LGBT icon evicted, leaving town, blasting Wiener

|
(301)
The man who made this movie is gone from San Francisco

Documentary filmmaker and longtime queer community activist and leader David Weissman is leaving San Francisco -- because he and three other tenants of his place on Oak Street have been evicted under the Ellis Act. These evictions are happening all over town; it's a disaster. Weissman isn't going quietly, though; he's penned a sharp letter to Sup. Scott Weiner that's making the rounds in tenant and LGBT circles and creating enough controversy that Wiener has put out a long response.

Weissman told me the rash of Ellis Act evictions is horrifying, particularly when seniors are involved. "So many people who have lived through the AIDS epidemic are now finding themselves unwanted and adrift," he said. "There have always been two competing visions of San Francisco, and the one that's ascendant now says that people who can own property and make a lot of money will make this a better city. But I've always believed that what makes this city great are the creative types who don't always have a lot of money."

Read his letter to Wiener and the supervisor's response after the jump. (UPDATE: It's worth noting what Weissman posted below, that he is not becoming homeless and spends half his time in Portland, where he will no doubt now live. He won't be a San Franciscan any more. He writes: "Thanks to everyone for your kind words of support. The letter was intended to bring attention to the larger issues at stake, that most renters in SF are in serious and increasing risk of Ellis Act eviction. As most of you know, my own situation is unusual, in that I've been living back and forth between SF and Portland since 2004, with the full knowledge of my benevolent late landlords. I will always be a San Franciscan in my heart, and am trying to find ways to maintain some kind of base there."

Dear Supervisor Weiner:

We've met a few times. I'm the producer of the documentaries We Were Here and The Cockettes, both of which chronicle the history of Gay San Francisco. I've been a San Franciscan since 1976. In 1979 I was on the campaign staff of Prop R, a rent-control initiative that didn't pass, but which pushed the Board of Supervisors to pass the significantly weaker Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Law. I subsequently became a Legislative Aide to Supervisor Harry Britt. I worked a couple of campaigns with Dick Pabich and Jim Rivaldo, and also worked closely with Bill Kraus -- heroic leaders whose names I hope are familiar to you.

I am being forced out of my apartment that I've rented since 1986 due to the Ellis Act. This will end my 37-year residency in San Francisco. I must say that I find your policies regarding housing in San Francisco -- your consistent bias toward home ownership at the expense of tenants and affordability, to be dismaying, and an affront to the legacy of Harvey Milk. In my own situation, it has been extremely clear that the limitations on condo conversion provided somewhat of an impediment to the immediate eviction of everyone in my building (all gay, 3 out of 4 of us are seniors), motivating the landlord to at least pay us to leave rather than just evict us at very minimal cost to him. But even this is appalling -- your efforts should be toward further combating the effects of the Ellis Act, rather than contributing to the tsunami of evictions that is destroying the fabric of our City. No buyout can compensate for the loss of our homes.

I don’t doubt that you have good intentions, and that you have done some good things as Supervisor. Though you didn’t live here in the worst of the AIDS years, I assume you’ve been somewhat impacted by that history. But for those of us who elected Harvey Milk, who fought the Briggs Initiative and Anita Bryant, who created this amazing gay community centered around Castro Street, and then who fought for our lives and the lives of our brothers through two decades of AIDS deaths... having a gay supervisor promoting policies that are forcing so many of our generation out of our homes and out of the City to which we have given so much is heartbreaking.

Wiener's response, posted on Facebook:

Hi David. Yes, we have met several times, and I’ve always been a huge admirer of your work. You’re an icon in our community. “We Were Here” is one of the best and most moving films I’ve ever seen.

Your email is deeply distressing to me. It’s awful that the Ellis Act was used to evict you and the other tenants out of your building. I don’t support the Ellis Act and I publicly supported Mark Leno’s (unfortunately unsuccessful) legislation to restrict its use. Back in the 90s, when I was a new lawyer, I defended numerous tenants against the wave of evictions at the time, both Ellis Act and Owner-Move-In evictions, and it was as heartbreaking then as it is now. I’m truly sorry that this happened to you and sorry for the City that you now are leaving. I would be more than interested in helping you find a place in San Francisco that you can afford. Please let me know if you want my help in that effort. I’m at your disposal.

