Supervisors outfox landlords on eviction compensation measure UPDATED

|
(76)
Will Mayor Ed Lee offer a quick signature to match his anti-eviction rhetoric?
Tim Daw

When the San Francisco Board of Supervisors gave final approval yesterday [Tues/15] to legislation that would substantially increase the payments landlords are required to give tenants they evict using the Ellis Act, the supervisors made a key change designed to counter a recent eviction push by landlords.

The legislation, approved on a 9-2 vote with Sups. Mark Farrell and Katy Tang opposed, increases the current required relocation payments of $5,265 per person or $15,795 per unit (plus an additional $3,510 for those with disabilities or over age 62) up to the equivilent of two years rent for a comparable unit, which means tens of thousands of dollars.

For example, the Controller’s Office calculates that a family evicted from a two-bedroom apartment in the Mission District where they pay $909 per month would be entitled to $44,833 in relocation costs.

The legislation was originally scheduled to go into effect 120 days after passage in order to give city officials enough time to implement it. But after sponsoring Sup. David Campos heard that landlords were rushing to evict tenants before those fees went up, he checked in with the City Attorney’s Office and other departments to see whether they could be ready sooner. And after getting the greenlight, he amended  the measure yesterday to go into effect 30 days after it’s enacted into law.

The question now is whether Mayor Ed Lee, who has not taken a position on the legislation, will act quickly to sign it. He has 10 days to decide, and given that the legislation was approved by a veto-proof majority, the question is really whether the mayor will support stalling the inevitable, thus encouraging more evictions at lower levels of relocation assistance.

But Mayor Lee has publicly touted his concerns about the eviction epidemic and support for Sen. Mark Leno’s Ellis Act reform legislation, SB1439. So I’m sure Lee is warming up his pen and preparing to sign the measure as I write this, right? We’ve got a message into his office with that question and I’ll update this post when we hear back.

UPDATE 4/18: Christine Falvey, the mayor's press secretary, just finally responded to our inquiry and said, "The Mayor is reviewing and considering this legislation. I will keep you updated." Apparently, he doesn't feel the same sense of urgency that supporters of the measure feel. 

UPDATE 5/6: Mayor Lee waited 10 days and then allowed the measure to become law without his signature. 

Comments

after, will now do it in the next 30 days?

Great job, Campos.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 2:10 pm

I don't expect they'll be able to succeed on this heightened schedule but at least it'll force them to play their hands as quickly as possible

Posted by bassguitarhero on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 2:32 pm

But let's wait and see how many do before jumping to conclusions.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 3:08 pm
so?

so?

Posted by bassguitarhero on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 3:38 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 3:55 pm

since this covers everyone currently looking at an ellis act, not just people who have been served the papers

Posted by bassguitarhero on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:24 pm

date of this law may have to pay more, assuming that the courts do not bounce this as a taking, which is my bet.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:55 pm

Actually, the bill is applicable to ANY unit currently under an Ellis Act eviction so long as they are still lawfully in the building at the time it goes into effect. Our household was given an Ellis notice last month, and we will be covered by the new bill so long as it goes through before late July (our departure date).

Similarly, if a landlord tried to Ellis Act anyone today, tomorrow, the day after, etc, the new bill would apply to them as well. Again, this is assuming Ed Lee signs off on it.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 3:52 pm

So then why is SFBG and Campos making a big deal about it?

Generally new laws cannot be retrospective, so if a LL issued you with an Ellis in good faith before the act became law, then you are under the old rules.

Hence the whole 30/90 thing.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 3:59 pm

Just read the language of the ordinance for yourself. The 120-to-30 day amendment is going to help those currently going through an EA eviction. In our case, if the bill went into effect 120 days from now we'd be screwed, as our vacancy date is a month before that. Now, we are safely covered.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:12 pm

Because the clear implication of what they both said is that the idea is to reduce the window in which LL's can Ellis without these new relo costs.

