(415)552-9060
Is My Rent Being Raised In Retaliation For My Repair Complaints (And Is That Legal?)

Is My Rent Being Raised In Retaliation For My Repair Complaints (And Is That Legal?)

Is My Rent Being Raised In Retaliation For My Repair Complaints (And Is That Legal?)

I have a strong suspicion you are going to tell me I’m SOL but hey, I’m the girl who called the ACLU when my principal tried to suspend me because I forgot (I was studying in homeroom) to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance

My husband and I live a newer condominium building, in a 2BR/2BA apartment.  Our rent is currently $3200 set to go up to $3800 3/1/12. My husband moved into a 1BR in the building in 2004 and into our current apartment in 2006. I moved into the apartment in 2008. Despite asking several times, I was never put on the lease nor given a new lease. I do have a letter from the management company stating that I have lived here since 2008, so that I could get medical insurance as a domestic partner to my now husband.

The building is mixed commercial/residential and has approximately 40 residential rental units. Our lease is titled ‘Condominium unit residential lease agreement and deposit receipt’ but there is an Exhibit B stating that: “the unit you may rent has been approved in the past by the city and county of San Francisco for sale to the public as a condominium project.  The Landlord/Owner of your condominium does not, however, have the approval it would need from the state of California for the sale of the condominium units, as Landlord/Owner does not presently intend to sell these units as condominiums…’

For several months I have been asking the manager  of the on-site management company in writing, to repair some small things (a broken drawer in the kitchen cabinet and in one bathroom, some warped wood on several kitchen cabinets from the leaking dishwasher that took some time for them to fix, some grout in the bathroom that is mildew stained and won’t come clean, some mold spots forming on the bathroom ceiling) in the apartment and paint, since it was never painted before we moved in.

Finally the building engineer and the owner of the management company arranged to do a walkthrough of the apartment to see what they could do. What they proposed was that many things in the apartment needed updating. It is my understanding that they presented a much larger scope of work than our repair requests to the owner.

The engineer told us that the mildew problem was coming from behind the tile and eventually the tile would just fall out.  He said indicated that the tile would have to be ripped out and replaced in the shower and that the tile on the floor would look awful next to the new tile, so the whole bathroom would need to be re-done. He also explained that the kitchen drawer would cost more to repair than to replace all the cabinetry.

Apparently the engineer submitted an estimate in the range of $70K. Clearly he was excited at the prospect of a ‘fun’ project and was immediately asking me to go tile shopping.

Well wouldn’t you know that before long, we weren’t hearing from the engineer anymore. I have always had to make several requests before I got a response from these people, but the change was so dramatic we knew something was up.

My husband asked the engineer why we hadn’t heard from him, he said that in reviewing our apartment the landlord realized that we had one of the best rents in the building and wanted to raise our rent.

Finally the onsite manager and the woman who runs the daily operations of the on-site management office came up for coffee and to give us an explanation for their lack of response.  They said that they had never seen the owner react this way and that he was usually fine with completing repairs and upgrades for long-standing tenants. Now they said the owner wanted to raise our rent from $3200 to $4000 but they ‘talked him down’ to $3800.

BTW the condo owner has just fired his company and hired Laramar (god help us) to run the building. The stories I’ve heard…oy vey!

On December 5th we received a letter, postmarked November 30th, stating that our rent would increase to $3800. I told the managing agent, in writing, that they must give us at least 60 days notice, plus 5 days for mailing, to increase our rent more than 10%. They sent me another letter saying the increase would take effect March 1, 2012.

I know this all sounds like fluff. We are not in crisis here. There are not really ‘habitability’ issues. The rent wasn’t raised for 5 years.

My problem is the complete lack of response to the repair issues! I am not an unreasonable person. Had the landlord approached me saying he would make the repairs and maybe meet us halfway on painting the apartment (or not – just respond), I would shut up and pay the higher rent. I guess I should count myself lucky it wasn’t raised sooner.

I feel that this is a retaliatory move by the landlord and from reading your columns I know that THAT is illegal. I also think there are many people in our predicament. We’re paying top dollar for our apartments, but have very few protections.

So I looked at the online resources you recommended and find myself confused by what I’ve read on the SF Tenants Union website.  They state that a condominium is protected by full rent control if the subdivider of the building owns the condo unit(s).