It took me a day to respond to this email, because it’s a challenging response to write. Something terrible happened to you. You have every right to be angry and frustrated that so many great years in San Francisco, building our community, may come to an end this way. (I truly hope that we can avoid that, of course.) But, I do need to respond to some things that you said in your email about me. I hate to have to respond -– since what happened to you was so awful -– but I don’t think that your comments about me, which you’ve now disseminated publicly, are fair or accurate. It’s not accurate to describe my policy bent as having a “consistent bias toward home ownership at the expense of tenants and affordability.” I know you disagree with my legislation to provide one-time relief to owner-occupied TICs that are at risk of foreclosure, and I’ll get to that in a bit. I’m not sure how much you know about my public positions and votes over a decade on housing issues, but I’ll describe them for you. While I do support helping people achieve home ownership –- and I don’t in any way run away from that -- I’ve supported just about every pro-tenant measure that’s appeared on the ballot, including measures that my predecessor and Mayor Newsom opposed (that’s not a criticism of my predecessor or Mayor Newsom, both of whom I strongly supported, but we had a difference of opinion). I supported Prop B, which required disclosure to prospective condo purchasers of the unit’s eviction history. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. I supported Prop H, which increased relocation payments to tenants in no-fault evictions. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. I supported Prop M, which banned and created penalties for harassment of tenants. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. And, as noted, I supported Mark Leno’s effort to restrict the application of the Ellis Act. I also supported limiting or banning condo conversion for units that were made vacant through use of the Ellis Act.

As a member of the Board of Supervisors I’ve continued my work supporting tenants. I authored and passed legislation banning universities (including Academy of Arts University) from converting rent-controlled apartment buildings into student dorms. That was a huge win for tenants, and I pushed it through against intense opposition. I authored and passed the Good Samaritan Ordinance, which was supported by tenants groups and which provides affordable temporary apartments for tenants who are displaced by disasters.

Now, let’s talk about my work around affordable housing. I was one of the people who negotiated the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Prop C, which appeared on last November’s ballot and won. I campaigned for it passionately. It will generate $1.5 billion for affordable housing in coming decades. I’ve been closely involved with the 55 Laguna project, which will create quite a bit of affordable housing, including affordable housing for LGBT seniors. I’ve supported every transition-age youth housing project that’s come to the board, all of which have been controversial. I’ve publicly begged Larkin Street to create more youth housing in the Castro.

I stand by my record on housing policy, including support for tenants and for creation of affordable housing. Your perception of my overall record simply isn’t accurate.

As for my TIC legislation, I respect your opposition to it, but I don’t think it’s fair to state that by helping struggling TIC owners stay in their homes –- and helping them avoid foreclosure -– I’m forcing gay people from their homes. David, you and I don’t know each other well, but if you got to know me, you’d know that I’ve spent my entire adult life (which has been more years than you might think) fighting for the LGBT community. Whether playing a key role in building the LGBT community center, fighting my neighbors on Collingwood Street when they tried to get rid of LYRIC, leading the charge to restore HIV funding cuts in our city budget, to helping get transgender people health coverage under Healthy San Francisco, or sponsoring the legislation that created the LGBT senior task force, support for my brothers and sisters in this community has been at the core of everything I do.

The TIC legislation is not what its opponents have painted it to be. I’ve posted a full explanation of the legislation here.
This legislation provides one-time relief to TIC owners in owner-occupied TICs that are in the condo lottery. San Francisco law restricts or prohibits condo conversion for buildings that have had Ellis Act or other bad eviction history. This legislation sticks by those restrictions. These TIC owners are in serious trouble. They purchased thinking they’d be able to convert in 5-7 years. It’s now looking like 15-20 years. That’s 15-20 years on a group mortgage –- where if one owner defaults everyone defaults -– paying double the interest rate of other homeowners, and being unable to refinance even if you’re about to experience a balloon payment on the mortgage. If we don’t help these TIC owners, we’re going to see a wave of foreclosures and people losing their homes. While I fully understand the opposition to condo conversion, I guess my question is whether allowing these homeowners to go into foreclosure is a good thing for the city. I don’t think it is. This is a one-time and discrete piece of legislation designed to help a group of San Francisco residents -– primarily long-time residents -– who are in serious trouble.

