Mayor Lee responds to political furor with more funding to fight evictions

This map of Ellis Act evictions in San Francisco was circulated by the Guardian and other starting in April.

We’re not sure whether it was the high-profile recent protests against the eviction of the Lee family, our well-read “City Hall must address rising rents” editorial or eviction and gentrification coverage last week, our earlier focus on record eviction rates, or just the growing view that City Hall is too friendly to landlords and neglectful of tenants, but the Mayor’s Office has finally awoken to the biggest issue facing this city.

With skyrocketing rents -- and with increasingly common efforts by the landlords of rent-controlled apartments to take advantage of that market by forcing out their tenants -- Mayor Lee this afternoon announced that he’s tripling funding to fight illegal Ellis Act evictions, making populist statements along the way.

Now, spending an additional $700,000 to fight greedy, deep-pocketed landlords is not exactly going to change the playing field, but it’s a nice gesture and an indicator that Mayor Lee is starting to notice the problem. Hopefully, with pressure by progressive politicians and activists, this will be just the first of many such actions.

His press releases follows in it entirety:



San Francisco to increase resources to support residents and families affected by illegal Ellis Act evictions and releases Eviction Prevention Funding from Housing Trust Fund

San Francisco, CA—Mayor Edwin M. Lee announced San Francisco will triple the amount of funding to prevent illegal Ellis Act evictions and that the City will release $700,000 in funding for other eviction prevention services from the Housing Trust Fund.

“San Francisco must remain a viable place to live and work for people at all levels of the economic spectrum,” said Mayor Lee. “That’s why I am providing additional resources to stop unlawful evictions and provide tenant counseling for our residents, so that San Francisco remains a City for the 100 percent.”

The Human Services Agency (HSA) currently provides nearly $8 million in homeless prevention and eviction defense services, an increase of $1.3 million from last year’s budget. In this year’s budget, the City was providing nearly $125,000 to fund free legal advice and represent 55 San Francisco families who have been affected by illegal Ellis Act eviction threats. Today, Mayor Lee tripled the amount of funding with an additional $250,000, which will immediately be available to eligible organizations that provide Ellis Act prevention legal work and will help more families and people at all levels of the economic spectrum remain in San Francisco.

“Providing resources to stop unlawful evictions has proven to be one of the most effective strategies to prevent displacement and homelessness in our City,” said Trent Rhorer, Director of the San Francisco Human Services Agency. “This additional $250,000 will help keep San Francisco families in their homes.”

The Mayor’s Office of Housing will also provide $700,000, from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, to fund tenant counseling services. This is a 63 percent increase in funding and brings the total amount to more than $2.3 million in eviction prevention services from the Mayor’s Office of Housing. These additional resources will be distributed to community based organizations specifically expanding legal representation for individuals facing eviction; rental assistance to individuals and families who are currently homeless or are struggling to keep their current rental housing; and to provide outreach to San Franciscans to better inform them about their legal rights.

The Mayor’s Office of Housing has prioritized eviction prevention services and funds activities including legal services, tenant counseling, rental assistance, move-in assistance, know your rights trainings, and other types of tenant support.  Services are offered through a diverse group of community based organizations that reach San Francisco's many communities including seniors, people with disabilities, immigrants, the homeless and families.

The HSA will issue an ‘Invitation to Bid’ this week so eligible organizations can apply and use the HSA funding to expand their legal services in order for them to be available to vulnerable tenants within 30 days. It is anticipated that the additional HSA funds will help at least 150 households receive legal advice and representation.






I can't stand this mayor for the wealthy and 1% so any pretty words or additional $$ coming from him to prevent evictions is just theatre show as far as I'm concerned. He works for and is owned by billionaire/venture capitalist Ron what's-his-name. That's all one needs to know. Period.

