household the same as one making only $50,000 per year. That this resonated with voters encourages us to proceed with our modest proposal for means testing legislation affecting all jurisdictions that have rent control laws. Rent freezes are a major part of the radical tenants’ rights agenda. On May 21, a rent freeze hearing before the Los Angeles City Council became so raucous that police had to arrest several protesters.

There is, however, an even more pernicious item on the radical agenda that, fortunately, will not appear on the November ballot. Supervisor Campos’s proposed legislation would have changed the structure of the Rent Board so that instead of having two landlords, two tenants, and one neutral member, there would be two landlord, two tenant and three “neutral” representatives. For the first time, the Board of Supervisors would share in the appointment powers. Although we detest a system that intrudes into the management of our small businesses, the present format works pretty well, which is why both renters and owners complain that the Board is biased! The article on page 4 discusses the issue in depth, so I’ll just say that this notion politicizes a quasi-judicial body, boding ill for property owners.

Prior to the June elections, one lame-duck Supervisor proposed a “Progressive Primary,” along with a list of principles, a litmus test, that would serve as a blueprint for every radical leftist to follow. Although the fact that the Progressive Primary idea went down in flames had more to do with the juvenile behavior of its author than with the ideas he presented, let’s not forget that the concepts presented in the 30-point “Progressive Agenda” are not simply those of a radical fringe, but are shared by a majority of voters in most districts of San Francisco, and thus present a seemingly never-ending challenge to housing providers like ourselves.

If we are to remain viable small businesspeople in this hostile local environment, and achieve any sort of parity with the left, we must redouble our efforts to elect a more moderate Board of Supervisors by voting, doing outreach to neighbors, colleagues, relatives, and other businesspeople —most people seem unaware of the destructive environment in which we must function, and are shocked when informed of the innumerable restrictions placed on us—and getting involved in the campaigns of our endorsed candidates. Equally important, we must also reach outside San Francisco and work to effect change at the state level.

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.