These TIC owners aren’t aliens who landed here and snapped up units. Almost every TIC owner I’ve ever met is a first-time homeowner who rented for years (often renting for a lot of years) and then scraped together a down payment to be able to purchase a place. They’re middle class, since if they were wealthy they’d be able to buy more than a TIC. Many are people who’ve lived here for a very long time –- 15, 20 years or longer. Many are gay. These are San Franciscans just like you and I are. They, too, are part of the fabric of our city. I don’t think it’s anti-tenant, anti-gay, or anti-anything to provide them with some help by letting them condo convert their units so that they can have housing stability.

It’s estimated that 85% of these TIC units are owner-occupied. And for the very small number of tenants who live in these buildings, the legislation mandates that they receive lifetime leases with full rent and eviction controls. Again, 85% of the units are occupied by their owners.

David, I regret having to respond to you like this. That’s pretty much the last thing I want to do with someone who’s going through something as traumatic as what you’re experiencing. But, since you made a pretty bald public assertion about what I stand for and who I advocate for, I thought it necessary to respond.

Comments

Have you ever seen We Were Here?

Posted by marke on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 10:44 pm

"We Were Here" is incredible.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 10:57 pm

Marke, the poster is merely speaking the ideology behind mainstream development boosters getting rich off of strip mining our city. They don't give a fuck about any of us. We're "problems" to be "solved."

To Serve Man: it's a fucking cookbook.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 10:57 pm

Isn't it the change and progress that makes this place vibrant?

Old hands move on and new ones take over. 'Twas ever so.

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:07 am

I remember Rob Black ran against Chris Daly in 2006 on the issue of helping TIC owners out of bad loans.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 7:01 pm

It strikes me as unnecessarily rude and arrogant to imply someone has had a good inning and should just go because of a difference of perspective. Neither David Weissman nor 'guest' should have total final say regarding the various concerns of a city's housing policies. I am inclined to find sensible the arguments that allow for some legitimacy for the existence of the opposing view, as Mr. Weissman's civil explanation conveys. The voice of the privilege that wealth allows seems only to have 'too bad for you' as a response to a serious, debatable question as to the value the people being forced out of a marketplace bring to that marketplace's value and character, from the past through now and into the future. Policy is about a vision of a city by it's citizens.It sounds to me like Mr. Weissman expresses a concern for inclusiveness as a guiding principal not merely out of his own self interest but also for the benefits that a policy of inclusiveness accrues to the City of San Francisco. The other side of the argument going on here seems to be that if you are not sufficiently wealthy by someone's point of view you are dismissed for not adding some quantifiable financial gain and that the City has no stake in being aware of how it came to be a desirable place to so many. And furthermore, if you don't agree with this position just shut up and get out. And then the artists are gone. Who needs them, right?

Posted by GuestDavid Faulk on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 7:40 pm

"The voice of the privilege that wealth allows seems only to have 'too bad for you' as a response to a serious, debatable question as to the value the people being forced out of a marketplace bring to that marketplace's value and character..." David Faulk

Exactly! There is value in culture and diversity. I think a lot of people commenting here are missing the point, which is, what kind of city do you want to live in? How do we have conversations to shape public policy in a way that embraces change AND preserves the parts worth keeping? There are things and people and organizations which bring value to the table that can not be measured in dollar bills. Some of those things may actually impact real estate values and other monetary markers, but more importantly they make this place a destination, give us an identity and create a sense of home.

