(415)552-9060
Can My Landlord Make Me Pay To Replace The Carpet?

Can My Landlord Make Me Pay To Replace The Carpet?

Can My Landlord Make Me Pay To Replace The Carpet?

When we moved in, our landlord warned us that the carpet ‘easily stains’ so we must take our shoes off. We do but after two years of living there, the carpet is definitely worn down.

Now she claims that the carpet should not be so dirty & that our upstairs neighbor has the same carpet that is very clean. We also have had a few accidents which we know we are responsible for- a few burn marks & a nail polish stain. The landlord is claiming that because of how dirty the carpet is in addition to the marks, we will be responsible for replacing the entire apartment because she does not want ‘seams’!

If the carpet is thoroughly cleaned when we move out, and all that remain are the few marks we are responsible for, can she make us replace the entire carpeting?

Ah, carpets…one of the big three, along with hardwood floors and ovens. If all landlords are attracted to a dirty ovens like Sylvia Plath, they become vengeful Aladdins when they suspect that tenants have diminished the magic of the wall-to-wall.

Carpets and drapes – “useful life” rule

Ordinary wear and tear to carpets, drapes and other furnishings cannot be charged against a tenant’s security deposit. (Civil Code Section 1950.5(e).) Ordinary wear and tear includes simple wearing down of carpet and drapes because of normal use or aging, and includes moderate dirt or spotting. In contrast, large rips or indelible stains justify a deduction from the tenant’s security deposit for repairing the carpet or drapes, or replacing them if that is reasonably necessary.

One common method of calculating the deduction for replacement prorates the total cost of replacement so that the tenant pays only for the remaining useful life of the item that the tenant has damaged or destroyed.

The dispositive question one must ask is, “How old is the carpet?” That’s important because carpets don’t last forever.

How do you determine the approximate age of your carpet?

The landlord inadvertently tipped you off that the carpet would be a problem when you moved in. At that point, you should have casually asked the landlord when the carpet had been installed. Generally, tenants should ask this type of question before moving in and take comprehensive photos of a unit before they unload their furniture.

If you are planning to have the carpet professionally cleaned, you have another opportunity to get an estimate of the carpet’s age—ask the carpet cleaner. If you can, get them to sign a letter or declaration stating their opinion about the condition and age of the carpet. If the cleaner is reluctant, either find someone else who will attest to the carpet’s age or ask them to simply note it on the invoice—”Steam clean 50 year old shag carpet, with special raking of Acapulco Gold and Windowpane residue.

How can you calculate the useful life of carpets?

Landlords are allowed to deduct the annual depreciation of items like appliances and carpets from gross income for tax purposes.

IRS Tax Publication 527 provides information regarding expense deductions, including allowable depreciation schedules, for residential rental property. Table 2-1 on page 9 of the publication shows allowable depreciation of property used in rental activities. Using the general depreciation system carpets have a usable life of 5 years. Using the alternative depreciation system, carpets have a usable life of 9 years. (IRS Tax Publication 527, page 9, Table 2-1.) Most landlords use the general depreciation system.

For example, suppose a tenant has truly damaged a carpet beyond ordinary wear and tear (hard to prove), an eight-year-old carpet that had a life expectancy of five years would be worth nothing, zero, zip, nada. The landlord has to eat the replacement cost despite the damage beyond ordinary ware and tear.

Using the same example, with a life expectancy of nine years and if a replacement carpet of similar quality would cost $2,000, the landlord could properly charge only $222.22 for only one years’ worth of life (use) that would have remained if the tenant had not damaged the carpet.

In your case, we know that the carpet was not new when you moved in. Assuming that the carpet is three years old, and the small marks to which you refer do not constitute ordinary wear and tear (highly unlikely), you could be liable for 40% of the replacement cost of a similar carpet.

This isn’t legal advice, but I’ve repaired carpets myself. One can do things like carefully trimming off the burned top of the pile on the carpet. Or, cutting out a little piece of the carpet in a closet and gluing it in a small stained area that one has carefully removed like a hair plug. I’m talking small area here, like at most an half an inch square. Don’t try to replace the blood stains from a Goodfellas-style beat down.

Ask an expert. There are plenty of tricks to repair carpet that won’t involve a security deposit deduction.

Make sure you take photos when you move out. If the landlord attempts to deduct from your security deposit, go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to discuss how you can sue her for maximum damages.