Now since I can't stand to talk about this mayor, I'm going to get off-topic and ask the BG staff about Drupal and their experience with it:

This is for the BG staff, anyone there who would like to answer it: How do you like using Drupal? This is a serious question since I'm considering switching to it. I'm not really that pleased with WordPress. And since you use Drupal for this site I thought I'd ask you for your opinion(s) and I'm wondering what your experience is like with Drupal. Do you like it? Do your new writers have any trouble learning it since I'm assuming each writer publishes their own articles on the site. Whatever you would like to tell me, I'd appreciate. Thanks very much. Sorry to get off topic, but I just can't deal with the topic of this mayor. Could we be so lucky for him to be a one-term?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 9:33 pm

Personally i have no problem with him.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 7:57 am

I'm not a huge fan of Drupal, it's not very user friendly and the older version we're using has made it tough to install a commenter registration system, but we'll be redesigning our site in the coming months.

Posted by steven on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:00 am

What happened to that anyway?

At least it would rid of the biggest troll here - "Troll Barrier" (irony).

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:33 am

Thank you, Steven.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 2:53 pm

According to my sources, when Lee saw the SFBG editorial he had a real LBJ-Walter Cronkite moment. He put his head in his hands for a few seconds, then turned and said:

"Ron, Rose, if I've lost Steven T. Jones then I've lost San Francisco."

Which explains why Lee is now covering his tracks as fast as possible. Fortunately, he has great experience from his days as a tenant rights lawyer.

Posted by Enlightened Guest on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 9:45 pm
Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 5:59 am

in front of your eyes and you can still delude yourself into thinking it's 1994.

Your owner cashed out and bailed, your longtime editor left, you got bought out by your competitor, you laid off almost every writer you had, your rag is literally about 1/3 as thick as it used to be and...

You are still trying to pretend that you're some sort of factor?? Your "well read editorial" is shaping City policy??

Do you have any idea what a complete tool you sound like? Especially in the midst of your paper's drawn out, very public demise? Jesus, man...

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 10:14 pm

Every property owner has the right (or SHOULD HAVE the right) to rent out the property, not rent out the property, live in/on the property, not live in/or the property, etc., ESPECIALLY given that property owners in SF practically pay RENT for the dirt upon which the owner's property sits!!!! City government nothing more than city politicians doing everything and anything to keep SF residents baffled and ignorant of a simple fact: They're (mayor, supervisors, and every other city politician/official) not civil servants, they are money grubbing, self-serving liars and thieves who seek only to enrich their bank accounts.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 12:47 am

their inalienable right to not rent out their property. In any normal sane place you would not need such a law as it is obvious that people should not be forced to be landlords if they do not want to be.

But because of the outrageous rental laws in just a few cities (SF, Santa Monica, Berkeley) the party got ruined for everyone.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 5:58 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 7:22 am

Tenant activists shoot themselves in the foot by over-reaching, which leads to Ellis evictions.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 7:56 am

It's bizarre. Everything has become the exact opposite from what the tenant leadership had promised. Rents have skyrocketed. Tenants are less secure. What a disaster!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 9:17 am

"Why rent control doesn't work" (or something like that), which you can google and it predicts exactly how rent control harms tenants and helps landlords.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 10:31 am

Nothing the Koch funded Cato Institute has to say is very interesting.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 11:59 am

Doesn't mean their research is any less correct, relevant or objective.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 12:17 pm

here that there would be a new wave of Ellis evictions. Why? Because now that the condo option is off the table (for 10-15 years anyway), the last reason NOT to Ellis has gone away.

The one drawback to Ellis is that you can never then condo the building and now, thanks to Gullicksen etc., that cannot be done anyway. So any LL waiting to Ellis now has no reason to wait.

I'd recommend that any SF LL with low-rent tenant Ellises immediately for three reasons:

1) Booming RE values which may not last. Always Ellis into strength.

2) The condo option is off the table anyway

3) Small chance, but Ellis could be repealed or made more difficult in the future. do it while you can, take the money and run.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 6:02 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 7:23 am

That post is *dead-on* what is taking place. I'm sorry you don't like reality or whatever, but it is what it is.