I hate to see this discussion reduced to all or nothing, you against me, rich against poor. We should be talking about what made this city so desirable in the first place. How do we welcome the new AND respect/ honor where we have been? The two are not mutually exclusive. Its not good guys vs bad guys, and instead of competing for resources we could be having an actual conversation about how to retain our communities- the diversity, vibrancy and magic which brings people here from all over the nation- while also looking ahead to the future. We need to bring more people into this conversation, not shut people down!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 9:07 pm

members, business people, straights, developers and investors.

The word "diverse" is grossly misused by progressives who in fact want a one party governmet presiding over only "their kind of people".

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:09 am

I’ve lived various apartments in the Castro over the years and my current rent controlled apartment since 1985. I’ve witnessed the tragedies of the Ellis Act over the years. Seniors are especially vulnerable under Ellis, legally they can be paid off, thrown out and forgotten about. When you are in you 60s and 70s, you don’t just start over, most banks won’t give you a mortgage, because Social Security is hardly enough income, forcing them into a hostile housing market, leaving the City or the Tenderloin are often the only options. And Scott Wiener will always be on the side of real estate business, he’s an attorney, profits before people, that’s the way the system is set up.

Posted by Ron Williams on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 9:47 pm

The entitlement of long term rent controlled tenants in SF is mind boggling to me. As a person under 30, I have seen numerous people come to this city, work their ass off, share a 2 bedroom with 4 people, try their best, and ultimately decide they would be better off somewhere more affordable.

And that sucks. But it's life. I'm 28 and I understand that. I would love to be in Manhattan, but at this point in my life, I can't be...

Yet we get to listen to the endless rant of the person who has been in the same spot for almost 30 years paying a 20% of what my two roommates and I pay about how they're the victim??? You deserve that rent because you got here first? Like you discovered something and you get a prize for it?

FUCK THAT. I am essentially subsidizing your rent. And I have to hear you whine? About how this is your home? I get that. But honestly, you should have fucking planned... Like I have to do, like my friends have to do, like any person who has half a brain does. It's life in the US.

Go. Seriously, go.

Posted by MELO on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 11:15 pm

"Yet we get to listen to the endless rant of the person who has been in the same spot for almost 30 years paying a 20% of what my two roommates and I pay about how they're the victim???"

Face it, people who have lived in rent controlled apartments forever Are Better Than You!

Suck it up!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 11:34 pm

good luck when the shit hits the fan for you

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 11:56 pm

Well, any time the word "essentially" is inserted into a declarative sentence, we can pretty much know we are being conned.

How is your rent "subsidizing" anybody? If you stop paying rent, do they get evicted? -- does their hot water turn cold? If they pay more, will the landlord make you pay less?

Of course not, you silly-angry young man.

I know there is a certain rush that comes from allowing yourself to be carried away from emotion -- and
I'll bet all those self-generated endorphins feel good coursing through your bloodstream -- but I urge you to consider the long-term worry of premature aging, high blood pressure, diabetes -- and maybe even a bit of social isolation -- which may stem from dipping your goblet too deeply into morass of negativity and loathing.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 12:29 am

You are not subsidizing anything because someone else got into a contract under the laws operative at the time. It is you who should leave.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 7:43 am

Get off my lawn!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 7:54 am

What is insidious about rent control is that the voters approve it knowing that somebody else will provide that subsidy.

And then they express surprise when the tenant gets Ellis'ed out on his ass.

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:11 am

being able to stay in their home as long as they keep up with monthly payments of ever-increasing rents are being "subsidized" by newcomers.

It is just a silly ploy to sow division among renters and deflect attention away from the real culprits in the current housing misery: greed-head landholders and developers.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidize

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 9:33 am

rent control.

First, the forgone revenue that the landlord loses by charging a rent that is less than the market would bear.

Second, the extra rent paid by those who are seeking a rental because the vacancy rate is artifically lowered by the near total absence of natural turnover.

One could argue the latter also includes a figure for the extra margin due to more rental units being taken off the market than new units are built.

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 9:46 am

is unconvincing.

renting = squatting
full payment = subsidy
work = freedom
purple = green
troll = reasonable commenter

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 10:01 am

That way, Mister Ellis lies.