Two questions here: ‘Condo’ is used so loosely it’s hard to know if we live in one. The lease says condo, but the Exhibit B says it’s not…yet. So are we included in the rent control ordinance as a condo unit, owned by the building subdivider?

Unfortunately, SOL could be the one word answer to your question, but that wouldn’t be very helpful.

Using the specific information you provided (since redacted), I determined that your building was built in 1988. You know what that means–no rent control, no just cause evictions, no nada. As I’ve said before, regarding your tenant protections, you may as well be living in Lompoc. The federal prisoners there may have more rights than the tenants.

This leads me to an important aside. As I may have mentioned before, I worked in the construction trades for years before I started doing this. It’s fairly easy for me to recognize the age of a building. I’ve learned, however, not to take this ability for granted in others. I you, readers, aren’t sure about the age of the building in which you live, you should check that before you assume you live in a rent controlled building. SF Assessor-Recorder’s website. Click the map, enter the address and voila!

I don’t think your confusion about the condominium issue is based on an assumption that the building is old enough to be rent controlled. It’s apparent from google maps that the building is relatively new.

Without going into too much detail, you are looking at an exception in the Costa-Hawkins Rent Housing Act, Civil Code section 1954.52(a)(3)(B)(ii) that exempts from Costa- Hawkins(that is keeps a dwelling under rent control) “[a] condominium dwelling or unit that has not been sold separately by the subdivider to a bona fide purchaser for value.” But that only applies to buildings in San Francisco built before June 13, 1979, usually condominium conversions.

The restrictions upon the sale of units derive from California Department of Real Estate and California  Subdivision Map Act requirements.

Is this a retaliatory rent increase? Unlikely. Your complaints don’t seem to rise to the level of substantial breached of the implied warranty of habitability. If you want to test that theory, call a Housing Inspector at DBI to make a complaint.

As I see it the only retaliation by the owner is directed at the management for company for trying to rip him off. $70,000.00 to make the relatively minor repairs you requested. Bah, humbug. After all, the manager was fired and replaced. Unfortunately, you’ll have to pay the price.

Request the repairs again, in writing. Continue to do so until Laramar either relents or truly retaliates.

Make it your mission to email your legislators every hour of every day demanding a repeal of Costa-Hawkins so that rent control can be uniformly applied to all buildings in San Francisco and other rent controlled jurisdictions.

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

My Building’s Being Sold, Do I Have To Get Out?

My Building’s Being Sold, Do I Have To Get Out?

My Building’s Being Sold, Do I Have To Get Out?

We have just been notified that our rowhouse in SoMa is being sold by the owner, and is currently on the market.  We have not been given notice to vacate yet, but anticipate that it will be sold pretty quickly.  We are trying to figure out if we would be given relocation benefits, as we have been perfect tenants and would only move due to new owners moving into the unit.  A few facts to consider: the unit is not rent controlled since it is the only unit the landlord owns, it was built around 1907, and our 1 year lease is up July 1st  (then we go month to month).

This is a good time to go over some Rent Ordinance basics. Generally, there are three variables to look at to determine if your tenancy is protected by the Rent Ordinance: Is the building built before 1979? How many units in the building? How long have you lived in the unit? Or course the are a gillion potential exceptions, so read this broadly.

  • If your building was built after 1979, the Rent Ordinance usually does not apply, except in foreclosure evictions. (See Rent Ordinance §37.9D.)
  • If your unit is a single family dwelling (house, condo) it will not be subject to the price control elements of the Rent Ordinance. In other words a landlord of a single family dwelling can increase the rent as much as he desires., unless his dominant motive is to get you out.
  • Single family dwellings built before 1979 are covered by the “just cause” eviction provisions of the Rent Ordinance. A landlord must be able to articulate one of the 15 just cause in Rent Ordinance §37.9 in order to evict you. For example, the sale of a building is not a just cause.
  • If your  tenancy in a single family dwelling began before 1996, the price control provisions of the Ordinance apply. The landlord can only increase the rent each year by the annual allowable increase determined by the Rent Board.
  • If you live in a building with two or more units (illegal units count), built before 1979, your tenancy is subject to both the annual allowable rent increase  and the just cause eviction provisions of the Rent Ordinance.