So either you are right or the BofS and the SFBG are right.

I hope you didn't get your advice from the SFTU.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:21 pm

I think you're misinterpreting something somewhere down the lines. That, or Campos isn't effectively conveying what he's saying. I've read and re-read every word of this ordinance from its inception. The amended versions, too.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:56 pm

That's it, right?

And he is racing to accelerate this when there is no reason, even though he says he is doing it to forestall Ellis filings before the bill becomes affective?

Hmmmmmm.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:21 pm

So Campos is pushing something for no practical reason, doesn't really know what it means, has no idea what he's talking about but it sounds good to him, and is grandstanding about it. And this surprises you how?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:41 pm

rent control was started the same way - the mayor (Feinstein) did a 60-day moratorium on evictions under certain rules, and the city just extended it indefinitely and expanded it.

Posted by bassguitarhero on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:03 pm

Evictions can proceed for 30 days from Lee's assent without these fees, down from 90 days.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:22 pm

No, they can't. If I was seeved papers two months ago but the new bill is effective 30 days from now, I'm covered since I still have another 30 days until the lawful vacancy date (120 days to vacate unde the Ellis Act).

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:58 pm

months is retro-actively covered?

I think you have mis-read and mis-understood what Campos and the SFBG have said.

Did it occur to you that your LL wants you gone because you whine on endlessly about your god-damn rights?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:23 pm

It always cracks me up when Steven threatens people:

"I’m sure Lee is warming up his pen and preparing to sign the measure as I write this, right? We’ve got a message into his office with that question and I’ll update this post when we hear back."

Steven's posts get shared by about 10-15 people on Facebook and if you search Twitter you'll see that Joe Rodriguez is the only person who ever mentions Steven's posts.

According to Compete.com approximately 24,000 people visited SFBG.com in February compared to 109,000 for SFWeekly and 4.4 million for SFGate.

If you look at Google Trends you can easily see how SFBG.com has been flat lining ever since Steven got his big-boy job.

It is just SO cute when he threatens people. Like Bat-Kid

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 2:46 pm

I'll ignore your schooyard taunts and just correct your numbers so you don't mislead our readers. The actual number of pageviews that we had for February, as per Google Analytics, was 294,346. And for March, that number increased to 397,836. It is true that SF Weekly gets more pageviews that we do, mostly because they're much more aggressive at using the clickbait of reposting sensational stories from elsewhere, whereas we tend to do fewer posts but more original local reporting. We prefer our approach, but I understand why the SF Weekly uses the approach it does, because it's quite lucrative, and given that we now have common ownership, I'm fully supportive of the SF Weekly doing what it does.  

And as long as I'm posting, the previous commenter seems a little confused about how tenants are legally given time to vacate after an eviction notice is issued, and the eviction only becomes effective on the move-out date, which is why changing the effective date on this legislation was significant.  

Posted by steven on Apr. 17, 2014 @ 10:18 am

Famous last words. Let's see if this law can withstand the inevitable court challenges. I doubt it will.

And in the off chance it does, the additional relocation costs will just be factored into the TIC purchase price.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 2:48 pm

The city might argue that it is not the city who is getting the money, but the takings clause doesn't not require that.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 3:09 pm

check and mate!

Posted by The Dude Abides on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 2:52 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 3:43 pm

No... If you read the bill you will see that it applies to any unit under an Ellis eviction, as long as the residents are still lawfully in the unit at the time the bill goes into effect (guessing within 40 days from now... 10 days for Ed Lee to approve, then 30 days from that date). And since Ellis Acts give at least 120 days to vacate (up to one year if elderly or disabled), any Ellis Act eviction filed from today forward will safely fall within that timeframe.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:06 pm

I think you have mis-read it, or been mis-advised.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:23 pm

READ THE BILL.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:00 pm

Either way, you are homeless and I think the city is better off without you.