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 10:12 am

What you see as opportunity costs never really were.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 10:28 am

It's the return I forego in order to provide someone with a home.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 10:42 am

risk he will be Ellis'ed. Since those tenants "knew the rules when they got in", why should we feel any sympathy for them?

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:14 am

Yeah, I was young in SF once too, and rent control really sucks for this group. But just think, if you find an apartment somewhere you can barely afford and squat there for 30 years you too will finally profit from it. Just make sure you never want to get married and have kids, then you have to move and start all over.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 4:47 pm

who never grew up and are now imprisoned in their rent-controlled jail. Quite why Tim etc. thinks this is a dignified way to grow old in this city is quite beyond me.

Hmm, let's see, get an education and a good job or, er, squat like a wounded bird and hope I get lucky and don't get a visit from Mr. Ellis.

Posted by anon on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 5:06 pm

Rent Control KILLED Arthur Evans.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

flat just because he wanted a cheaper rent then it is probably fair to say that RC killed him. there are a few others here who think they have a divine right to live in Sf and will probably die in their shitty Mission district studio.

It really is very sad.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 6:15 pm

and a rent controlled apartment.

The fact that you need to invent new definitions for words highlights how detached from reality you and your ideology are.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 6:25 pm

it sound like you are the one whining. i have a feeling if you landed a rent control apartment, you would be singing another tune.

Posted by GuestSJG on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 11:46 am

Creative people should get rent-controlled apartments in perpetuity, so they can live part-time in San Francisco!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 10:36 pm

Weissman to Weiner:

"I am being forced out of my apartment that I've rented since 1986 due to the Ellis Act."

Weissman, interviewed in the Portland Oregonian:

"I moved to Portland in 2004, and part of what felt appealing to me was that it was similar to San Francisco in that people didn’t move there because of their careers; they moved there in spite of their careers, which makes for a different kind of person living there."

http://blog.oregonlive.com/madaboutmovies/2011/10/a_portland_filmmaker_r...

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 11:05 pm

Changes things up some.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 1:16 am

Oh please. As indicated clearly in Tim's article, I have spent my time between Portland and SF since 2004, with the full knowledge of my original landlords. It's a complicated story, but to think that it somehow that fact means that the issues I have raised are invalid is ludicrous. The letter was not focused on my situation, it used my eviction to raise the larger issues of Ellis Act Eviction and how condo conversion regulations impact the security of tenants in SF.

Posted by David Weissman on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

The San Francisco Bay Guardian, sometime in 2005:

"Script Doctor
Weissman on Van Sant
I MOVED TO Portland, Ore. from San Francisco last summer, and right away I got a bunch of press: "Cockettes filmmaker moves to Portland." It seemed rather ridiculous to me, a medium fish in a small pond. But Portland loves its filmmakers, and Gus Van Sant is its favorite son and biggest celebrity."

http://www.sfbg.com/39/42/x_script_doctor.html

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 2:08 pm

claiming a control of your rents that the law does not allow is a serious consideration. If you can afford to have two homes, there is a serious question mark over any claim for sympathy for an eviction. You may in fact have defrauded your landlord of thousands of pounds in rent subsidies that you were not entitled to.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 2:21 pm

Not to mention all the money DAVID was charging others to live in his rent controlled apartment here while he was up in Portland feeling like a big turd in a little bowl. Forget rent control, Weissman was probably MAKING money on his RC apartment. Bottom line is, he had what amounts to a vacation home in one of the greatest (and most expensive) cities in the world... and it was all on other people's dime.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 9:07 pm

Troll: the tenant kept up his obligations of the lease, what's your problem?

Posted by marcos on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 9:28 pm

No problem, marcos. I just refuse to feel sorry for someone who gamed the system for so many years. There is a shortage in SF, do we really want to deny housing to a renter who ACTUALly LIVES IN SF just so David Weissman can keep his vacation home?

