(415)552-9060
Tenant Troubles Is Back!

Tenant Troubles Is Back!

Tenant Troubles Is Back!

What happened to Tenant Troubles?

Where has Dave Crow been? Probably not a burning question, but I’d like to explain anyway.

I haven’t been focused on my extracurricular writing due to work. You know…the excuse we all use to avoid living our lives—the “excuse” all of us tenants have when we have to pay 30%, 40%, 50% or more of our net income for rent. My job involves a lot of writing anyway. If you think you want to be a lawyer and you don’t want to write, you’re considering the wrong profession. It didn’t make for good TV to portray Perry Mason, Jack McCoy or (insert your your favorite TV lawyer here) spending hours of time writing legal briefs.

My job involves too much writing that, to be honest, pisses me off. For example, last year Solvejg and I spent weeks responding to an appellate case, chipping away at the reasons why Costa Hawkins didn’t preempt the trial court’s ruling in favor of our clients. In their decision, the appellate court essentially agreed with us, but ruled against our clients anyway. That Costa Hawkins should be repealed is simply a no-brainer.

But look where that got us, despite the efforts of organizations like Tenants Together, the San Francisco Tenants Union, the Housing Rights Committee and others. Up close and personal, tenant troubles break my heart. When meeting with clients or prospective clients, the palpable sorrow, the tears and the dismay at being uprooted from community, leave me little to say. “Where will I go?” is an unanswerable question that cannot be adequately assuaged by “you do have some rights.” or “you can sue the landlord later.”

So I stopped writing for awhile. I often incorporated musical references in many of my Tenant Troubles columns in the past—from Elvis to Dusty Springfield to the Butthole Surfers. When my six-year old niece wanted to take guitar lessons several years ago, she and I went together. She lost interest (she plays the sax now) but I kept going. I began to substitute the time I spent writing Tenant Troubles to practice the guitar.

“The effect of rock and roll on young people, is to turn them into devil worshippers; to stimulate self-expression through sex; to provoke lawlessness; impair nervous stability and destroy the sanctity of marriage. It is an evil influence on the youth of our country.” – Minister Albert Carter, 1956.

I’ve always loved electric rock ‘n roll and punk—synapse frying, ear splitting, raging…yes…devil music. So I bought a used Stratocaster and a small amp. Then a vintage 1967 Galanti Grand Prix. Then a larger amp. Yeah, it’s a mania, with which some of you may be familiar. As I revisited the music I love, to learn to play it, I understood the common thread again—not simply generational rage, but a fleeting, clear, unadulterated vision that only young adults can possess.

“You and me we keep walkin’ around and we see All the bullshit around us You try and keep your mind on what’s going down Can’t help but see the rhinoceros around us And you wonder what you can be And you do what you can To get balled and high…” —Jefferson Airplane, The House at Pooneil Corners, Crown of Creation, 1968

When I first heard Crown of Creation, Jefferson Airplane’s post apocalyptic masterpiece, I was too young at the time, to truly understand some of the lyrical themes, but I loved the feedback—that visceral howl—San Francisco beckoning. I devoured San Francisco psychedelic rock, Quicksilver, Big Brother, The Dead, Santana, and Blue Cheer like each was a last meal. Certainly I will never play as well or as weird as Jorma Kaukonen of the Airplane, but I have gained new respect for musicians of any stripe who the courage and the determination to play well, no matter how weird. Better yet, that old useless idealism creeps back into my head like DNA unravelling. I catch myself asking questions like, “What if they gave a war and nobody came?”

“Just when you think tastelessness has reached its nadir, along comes a punk rock group called ‘The Dead Kennedys’, which will play at Mabuhay Gardens on Nov. 22, the 15th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination.” —Herb Caen, November, 1978

I had arrived in the Bay Area about six weeks earlier, staying with my friend, Tom, in Alameda. November 1978 was shaping up to be a lousy month for the Bay Area. The tragedy in Jonestown had been reported on November 18, but we were determined to go to see this weird, irreverently named group. And that night charted a new course in my musical journey. There it was again, the cutting, guitar screaming, fuck-all-you-all, satire—the roar from those too young to know they may have something to lose.