Finally, ask yourself, “What kind of landlord would install carpets in a rental unit that easily stain except a Cheese Ball who charges her tenants to pay for replacement every time they move out?” A Cheese Ball who pockets the cost, doesn’t replace the carpets, and still deducts the depreciation from her taxes, that’s who.

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

My 24-Unit Building Is For Sale, Should I be Worried?

My 24-Unit Building Is For Sale, Should I be Worried?

My 24-Unit Building Is For Sale, Should I be Worried?

I live in 24-unit building in the Western Addition, built long before 1979. It is three stories and, all of the units are either studios or one-bedrooms.  I’ve been there 7 years and pay about $2000 a month for a one-bedroom unit. 

Yesterday we received notice from the property management company that the owner of the building has decided to sell it. I’ve always assumed that because the building is so large it wouldn’t be turned into condos, have owner move-in evictions, etc. Now that it’s being sold, of course I’m worried about what will happen next. Do you have any advice for what we should be aware of with new ownership?  

A few years ago I would have been cautiously optimistic in my answer to your question.

Then, as now, a 24-unit building was ineligible for condominium conversion. An owner-move-in eviction of a given unit sold as a tenancy-in common (the allocation of a single unit to an owner with a shared interest in a building) would have been next to impossible to accomplish, because an OMI requires ownership of a 25% interest in the entire property. An Ellis Act eviction (removing all of the tenants from the building to exit the rental business) would have been impracticable because the highest and best use of a 24-unit building remains as a rental income property.

So it’s likely I would have reassured you that your tenancy would be safe, barring the return of the Lembi family to the San Francisco real estate investor landscape.

But that was yesterday and yesterday’s gone. No tenant is immune from the huckster-carpetbaggers who epitomize today’s new real estate tycoons.

During the last few years, I have noticed an alarming trend. Companies/LLCs often purchase larger rent-controlled buildings like yours with the intent to renovate vacant units, turning studios into one-bedrooms and one-bedrooms into two-bedrooms, etc.

You may ask, how do the units become vacant? There may be a few vacant units in the building as a result of inevitable tenant turnover—the seed units, if you will.

Often the new owners will send the remaining tenants the old “win-win letter,” which goes something like this:

“We are reaching out to you ahead of the start of construction to notify you of the work and also take the opportunity to make you aware of a program the owners have created to help tenants transition into new housing. Some tenants are understandably sensitive to construction activity in close proximity to their unit, and thus one opportunity we would like to bring to your attention is to reach an agreement whereby you would agree to vacate your unit at some agreed upon date in the future, in exchange for a payment of money.”

You know…heads we win, tails you get to live in a noisy, dusty, filthy  construction zone—unregulated by an emasculated EPA, barely regulated by a building department with bigger fish to fry and ignored by a build, build, build planning department. And from a legal perspective, not quite uninhabitable enough to justify moving and suing. You’ve just entered the Tenant Twilight Zone.

“And thus one more opportunity we have to procure a vacant unit.”

How can you find out if your building is slated to double its population?

1. Get a copy of the sales listing or a prospectus for the building. Because this type of project will attract more sophisticated investors, a more detailed proposal may be available, one that includes renovation cost estimates per unit, along with projected income for a renovated unit. If the listing includes these details, then you can begin to plan for the inevitable.

2. You can gain valuable insight into a bare bones listing by analyzing the income and expenses. If the price of the building is comparatively low based on net income, it may not be a candidate for renovation.

3. If the building sells, get as much information as you can about the new owner(s). Find other properties they own or have owned. You can search for recorded documents online here and check the San Francisco Property Information Map for more detailed information.

4. Speak to other tenants in the building. Your combined knowledge will be much more complete…and powerful. Create a listserv. Begin to work as a group, a team. Go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to learn how to organize.

5. Try to get information from the real estate agents handling the sale or the current owners. Occasionally, somebody associated with the building may blab. The first rule of speaking to those in the know: keep your ears open and your mouth shut.

6. If the new owners offer you a chance to discuss a buyout, you or a representative tenant from your group may want to consider signing the Pre Buyout Disclosure form. Signing the form does not obligate you, in any way, to accept a buyout; but it may, in some circumstances, represent another method to gain information from the new owners or their representative. Get the owner to explain why your buyout offer is so low. He may want to rationalize his offer by explaining why his costs are so high. Ask lots of questions and listen carefully.