Weirdo, lol.

Posted by Scram on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:13 am

His mission is to respond to every post here with the same reply.

Mindless, brainless and hopeless.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:29 am

So much for the "eviction-free summer" huh?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 7:55 am

Peasant Mandate on the Land

"The land question in its full scope can be settled only by the popular Constituent Assembly.

The most equitable settlement of the land question is to be as follows:

(1) Private ownership of land shall be abolished forever; land shall not be sold, purchased, leased, mortgaged, or otherwise alienated.

All land, whether state, crown, monastery, church, factory, entailed, private, public, peasant, etc., shall be confiscated without compensation and become the property of the whole people, and pass into the use of all those who cultivate it.
Persons who suffer by this property revolution shall be deemed to be entitled to public support only for the period necessary for adaptation to the new conditions of life.

(2) All mineral wealth ? ore, oil, coal, salt, etc., and also all forests and waters of state importance, shall pass into the exclusive use of the state. All the small streams, lakes, woods, etc., shall pass into the use of the communes, to be administered by the local self-government bodies.

(3) Lands on which high-level scientific farming is practised ? orchards, tree-farms, seed plots, nurseries, hothouses, etc. ? shall not be divided up, but shall be converted into model farms, to be turned over for exclusive use to the state or to the communes, depending on the size and importance of such lands.
Household land in towns and villages, with orchards and vegetable gardens, shall be reserved for the use of their present owners, the size of the holdings, and the size of tax levied for the use thereof, to be determined by law.

(4) Stud farms, government and private pedigree stock and poultry farms, etc., shall be confiscated and become the property of the whole people, and pass into the exclusive use of the state or a commune, depending on the size and importance of such farms.

The question of compensation shall be examined by the Constituent Assembly.

(5) All livestock and farm implements of the confiscated estates shall pass into the exclusive use of the state or a commune, depending on their size and importance, and no compensation shall be paid for this.

The farm implements of peasants with little land shall not be subject to confiscation.

(6) The right to use the land shall be accorded to all citizens of the Russian state (without distinction of sex) desiring to cultivate it by their own labour, with the help of their families, or in partnership, but only as long as they are able to cultivate it. The employment of hired labour is not permitted.

In the event of the temporary physical disability of any member of a village commune for a period of up to two years, the village commune shall be obliged to assist him for this period by collectively cultivating his land until he is again able to work.

Peasants who, owing to old age or ill-health, are permanently disabled and unable to cultivate the land personally, shall lose their right to the use of it but, in return, shall receive a pension from the state.

(7) Land tenure shall be on an equality basis, i.e., the land shall be distributed among the working people in conformity with a labour standard or a subsistence standard, depending on local conditions.

There shall be absolutely no restriction on the forms of land tenure ? household, farm, communal, or co-operative, as shall be decided in each individual village and settlement.

(8) All land, when alienated, shall become part of the national land fund. Its distribution among the peasants shall be in charge of the local and central self-government bodies, from democratically organised village and city communes, in which there are no distinctions of social rank, to central regional government bodies.

The land fund shall be subject to periodical redistribution, depending on the growth of population and the increase in the productivity and the scientific level of farming.
When the boundaries of allotments are altered, the original nucleus of the allotment shall be left intact.

The land of the members who leave the commune shall revert to the land fund; preferential right to such land shall be given to the near relatives of the members who have left, or to persons designated by the latter.

The cost of fertilisers and improvements put into the land, to the extent that they have not been fully used up at the time the allotment is returned to the land fund, shall be compensated.

Should the available land fund in a particular district prove inadequate for the needs of the local population, the surplus population shall be settled elsewhere.
The state shall take upon itself the organisation of resettlement and shall bear the cost thereof, as well as the cost of supplying implements, etc.

Resettlement shall be effected in the following order: landless peasants desiring to resettle, then members of the commune who are of vicious habits, deserters, and so on, and, finally, by lot or by agreement."