It’s the American in me that makes me watch TV see on the news, listen what the man said. He said “Ask not what you can do for your country what’s your country been doing to you Ask not what you can do for your country what’s your country been doing to your mind?”
—The Avengers, The American in Me, 1978

In 1979 I had the good sense to vote for Jello Biafra for Mayor of San Francisco largely because one of his campaign planks required businessmen to wear clown suits within the city limits. San Francisco was a vast, post modern circus that needed its clowns. SOMA was an industrial wasteland where one could take in one of Mark Pauline’s Dangerous and Disturbing Mechanical Presentations. One could witness mummified cats, dogs, and raccoons lasered on the Mummy-Go-Round. In that era my list of bands included the DKsJoy Division, Husker Du, Flipper, The Mutants, X, Romeo Void, Suicidal Tendencies, and so many, many more. That music is a little easier for me to play, not that I’m any good. But what about the anarchy? The raw defiance? Is it as easy to embrace now? What if they gave a war and nobody came?

At its best New Wave/punk represents a fundamental and age-old Utopian dream: that if you give people the license to be as outrageous as they want in absolutely any fashion they can dream up, they’ll be creative about it, and do something good besides. —Lester Bangs, Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung, Edited by Greil Marcus, 1987

As you know, San Francisco has revoked that license. Almost all of those people are gone–evicted one way or another. For me, evoking my youthful rebellion and the music that informed it, helps me to refocus and stay pissed off. I know I can’t bring back the past, but I can sure as hell try to head off a inhumane, inhuman sanitized future. I am pleased and proud to bring Tenant Troubles to 48 Hills. I’ve known Tim Redmond for over 30 years. We met when he was a reporter and I sold classified ads at the Bay Guardian. Tim has steadfastly supported our San Francisco community for all that time. In this new iteration of Tenant Troubles I will still give you the law, straight up. I’ll tell you how the law can help you and how the law can hurt you—no punches pulled. When the law is not on your side, and that is often, I’ll also urge you to remember your old music, to let your DNA unravel, to undadulterate, to get pissed off and get political. Try this. Listen to The Clash’s cover of “I Fought the Law.” Then reimagine the lyrics:

Payin’ my rent, hurtin’ no one. I fought the law and the law won. Fightin’ the Ellis Act is no fun. I fought the law and the law won… Etc.

 

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

How Much Do I Have To Help The Realtor Who Wants To Evict Me?

How Much Do I Have To Help The Realtor Who Wants To Evict Me?

How Much Do I Have To Help The Realtor Who Wants To Evict Me?

What are my rights in regard to Open Houses/viewings of my apartment when my building is for sale?

My situation:

I live in a 4-unit rent controlled building (built in 1906). The owners of our building recently died and the trustees of the estate came by with a realtor to assess the building.

I overheard the realtor telling the trustees that they should encourage a buyer to “Ellis us all.” Of course I did my homework and researched Ellis Act, and I know that it’s not as easy as she told them. However, it really upset me that she would say it like that, and encourage them to tell a buyer to do that.

Initially, I was helpful to them but now, without being hostile or breaking any laws, I have no desire to help them sell this building and I have no desire to accommodate this awful realtor. I don’t intend on being hostile but I do want to make things difficult for her because why shouldn’t I?

What are my rights in regard to her Open Houses that she will no doubt plan? Do I have any rights in limiting the viewings that she will schedule? I don’t want to let strangers into my home 24/7 and I also have a dog that will attack strangers/run out if I’m not home so I do need to plan in advance.

Do I have any rights in limiting views of Open Houses? Or do I have to just allow strangers to trample through my home with a disrespectful realtor?

Real estate agents–irrefutable proof that the United States is not a meritocracy. Between the lies, the drivel and the nonsensical notion that real estate agents are professionals, these guys make lawyers look good. On top of it all, despite the fact that it may benefit them, realtors don’t know jack shit about the law. When it comes to legal analytical skills, or the ability to read, it makes me wonder if there’s an IQ requirement to be licensed as a realtor–82 or lower.

Last year, after I had negotiated a postponement of an inspection with a seller’s agent to accommodate my disabled client, the buyer’s agent had the temerity to call me and say, “He (my client) is no more disabled than you or me.” I don’t think she expected my response: “What the fuck did you just say to me?” Needless to say, this moron’s advice to her client cost the buyer thousands of dollars in legal fees and tens of thousands of dollars more paid to my client.