7. If the new owners begin their construction, don’t wait to complain about the noise and the dust and the trip hazards in the hallways. Always document your complaints in writing. Coordinate your complaints with the rest of the tenants. Give the owners one chance to remedy and if they don’t, call a housing inspector at the Department of Building Inspection.

8. Finally, call your San Francisco supervisor. He or she needs to hear your complaints loud and clear and often. He or she may begin to think twice about accepting that “contribution” from the SFAA or some other shill for the so-called real estate industry.

I don’t mean to alarm you by suggesting your building will be absolutely targeted in this manner, but the impending sale of a building these days, even 24-unit building like yours, should concern tenants. An impending sale also provides tenants with an opportunity to connect, organize and take power.

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

How Can I Fight an OMI Eviction?

How Can I Fight an OMI Eviction?

How Can I Fight an OMI Eviction?

First the essentials:

* My building was built before 1979
* Six units in my S.F. building, three are rent controlled including mine, the last 2-bedroom
* I am 52 and have an asthma disability. LL has agreed to pay the $4188 disability payout
* I’ve lived here almost 14 years, and the rent is $1130
* The building sold last May, and the new LL has not even given me a new lease! Clearly a predatory LL, as he could have moved into either of the two 2-bedroom units when he bought the building. He is gunning for my unit.

Apart from making the claim I have “protected status” with my asthma condition (including a letter from a leading asthma dr. in S.F.), and that he appears to be a predatory LandLord, is there any other way to fight an owner move-in?

I’m glad to be back!  Thanks for providing most of the information I need to dissect this.

I see you have a rent controlled two-bedroom unit in San Francisco that rents for $1,130 per month. The predatory landlord (they’re all predatory BTW) wants to evict you, even if he has to live in your apartment for three years, because he can make a shitload more money when he eventually sells the building.

According to several online real estate sites, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in San Francisco is approximately $4,500.00 per month, more or less, depending upon location. The rent differential when the landlord sells the building will be approximately $3,370 per month in today’s dollars or $40,440.00 per year. Using a 4% capitalization rate (a standard method to determine the value of a residential income building, explained in detail here) getting rid of you will increase the value of the building by approximately a million bucks, barring a 9.0 earthquake or nuclear blast.

I’m willing to bet that you pay the least amount of rent in the building for a two-bedroom. No wonder the landlord is gunning for you, given the profit he will pocket. Even if you live on the bottom floor and top floor has an unobstructed view of the Golden Gate Bridge, the tenant upstairs will be safe from an OMI eviction if he or she pays more rent. In my opinion, most of these new landlords, these MBA-bean-counting-investors don’t want to “live” here; they want to get rich here.

Making a disability claim does not necessarily confer complete protection from an OMI.

Read Rent Ordinance § 37.9(i)(1)(i) states in part:

“A disabled tenant is defined for purposes of this Section 37.9(i)(1)(B) as a person who is disabled or blind within the meaning of the federal Supplemental Security Income/California State Supplemental Program (SSI/SSP), and who is determined by SSI/SSP to qualify for that program or who satisfies such requirements through any other method of determination as approved by the Rent Board.”

While asthma can be a disability within the meaning of the California Government Code or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), unless you are receiving SSI or SSDI or qualify for either program, you will not be absolutely immune from an OMI eviction.

You also mention that the landlord is willing to recognize your disability and pay you the mandatory relocation payment for a disability in an (OMI) eviction—for 2017! You don’t mention if the landlord has already served you a 60-day notice to evict you for OMI, but if he served it before March 1, 2018, the disability relocation amount would be correct.

Which begs the question, did the landlord serve you with the correct form of an OMI 60-day notice?

Last year the San Francisco Board of Supervisors made significant changes to the requirements for an OMI eviction and also increased protections for tenants who receive an OMI eviction notice. (Rent Ordinance § 37.9(a)(8)(v).) The Rent Board provided the specific details for the notice requirements in Rent Board Rules & Regulations § 12.14(b):

“(b)       Information to Accompany Notice to Vacate. In addition to general eviction notice requirements, a landlord who endeavors to recover possession under Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(8) shall provide the tenant with the following documents and information in writing on or before service of the notice to vacate and file a copy of same with the Rent Board within 10 days after service of the notice to vacate on the tenant, together with a copy of the notice to vacate and proof of service upon the tenant:

(1)       the identity and percentage of ownership of all persons holding a full or partial percentage ownership in the property;

