This is an archive of a past election.|
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/sf/ for current information.
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Eviction Disclosure Ordinance
City and County of San Francisco
Ordinance - Majority Approval Required -- 50% + 1
Pass: 71,440 / 52.22% Yes votes ...... 65,373 / 47.78% No votes
Index of all Measures
|Information shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Yes/No Meaning | Arguments | Full Text|
Shall the City change its laws to require landlords who offer to sell buildings of two or more residential units to disclose to all potential buyers the specific legal grounds for any evictions that result in vacant units at the time of sale and whether the evicted tenants were elderly or disabled?
City law requires that, before entering into a contract for the sale of a building containing two or more residential units, the owner must disclose to the buyer the specific legal ground for evicting tenants of each unit that is vacant at the close of sale. The landlord is not required to disclose whether the evicted tenants are elderly or disabled.
THE PROPOSAL: Proposition B is an ordinance that would add a requirement that landlords who offer to sell buildings of two or more residential units disclose in writing to all potential buyers the specific legal grounds for evictions and whether evicted tenants are elderly or disabled.
|Arguments For Proposition B||Arguments Against Proposition B|
|Eviction disclosure is good for buyers and tenants.
Buyers will be told of legal restrictions and can choose to avoid units with evictions. Tenants will see fewer evictions as socially responsible buyers avoid buildings with evictions.
Buyers must know about evictions for legal reasons. Evictions bring restrictions which, if violated, could bring lawsuits. After an Ellis Act eviction, for example, apartments can not be re-rented for years. A buyer, unaware of the evictions, could be held liable for innocently re-renting a unit following a job relocation. Additionally, units where tenants were evicted are more difficult, or impossible, to convert to condominiums.
Many San Francisco home buyers are uniquely socially responsible.
Buyers do not want to purchase an apartment if they know that the apartment is for sale because tenants were evicted, especially if it was the longtime home of senior or disabled tenants. San Franciscans don't want to buy homes created through the misery and pain of eviction anymore than we would want clothing produced through child labor or retirement accounts backed by military investments.
Tenants--facing the worst eviction epidemic since the dot-com years--benefit from disclosure too. When informed of evictions and given a choice, buyers choose units that have had no evictions. The San Francisco real estate industry understands this and prominently discloses when tenants have not been evicted. In the classifieds you will see "no evictions" highlighted as a bigger selling point than ocean views or off-street parking.
Disclosing evictions means that the demand for units created through evictions will diminish. When it becomes difficult to sell units created through evictions then the motivation and profit to do evictions will decline.
Eviction disclosure means informed buyers and fewer evictions.
Supervisor Chris Daly
"Eviction disclosure" is deliberately convoluted, oppressive, vindictive and economically stifling. Those screaming for civil rights are more likely to steal our personal rights. Excessive bureaucracy plunged New York City in the 1970's into civic bankruptcy as residential neighborhoods were forcefully deteriorating. Artificially depressed properties trigger economic consequences especially for tenants and medium to small property owners. Forced unwise cost cutting leads to elevator, stairway and other hazards.
Profusion of laws even favors irresponsible, criminally dangerous or socially at-risk tenants, while presuming all landlords are guilty. 70% of San Francisco's populations are renters + far from being a minority. State Senate candidate Michael Skipakevich foresees serious economic repercussions.
There are reasonable solutions to deal with ruthless landlords without harassing responsible landlords. Legislating investment and profit out of the marketplace will backfire. Selling privately owned property is one of the final privileges of individual freedom left. It's wiser to refine existing laws, not increase them. A fragile economy cannot afford unwieldy legislation and incompetent bureaucratic meddling.
San Francisco Republican Central Committee candidates who are property owners or tenants:
Gail E. Neira, State Assembly candidate & Central Committeewoman
|Real Estate Ownership Run by City Hall Gestapo
If limousine liberal Democrats and handout subsidized Democratic bureaucrats practiced more efficient fiscal policies with other people's monies, government would have a surplus of tax funds to build and operate domiciles for those who are an economic risk for private property owners whose rights are crumbling in defiance of "free enterprise and economic self-determination,
Nowadays, a liberal Democrat is nothing more than a contemporary rendition of Gestapo.
Why do sellers want to hide the fact that senior and disabled tenants have been evicted? Maybe because they're ashamed of it. But more likely because they know they'll make less money. Sellers know that properties encumbered by evictions are worth less. Units with evictions have legal restrictions limiting the options of buyers, denying options to re-rent or convert the units to condominiums. Given a choice, San Francisco's socially conscious buyers would prefer to buy an apartment free of evictions, rather than knowing that their good fortune to buy was at the expense of someone's grandmother.
Eviction disclosure is good for buyers and it's good for tenants. For buyers, it means basic consumer protection and the ability to make free and informed choices. For tenants, it means that evictions will no longer be a shameful secret and that will mean fewer evictions.
Please join us, the San Francisco Democratic Party and the Senior Action Network in voting YES on B.
|Full Text of Proposition B|
|Ordinance amending Administrative Code Section 37.10A(i) to require property owners to disclose to prospective buyers of residential property consisting of two or more units, the legal ground(s) for the termination of a tenancy and whether any units were occupied by elderly and or disabled tenants at the time of termination of tenancy.