As a tenant, you have no duty to help a landlord or his realtor sell a building. You don’t have to be nice to them. You cannot, however, obstruct the sales process.

All leases have an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. You have the right to to enjoy possession of the premises without unreasonable interference or unjustified entry from the landlord or his agents. The tension between your right to enjoyment of your apartment and the landlord’s right to sell the building can create significant conflict with respect to marketing a building.

First, I recommend that you read and try to understand California Civil Code §1954(a) which states:

A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the following cases:
(1) In case of emergency.
(2) To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors or to make an inspection pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1950.5.
(3) When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.
(4) Pursuant to court order.

Also note that Civil Code §1954(d)(2) provides:

If the purpose of the entry is to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, the notice may be given orally, in person or by telephone, if the landlord or his or her agent has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale and that the landlord or agent may contact the tenant orally for the purpose described above. Twenty-four hours is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. At the time of entry, the landlord or agent shall leave written evidence of the entry inside the unit.

Second, inform the landlord and the landlord’s agent, in writing, that you have a dog in the unit that could bite a perceived intruder.

Third, within the context that you must be present at any showing because of the dog, try to arrange a schedule with the agent that will comport with yours. Tell her that you are willing to work with her.

If the real estate agent refuses to accommodate you, remind her that her refusal will create liability for the landlord, her client, and point out in writing:

  • You have a right to quiet enjoyment of the premises;
  • She must comply with Civil Code California Civil Code §1954 (Be sure to provide her a copy.);
  • If she continues to enter unreasonably, even if the dog doesn’t bite, you will. That you can file a lawsuit against her and the landlord pursuant to Rent Ordinance §37.10B (landlord harassment) and Civil Code §1940.2 for significant intentional violations of C.C. §1954 that carries a penalty of up to $2,000 per violation; and that you will file a complaint with the San Francisco Association of Realtors and the California Department of Real Estate.

Frankly, I don’t know if complaints filed with the Association of Realtors or the DRE have much weight, but I’ve found that realtors don’t know that either (reading issues) and I have used the threat effectively.

Reread my blog post, Even Dracula Had to Have an Invite Before He Could Enter.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Should I Propose A Buyout to My Landlord?

Should I Propose A Buyout to My Landlord?

Should I Propose A Buyout to My Landlord?

Should I propose a buyout?

I live in an old 12 unit Victorian (1890s) in San Francisco’s Haight Ashbury district.

Tenants in our building suffered through the Lembi years where some of my neighbors were offered $25k to move (poor timing on my part).

The new owners are currently renting upgraded units for $3200. I would like to propose a buyout to the owner and see if they would be interested in my unit.

My rent is $1140 for a large 2 bedroom. We have a middle man management company that facilitates all correspondence. Should I send the request to them or is it a better tactic to try and locate the actual owner’s contact information to send the proposal letter to?

I have no idea if the owner would consider offering a buyout, but figured a good pitch may make them consider it considering after upgrades, they would yield a $2k profit monthly.

As you may know, I help tenants negotiate buyouts all the time. I’ve written four articles that illustrate the negotiation process, strategies to obtain the best price and the provision that should be contained in a settlement agreement:

Tenant Buyouts
Tenant Buyouts: Your Absolute Bottom Line
Tenant Buyouts: Strategy for Success
Tenant Buyouts: The Agreement

99.9% of buyout offers are initiated by landlords accompanied with a vague or overt threat of an Owner-Move-In (OMI) eviction or an Ellis Act eviction. Landlords rarely move into 12-unit buildings and almost never take them out of the rental market using an Ellis eviction because 12-unit buildings cannot be converted to condominiums.

The Lembis offered buyouts four or five years ago as a part of their scheme to inflate the projected income of their buildings to refinance them using collateralized debt obli­gations (CDOs), “a strategy that made their holdings more attractive to all that practically free short-term money—hundreds of millions of dollars—flowing in from around the globe.” Danelle Morton, “War of Values,” San Francisco Magazine.