(2)       the name(s) of the landlord endeavoring to recover possession and, if applicable, the name(s) and relationship of the relative(s) for whom possession is being sought and a description of the current residence of the person(s) for whom possession is being sought;

(3)       the dates the current percentages of ownership were recorded;

(4)       a description of all residential properties owned, in whole or in part, by the landlord and, if applicable, a description of all residential properties owned, in whole or in part, by the landlord’s relative for whom possession is being sought;

(5)       the current rent for the unit and a statement that if the unit is offered for rent during the five-year period following service of the notice to vacate under Section 37.9(a)(8),  the tenant has the right to re-rent the unit at the same rent, as adjusted by Ordinance Section 37.9B(a);

(6)       the contents of Ordinance Section 37.9B, by providing a copy of same;

(7)       the right the tenant(s) may have to relocation costs under Ordinance Section 37.9C, the amount of those relocation costs, and a copy of Section 37.9C;

(8)       a declaration executed by the landlord under penalty of perjury stating:

(i) the reason why the landlord or relative is moving from his/her current residence to the unit for which possession is being sought; (ii) that the landlord seeks to recover possession of the unit in good faith, without ulterior reasons and with honest intent, for use or occupancy as the principal residence of the landlord or the landlord’s relative (identified by name and relation to the landlord), for a period of at least 36 continuous months, as set forth in Ordinance Sections 37.9(a)(8)(i) and (ii); (iii) whether the landlord served a notice to vacate pursuant to Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(8) for a different unit; and, (iv) whether the landlord has recovered possession of other rental units in the City and County of San Francisco for any reason under Ordinance Section 37.9(a) other than nonpayment of rent in which the tenant displaced from such rental unit had resided for at least 36 consecutive months;

(9)       a warning that the tenant must submit a statement to the landlord within 30 days of service of the notice to vacate, with supporting evidence, if the tenant claims to be a member of a protected class under Ordinance Sections 37.9(i) or (j), and that failure to do so shall be deemed an admission that the tenant is not protected by Sections 37.9(i) or (j);

(10)     a form prepared by the Rent Board stating that a tenant’s failure to timely act in response to a notice to vacate may result in a lawsuit by the landlord to evict the tenant, that advice regarding the notice to vacate is available from the Rent Board, and that the tenant may be eligible for affordable housing programs through the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development; and

(11)     a blank change of address form prepared by the Rent Board that the tenant can use to keep the Rent Board apprised of any future change of address.

I am providing the relevant part of the statute here, not to enliven my writing, but to demonstrate some of the comprehensive changes to the OMI statute which became effective this year.

If you have been served an OMI notice to vacate and it does not include each and every one of these items, the landlord cannot evict you based on the notice.

How Can You Fight an OMI Eviction?

When you ask how to fight an OMI, I assume that you want to stay in the apartment and fight (defend) the eviction. Even with the new notice requirements, defending an eviction is still an uphill process.

You (your lawyer) must be able convince at least four members of a jury that the landlord does not intend to live in the unit for three years. Disproving intent is extremely difficult. How do you disprove the landlord’s internal rationale?

When I speak to tenants about this, I tell them that they need a smoking gun. In other words, you need evidence that will convince a reasonable person that the landlord is flat-out lying about his intent to move in.

For example, if you can show that the landlord currently lives in a 35-room mansion in Beverley Hills and works in the film industry, it’s unlikely that he wants to live in your two-bedroom apartment and make it his primary place of residence.

I must warn you that you need to provide evidence almost this convincing to successfully defend an unlawful detainer (eviction)  lawsuit for OMI.

Gather as much information about the landlord as you can.The Supes created the new notice requirements to give you a head start. Evaluate and verify the information provided in the notice. Search for more information on the landlord and his relatives as you can. If landlord’s  18-year-old is moving in and the landlord doesn’t live there, make sure she owns 25% of the building—not that likely in your six-unit building.

Bring all of your documentation to the San Francisco Tenants Union and evaluate your evidence with a tenant counselor.

Your case may have some specific details that may make it worth your while to fight. But generally, when I speak to tenants, I often find that defending an OMI eviction will be an expensive, losing proposition. Think about it, a sophisticated landlord will cover all of his tracks if he has to provide the extensive information now required in an OMI notice to vacate.

So, if you have been served a valid OMI notice, you should also be looking for a new place to live.

