This editorial was written by the president of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco, David Fix, and published today on BeyondChron,

On the June ballot there is a proposition regarding Ellis eviction notifications, Proposition B. This proposition would require the information regarding any Ellis eviction in the marketing material for a building. This would be unprecedented. There are currently no other disclosure requirements for an open house.

The pro Proposition B people have spun this ordinance as consumer protection legislation. Nice spin, but spin none the less. Since when did the Tenant’s Union become consumer advocates? To suggest that Supervisor Daly and the Tenants Union are concerned about buyers of TICs is ludicrous. This is really about trying to stop Ellis evictions and stigmatize buildings.

The “consumer protection” argument in favor of Proposition B is based on erroneous claims by Supervisor Daly and the Tenants Union as to when disclosures are made and how real estate contracts operate. To claim that buyers cannot get out of a purchase without losing a deposit belies a total ignorance of California real estate law or local practices. Under California law, a buyer has three days to rescind a purchase agreement after the disclosure of ANY material fact NO MATTER WHEN that disclosure is made and get a full refund of any deposit. An Ellis Act Disclosure is a disclosure of a material fact. It is in the interest of the Realtors and the sellers to make disclosures early in the transaction to avoid the possibility of a buyer canceling the sale due to a late disclosure.

But so much for the spin. Again what this is really about is an attempt to stop Ellis evictions. Despite what Supervisor Daly, other Supervisors and the Tenants Union will have you believe, Ellis evictions are not epidemic. According to the SF Rent Board Annual Report for Eviction Notices to the Mayor & Supervisors, http://www.sfgov.org/site/rentboard, there were 282 Ellis eviction petitions filed with the rent board for fiscal year 2004 and 276 for the year 2005. To put that into perspective, there are 340,000 housing units in SF, of which 230,000 are rental units. That equals .1% of the rental units!! 1/10 of 1%! Does that sound like an epidemic? One really needs to look at Ellis Act evictions in conjunction with Owner Move In (OMI) evictions, since Ellis evictions are sometimes used as a means for an owner to occupy their building. If one looks at both types of evictions, these evictions are the lowest in more than nine years. The San Francisco Rent Board report shows that total OMI and Ellis Act evictions are about 1/3 of the level at the height of the “dot-com” era. Clearly the facts do not support the Daly/Tenant Union hype.

Many of the owners of these buildings are elderly themselves. 40% of SPOSF members are over 60. They have owned and lived in their buildings for many years. This was supposed to be their retirement nest egg. The City should also investigate why property sellers are selling their properties to get out of the rental business. If they were renters they would be a protected group, but because they are owners they have no protections. Does that seem fair?

So once again, some city officials want to solve a problem that does not exist. The consumer protections are already in place and legal Ellis evictions are not epidemic. Do we want more unnecessary laws on the books?

This has been my point since this issue first arose. The evictions are part of a larger problem, and the continued challenges that developers face in building new housing aren’t helping, either.

The bottom line: this is misguided legislation. As I always say, if the ‘supes would spend 10% of their time focusing on positive housing decisions rather than limiting options in order to ‘protect’ a very small percentage of the population, I think we’d see a change for the better.

Where’s the uproar about the hundreds of affordable and low-income housing units that are NOT being built right now in the old Armory building (14th & Mission) and the rest of that drug-infested block? Call Chris Daly and ask him why he’s holding up that project. If there are opportunities to build this type of housing that aren’t being fulfilled, why do tenant advocates allow them to make the market tighter with legislation like Proposition B?

Every time one of Daly’s wanna-be legislation pieces finds its way through the board, the supply of available homes gets tighter, and current homeowners and real estate agents get a little richer, while those that want to stay in the city drop another rung on the ladder. Where’s the logic in that?

Daly submits proposed ordinances for June ballot [SFHomeBlog]

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 13th, 2006 at 6:22 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.