In my experience, I haven’t  seen many successful buyout when tenants propose them. the landlord think the tenant will vacate voluntarily anyway.

The best way to deal with this is to show the landlord the value that he will gain if you move. And if you’re planning to move anyway look at a buyout as “found money.”

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Should I Take A $40,000 Buyout Offer?

Should I Take A $40,000 Buyout Offer?

Should I Take A $40,000 Buyout Offer?

I have lived in a 12 unit Victorian apartment building in the Mission District in SF for the last 22 years.  I am 65 years old and live there alone. I pay just under $900 for a junior one bedroom apartment on the top floor.

The building was recently sold to a new owner. I have been contacted by the new owner just yesterday and offered a buyout of $40,000.  I politely took his phone number and told him I would think about it and get back to him when I can.

My question is:  Is this a good deal?  Since the majority of the units in the building are going for “market rate”,  he’s collecting at least  $20,000 a month.  So, should I ask him for $60,000.

The facts as you present them are a bit unusual. I haven’t seen many landlords offering buyouts to tenants in 12 unit building since the  Lembi/Citi-Apartments days. Of course, they wanted to replace any tenant to increase rents as high as possible in a given building. That way they could peddle their financial meltdown era, collateralized debt obligation fueled Ponzi scheme to various “unsuspecting” financial “victims” like Credit Suisse. I think and hope that practice has been abandoned, but you never know–nobody went to jail.

These days, buyouts are not that common in12 unit buildings because buildings with over 6 units  are not eligible for condominium conversion. If the landlord simply wants to sell TICs (tenancies-in-common), it would be difficult for an owner to evict you using an Owner Move-In eviction because it would be unlikely that the unit “owner” would have the requisite 25% of the building. Of course, you are completely protected for that scenario because you are over 60 years of age and you have lived in the building for more than 10 years. (See Rent Ordinance §37.9(i).)

It is also unlikely that the landlord wants to evict you using the Ellis Act because it is usually wise to keep the option to rent in a 12 unit building. Notice I said unlikely, but it’s not out of the question.

So my first conclusion without research is that the landlord feels he can rent you apartment for a hell of a lot more than $900 per month.

Before you start thinking about making a counter-offer, you should ask yourself a few questions:

  1. Do I want to move?
  2. Do I know, more or less, where I am going to move?
  3. Will a buyout of any amount of money adequately compensate me if I have to pay market rent?

The first thing to understand is you don’t have to go anywhere if you don’t want to. You’re 65 years old and, unless you have saved your money to purchase a place to retire, you may find yourself spending the bulk of your buyout on rent that has trebled since the last time your were in the market. My first advice is to understand the rental market and do the math. Then you may find that no amount of money in the world will justify your move.

If you decide to negotiate with the landlord and you think that $60,000.00 is enough, there are two ways to approach the negotiation. The first is to simply say, “Look, I won’t move for less than $60,000.” In this case, the landlord has already made a fair initial offer. Usually they start at less than the statutory relocation benefit, $8,595.44 in your case, if the landlord evicts using the Ellis Act. He may be willing to just give you $60,000.00

The other approach is to tell him that you really weren’t expecting his offer and you think it would take at least $100,00.00 to get you out, but let him know that you might consider a lower offer. Some landlords expect to dicker and some don’t like it. You should read my blog, “Tenant Buyouts: Strategy for Success,” for a fuller explanation and to understand how to try to gauge the landlord’s expectations.

If you make a deal with the landlord, you’ll have to understand what to include in the agreement. Check out my blog, “Tenant Buyouts: The Agreement,” to understand what terms should be included.

I think to you should be careful about taking a buyout, given your age and the landlord’s limited options. I also think that you are in a position to receive a buyout that could be more lucrative than the average if you decide to go down that path. I am also beginning to sense that the market is heating up. In some cases, protected tenants are receiving more than $60,000.00. That all depends on the landlord’s goals and ability to realize them.

Talk to your friends. Make the ol’ Ben Franklin list–pros on one side, cons on the other. Don’t just come up with a number without considering all of the ramifications of a move-out. Remember too, that buyouts are taxable!.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord crybabies.

Last month the San Francisco Business Times published a reprehensible editorial, “Tenant activists exacerbate rental housing crisis.” They were reacting to the  occupation of an empty building in the Mission by Homes Not Jails on April 4.