Another thing, I've never seen a lease in SF that doesn't clearly prohibit sublets. Maybe Weissman's landlord didn't care, but we only have his word to prove it. I personally know at least three people who moved away from SF years ago, yet they still hold the lease on their old rent-controlled apartments. All three of these people sublet out to others at a higher price than they themselves are paying under RC, so they're actually exploiting both their landlords and their subtenants.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 7:44 am

Playing by the rules is not gaming the system. For every one who is not a permanent resident, there are hundreds of tenants who are just getting on by the skin of their teeth, especially Latino families in the Mission.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 8:45 am

First of all, Illegally subletting is not playing by the rules.

Second, I never said I don't have sympathy for legitimate citizens of SF losing their apartments, I said I had no sympathy for David Weissman losing his vacation home. Tim picked a loser (again) when he chose to use Weissman as an example of a displaced San Franciscan.

You're drifting into straw man territory here, marcos.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

Hmmm... providing the link apparently blocks the post.

David Weissman to Weiner:

"I am being forced out of my apartment that I've rented since 1986 due to the Ellis Act. This will end my 37-year residency in San Francisco."

David Weissman to the Portland Oregonian, October 15, 2011:

"I moved to Portland in 2004, and part of what felt appealing to me was that it was similar to San Francisco in that people didn’t move there because of their careers; they moved there in spite of their careers, which makes for a different kind of person living there."

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 11:16 pm

Because it's the SFBG, there's no way this is going to get enough play on this site. But for real, can we just get a quick clarification on this?

* Did this guy MOVE to Portland in 2004, yet maintain a rent controlled apartment in this City as some sort of dramatically subsidized pied-a-terre, and is now complaining about losing said pied-a-terre? *

Please. I want to know.

Posted by Scram on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 11:24 pm

Any residual sympathy just went flying out of the window.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 10:40 am

Yes sadly rent control is not only used by those who need it. I have a friend with a huge 4 bedroom apartment and two car garage in a great neighborhood for which he pays $2400/month. He has two roommates so he pays about $800/month being nice and not charging market value for the other rooms. With the savings he goes on fancy vacations and is planning on buying vacation property. Must be nice. Meanwhile the rent only just covers the property taxes for the new landlord. I've warned him his building is ripe to be sold as a TIC whenever the owner decides he needs the money since his low rent creates zero cash flow. I think rent control is ok in concept but broadly applied it creates winners and losers in ways that aren't totally fair and so aren't sustainable. It is inevitable that all of these small multi unit buildings will get sold someday. People's lives change, the world moves on, individuals eventually sell what they own. If the tenant pays little rent, the only way it will get bought is by someone wanting to move in. What investor would sign up for negative cash flow? Every time SF goes through a boom, people will buy these buildings and move in and evict low rent paying tenants. We are about to see a wave of this whether we allow condo conversions or not.
If you want a "safe" rent controlled apartment I suggest you find a larger apartment building that is not subject to owner move ins. If your building has 6 or fewer units and you think you have lifetime rent control you are seriously mistaken and should have done your homework.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 5:06 pm

"mom and pop", 2-4 units buildings were explicitly excluded. RC became a probelm when that was changed around 1994 or so, and many small landlords got squeezed by rapacious tenants.

The playing field was leveled again when the Ellis Act came along, and now the little landlord can once again finally get a return on the risk he took. But it should never have been allowed to come to this.

Help the poor with tax money if the voters approve it, but do not set resident against resident and voter against voter. With class warfare, everyone loses.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

With class warfare, everyone loses when only one side is fighting.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 5:42 pm

hope to legitimize theft thru confiscatory laws that take from those who create wealth and give to those who create nothing

Posted by Guest on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 6:05 pm

into TICs or condos creates nothing.

Changing the rules to accomodate these conversions is a good example of entitlements.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 6:27 pm

The city needs to develop a needs based, community supported system similar to Section 8. We can give long term San Franciscans housing assistance which can be applied to any apartment or flat. Basically a rent voucher.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 11:45 pm

compel a property owner to have a sub-optimal ROI. Because the latter will always lead to Ellis evictions and a change of use.

And if voters paid the subsidy thru their taxes, they would vote more logically.

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:13 am