Posted by Land Reform Troll Barrier! on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:11 am

Not that i got past the first ten words anyway.

Same ol' same ol'.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:30 am

Our well-read “City Hall must address rising rents”

Indeed, it was your well-read piece that carried the day.

Many tens of thousands of SFers rush to the nearest old banged-up metal SFBG box down the street to get a fresh copy of you paper hot off the printing press each Thursday morning and get a strong dose of your thorough investigative reporting.

Posted by Guest Lecturer on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:12 am

They mostly preach to the choir anyway.

All three of them.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:32 am

if any of your posts have changed anyone's mind, being that you contribute more then anyone else to this site. (Now watch as many of 'Guest's" converters come out of the woodwork to sing Guest praises.)

Posted by Guest 3 on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 4:43 pm

person? That's hilarious.

But actually I have influenced things here because several people have quit reading this site as a result. They have said as much.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 5:01 pm

due to your posts? I was not asking you if you influenced this blog, positively or negatively, I was asking if any of your posts have actually changed peoples minds.

Who is "they" and what have they "said" actually? Can you provide quotes or evidence?

Where did I claim that "Guest" was the same person?

Posted by Guest III on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 6:59 pm

post here. Those whose more moderate and balanced commentary has helped drive out such extremists has done this paper and this city a favor.

I am proud to consider myself one of the good guys.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 6:32 pm

In the Examiner/Weekly/SFBG triumvirate, SFBG clearly appeals to the oldest demographic. Your average Guardian reader is about Tim Redmond's age (64?).

I think the new Canadian owner needs to focus on this older group when considering SFBG content and advertising revenues. For example, has anyone in you advertising sales section reached out to the makers of adult diapers or stool softeners yet?

Just trying to be helpful.

Posted by Guest Lecturer on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:54 am

Love how the SFBG sells full page print ads for the new luxury rental development, NEMA. Makes you wonder.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 1:16 pm

Now that the Ellis epidemic begins to sweep Chinatown Ed Lee finally learns what it means when Ron Conway "takes back his city."

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

They cover most parts of the city other than where single-family homes dominate.

But more so in place where rents have been artifically suppressed to the point where the fiscals become compelling to Ellis/TIC.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 1:24 pm

As the daughter of Italian Immigrants, and as co-owner with my siblings, of our two flat family home in the Marina District, I can attest to the power renters already have and how much our family has been taken advantage of by greedy renters.

We have one lady with a home in Marin County who sublets our top flat for more than she pays us in rent--has been doing this for 15 years and we can't evict her. She is over 60.

The bottom flat--that used to belong to my grandparents and still had original wood work--is totally trashed by multiple co-renters who keep cycling out so we can never raise the rent in 10 years.

Since it was once our shared home with our grandparents, the wiring shared so we pay all utilities. The heat is constantly kept on; toilets are allowed to run because nobody fixes them and we've been keyed out of our very own building.

There are things I could do but it would involve a lot of time and expensive lawyers. Please know, as the owner of a two unit rental there is very little profit and all headache in renting this unit. No wonder nobody wants to be a land lord in SF! The minute a unit becomes vacant, I will sell our family home or convert it to condo--all because rent control leaves small family unit owners with so little options to keep up with market rates.

This was supposed to fund my parents in their assisted living--it has not made enough profit to do so and as soon as I can sell it for going market rate (which I can't as long as I have these nasty renters) you know I will. And there will be two more units off the market due to rent control.

A typical landlord.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 7:25 am

for get that perhaps the worst is the way it pits landlords and tenants against each other, with the inevitable result that they end up at war.

For the tenant this means quibbling over every right here and law there. For the landlord that means doing whatever it takes to get the tenant out.

In your case, the lady who is subletting illegally can be evicted because being over 60 only protects here against "no cause" evictions. She can still be evicted for illegal subletting and violating her elase.

The other unit is more problematic because a "revolving roommate" scenario can quickly spiral out of control and you may never get the place back by merely waiting.