Of course, the reason I wanted to run through this was your statement: “[T]he unit is not rent controlled since it is the only unit the landlord owns…” It is a common mistake given the complexities of the Rent Ordinance.

You are , indeed, covered by the just cause provisions of the Rent Ordinance. The house was built in 1907. The landlord cannot evict you because the building is for sale. You are likely correct that the only way new owners will evict is through an owner move-in eviction (Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(8).)

Will you be eligible for relocation payments if you are evicted by new owners? The answer is very likely yes, unless the building is sold and you receive a notice before July 1. On July 1, you will have resided in the unit more than one year. The relocation benefits described in Rent Ordinance §37.9C kick in if the notice is served after the tenants have resided in the unit more than one year.

That may not be the end of the analysis. We’ve noticed a growing trend in which new owners claim that their $1million + purchase has strapped them so much they can’t afford to pay the relocation benefits of say $10, 202.00.  (Whine, cry.) They prefer, instead, to significantly increase the rent on a house or condo (because they can) to drive the tenants out.

If that happens to you, go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to discuss your strategy. You may need a lawyer for this one. Be sure to get the TU approved lawyer list.

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

My Landlord’s Jacking My Rent Way Up After I Complained About Maintenance

My Landlord’s Jacking My Rent Way Up After I Complained About Maintenance

My Landlord’s Jacking My Rent Way Up After I Complained About Maintenance

I Complained About Maintenance.

Building was built 8 years ago. Two roommates and I rent a three-bedroom condo from its owner. Rented it to us as a three-bedroom, but we have good information that the third bedroom is illegal–built without a permit.

Construction on the building has kept us from using around a third of our unit. After writing many complaint letters he ignored, last month he sent us a notice that he was increasing our rent by around a third. We feel this is in retaliation for complaining about being partially constructively evicted from our unit. Rent is 3500, increase is for 1200.

Do we fall under the ordinance?

Unfortunately, because the building is a newer one, built after 1979, you are not covered by the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. You can only avail yourselves of the protections of California law. You may as well be living in Bakersfield.

That doesn’t mean that you don’t have any tenant rights. Your rights are just more antiquated and harder to enforce. It’s like you’ve traveled back in time about 40 or 50 years. The Billboard Magazine Number One pop song in 1961 was, appropriately, “Tossin’ and Turnin’” by Bobby Lewis. You’re probably doing a little of that, dealing with your Cheese Ball landlord.

The first thing to do is check to see if the landlord has the requisite building permits for the construction. It’s amazing how often arrogant wads, like your landlord, don’t bother to get permits. And on top of that, don’t consider that their tenants might get angry and turn them in.

Go to the Department of Building Inspection Online Permit and Complaint Tracking site, type in the address and check if the landlord has the permits. Also see if there are other complaints on the unit or the entire building. Remember the unit is considered a single family dwelling because it’s a condo. The building may have separate complaints.

Next, call a Housing Inspector to write up violations in your unit. It doesn’t matter if the work is legal or not if you have substantial violations of the implied warranty of habitability.

Finally, the rent increase may very well be a violation of California Civil Code § 1942.5which defines and provides remedies for retaliatory evictions. Civil Code § 1942.5 essentially provides that the landlord is presumed to have served the rent increase notice in retaliation if it was served less than 180 days after a complaint from the tenant regarding the habitability of a unit. The code also provides for statutory damages and attorney’s fees to a prevailing party.

Go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to discuss your issues with a counselor. You can flesh out your possible causes of action and develop a strategy to deal with your landlord. You should at least write him a letter warning him that you will sue him if he continues his behavior.

Hopefully, you have some DBI notices of violation to support a demand that the construction is completed in a timely manner.

Do not withhold your rent. You do not want to be a defendant in an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit. Alway complain about maintenance in writing.

After all is said and done, you get to sue your landlord. Isn’t that wonderful? You get to hire an attorney. You get to spend a couple of years thinking about and dealing with your landlord, whether you still live in the unit or not.

If you talk to me, it’s likely that I’m going to tell you the same thing that I tell tenants every day, “Make a business decision.” In your case, your landlord will have the absolute right to evict you without cause somewhere down the line. He will also be able to increase the rent to more or less whatever he wants, if not now, later.

