EDITORIAL

Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has won considerable progressive support with his stands on social issues, showed his real political loyalties Jan. 20 when he vetoed a simple, common-sense measure sponsored by Sup. Chris Daly that would have required anyone selling residential property to disclose whether seniors or disabled tenants had been evicted prior to the sale.

The idea, of course, is to slow the rash of evictions under the state's Ellis Act, which allows a landlord to clear out all of his or her tenants and then sell the building to wealthier people who want to buy units as tenancies in common. The San Francisco Tenants Union has found that picketing open houses that result from evictions is quite effective: Once San Franciscans know that someone has suffered to open up a new housing unit, they're considerably less likely to bid on it.

Daly's legislation was exactly the sort of thing most ethical businesses ought to support: Free and full disclosure. The bill wouldn't have banned anyone from evicting tenants, wouldn't have barred prospective home-buyers from purchasing those units – in fact, it wouldn't have added any real regulations to anything. We could easily argue that this sort of disclosure might be legally required soon anyway: The city is poised to restrict condominium conversion permits for units emptied through evictions of seniors and disabled people, which means those units will potentially be worth less on the market, something any seller should reveal to prospective buyers.

But Newsom took a strong stand here, going against logic, business ethics, and good public policy to stand with the landlords and the real estate interests. It's just the latest sign that Newsom is moving to shore up his big-business base: In the past few weeks, he's joined downtown in a harsh campaign against Sup. Tom Ammiano's health care legislation. (Ammiano has always said that the bill, which would require employers to pay for health care, was a work in progress and that he would welcome input and suggestions from small businesses. Instead, Newsom and his allies put out misleading information and used scare tactics to leave small-business owners convinced that Ammiano was out to destroy their livelihoods. And the mayor offered no real alternatives to help the thousands of uninsured San Franciscans pay for health care.)

Meanwhile, the mayor has said he plans to veto another piece of tenant legislation, a bill that would require a Planning Commission hearing before a landlord could do an Ellis Act eviction.

Newsom has gotten a remarkably free ride from progressives in this town. He still has poll numbers showing upward of 80 percent approval, and there's no sign that anyone is prepared to mount a serious campaign against him when he runs for re-election in 2007.

That needs to change. We supported Newsom's stance on same-sex marriage and his decision to help striking hotel workers. But there's an attack on low-income and working-class people going on in the city. Ellis Act evictions are destroying communities and wreaking havoc on the city's rental housing stock at a time when affordable rental housing is an endangered species. And Newsom has placed himself firmly and aggressively on the wrong side.

Tenant activists ought to be looking seriously at putting the measures Newsom vetoed on the November ballot, and making Ellis Act evictions a major issue in the supervisorial campaigns. And progressive organizations around the city should join the likes of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club and the Tenants Union in telling Newsom that this sort of sellout won't be tolerated for another single minute. SFBG