This is what riled me up: “Aided by reliable mouthpieces on the board of supervisors, they’ve helped make it so unpleasant over the years to be a landlord in San Francisco that owners of several hundred rental units each year invoke a nuclear option known as the Ellis Act and detonate their rental business by evicting all their tenants.”

I’m sorry, landlord crybabies, but if being a landlord is so unpleasant, why don’t you just sell your building without evicting the tenants?

Essentially that was the question the California Supreme Court posed in Nash v. City of Santa Monica in 1984. “Nash was a 17-year-old student when, approximately a year before the rent and demolition controls were enacted, his mother obtained on his behalf a $260,000 apartment building in Santa Monica. He soon became disenchanted, however, with operating rental housing: ‘There is only one thing I want to do, and that is to evict the group of ingrates inhabiting my units, tear down the building, and hold on to the land until I can sell it at a price which will not mean a ruinous loss on my investment.'” The Court ruled that there was nothing unconstitutional about rent control or demolition control that protected tenants. They reasoned that Nash was getting a fair return on his “investment” and that he could sell the building if he wanted to get out of the landlord business.

That’s when the landlord lobby really started to scream. In 1985 they persuaded their friends in the legislature to pass the so-called Ellis Act to supersede the ruling in Nash to allow landlords to evict all their tenants before they exited the landlord business. The rest is history.

As we all know now, for the last decade, the Ellis Act has been used by speculators who enter the landlord business for five minutes to evict long-term tenants, seniors and the disabled in order to sell units as TICs (tenancies in common.) We also know that those speculators were fueled by a flood of monopoly money from banking geniuses who were later bailed out by taxpayers.

Now the bubble has burst and (big surprise) Ellis evictions dropped 78% in the last year in San Francisco. The Business Times editorial noted this, “But in whatever number, they [Ellis evictions] are a symptom of the dysfunction in the San Francisco rental market and not a cause. Basically, there’s little incentive to remain a landlord in San Francisco — and every incentive to try to get yourself out.” Of course most of the landlords who used Ellis evictions were never in the landlord business and those who were didn’t get out until they saw an opportunity for obscene profit.

If the Business Times cannot recognize that vacant buildings are not a cause of dysfunction in the rental market, what can they see? Not much. The editorial also excuses scofflaw landlords because, “[Rent control] contribute[s] to blight by discouraging landlords from maintaining and upgrading their units.” They misstate the law claiming, “That the owner of the property would in fact be breaking the law by offering it again for rent was apparently lost on the protesters.” In fact, the landlord can re-rent but he would be required to offer the unit to the original renter at the rent-controlled price.

That’s the point. Landlords start to cry like babies when they can’t get exactly what they want, when they want it. “Unpleasant” translates to “I can’t get as rich as I want to as fast as I want to” and “I don’t want to spend the money to maintain my building.” Sob, sob. They also clinch their fists and threaten, “But given that the owner of property ultimately controls whether it remains on the rental market at all, learning at the least to live with them [landlords with their power to Ellis evict at will] would be in everyone’s interests — including, most notably, their [tenant activists] own.”

Unfortunately that threat will remain bone-chilling real until the Ellis Act is either repealed or amended to require that landlords actually be in the business for five or so years until they can get out. And occupying vacant buildings is a laudable method to remind us that, like Jerome Nash, landlords will go to any extreme, including refusing to re-rent units in vacant buildings, to force tenants to bend to their will.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Should I Take A $40,000 Buyout Offer?

Buyouts

Buyouts

“It’s a game of chicken”—Ted Gullicksen

If you negotiate a buyout with your landlord, you don’t want to be the person plummeting off the cliff. That is why we will help you if you decide to take a buyout.

What are buyouts?

A buyout is simply a negotiated settlement before litigation in which the tenants are paid money to vacate and all of the parties release all of their rights. In rent controlled jurisdictions like San Francisco, landlords often offer tenants money to vacate their unit and waive any future tenants’ rights they have. A landlord who offers a buyout is literally purchasing a tenant’s future rights to the unit.

Landlords offer buyouts to tenants for several reasons.