Usually, apartments without rent control are not worth fighting for. Depending on the provable damages, many affirmative lawsuits are not worth the aggravation. That’s why landlords get away with so much shit. They make the laws. They know that tenants often don’t have the means or the time or the stomachs to fight them.

I hope you can solve your problems with your landlord. If you can’t and you’re pissed off, the chances are that your anger would be better served working to change the laws than to sue the landlord. Join the San Francisco Tenants Union and/or call Tenants Togetherand ask them how you can help.

In the meantime, consider the 1961 Number Five Billboard hit, “Runaway” by Dell Shannon. Maybe it’s a song your landlord should be singing.

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

If I’m Rich, Am I Still Protected By Rent Control?

If I’m Rich, Am I Still Protected By Rent Control?

If I’m Rich, Am I Still Protected By Rent Control?

I live in a two-unit building where the owner lives in one unit. The building was built in 1900. They are both legal units and I pay $3,900.00 per month.

Is it true the rent can only go up .5%? I make over 400K per year but don’t want to pay any more than I have to.

When I read the laws of rent control my interpretation is that for a building like mine that only portions of the rent control apply to my situation covering evictions and such but don’t cover the actual rental fee. I know my landlord doesn’t cover his costs monthly on the rental and he will want to raise the rent if he can.

I love this question! It’s a great set-up (intended or not.) Rich tenant exploiting struggling landlord. Shouldn’t we all have their problems? I feel like I’m sitting behind a desk at ACORN; a prostitute and her pimp asking me for advice about buying a house and hiding their source of income… Okay, I’ll bite.

Unless the units were converted to condominiums, your tenancy is protected by both major provisions of the Rent Ordinance. Your rent can only be increased by the allowable annual increases established by the Rent Board and you can only be evicted for for one of the 15 just causes. If your unit is not a condominium you are correct. Beginning March 1, 2011, the annual allowable increase is .5%, half a percent. Last year’s increase was .1%.

If your unit is a condominium (a legal single-family dwelling) then your tenancy is only covered by the just cause provisions of the Ordinance. The landlord can raise the rent to “market rate.”

Really, the landlord could raise the rent as much as he wanted, but if he tried to raise your rent to, say $10,000.00 a month, that indicates that his “dominant motive” is to evict you–a violation of the Rent Ordinance.

Of course there are other allowable increases a landlord can levy: capital improvement passtroughs; operation and maintenance costs; utility cost passthroughs, etc. Generally, however, you won’t have to pay a penny more than $3,919.50 if your rent is increased after March 1, 2011.

A rent increase of 20 bucks for a tenant who makes $400,000.00 per year, is this fair?

The Rent Ordinance was enacted in 1979 because:

“Tenants displaced as a result of their inability to pay increased rents must relocate but as a result of such housing shortage are unable to find decent, safe and sanitary housing at affordable rent levels. Aware of the difficulty in finding decent housing, some tenants attempt to pay requested rent increases, but as a consequence must expend less on other necessities of life. This situation has had a detrimental effect on substantial numbers of renters in the City, especially creating hardships on senior citizens, persons on fixed incomes and low and moderate income households.” (San Francisco Rent Ordinance §37.1(b)(2).)

Every once and a while landlords squeeze into their green tights and with Robin Hood-like indignation point at tenants like our reader and demand “means testing” for rent control.

They claim that our reader and his ilk are always going to be able to afford increased rents and that he doesn’t deserve the protections of rent control. His unit, they cry, should be removed from the statutory protections. At first blush, this may seem fair…until you take a closer look.

Means testing, the application of an income threshold to remove a unit from control,would not create a single new affordable rental unit. Instead it would serve to remove vast numbers of units from rent control protections forever.

Think about it, a landlord with a wealthy tenant can raise the rent to whatever he wants, whenever he wants to. By virtue of those increases alone, only wealthy people will be able to afford his unit, insuring that the unit will stay at “market rate” forever. A landlord in that position has no incentive to rent to a tenant whose income may fall below the threshold.

If means testing is enacted, all tenants will have to prove eligibility for rent control. If you don’t like sending your tax returns to the IRS, how are you going to feel sending a second set to your landlord?

Finally, imagine the bureaucracy necessary to enact a means control scheme. The Rent Board would be flooded with petitions seeking to review renters’ tax returns.

