(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

Is My Landlord Trying To Evict Me For Smoking?

Is My Landlord Trying To Evict Me For Smoking?

Is My Landlord Trying To Evict Me For Smoking?

I’ve been a tenant in a 36-unit apartment building in SF since October 1992. The landlords hired a new property management company about a year ago. Today, I received a letter from the management company stating that they had received an “official complaint” that smoke originating in my unit has continually permeated into surrounding units. The “complaint” demanded that I be more vigilant in containing the smoke. It goes on to point out the “quiet enjoyment” and “house rules” provisions of my original lease, none of which reference smoking explicitly, although “house rules” refers to “odors.”

OK, I’m a smoker, and have been since I moved in. I smoke three to four cigarettes per day, one of which I don’t smoke in my apartment. I try to be considerate by opening windows and using odor eliminating sprays, etc., and the common hallway window is always open. No one has ever complained to me about smoke and there are other smokers in the building.

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve noticed that the vacant apartment in my wing is being shown to prospective tenants so I wonder if this “official complaint” is coming from my neighbors or the prospective tenants/rental agent. Bottom line–I need advice about how to proceed.

What is the first thing I fix on here? You got it–a long-term, rent-controlled tenancy. The second element is a relatively new management company who wants to show their prowess to the owner by maximizing profit. What do you want to bet that they just hired some new hotshot graduate of the Citiapartments School of Apartment Management? This is a classic case of a landlord’s initial attempt to establish a pretext to evict you.

It would be interesting to understand what exactly made the complaint “official.” Was it in writing? Typed on a real, honest-to-goodness letterhead with straight margins and not too many misspellings? My guess is that the rental agent may have been the “official” complainant. I’ve seen this before. I had a case in which the opposing attorney claimed that a rental agent had a right to quiet enjoyment while exhibiting the units in a particular building. The agent didn’t live in the building.

Quiet enjoyment is a term of art in the law, meaning that the term has a very specific legal definition: “The possession of land with the assurance that the possession will not be disturbed by a superior title.” (Black’s Law Dictionary [8th ed. 2004]). One has to have possession (a lease) of land (an apartment) to claim the right to quiet enjoyment. Believe me; you don’t get to sue the inconsiderate clod sitting behind you, talking through the whole movie, for interfering with your quiet enjoyment. Nor is the rental agent entitled to quiet enjoyment by just being in the building.

Are you interfering with another tenant’s quiet enjoyment? No. Smoking in your apartment is still legal. You are not smoking in the common area. You are not creating a nuisance. You are not breaching your lease. Here’s where the other part of the definition of quiet enjoyment comes in. If the landlord (the one with superior title) is concerned that he may be sued by other tenants for interfering with their quiet enjoyment, he should do something about smoke escaping from under the door. He should install weatherstripping.

Given what you have told me, I think you would be wise to continue your practice of eliminating the smoke as best you can. Respond to the management company in writing. Point out that smoking in your apartment is neither a breach of the lease nor is it a nuisance. Tell them about the precautions you take and request that they install weatherstripping under your door.

I am also concerned that other tenants may be complaining without alerting you. As I said last week, tenants have to stick together. I think you should politely ask your neighbors if your smoking bothers them and try to understand how their concerns could be accommodated. For example, a neighbor sharing the hall may need weatherstripping to create another barrier to smoking entering her unit.

Expanding on my thoughts last week, before you blame yourself or another tenant for problems arising from living in close quarters, consider the landlord’s duties. As in this case, the landlord may be able to fix the problem causing the discord. If management refuses to act, it’s clear to me that the landlord just became the problem.

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

Smoky The Guest

Smoky The Guest

Smoky The Guest

Smoky the guest.

I live in a rent controlled, 4 unit building owned by a regular person (not, like, CitiApartments or anything). I’m the newest tenant there, I’ve been here for 6 years, and everyone else has been here 20 or so more. Everyone is really nice, but I’m still the newbie. I like them all a lot!

But! My upstairs neighbor has started dating a guy, in fact, he’s moved in. And I’m both just pettily annoyed by him, and sometimes kind of scared of him.

Here’s the petty stuff: he smokes, constantly. And he’s unemployed, and here all the time (I work from home, so I promise I’m not judging the being at home all day thing, I’m just providing context), smoking. I keep all my windows on their side of the building closed, and the hall is smoky (their front door has a decent sized gap beneath it). And my apartment still smells smoky, as does my clothes, towels, etc.

Ideally, my first step would be to talk to Smoky the guest, I know. But, here’s the other thing, he’s a big, all day long drinker, and he scares me a little. He’s kind of a bully, and gets aggro really easily.

So maybe the solution is to talk to my landlord? But I worry about involving her because I’m concerned that by letting him move in, my neighbor is in violation of her lease, and I don’t want my landlord to use this situation to evict her.