Readers: You can find all of the new regulations pertaining to OMI evictions on the San Francisco Rent Board website. Specifically read Rent Ordinance § 37.9(a)(8), Rent Ordinance § 37.9B, Rent Board Rules & Regulations § 12.14 and the information sheets (actually written in English) provided on the site.

I did not address the new 90-day and annual landlord reporting requirements, because they will be more instructive and useful for a tenant who moves out and later wants to sue for wrongful eviction—a topic for another article.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(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

Repeal Costa Hawkins? It’s the Democrats, Stupid.

Repeal Costa Hawkins? It’s the Democrats, Stupid.

Repeal Costa Hawkins? It’s the Democrats, Stupid.

I whole-heartedly support the efforts to repeal Costa Hawkins by tenant organizations like Tenants Together, the San Francisco Tenants Union, the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition, the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco and all the other hard working individuals and organizations supporting this worthy goal. I’ve been demanding Costa Hawkins repeal for years.

For those of you who can, I urge you to go to Sacramento on January 11, 2018 to attend the first Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing and to loudly support Costa Hawkins repeal—to vociferously support the right of local government to enact rent control.

Democrats with a super majority, champions of the little guys, will support local efforts to control outrageous rent increases that create homelessness—No brainer, right?

Remember, Costa Hawkins was a bipartisan measure authored by Jim Costa (D-Fresno), a congressman now and a member of the Blue Dog Democrats; and Phil Hawkins (R-Bellflower), a one-term 56th Assembly District representative.

The California Legislature enacted the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 1995 with the passage of AB 1164 (Hawkins) and its predecessor, SB 1257 (Costa) with support from one-percenters like the so-called Coalition for Fair Rental Policy, the California Building Industry Association, the California League of Savings Institutions, the California Land Title Association, the California Mortgage Bankers Association, and various property owners and apartment associations throughout California.

The Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (CA Civil Code §§ 1954.50-1954.535) gutted rent control by prohibiting local jurisdictions from enacting rent control on any building with a certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995. It banned any vacancy control–regulated rents for units despite vacancy (think Berkeley.) It also entirely exempted single-family dwellings from rent control.

Another pervasive effect of Costa Hawkins in already rent-controlled jurisdictions, is that it allows landlords to increase rent as they see fit upon subsequent occupants, roommates who still reside in a unit after the original tenant on the lease has vacated. The typical scenario here is that a new owner, usually a rapacious capitalist, MBA bean counter, will see that the current tenants are not those listed on the lease and serve a sixty-day notice to increase the rent. This often occurs with long-term tenancies in which the former owners allowed the original and subsequent tenants to replace roommates informally.

Democrats now understand that Costa Hawkins has caused massive displacement and economic hardship for tenants, right?

More recently, California Democrats had an opportunity to to support tenants and failed to do so. In 2013, then State Senator Mark Leno introduced a bill (SB 603) to amend the security deposit law to include, among other things two issues I’ve noted here. It would have required landlords to keep security deposit in separate accounts and to pay interest on the amounts. It would have also required that a court must award statutory damages with a finding of a bad faith claim or retention of a security deposit. The current law says “may” and statutory damages are only assessed in about 3.5% of cases. The bill was defeated by Democrats!

In an article for BeyondChron complaining about the defeat of (from my perspective) a relatively innocuous bill, Dean Preston wrote:

“[T]here appears to be an additional factor driving some of these votes. 17 of 39 senators, that’s 44% of the Senate, are themselves landlords. This results in a bias when it comes to landlord-tenant affairs, one that is easily exploited by landlord lobbyists.

 

The senators who betrayed tenants last week are relying on not being called out. They know things often fade quickly from public view, particularly votes cast in Sacramento. Tenants at the grassroots level need to get their pens, computers, phones, bullhorns, signs, bodies and sense of outrage ready. Senators who opposed this bill need to get an earful as they return to their districts.

 

There is no getting around this basic fact: a majority of Democratic senators voted to protect landlords who illegally withhold tenant security deposits. At this point, California Democrats cannot even be trusted to give tenants basic protections enjoyed by tenants in Alabama. Tenants may have helped elect the 2/3 Democratic majority, but so far they sure aren’t getting much in return.”