A couple of years ago when property was hot, developers bought buildings to turn them into TICs with the eventual plan to convert the units to condominiums. A TIC (tenancy-in-common) is a shared ownership of a building. In these cases developers sell shares in a building. Each of the shares includes a right to exclusively occupy a given unit in the building. Often developers used the infamous Ellis Act to clear buildings of tenants. I’ll save the sordid history and diastorous consequences  of the Ellis Act for another post.

Another scenario occurs when an owner wants to move into a given unit in a building. A landlord could be entitled to evict a tenant using the just cause of owner-move-in eviction (OMI).  In San Francisco an owner must jump through several procedural hoops and have the intent to live in the unit as his principal place of residence for three years.

Sometimes landlords are out and out lying about their intentions. They serve Ellis notices and OMI notices as a pretext to evict rent-controlled tenants to simply raise the rents. As you can imagine, there have been many documented abuses of these landlord rights resulting in many wrongful evictions. But unfortunately there are many other tenants who shrug their shoulders and move.

If you are offered a “cash for keys” buyout by a foreclosing bank or a sleazy real estate agent who claims to represent the bank, never take it unless you consult with an attorney or a tenants’ rights group.

Finally there are landlords who offer tenants buyouts just to get them to move to raise rents. Think the notorious CitiApartments and their tactic of tenant harassment with buy-out offers ten times a day. You should almost never consider a buy-out when you are offered one by a big landlord you know can’t even come up with a pretext to evict you.

When can you expect a buyout?

Usually buyout offers come with changes in ownership. A new landlord purchases the building or the greedy children inherit the building from your nice old landlord who immediately made repairs when you requested them and who brought you cookies at Christmas. If there are no changed circumstances in ownership a buy-out offer can indicate a landlord’s future intent to sell the building.

Most legitimate buy-outs are offered to tenants in buildings with six units or less in San Francisco because condominium conversion is prohibited in buildings with more than six units.

Get as much information as you can about the landlord.

Like almost all other decisions you will make regarding your tenancy, this is a business decision. Gather as much information as you can. Talk to other tenants in the building to see if they have been approached by the landlord. Has the landlord evicted tenants like this before?

In one case we represented a long-term tenant with an OMI threat from the landlord. He did excellent research and found that the landlord had served an OMI notice to another tenant in another building a year previously. Clearly the threat to our client was bogus because the landlord couldn’t live in two places at the same time.

So take some time to find out what other properties the landlord owns. Property ownership is a public record available through the Assessor-Recorder’s office. Does the landlord claim he wants to move into your one-bedroom, when in fact, he lives in a mansion in Forest Hills? You want to know this before you negotiate.

Eviction notices are also filed with the San Francisco Rent Board. Sometimes you can determine a landlord’s true motives by understanding his past eviction pattern.

Think it through and do the math.

Remember, if a landlord tells you he’s thinking of moving in or removing all the tenants in the building using the Ellis Act, in San Francisco, you will be entitled to relocation payments pursuant to Rent Ordinance §37.9C—as of this writing, approximately $5,000 per tenant up to three tenants, $3,300 for each disabled or elderly tenant and $3,300 for families with minor children. Check the linked chart. Notice that Ellis payments and qualifications are slightly different. That’s your bottom line. If the landlord offers less, he’s a Cheese Ball, too cheap to hire a lawyer and too stupid to read the law.

Next, think about the additional rent you will be paying if you move. You should factor that in, especially if you think the landlord might be offering you a buyout because the eviction threat is a pretext.

Finally think about how much time you will need to find another place to live and remember the more time you request the less money you will be offered.

Citistop, the tenants’ organization that played a huge role in the demise of CitiApartments, has some very good advice about buyouts from the perspective of tenants whose landlord never had a basis to evict them.

Tenant buyouts, especially those designed to empty units for TICs, deplete rent controlled housing stock. Yet, in some cases, notably Ellis Act eviction threats or quasi-credible OMI eviction threats, a tenant may not have any defenses to a future eviction if they stay and fight it out.

For some tenants, a buyout may be preferable to suing for wrongful eviction in the future, especially if the landlord’s rationale to evict may be sound. I believe it is extremely important to develop a strategy that considers all of your options and all of the pitfalls before you negotiate a buyout.