|
From the June 2007 Newsletter:
By David Fix
"Third rail” is a metaphor that denotes an idea or issue so politically charged and “untouchable” that any politician or public official who challenges it risks political suicide. Social Security is often considered the third rail in federal politics. No surprise: in San Francisco politics, the third rail is rent control.
Three Animal Control and Welfare Commissioners have just lost their positions for merely suggesting an idea that would benefit both renters and owners. They had served on the Commission for many years, and apparently served well. Their only mistake was to touch the third rail of rent control. A renter approached the commissioners in hopes of finding a balanced measure that would help renters desiring a pet when the lease prohibits it, potentially saving animals from euthanasia. The proposed solution said that if a tenant wanted a pet which the lease prohibited, and the landlord consented, the rent could be increased up to 5% as agreed to by the tenant. The Commissioners held public hearings, at which many renters spoke in favor of the resolution. They reached out to both the tenant and landlord communities for input. SPOSFI did not take a position or endorse the measure, but did give them feedback. We sent a survey from the Animal Commission to our members to ask if our members would be interested in such a proposal. Only one respondent indicated an interest in participating in such a program.
This was not a proposal pushed by landlords. The responses SPOSFI received suggest that few property owners felt that the small rent increase would counterbalance the potential liability, additional damage, and disruption to the other tenants. Still, the proposal seemed like a win-win for all. It was completely voluntary for both landlord and tenant: no one would have been forced to use it.
Little did the Commissioners know how politically charged housing policies are in San Francisco. The Animal Control and Welfare Commission cannot set policy for the city; it can only recommend it to the Supervisors. When the proposal came before the Supervisors, they were outraged. Supervisor Peskin called it “cockamamie” and a “scheme to undermine the city’s rent control laws.”
Three of the four Commissioners who had voted for the proposal were up for reappointment. The Supervisors dumped them. In dismissing them, Mr. Peskin said “they should have known better,” and suggested it would be better to propose a law requiring landlords to accept pets. Apparently, any proposal that is not completely in favor of tenants should obviously be off limits. Supervisor Peskin also said that this was an area that is “not part of [the Commission’s] bailiwick.”
Shouldn’t everyone be encouraged to come up with new and original ideas? Perhaps we need someone not entrenched in the “housing arena” to come up with out-of-the-box ideas. Dismissing Commission members who have tried to solve a problem certainly won’t encourage others to present new ideas. That is unfortunate, because new ideas are what the city needs to solve its serious housing problems.
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 
|