Note: Additions are italic text; deletions are in
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:
Section 1. Findings. It shall be official policy of the City and County of San Francisco to protect potential purchasers of residential property from purchasing residential property without knowing that a tenancy was terminated by the landlord or owner, in that certain terminations of tenancy, such as an owner move in eviction or the eviction of an elderly or disabled tenant, create restrictions on the residential property that may impact a buyer.
Section 2. The San Francisco Administrative Code is hereby amended by amending Section 37.10A, to read as follows:
SEC. 37.10A. MISDEMEANORS, AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. (a) It shall be unlawful for a landlord to increase rent or rents in violation of the decision of an Administrative Law Judge or the decision of the Board on appeal pursuant to the hearing and appeal procedures set forth in Section 37.8 of this Chapter. It shall further be unlawful for a landlord to charge any rent which exceeds the limitations of this Chapter. Any person who increases rents in violation of such decisions or who charges excessive rents shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) It shall be unlawful for an landlord to refuse to rent or lease or otherwise deny to or withhold from any person any rental unit because the age of a prospective tenant would result in the tenant acquiring rights under this Chapter. Any person who refuses to rent in violation of this subsection shall, in addition to any other penalties provide by State or federal law, be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) It shall be unlawful for a landlord or for any person who willfully assists a landlord to request that a tenant move from a rental unit or to threaten to recover possession of a rental unit, either verbally or in writing, unless:
(1) The landlord in good faith intends to recover said unit under one of the grounds enumerated in Section 37.9(a) or (b); and
(2) Within five days of any such request or threat the landlord serves the tenant with a written notice stating the particular ground under Section 37.9(a) or (b) that is the basis for the landlord's intended recovery of possession of the unit. (d) It shall be unlawful for a landlord or for any person who willfully assists a landlord to recover possession of a rental unit unless, prior to recovery of possession of the unit:
(1) The landlord files a copy of the written notice required under Section 37.10A(c) with the Board together with any preceding warning or threat to recover possession, unless the particular ground for recovery is non-payment of rent; and
(2) The landlord satisfies all requirements for recovery of the unit under Section 37.9(a) or (b).
(e) In any criminal or civil proceeding based on a violation of Section 37.10A(c) or 37.10A(d), the landlord's failure to use a recovered unit for the Section 37.9(a) or (b) ground stated verbally or in writing to the tenant from whom the unit was recovered shall give rise to a presumption that the landlord did not have a good faith intention to recover the unit for the stated ground.
(f) If possession of a rental unit is recovered as the result of any written or verbal statement to the tenant that the landlord intends to recover the unit under one of the grounds enumerated in Section 37.9(a) or (b), the unit shall be subject to all restrictions set forth under this Chapter on units recovered for such stated purpose regardless of any agreement made between the landlord or the landlord's agent and the tenant who vacated the recovered unit. Any unit vacated by a tenant within 120 days after receiving any written or verbal statement from the landlord stating that the landlord intends to recover the unit under Section 37.9(a) or (b), shall be rebuttably presumed to have been recovered by the landlord pursuant to the grounds identified in that written or verbal statement.
(g) Except as provided in this subsection, it shall be unlawful for a landlord, or for any person who willfully assists a landlord, including the landlord's attorney or legal representative, to seek or obtain a tenant's agreement not to cooperate with any investigation or proceeding by any administrative or law enforcement or other governmental agency under this Chapter, or to otherwise seek or obtain a tenant's waiver of rights under this Chapter. Any waiver of rights by a tenant under this Chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy unless the tenant is represented by independent counsel and the waiver is approved in a Court-supervised settlement agreement, or by a retired judge of the California Superior Court sitting as a mediator or arbitrator by mutual agreement of the tenant represented by independent counsel and the landlord. Any settlement agreement shall identify the judge, mediator, or arbitrator reviewing the settlement, all counsel representing the parties, and any other information as required by the Board. The landlord shall file a signed copy of the settlement agreement with the Board within ten days of execution. Unless otherwise required by the Board, the copy of the agreement filed with the Board shall redact the amount of payments to be made to tenants.
(h) It shall be unlawful for a landlord to knowingly fail to disclose in writing to the buyer, prior to entering into a contract for the sale of any property consisting of two or more residential units, the specific legal ground(s) for the termination of the tenancy of each residential unit to be delivered vacant at the close of escrow.
(i) It shall be unlawful for a landlord/owner, when offering a property for sale in the City and County of San Francisco that includes two or more residential units, to knowingly fail to disclose in writing to any prospective purchaser:
(1) The specific legal ground(s) for the termination of the tenancy of each residential unit to be delivered vacant at the close of escrow; and,
(2) Whether the unit was occupied by an elderly or disabled tenant at the time the tenancy was terminated. For purposes of this section 37.10A(i), "elderly" means a tenant defined as elderly by San Francisco Administrative Code section 37.9(i)(1)(A), 37.9A(e)(1)(C), 37.9A(e)(2)(D), or 37.9A(e)(3)(C), or a tenant defined as "senior" by San Francisco Subdivision Code section 1359(d). For purposes of this section 37.10A(i), "disabled" means a tenant defined as disabled by San Francisco Administrative Code section 37.9(i)(1)(B)(i), 37.9A(e)(1)(C), 37.9A(e)(2)(D), or 37.9A(e)(3)
(C), or by San Francisco Subdivision Code section 1359(d).
Any disclosure required by this Subsection (i) that is made on a flier or other document describing the property which is made available to prospective purchasers at each open house and at any tour through the property will constitute compliance with the disclosure requirements of this Subsection (i).