Supervisor wants limit on Ellis Act evictions
From today’s SFGate,
San Francisco buildings where certain types of evictions have occurred would not be permitted to convert to condominiums under legislation introduced Tuesday by Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin.The measure is aimed at the growing number evictions fueled by the Ellis Act, a state law that lets property owners evict tenants if they are getting out of the rental business.
The proposal is sure to face opposition from the real estate industry and possibly from Mayor Gavin Newsom, who this year has vetoed two other measures that sought to reduce evictions.
Peskin said his proposal seeks to protect renters from real estate speculators who abuse the Ellis Act, by not using the law to leave the rental business — as it was intended — but rather to evict tenants to make a profit.
Under Peskin’s proposal, landlords who invoked the Ellis Act anytime after Jan. 1, 1999, in buildings with multiple units would not be allowed to participate in the city’s competitive condominium conversion lottery.
Although I don’t agree that this measure is necessary, what will ultimately kill it is the retroactivity back to 1999. Many buyers of these Ellis Acted units bought with the understanding (based on the rules at the time of purchase) that they would have an opportunity to condo convert. This would nullify that. Besides, nothing in my recent memory ever gets through the board that would change what people have already bought. Past measures have always drawn a line roughly at the time the measure is passed.
I’ll guess that this doesn’t make it past the board (a poorly thought-out piece of legislation, what a shocker!), and if any part of it is ever passed, it will not include the 1999 provision.
When it comes right down to it, people who would be directly affected by this legislation (TIC owners who wouldn’t be able to condo convert) likely outnumber Ted Gullicksen’s 2,500 members of the Tenant’s Union, so I think that alone will cause the ‘Supes to agree to some sort of modification.
And as always, the landlord attorneys will crush this one in the courts, so whether it passes as written or with modifications, it will ultimately get thrown out by a judge who is ultimately much smarter than Peskin.
My letter to Cecilia Vega at the SF Chronicle:
Dear Ms. Vega,
I’m writing in regard to your TIC/Ellis Act stories in the past week.
On Wednesday, April 5 you wrote in your SF Board Of Supervisors coverage on page B-4:
Under Peskin’s proposal, landlords who invoked the Ellis Act anytime after Jan. 1, 1999, in buildings with multiple units would not be allowed to participate in the city’s competitive condominium conversion lottery.
In today’s story about Peter Ragone on page B-3, you re-stated this point, but perhaps unintentionally said something quite different:
Recently, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin introduced yet another piece of legislation that will receive public hearings later this year — one that would prohibit any building where an Ellis Act eviction occurred from ever being eligible for conversion to condominiums.
There is a distinction between these two situations. Under current rules, two-unit TICs are not required to go through the condo conversion lottery. Are you saying that condo conversions will be revoked for all TICs; or only those TIC applicants that are required to enter the lottery?
Further, the Examiner’s story on Supervisor Peskin’s proposal seems to say something entirely different:
Supervisor Aaron Peskin proposed an ordinance Tuesday prohibiting condo conversions in buildings where there have been two or more evictions in separate units, the eviction occurred on or after Jan. 1, 1999, they were Ellis Act or owner move-in evictions, and the building had one or more evictions to a senior, elderly or disabled person.
This more detailed account is hugely different from what you have reported. Rather than banning all Ellis Act TIC condo conversions, this would only prevent a very limited pool that satisfies certain conditions from pursuing the conversions.
As the owner of a two-unit TIC that had one Ellis Act eviction by a previous owner, the distinction between the three different scenarios reported by you and the Examiner’s reporter are extremely important to my situation.
I depend on the Chronicle to give me the best possible coverage of San Francisco issues, but I feel in this case that you have failed on a very basic level to understand and explain the proposed ordnance. Could you please clarify what Mr. Peskin has proposed?
Best,
Shawn @ Entroporium at April 10th, 2006 at 9:06 pm ( )Shawn Roberts
Those are great questions, and unfortunately you are one of the hundreds of people who will be retroactively affected by this if it passes as written. I’ll keep tabs on it and let you know what I can find out.
Matt Lanning at April 11th, 2006 at 5:54 am ( )The Chronicle’s been no help. I have a call into Sup. Peskin’s legislative aide for clarification. I’ve got a baaaaad feeling about this…
Shawn @ Entroporium at April 12th, 2006 at 7:45 pm ( )