So I would Ellis even though that rules out the usual no-lottery condo conversion process. Ellis, sell it as TIC's and move on.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 7:52 am

The idiot tenant activists got rid of the only reason to NOT Ellis act by putting a stop to ALL future condo conversions. Now there is simply NO reason not to Ellis act !

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 2:03 pm

It immediately took away the only reason for not Ellis'ing.


Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 2:32 pm

Ted Gullicksen is very skilled at getting his name in the media. But most of his policy recommendations have been a disaster. The current system, for which he works very hard to defend, is just an endless adversarial relationship in which both tenants and mom-and-pop landlords LOSE.

Only speculators and developers benefit.

Time for fresh leadership.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 3:34 pm

interest in maintain the adversity since his job depends on it.

If there were a magical solution tomorrow that both landlords and tenants loved, he would resist it, because he lives for the problem and not for any solution.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 4:08 pm

The landlord tenant relationship has always been adversarial since the first time some humans decided to be warlords, who eventually morphed into landlords when nation states were formed and warlords were overtaken by the nation-state but the predatory landlord relationship was retained. (Although many places in the Mid-East (ie, Pakistan, Afghanistan) and Africa still have clans and warlords that control/rule various regions of nation states.)

The private landlord-tenant relationship is economic in nature, which means the landlord wants to make as much money as possible and the tenant wants to pay as little rent as possible. There is no way to solve for equality or "fairness" except if private landlords are replaced by a non-profit landlords, and even then there will be disputes over maintenence, habitability and interpersonal disputes with neighboring units.

The post from the "Italian immigrant" you're responding to is blatently false (which I'm sure you know) since current SF rules prohibit tenants from owning a property that is their primary residence and still benefit from rent-control protections. (See Rent Reg 1.21.) A landlord can evict a tenant very easily when the rent-controlled unit is not a tenant's primary residence. Also the landlord's claim about revolving roommates is also blatently false since any new sub-tenant is required to sign a 6.15 notice so that when all original tenants move out of the rental unit, the rent can be raised to market price. Two lies in one post is about par in every landlord comment posted on the SFBG website.

The SFTU has saved SF tenants literally billions of dollars of rent money since the late 1970's by their effective advocacy and tireless effort working on local ballot measure campaigns. The SFTU has also prevented thousands of otherwise unlawful evictions by informing tenants of their rights under SF and state law. This is why the SFTU is hated by most landlords in the city: the landlords are poorer by tens of millions of dollars of rent money each year. As usual, greed trumps humanity whenever private landlords are involved.

The city benefits from rent-control since landlords are afforded a fair return on their investment; landlords get a reasonable rent increase each year based on the local consumer price index; landlords get to pass through maintenance and rehabilitation costs to tenants; and and the tenants have extra money in their pockets from the rent savings that is spent at local businesses thereby boosting the local economy and employment.

A quick primer on why landlords and their political supporters hate the Tenants Union. Assume there are 120,000 rent-controlled units in the city. Assume 25% of the units are far below market rents. Assume without rent control the landlords could increase monthly rents by $1,500 a month ($18,000 per year.) These numbers are conservative estimates, especially the amount of rent increases that would occur without rent control protections.

30,000 units x $18,000 = $540 million. With more realistic estimates the savings is probably closer to $1 billion of tenant savings per year. But preventing the trauma of the eviction of most of the 30,000 households who couldn't afford current market rents is a far bigger benefit, however, we wouldn't expect greedy landlords to understand anything about humanity or community.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 6:08 pm

principle from any other relationship between a business provider and a consumer. Outside of rent controlled jurisdictions, landlords treat tenants as customers, and often compete with each other to offer tenants the bestd eal, just like with many other businesses.

I was in Texas recently and many complexes had big ad's outside saying "first month's rent free if you move in by the 1st". Yes, that's right, landlords fighting each other to give the best service.

It's like that everywhere except places with rent control and only there is the relationship adversarial in the way you claim.

