Mayor Proposes to Make Demolition of Rent Controlled Units Easier
The “Constraint Reduction” legislation is sponsored by Mayor Breed, Joel Engardio, and Matt Dorsey. The legislation is being sold as a way to speed up housing production by eliminating staff review to make many permits automatic with no public objection allowed. The problem with this is that it includes demolishing sound rent controlled units which is exactly where tenants should have a public right to contest the loss of their own homes.
As long as an owner or architect declares either: 1) there have been no records of buyouts or evictions in the last 5 years, and tenants currently do not inhabit the unit; or 2) if tenants currently occupy the unit, displacement will be granted but the tenants have a “right of return” when and if their units are rebuilt. This is a serious end-run around hard-fought eviction protections.
The demolished units must be replaced and increase in number but there is no requirement that the new units actually become rental units – more likely they will become “Tenancy-In-Common” (like condos) units with the new owners bypassing the Owner Move In eviction rules. This change-of-tenure result is already playing out at the Mayor-stacked Planning Commission where they still hold hearings and vote on demolition projects for now.
The legislation eliminates hearings where an affected tenant or a neighbor who knows the history of the building could be heard, object, and possibly get a vote of disapproval from the Planning Commission.
The Mayor’s legislation also strikes an existing one-year ownership requirement (already too weak!) down to zero. This practically invites speculators to start buying rent controlled homes to demolish and create pseudo-condos. It would be a government sanctioned way around rent control and the condo moratorium. Supervisors Engardio (homeowner) and Dorsey (renter) should be ashamed of themselves for co-sponsoring this disastrous bill. New buyers of buildings, in our experience, are the most ruthless although they like to hide behind the lore of “mom-and-pop” landlords.
There two major pitfalls with this proposal – FRAUD and FANTASY
FRAUD
Whether tenants currently occupy the units or the units even exist (in the case of illegal units) relies on self-attestation by landlords. Unscrupulous landlords have a HUGE incentive to lie on their applications, because if they are truthful the replacement units will come with restrictions.
Many vulnerable tenants, especially in illegal units, are asked to pay rent in cash so will not be able to prove their occupancy nor understand where to do so. in our experience, assigned planners have been rude and dismissive to us, neighbors, and tenants when those with knowledge contact them. They misdirect tenants to the Rent Board who has no jurisdiction over permits.
San Francisco has many, many in-law units that were built without permits so exist in a gray market outside of planning maps. These units are still covered by rent control and tenants can use the Rent Board services, but tenants are especially vulnerable because both owners and tenants have an incentive to fly under the radar and hide these illegal spaces so the Planning Department doesn’t know they exist and would require replacement.
The legislation incentives pressuring tenants to “voluntarily” move out in order to deliver the unit vacant before applying for permits. There are many ways besides buyouts and evictions to convince tenants to leave when profits are at stake.
FANTASY
In our experience, when a tenant is displaced by fire, flooding, or major rehabilitation work, they almost never return despite their right to do so. Reconstruction is dragged on and the tenants either move on signing long leases elsewhere and typically give up. Or new owners take over and the former tenants information is not transferred to them.
Planning Staff (who support this legislation) could not answer simple questions about which department would track these Right of Return tenants and enforce if an owner simply neglected to inform the former tenants reconstruction was over.
A larger threat is that the speculator can simply rebuild and offer the new entitled units for sale separately – “tenancy-in-commons” – so a tenant wishing to assert their right to return would have no unit available to return to. We believe this is the most likely outcome as run down rent controlled buildings are typically cheaper to buy so the profit margin to turn them into owner occupied opportunities will be huge. It will result in the loss of rent controlled units from the market even if the demolished units are vacant.
Existing tenants will find it hard to fight their displacement as the demolition of their units has been condoned by the Planning Department and sold as good housing policy by developers who could care less about the effects on tenants.
WHERE DID THIS TERRIBLE LEGISLATION COME FROM?
The legislation was written by Housing Action Coalition and SPUR for the Mayor’s office. These are groups are funded by and are comprised of developers. They offer no tenant services and lack knowledge on the finer details of the Rent Ordinance. The main authors and proponents are Annie Fryman (former aide to Scott Weiner), Corey Smith, and Lisa Gluckstein who works for the Mayor’s office, with plenty of input from the Planning Department leadership.
The Planning Department heavily put their thumb on the scale supporting this legislation in their supposedly neutral staff reports and hearings. The legislation was heard and approved by the Planning Commission in a hearing which could best be described as a Kangaroo Court.
In a sense, we agree with the sentiment of the Mayor’s legislation that planning department hearings are often a waste and time and useless – but for very different reasons. Four of the seven commissioners (Tanner, Braun, Diamond, Koppel) are appointed by the Mayor and do what they are told in important policy choices. Examples of the Mayor’s power over the commission include when a commissioner changed her vote on regulating Airbnb after Mayor Lee’s Office texted her during the meeting, or when it was revealed Mayor Breed was having commissioners sign Letters of Resignation in order to be appointed. The Mayor’s four predictably rubber-stamped this very flawed legislation despite major opposition from tenant advocates and community members. Board of Supervisors-appointed commissioners Theresa Imperial and Kathrin Moore (Ruiz was absent) did their best to ask challenging questions to Planning Staff and voted to reject the legislation but the fix was in from the start.
Commissioner Imperial asked staff how the Right of Return will be tracked, how future tenants will know their units are rent-controlled, and what will happen when applicants lie? Planning staff stumbled through unconvincing answers and President Tanner mercifully intervened and moved to approve without those answers.
But the Planning Commissions “recommendations” can be ignored and over-ridden by the individual Supervisor votes. That is why it important that the Board of Supervisors are pressured to reject this legislation.