Oakland will welcome you, I feel sure.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:24 pm

Wait unitl the sappy tenant gets hit with a 1099. Better not blow it all too quickly, parasites!

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 3:45 pm

And of course tax-deductible to the landlord.

Maybe wait a couple of years and then call the IRS, telling them that you believe the tenant did not declare the income.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 3:56 pm

"Maybe wait a couple of years and then call the IRS, telling them that you believe the tenant did not declare the income."

You'll get a share of any money the IRS recovers.

Posted by racer さ on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 6:25 pm

You mean, not sending a 1099 the year it is due? That is how you let the IRS know.

Posted by Charlie on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 1:22 pm

While the cash amounts tenants receive from are taxable, since it's a "disposition of an interest (leasehold) in property," it's taxed at lower capital gain rates. Probably lots of people don't declare the income, but I know lots of people who get millions in rent, stock and other property and don't declare that either.

Ever wonder why tenants aren't required to send the IRS and their landlord a 1099 for the rent paid during the year? Me either. Except maybe it's because the government hates tenants and adores landlords since most politicians are landlords or have sizable real estate investments in their investment portfolios.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 6:26 pm

"Relocation payments are taxed at lower capital gain rates."

LOL. Those "lower capital gains rates" are 33.3% - 13.3% California and 20% Federal.

Remember to report your ex-tenant to the Franchise Tax Board as well.

Posted by racer さ on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 6:40 pm

So a payoff is taxed at 15% plus your highest marginal rate of state income tax. Landlords can deduct the cost.

Tenants are free to issue a 1099 if they want. Pointless, however.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 6:44 pm

Most landlords will not rent to anyone who has received this subsidy - it signifies a problem tenant.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 3:56 pm

Did it ever occur to you that there are problem landlords, too? That is just an asinine assumption to make.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:08 pm

No one ever said that there weren't problem landlords too. But landlords are the ones who get to pick and choose who to rent to. If a landlord has a choice between someone he thinks is a problem tenant and someone else that he thinks isn't a problem, which one do you think he will rent to?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:19 pm

who the trouble makers are and, in particular, who is likely to move on with their life and who is likely to hoard and squat in your unit forever.

I do not discriminate but I am very, very discriminating.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:54 pm

At the point of filling a vacancy, and with 100 applicants for every vacant unit, the LL is in the driving seat and can insist on a tenant who has never been evicted for ANY reason.

A LL can also legally discriminate against any LL who has complained to the rent board, sued a landlord, extracted a payoff, or otherwise showed himself to be an asshole.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 4:24 pm

I'm thinking this could hold up in court. As far as last gasps go, it's not bad. But, ultimately, it's a speeding ticket for landlords on the road to the end of rent control. Did anybody think that San Francisco was going to get rid of these types of tenants without a payoff? Everybody take a deep breathe. As a previous poster stated, the additional cost will be added onto the purchase price of the building. Of course, that will translate to higher property taxes, which will eventually find their way into the pockets of our beloved unions. And that's great news for the Peninsula at least!

Posted by Snoozers on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:28 pm

This legislation is awesome, it will drive down the market price of rent control buildings significantly, making it easier for the City to purchase them for CLTs.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:33 pm

be bought by the city and distributed through Non Profit Inc to the most deserving supplicants.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:49 pm

Because they won and he lost.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:55 pm

Disagree. The market rate will increase.

Posted by Snoozers on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:52 pm

out units when they are vacant, which will push up rents and also push up the value of buildings, since they are worth more vacant than occupied.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:56 pm

He's been open about his lust for repeal of Prop 13 and Costa-Hawkins for a long time. He wants to turn CA into his homeland of Guatemala.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 7:40 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 17, 2014 @ 5:45 am

The same way that the sate Assembly PASSED the Ellis act, they wont pass vacancy control.

Posted by Charlie on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 1:25 pm

You clearly are clueless about RE investment.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 5:55 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.