Newsom sides with landlords. Again.By C. Nellie Nelson
In the late afternoon on Friday, Mayor Gavin Newsom stood by his earlier threat and vetoed pro-tenant legislation known as the Renter Relief Package. In June, the Guardian reported that the package, introduced by Sup. Chris Daly, had majority support on the Board of Supervisors. But the legislation was one vote short of the eight votes need to override a veto.
Daly told the Guardian that he was disappointed with the lack of any alternative or counter-proposal in the mayor’s veto message. “If you’re a renter in San Francisco in a recession, too bad,” he interprets the mayor’s actions.
Advocates of the Renter Relief Package had made several concessions, hoping to reach a compromise with Newsom. According to Ted Gullicksen of the San Francisco Tenant’s Union, one of the four ordinances in the package would have originally legislated that rent could be no more than a maximum of one-third of any renter’s income. But the final version would have only applied to those most at risk for homelessness, with the one-third cap affecting people who lost jobs, lost more than 20 percent of their income, or are on benefits such as SSI and SDI and did not get a cost-of-living increase in the last 12 months.
The Tenant’s Union, Housing Rights Committee, St. Peter’s Housing Committee and other pro-tenant groups had also hoped that Newsom would at least sign the ordinance that limited banked increases in rent. As it stands now, if a landlord hasn’t increased the rent in several years, he or she can accumulate the allowable increases of all those missed years and charge tenants a drastically higher amount. The legislation would have limited those kinds of increases to 8 percent of the current rent. Eight percent is still not small – if you’re paying $1500 in rent, it would jump to $1620, and who can afford to pay over a hundred extra dollars every month right now?
The Tenant’s Union had hoped that since even Sup. Bevan Dufty supported the 8 percent limit, Newsom would approve at least that one provision. No dice, though: “He’s more concerned about getting contributions from the real estate industry for his run for governor than he is about the people of San Francisco being hit by recession,” continues Gullicksen. “He has vetoed almost every piece of pro-tenant legislation as a mayor, and opposed every piece when he was a supervisor.”
What’s the next plan, while renters try to get through these difficult times? So far, Sup. Sophie Maxwell has declined to vote on tenant legislation because she owns rental units. But the city attorney is asking the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission to decide on the matter. If the legislation was something that affected only Maxwell’s district, and not the whole city, then it might be a conflict of interest. It’s likely that she won’t be barred, however, from voting on citywide legislation. The Commission’s decision is anticipated at any moment. Maxwell typically votes with tenants, and could override the mayor's veto of the banked increases.
And of course, there is always the November ballot. The ordinance that limits rental increases to stay below a third of a tenant’s income may go before voters, though Gullicksen anticipates relatively few tenants going to the polls in an off-year election. But the 2007 census shows that renters are a significant majority at 61.6% in San Francisco, so even a reduced number could still see victory.
“Anyone could lose a job, it doesn’t even make sense,” Daly said of the mayor’s opposition of the ordinance, where Newsom paradoxically claims that lower income renters would face discrimination in finding housing.
“The purpose of the existing Rent Ordinance is to limit rent increases; this legislation converts the existing rent control program into an income-based private rental subsidy program. If rent control were to be amended in this way, the logical step for landlords would be to choose not to rent to lower-income households in the future,” Newsom wrote in his veto letter.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (6)
The parable of the lawn...
Let's say while at work someone mows a persons lawn, say Chris Daly is the lawn mower. When the lawn owner gets home the person that mowed the lawn is waiting for him and says "I charge 100$ to mow a lawn, I just mowed your lawn so you owe me 100$."
Lawn owner says, "I didn't ask you to mow my lawn, my lawn looked fine, so I don't owe you anything, get off my property."
Lawn mower Chris Daly says, "I know you didn't ask me to mow your lawn, that's why I had to wait till you went to work to do it, now its mowed and you owe me 100$, there is a late fee if I don't get the money right away." Chris the lawn mower has delusions thinks the lawn owner.
The lawn owner responds, "I don't think the lawn needed to be mowed, I also have a service that I pay to mow the lawn, the service predates my owning the lawn even, the service has worked fine for thirty years"
Chris Daly starts screaming and says he represents the lawn mowers guild and that the lawn owner will have trouble with them if he doesn't get his 100$.
Then Chris starts screaming "as a member of the lawn mowers guild I know best when to mow your lawn, I am an expert, as I am such an expert I have been elected head of the lawn mowers guild, so I know when you should have your lawn mowed"
The lawn owner is taken aback, he had never been blackmailed by a person that mows lawns, his lawn he considered to be in good shape and not in need of mowing, now he is being threatened by the lawn mower and his minions. These people he had made no agreement with him are now telling him how he should prioritize his lawn maintaining.
Just then shows up a little yappy fellow and a bus full of lawn mowers, Chris Daly explains the "situation" and then the yappy fellow says to the lawn owner "why are you siding with the anti lawn mowing conspiracy?" The yappy fellow follows with, "Chris mowed your lawn without asking that is true, but that you have a lawn you have an implied responsibility to let Chris mow it sense he is head of the lawn mowers guild"
Lawn owner goes inside house for a second and comes out with two pieces of tin foil, shapes them into hats and hands to Chris Daly and lawn mower guilder and Chris Daly groupie.
Posted by glen matlock | July 14, 2009 09:55 AM
Providing subsidized housing, financed by taxation, is the role of government. Forcing a small minority of private individuals to do so is unconstitutional.
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (5th amendment US Constitution)
I would have appreciated it if the SFBG had "reported" on more than the tyrannical assertions of the Tenant's Union and Chris Daly. An in-depth analysis of the long-term implications to both tenants and property owners and the legality of this legislation would have been considerably more interesting.
Posted by alison | July 14, 2009 01:01 PM
I like how Glen Matlock's 'parable' treats tenants as analogous to the lawn. Who speaks for the lawn when the lawn has no voice?
Posted by JoshB | July 14, 2009 01:25 PM
Funny... it sounded to me that the lawn was a metaphor for private property and the parable was about contracts. I hadn't realized that tenants had no voice, or union, or majority of supporters on the Board of Supervisors or that they constituted less than a majority of voters. Thanks for the clarification, Josh.
Posted by alison | July 14, 2009 02:01 PM
Newsom saw through these legislations for what they were. Payback to the Progressive voters who voted for Chris Daly and his group of 'red guards' Supervisors: David Mar, John Avalos, David Chiu, and David Campos.
Posted by JoblessSF | July 14, 2009 07:11 PM
Frankly, does these politicians really care about the taxpayers or would bother to fathom the true substance of a democratic Society???
Posted by Concern Citizen | July 23, 2009 04:35 PM