What has changed? It looks like only five of the democratic senators who voted against the security deposit bill are still holding office, but will the turnover be enough? I’m not holding my breath, especially since one of the ass-wipes who voted against the bill, Kevin De Leon, recently announced that that he will run for the U.S. Senate against Diane Feinstein—as a progressive. I’m no fan of Feinstein, but I will never vote for Mr. De Leon because he demonstrated his true nature with that one vote.

Why not call the Democrats out now?

Dean Preston’s words still ring true: “California Democrats cannot even be trusted to give tenants basic protections enjoyed by tenants in Alabama.” While I admire and support the effort to repeal Costa Hawkins on the legislative level, a warning to legislators should be included in any dialogue—You fuck us on this and we’ll fuck you back.

Thanks to Tenants Together and all the others, the tide is rising for tenants, but we cannot rely upon anyone but ourselves. I recommend that tenants, especially tenant organizers read Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, by Daniel Okrent.

“There have been many studies that follow the rapid growth of the temperance movement in this era — the colorful saloon-busting of Carry Nation, the tent-revival magnetism of Billy Sunday — but none can match the precision of Okrent’s account. Momentum, he notes, depended on both a keen understanding of the political process and a ruthless approach to elected officials, who either joined the cause or found themselves under endless assault.” —New York Times Sunday Book Review, by David Oshinsky, May 21, 2010.

The strategies chronicled in “Last Call” were emulated by Tea Party Republicans, showing that pressure can be applied at the local level to successfully effect single issue change. The single issues in each case, prohibition and no taxes, were extremely narrow-minded. Imagine how successful tenants could be with the single issue of local control, or eventually, the right to housing. I believe an “endless assault” on Democratic legislators should not only come in the form of consistently calling them out, but also forming a Tenant Party to run tenant activists in local and statewide races. Certainly any Tenant Party candidate should run to win. In San Francisco and other cities with large tenant populations winning is possible. But even in losing a given election, a Tenant Party candidate would not bode well for a Democrat. If there’s a Republican out there who will vote to repeal Costa Hawkins, tenants should vote for that candidate as well.

Did I mention that it’s also time to repeal the Ellis Act?

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

Tenants, Don’t Hire a Landlord Lawyer!

Tenants, Don’t Hire a Landlord Lawyer!

Tenants, Don’t Hire a Landlord Lawyer!

Let’s say you need a lawyer to represent you in a dispute with your landlord. Maybe you have a referral from a friend or you’re calling around to find an attorney. When you call, the first question you should ask your prospective lawyer is:  Do you represent landlords against tenants? If the answer is yes, that should be the last thing you ask. Why? Because you’re speaking to a landlord lawyer.

There are many lawyers out there who represent both tenants and landlords. You need a tenant lawyer! Think about it. That aggressive bulldog you hired to defend your rights could just as easily be representing your landlord. Imagine how he would be treating you if you hadn’t hired him first. Would you hire a lawyer to represent you who says this? “Even if the master tenant has some form of statutory right to move in a replacement roommate or family member, you should not approve such persons to be roommates or subtenants. If the master tenant has a contractual right to request approval, you should still deny it.” Would you hire a lawyer who advocates this?

The last time I checked, both of these attorneys and/or their firms represent landlords and tenants. “So what?” you say. “Why the hell do I care if my attorney represents landlords as long as she gets the job done?” My answer:  “If you don’t give a rat’s ass about other tenants or your future tenant rights, you shouldn’t care that your lawyer represents landlords.”

Here are a few reasons why you should care:

Tenant lawyers are committed to expanding tenants rights.

I know many San Francisco tenant lawyers. Many of them make substantial donations to the San Francisco Tenants Union, Tenants Together, the Housing Rights CommitteeJust Cause and other Bay Area tenants rights organizations. They are volunteer counselors at those organizations. But most of all, they believe in tenants rights and commit their resources to defending tenants and rent control every day.

Tenant lawyers share their experiences and discuss tenant law with one another.

I am a member of a group of tenant lawyers in San Francisco. We promise to one another that we will only represent tenants in residential cases. We will not represent master tenants seeking to evict their subtenants. We have a listserv in which we discuss the latest law and best practices to fight for our clients. We will not allow attorneys who represent both landlords and tenants to join this group. Why? Because we don’t want our strategies to be available to landlords. Any lawyer will tell you that one of the most important parts of her job is to be able to anticipate the other side’s strategy. It’s a misnomer to think that an attorney has to represent both sides to be able to effectively represent her client. As tenant lawyers we have seen every trick in the book. We have a network to discuss landlord strategies and methods to counter them.