Tenants, don’t get fooled about “fairness.” Means testing won’t create more affordable units nor will it provide revenue to do so. Means testing is simply a scheme to rob from the rich and give to the richer–another ploy to eviscerate the Rent Ordinance.

If we’re truly concerned about the rich paying their fair share, it’s time to revive the graduated income tax with upper level tax rates of 80-90%, just like in the days of that old socialist, Richard Nixon.

Let the IRS sort it out, not the Rent Board.

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

My Landlord Wants To Jack Up My Rent Because I’m Getting A New Roommate

My Landlord Wants To Jack Up My Rent Because I’m Getting A New Roommate

My Landlord Wants To Jack Up My Rent Because I’m Getting A New Roommate

Jack up the rent.

I am a tenant in a two-bedroom apartment. There are two units in the building and it was certainly built before 1979. I do not have a Section 8 lease with the Housing Authority. The unit is not a condominium. I have been renting this apartment for 5 years with my housemate. We are both on the lease. My housemate is moving out and I want to have another friend move in. I told my landlords this and they said that they want to jack up the rent from $1700 to $2250. I don’t think this is allowed under San Francisco ordinance.

The landlord insisted that he could increase the rent. I resisted. Now he thinks I have to move out with my roommate, writing:

Per your Addendum to Residential Agreement dated 07/22/2005, provision 4: ‘All tenants shall move in and out together as one tenancy.’ Therefore, per the agreement signed by you and (name redacted), both of you have to move out and the lease is terminated. Please vacate the property within two weeks. Thank you.

P.S. For your knowledge: I contacted San Francisco Housing Authority and it stated that the Landlord can increase the rent if the new tenant/roommate moves in.

Does my landlord have any justification to evict me?

No, no, no!

Before I go off on your landlord I want to point out to my readers that your opening statements about the facts of your tenancy tell me everything I need to know to answer your question. I can tell that you live in a unit that is subject to both the rent control and just cause provisions of the Rent Ordinance. That means the landlord can only increase the rent as much as allowed under the ordinance and that he must have a “just cause” to evict you. I know that you are an original tenant on the lease. I also know that the landlord is not going to get any information from the Housing Authority other than, “Call the Rent Board.”

To be fair to your landlord, if he called the Rent Board and asked the question, “Can we raise the rent for a new tenant moving in?” without anything else, the Rent Board might tell him that he can raise the rent.

But you are not a new tenant. If the landlord forgot to mention that important fact, he is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Of course sending an email with an illegal notice to vacate isn’t very bright either.

The other possibility is that the landlord thinks he can lie about his call and expect you to rely on his information. All in all, I think it might be fair to characterize your landlord as a stupid liar.

What should you do?

First become familiar with Rent Ordinance Rules & Regulations §6.15A and §6.15B. As you may know the Rent Board provides “Information to Go” on subletting and many other topics.

Follow the applicable rule to the letter. Write the landlord(s) to request permission to sublet to your friend before he or she moves in. Your friend should be willing to provide all the necessary credit information to the landlord(s).

If they fail to respond or they unreasonably withhold their consent, you can petition the Rent Board to reduce your rent by half. In this case it might be wise to provide the landlords copies of the applicable laws and procedures.

It’s best not to allow your friend to move in until the dust settles. You don’t want to defend an unlawful detainer (eviction). Even when you are in the right, defending an eviction is often too costly to justify. Landlords rely on that and file meritless lawsuits all the time.

If your landlord insists upon requiring you to vacate, you should point out that the clause in the addendum (likely penned by the landlord and their imaginary lawyer) is void as against public policy. It’s an attempt by the landlord to arbitrarily remove themselves from Rent Ordinance Jurisdiction. It’s like putting a clause in the lease that allows the landlord to raise the rent whenever he wants, regardless of the law.

Join the San Francisco Tenants Union. Bring all of your documentation and discuss the issue with them. They will explain the applicable law in detail and help you draft a letter or letters to your landlord. They can also inform you about filing a petition at the Rent Board.