So, here’s my first question: how would you advise me to approach the smoking thing, is there any good way (Maybe you’re just going to tell me to “suck it up, princess,” and I can accept that)? And, second, if I were to pass the buck to my landlord, are there laws that will protect my neighbor and that allow her to have him as a permanent guest? If my choices are to live with the smoke and or to lose my neighbor, I’ll live with the smoke.

Wow, you’ve just covered two of my least favorite issues to discuss!

The first is smoking. Caveat: I still practice that nasty habit, much to my chagrin. It is still legal to smoke in your unit, but not in the common areas of a residential building. I, like many tenants advocates, am wary of any law prohibiting smoking in ones apartment because it will provide a pretext for landlords to evict rent controlled tenants.

The second is tenant versus tenant issues. Conflicts between tenants are common, however, unless a given tenant’s behavior is really bad or violent or illegal (i.e. nuisance), again, I don’t think it’s wise to give a landlord a reason to evict rent controlled tenants.

Alright, with that in mind, let’s see if we can figure this out.

You didn’t mention if your neighbor (the lessee) smokes. Maybe this is exactly what she needs to kick this guy in the ass to quit. Maybe this is her ticket to encourage him to look for a job. Believe me, if he’s sitting around the house all day slugging down a twelve pack and smoking a couple of packs of Raleighs, he ain’t lookin’ for work! In fact, she may just be ready to give this guy the boot. Talk to your neighbor. Tell her your concerns. See if you can come to some sort of compromise.

You may even want to introduce her to some guys with jobs who don’t smoke.

I have found that landlords are usually loath to deal with tenant versus tenant disputes. Often there isn’t much they can do; and in some cases siding with a given tenant could make the landlord legally liable to the other. In your case, it doesn’t look like the landlord could articulate a just cause to evict anyway.

You’ve already said you don’t want to present the landlord with the opportunity to evict a long-term tenant. There is no legal construct for “permanent guest.” Many form leases even restrict the number of days that a guest can stay. The boyfriend is likely a subtenant unless he has another place to live. Besides, they could get married or become registered domestic partners to avoid the taint of illegal subletting. Any rumbling from the landlord might accelerate that decision…and you need to show your neighbor why that would be a bad idea.

If you don’t succeed, you may just have to suck it up, Princess.

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

Are Broken Elevators Against The Law?

Are Broken Elevators Against The Law?

Are Broken Elevators Against The Law?

The elevator at my building has been out of order for more than a month, and we have no indication that repairs will take place anytime soon. This situation has made life miserable for people on the upper floors, who must lug laundry and groceries up to six flights. And I have to believe that older people living in the building are, for the most part, stuck in their apartments.

Surely the landlord is violating safety laws by failing to make the necessary repairs!?

Evidently the folks at The San Francisco Appeal have been receiving quite a few questions about elevators since they began their coverage of some of the ongoing CitiApartments atrocities in Tales of the Citi. Last July they asked Who’s Responsible For Elevator Inspection? and in August reported about a CitiApartments building in Six Floors With No Elevator.

In her article about the Lembis and CitiApartments, “War of Values” in this month’s San Francisco Magazine, Danelle Morton quotes an email sent to Supervisor Aaron Peskin, “Our situation is dire at 808 Leavenworth, with many senior and disabled renters on the upper floors…. CitiApartments has had the elevators shut down for three days and will have the water off tomorrow. I’m fearful many senior and disabled renters will die without food, medication, and water. Many tenants are afraid to complain for fear of reprisals. I’m afraid people will die if we don’t get some intervention. Please tell us how to proceed.”

Of course the landlord is violating safety laws by failing to repair the elevator!

Section 713 of the San Francisco Housing Code states: “In all R-1 and R-2 Occupancies, with building heights exceeding 50 feet, which are required to have an operable elevator per the Fire Code, said buildings shall have at least one operating elevator for the residential occupants’ use. Housing Code §1002(b) declares that a building is substandard if lacks elevator service as required by section 713.

So, as I have outlined for other habitability conditions in other columns, if you live in a building that is required to have an elevator, the elevator is broken and the landlord fails to repair the elevator call a San Francisco Housing Inspector to file a complaint and schedule an inspection.

Given the severity of these complaints, I also suggest that you call the San Francisco City Attorney after the inspector issues a notice of violation.

With evidence of your complaints, you can either sue the landlord or you can file a petition at the Rent Board to reduce your rent due to a decrease in services.

I get very angry when I hear about vulnerable people trapped in the upper floors of a building because the landlord will not repair the elevator. This is a quintessential public nuisance and those charged with the duty of public safety should react swiftly and harshly.

It remains a mystery to me that reckless endangerment on this level isn’t criminally prosecuted.

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

A Cave By Any Other Name

A Cave By Any Other Name

A Cave By Any Other Name

When my landlord voluntarily replaced the roof on my (his) building a couple of years ago I was blown away. It was the first time in nearly 30 years of my life as a tenant that this happened. It was the first time in my career as a tenant rights lawyer that I’d heard of such a thing. Usually when my clients complained about a leaking roof, the landlord’s response, after suggesting that the tenant empty the buckets more often, is to jab some tar in the hole. Every landlord has one…no, not a tar hole…an implied warranty of habitability.