Tenant lawyers are more empathetic. Many of them are tenants themselves.

The simple point of this is: Why would you hire landlord lawyer who is, at best, ambivalent about your rights? Why would you spend your money on a landlord lawyer who probably won’t recycle it back into the tenant community? If you’re a tenant and you need a lawyer, join the Tenants Union, get their list and hire a tenant lawyer!

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

SF Tenants: Jack Tarred and Feathered

SF Tenants: Jack Tarred and Feathered

SF Tenants: Jack Tarred and Feathered

“The Jack Tar is a symbol of things to come, and presumably the day is not far distant when the storied hills of Baghdad-by-the-Bay will be covered with lively replicas of its Southlandish bravado.”   –Herb Caen, The Crack in the Bay Window, The San Francisco Chronicle, April 12, 1960.

Herb Caen famously criticized the Jack Tar Hotel once located at Geary and Van Ness. Why? Not only because it was butt-ugly, but that it did not represent the character of the City that he had grown to love. “In San Francisco one has to look back to find the key, at least architecturally. The question before the house is simply this: is San Francisco to become a sort of unlikely parking lot for concrete blockhouses and balconied bath houses, traversed by the freeways they in some ways resemble, or will some attempt be made to preserve the character of the last “different” city in the country? Or, to put it another way: which sings the song of San Francisco more strongly — the cable car, literally rooted to the heart of the city, or the Jack Tar Hotel?”

Herb Caen sang the song of the City, his Baghdad-by-the-Bay, when beatnik writers like Kerouac and Ginsberg could live here and write without two nickels rubbing together in their pockets; when Richard Diebenkorn was a student at the California School of Fine Arts beginning to develop his aeronautic landscapes; when Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead played free concerts for hippies who could still find a way to pay the rent; and even when a newcomer like me could scrape up enough dough to pay rent and hang out at the Mab and vote for Jello Biafra for mayor in 1979.

You didn’t have to be rich and famous to live here. You certainly didn’t have to be rich and famous to have fun here…But I digress.

In 1960, Mr. Caen reminded us that some of San Francisco’s magic lies in its “continuity with a past that was as colorful and memorable as that of any city 10 times its age.” Herb Caen didn’t write as much about life “South of the Slot”–the vast, now mostly residential, neighborhoods south of Market, like the Mission. I live in the Mission and we sing the song of the City in our art and our work as loud and as proud as they do in North Beach.

And now it is our turn to become a “parking lot for concrete blockhouses.” Southlandlish developers make no attempt to preserve the character of our part of this “different” city. To make matters worse these monstrosities springing up in the Mission masquerade as “housing.” Because they are new buildings and built as condominiums, the units are not covered by the Rent Ordinance and never will be (unless the hideous Costa-Hawkins Act is repealed), so they can be rented at “market rate.” (Of course the only way to justify calling the rental business a “market” is to assume that land is a commodity that can be manufactured, bought and sold. But as all tenants know, land isn’t Doritos–you can’t eat all you want because they can’t make more.) Yet manufacturing housing seems to be the justification for building these ugly, unsustainable, expensive monuments to greed. Of course, as all rent-controlled tenants understand, one has to be rich to live in one of these shit boxes. I walked around the neighborhood a couple of days ago. I found three buildings within a few blocks of my apartment that prove Herb Caen’s prescience.

Not built for tenants

1515 15th Street at South Van Ness

This one may have well as been designed by former San Quentin inmates to serve as a visual aid to remind them that they never want to live in prison again. The only element missing is a machine gun turret. Hey, there’s a unit in the building coming up for rent! It’s only $5,200.00 per month with a $13,800.00 move-in cost!

Not built for tenants

2208 Mission Street at 18th Street

This building seems to embrace the suedo-Queen Anne Victorian style–that’s right, suedo, as in a 1972 BarcaLounger complete with grandpa’s little dribbles–with rounded bay windows. Perhaps the designers were paying homage to Herb Caen when they designed the bays: “Irreplaceable (if sometimes horrible) Victorian examples of an era that gave birth to the very image of San Francisco are disappearing daily; one by one, the bay windows are being smashed — the windows that formed the shining, unique face of a city.” I watched this building being constructed in fits and starts over about a two-year period. The construction stopped for quite some time leaving framing exposed to the weather, molding away. They did remove the contaminated material when they restarted the construction, but they still painted the building a mildewy, baby shit beige.