Readers: This was an easier question to answer because the reader is an “original tenant” named on the lease. The issues get murky when dealing with unnamed tenants, “co-occupants”and “subsequent occupants” as defined in Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.14 and the Costa Hawkins Act (which should be repealed.) There are many scenarios when the landlord can, in fact, increase the rent to market rate. This is not such a scenario. The point is: don’t read this and assume that your landlord may not have a valid rationale to increase your rent.

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

Tenant in San Francisco: What’s Wrong with Working in a Bookstore?

Tenant in San Francisco: What’s Wrong with Working in a Bookstore?

Tenant in San Francisco: What’s Wrong with Working in a Bookstore?

Several years ago I was speaking to a young woman at a party who had recently graduated from college. She moved back to San Francisco, her home town, and got a job in a bookstore. She was living with her parents but wanted to strike out on her own. She simply could not find an apartment she could afford. “What’s wrong with working in a bookstore?” she asked me. It’s a question that still haunts me when I speak to tenants.

Last week the SF Appeal reported that rents are dropping according to the San Francisco Controller’s Monthly Economic Barometer. The article also reported that San Francisco unemployment had risen to 10.3%. It still begs the question, even if rents are dropping, is housing becoming more affordable for those who make your cappuccino at Starbucks? Or teachers?  Or police officers? Or people who work in bookstores? The answer still seems to be no.

I recently happened on a post from the blog, LAist, which makes this quite clear, “Renter’s Market? LA Ranks as Pricier Than NYC.” The post relied on a study from the Center for Housing Policy for the fourth quarter of 2009, announced March 23, 2010.  When I clicked the link I already knew that San Francisco’s rents are higher than Los Angeles and, sure enough, even with rent control, we’re number one…again.

The more interesting aspect of the study poses this conundrum: “Who are among the ranks of America’s workers struggling to afford housing? In some high-priced communities, people who provide the bulk of vital services – teachers, firefighters, police officers, retail sales workers and restaurant workers – cannot afford to live in the communities they serve.” The Center for Housing Policy’s page, Paycheck to Paycheck, provides an interactive database that, among other things, allows you to compare how workers are faring in housing markets of 210 metropolitan areas of the United States.

For San Francisco, the study uses “2009 Fair Market Rent” of $1,406/month for a one-bedroom apartment and $1,760 for a two-bedroom apartment. Then it compares the hourly wage required to afford an apartment assuming that a maximum 30% of pretax income should be devoted to rent.

I checked the three categories for teachers, preschool ($30.21/hour), elementary ($30.15/hour) and secondary ($31.44/hour). None could individually afford a two-bedroom; all could afford a one-bedroom. A registered nurse ($37.27/hour) can afford both. While an LPN ($23.71/hour) or a nurse’s aid ($15.74/hour) can afford neither. A police officer ($29.80/hour) can afford one-bedroom, but not two. A carpenter ($26.21/hour) can forget it. If you work in a bookstore (retail sales, $13.24/hour), you’re screwed. If you work in a bookstore (and you are willing to commute) you still can’t afford a one-bedroom in Fresno.

Obviously, families with multiple incomes may fare better. Single renters deal with adversity creatively. They live with roommates or have three jobs. (A “uniquely American” attribute, as George W. Bush put it.)

Rents may be dropping in San Francisco, but that isn’t really the point. If the price of a Maserati drops by $50,000.00, does that mean I’m going to be able to buy one? San Francisco is fast becoming a city in the clouds, like Stratos, in the 1969 episode of Star Trek, “The Cloud Minders.” The city is held aloft in the sky by “sustained anti-gravity elevation.” Its inhabitants are devoted solely to the creation of art while the miners on the planet below, the “troglites” who create the city’s fungible wealth, are prohibited from living among or partaking in the intellectual pursuits of their masters. While the message  is still apt, the naivete of the episode is exposed because it assumes that the elite will be comprised of artists and intellectuals, rather than con-artists—bankers, stock brokers and real estate traders whose attempts at sustained anti-gravity elevation are limited to credit default swaps.

We all know that that the inflated real estate market of the recent past drove many artists, teachers, nurses and carpenters from San Francisco. Will they return because the rents have dropped a bit? Unlikely. Do we honestly believe that the Starbucks baristas will happily commute from Modesto to serve us our skinny cinnamon dolce lattes?

What’s wrong with working in a bookstore in San Francisco? Nothing, as long as you work in three of them.

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