The warranty of habitability, the landlord’s guarantee that he will provide you a unit with more amenities than a cave or a cardboard box, is implied in every lease, written or verbal. Unfortunately, many landlords think their properties should perform like an annuity—that the rent should just roll in, like interest, while the landlord does nothing to maintain them. After all, the lord already did the work; he bought the property. I can’t count the number of times tenants have told me when they request repairs that the landlord tells them they can fix it themselves. Or better yet, tries to charge them for repairs he has the legal duty to provide.

California Civil Code §1941.1 provides a list of minimum requirements for a habitable or tenantable dwelling. In other words, if the landlord doesn’t provide or fix the items listed in the code, he’s breaking the law. He is breaching the implied warranty of habitability in violation of your lease, whether it’s oral or written.

Roof leaks are one of the most common tenant complaints. For some reason landlords, especially the do-it-your-self types would rather spend thousands of dollars and countless hours smearing Blackjack on the roof rather than replacing it. These Cheese Balls spread more tar, one gallon at a time, than the Exxon Valdez. Any professional roofer will tell you that you can’t permanently fix a leaking roof in that manner. I had a client who successfully withheld rent for over two years because the landlord would not replace the roof and instead tried to dab it with tar. Don’t try this without legal representation.

Roof leaks are also a major cause of mold and mildew, but when you complain about the mold, the landlord invariably will tell you to open the window while you’re taking a shower. Which shower? The one from the ceiling in the living room? The health risks from certain kinds of mold are well documented.

Cracks in your ceiling and peeling paint are another indication of a roof leak. Peeling and chipping paint on the window frames can also indicate water leaks, if not from the roof, the windows and window frames. In old buildings, peeling paint can be a big problem because the paint chips contain lead. Though lead started to be removed from paint in the 1940s, only building built after 1978 are relatively free of it. The layers of paint from the past do not simply disappear. When the pail peels the old lead layers become exposed and introduce lead into your environment. Lead is especially harmful to children and can cause many health problems including brain damage.

Tenants often come to me complaining about a lack of heat. The heater goes out in the unit. The tenant informs the landlord and the landlord empathetically shrugs his shoulders and offers to provide the tenant a space heater rather than repair or (horror of horrors) installing a new heater. Never mind that your electricity bill jumps to $700.00 a month. There are actually some landlord lawyers who, with a straight face, will tell you that this is a viable alternative. It is not. Civil Code §1941.1(d) is clear that a unit is untenantable if it lacks “heating facilities that conformed with applicable law at the time of installation, maintained in good working order.” Space heaters are not facilities and have never, ever conformed with applicable law.

Old buildings often have plumbing problems. When you inform the landlord that your apartment has a six inch layer of excrement on the floor because the plumbing backed up while you were away for the weekend, the first thing the landlord asks is, “Have you been flushing tampons down the toilet?” In one of our cases at trial, the landlord testified that the hardwood floors were damaged in the when the kitchen flooded. Of course, he blamed our clients because they had the audacity to put cooked spaghetti in the garbage disposal. The last time I checked most dwelling units are required to have functional indoor plumbing. Sewer backups and leaks are the landlord’s responsibility.

I spoke to a tenant recently who showed me an email in which the landlord stated that rats in the apartment was just a consequence of urban living. What? Like the bubonic plague? Yes, millions of rats live here, but they are not supposed to be able live with you. If you have breaches in the building like holes in the walls, rats come in. And you never get the adorable ones who’ll teach you how to cook like in the movie Ratatouille. You get the rats that carry disease and crap and pee all over the place. It is the landlord’s responsibility to remove them, period.

This ain’t Florida, thank god. You don’t just assume that cockroaches will be living in your apartment. Cockroaches also carry diseases. And they’re just plain disturbing. They are very difficult to eradicate, but it is the landlord’s responsibility to get rid of them.

What have I missed? Windows that rattle and leak cold air; unfinished repairs that leave exposed walls; smelly, frayed carpet installed in 1916; gas leaks; exposed electrical wiring; leaky faucets; landlord trash storage in the backyard; rotten decks; rotten stairs; rotten floors; rotten windows; rotten doors; no second fire exit; unsecure building; no locks; inadequate heat; failed steam valve spewing hot steam throughout the unit; bedbugs (yuck)…all of these and the many other issues I haven’t discussed can be violations of the implied warranty of habitability.

The whole point of the implied warranty of habitability is to prevent landlords charging you for what your ancient ancestors could do for free—live in a cave. What can you do to get what you’re paying for? Or make the landlord pay? I’ll give you some suggestions next week.

I want to thank Claudio Bluer of Austral Housing Inspections in Oakland, California for providing some of the photos for this post. Claudio has been serving the tenant community in the Bay Area for years, documenting habitability horrors and helping tenants win their cases against negligent landlords.

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