Of course, if you really understand the value that is destroyed thru rent control (your computation is wrong but the effort is a nice gesture) then you will fully understand why some many owners are now Ellis'ing.

Finally, rents would be much lower without rent control because it suppresses supply. Tenants are being done a great disservice by the tenant non-profit mafia.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 6:18 pm

in any of the Bay Area communities that don't have rent control but are still in the midst of a hyperinflationary rental market.

Those Texas landlords aren't "fighting each other to give the best service," they are competing for tenants in a depressed rental market.

An internet genius like yourself should know better.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 6:42 pm

adversity. LL-TT relationships are much better in places where the landlords are not encouraged to not maintain their properties and try and kick out their tenants.

In the kind of rental market that exists almost everywhere except a handful of cities, rents are cheaper, vacancies are more available and LL-TT relationships are much better.

Wouldn't you prefer landlords competing for your business rather than trying to get rid of you?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 7:17 pm

It changes the mix between winners and losers some, but that doesn't materially help the city in aggregate.

What does harm the city is the fact that rent control entails a very low vacancy rate as poorer people cling and squat in their units for decades rather than progress with their lives. That in turn makes it harder for new arrivals that typically are more likely to have the skills that SF's businesses need.

So it encourages sclerotic low-income people to linger here and discourages the high-value knowledge workers whom the tax base needs.

The solution is new build construction, which is exempt from rent control, and Ellis/TIC's, and so that is what happens.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 6:30 pm

seeking their fortune in the Bay Area tech goldmine.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 6:43 pm

because it is being hoarded by people who really should not be here at all.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 7:17 pm

The Landlord/Tenant relationship is inherently adversarial? Well then, that's another reason to invoke the Ellis Act.

We should welcome the creation of more owner-occupied housing (TICs).

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 7:46 pm

I suspect the only tenants who get evicted are the miserable ones anyway.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 8:01 pm

Since the value of a TIC housing unit is worth up to 5 times more than its value as a rental apartment, every SF tenant walks around with a giant bullseye on their back. It's just a matter of time before their building is converted to TICs. Even highly touted progressive leaders like Sheriff Mirkirimi couldn't resist making bank by converting a rent-controlled unit to a TIC/condo.

There are tens of thousands of potential TIC owners working at dozens of the largest, very profitable companies located within 40 miles of the city who would like nothing better than follow in Mirkirimi's shoes. Evicting a middle-class tenant in exchange for making money on a TIC purchase is minimal collateral damage when it comes to a fatter wallet.

Most current tenants will be forced from the city when their apartment is converted to a TIC since they often make far less money than the high-tech wunderkinds who are flocking to the city. I suspect that's why Mayor Lee threw a few dollars at tenant organizations this week to cover his ass since it's not too easy managing a city when 50% of its residents are facing the threat of forcible eviction from their homes. How ironic it's Sheriff Mirkirimi who will be performing the evicitions. Sweet justice for the numerous progressive organizations that have been thoroughly hoodwinked by the "progressive" politicians they've supported over the years. In the political world, rhetoric trumps substance every time, which is why sane people stay as far away from the process unles they are angling to get a nice city-funded contract from the $8 billion city budget.

The tenant anxiety will stop only when the city commits to a complete moratorium on all non-fault evictions until the city can build affordable middle-income housing for the 200,000 tenant households who are facing eventual eviction from their rent-controlled units.

Of course very few evictions will be stopped from Mayor Lee's money pay-off, but it makes a nice soundbite for his next election campaign and he may get a few non-profit "leaders" to give him an endorsement in exchange for the city funding handout.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 8:56 pm

because Ellis is a State law and trumps anything the city can pass.

So your entire argument is moot.

If all these non-fault evictions are happening it is because of the economic anomaly of giving things away far too cheaply. The market will always find a way of arbitraging that opportunity.

Your premise seems to be that everyone is entitled to live in a home and a city that they really cannot afford. And we the people cannot afford such a naive policy.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 03, 2013 @ 6:51 am

Post new comment

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