Not built for tenants

2558 Mission between 21st and 22nd Streets

I like to call this one No Giant Value. Shiny, yes, but what’s with the post-liquefaction style accentuated by clown colors? A 725 square foot one-bedroom purportedly sold in this building for $1,087,000.00. To be fair, none of these buildings replaced any affordable rental housing. The problem is that they did not create any affordable rental housing either.

Tenants, need any more reasons to vote Yes on Proposition I? I don’t.

$250,000 per year for each lost tenant household Here’s where the feathering comes in. If it isn’t enough to flaunt the lack of affordable, rent-controlled units, by building oversized, ugly, million dollar-a-condo projects, landlords have stepped up their campaigns to oust tenants from rent-controlled units so that they rent them as hotels with Airbnb and other similar agents.

In the last year, I’ve seen a huge uptick in calls from tenants complaining about landlord tactics to legally or illegally oust them from their in-law units, as well as any unit located in a two-unit building. The San Francisco League of Pissed of Voters tweeted this message to Airbnb in response to a series of loathsome ads it placed around town to admonish the City to use Airbnb taxes to create bike lanes, feed expired parking meters and to keep the library open later. Indeed the asterisk refers to a report by the San Francisco Controller, which states in part on page 8:

•  If short-term renting results in the withdrawal of a housing unit from the residential market, then the reduced supply would lead to higher housing costs.

•  The citywide economic harms associated with higher housing costs are fairly severe. According to the REMI model (Regional Economic Models, Inc.), removing a single housing unit from the market would have a total economic impact on the city’s economy of approximately -$250,000 to -$300,000 per year. This exceeds the annual total economic benefit from visitor spending, host income, and hotel tax, given prevailing short-term rental rates.

• On a net basis, then, a housing unit withdrawn from the market to be used for short-term rentals produces a negative economic impact on the city, even if the unit generates host income, visitor spending, and hotel tax every day of the year. Unless the Airbnb visitors are being housed in the Jack Tars springing up all over town, they must necessarily stay in residential units removed from the market, period.

The League of Pissed Off Voters conservatively used an estimate of 1,000 units removed from the market, when the number of units rented in this manner could be as high as 10,000. Certainly the number of units removed in San Francisco could reach that number if the current, unenforceable law remains in place. In other words short-term landlord greed could cost the City $2.5 billion per year, not to mention the cost in community and culture rooted to the heart of the City. I get a kick out the fear tactics used by Airbnb’s TV and print advertising in opposition to Proposition F, particularly the one about neighbors spying upon one another. Any tenant who has experienced this, and many have, know that landlords spy on them all the time when they install “security” cameras in commons areas of a building, pointed right at a suspected tenant’s door. If you haven’t experienced this directly ask around, you’ll find someone who has. With respect to reporting illegal Airbnb rentals, just as I have an obligation to report a public nuisance to the appropriate agency, I have an obligation to report this nuisance that so severely will affect the City. Another easy issue to disregard is the enhanced reporting /licensing requirements in Proposition F. Evidently, only about 6% of hosts have currently registered their units and there’s little enforcement to make them do so.

You don’t have to read the law to understand how to vote on these issues.

That may sound strange coming from a lawyer. I actually did read the law, but I didn’t have to, because I’ve learned a few things since I moved to the City in 1979. I’m sick and tired of rich assholes hijacking representative democracy.

One way they do that is to flood the media with fear campaigns about a given proposition. They tell you you’ll lose your job, in this case you won’t, but you’ll have to commute from Modesto to do it. They tell you that your neighbors will be spying on you. Certainly in the “community” that Airbnb envisions–a transient community, in which nobody knows or cares about their neighbors–this could be a problem. This self-fulfilling prophesy can only be realized by destroying existing communities comprised of long-term rent-controlled tenants.

This is the capitalists’ wet dream–to destroy communities and replace them with transients who would spend their money for awhile and move on, rather than fight for their long-established friends and neighbors. What do I do to determine how I will cast my vote on any given proposition? I follow the money. I simply vote contrary to a given campaign that spent the most money on a given issue. In this case Airbnb rich assholes have spent far more to oppose Proposition F than their opponents, so I would vote yes even if I didn’t have time to review the law. Swear to god, it works every time. Another reason tenants should vote yes on Proposition F? For now, we outnumber the greedy landlords, developers and sharing economy shitheads. How long will that last?

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