Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

S.F. supes pass new rules on renters' rights
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 6/24/9 | Marisa Lagos

Posted on 06/24/2009 7:56:26 AM PDT by SmithL

While some San Francisco renters breathe a sigh of relief, landlords are outraged at a series of new regulations coming from the tenant-friendly Board of Supervisors.

On Tuesday, the board voted to pass a package of renters' rights laws authored by Supervisor Chris Daly, and another supervisor introduced a measure that would make it illegal for owners who want to move into their property to evict families with children.

The new legislation, authored by Supervisor Eric Mar, is aimed at keeping families with children stable and in affordable housing. It will expand existing laws, which already protect seniors, disabled people and the terminally ill from owner move-in evictions in multiunit buildings. Single-family homes and condos are exempt from the existing and proposed laws.

"During these challenging economic times, the city needs to do whatever it can to ensure families can live and work here," said Mar. "Too often children are being forced to leave the city where they were born."

Landlords - who said they are also being hit hard by the recession - are not pleased, calling the laws unnecessary.

"This is ridiculous," said Janan New, president of the San Francisco Apartment Association, of the Mar legislation. "In this economy there are no owner move-in evictions going on."

New also opposed laws proposed by Daly, which the mayor is expected to veto and the board is unlikely to be able to override. Daly's package included expanding the rights of tenants who want to add roommates, and limiting the amount of so-called banked rent increases in which annual increases allowed under city laws are saved up and then imposed all at once.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: politburo; propertyrights; sanfranciscovalues
Property Rights in San Francisco?

Don't be silly!

1 posted on 06/24/2009 7:56:26 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Next, they will be shocked that rent prices are rising.


2 posted on 06/24/2009 7:58:42 AM PDT by CSM (Business is too big too fail... Government is too big to succeed... I am too small to matter...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I’m sorry...why would any landlord buy property in San Francisco or Berkeley? You just know the boards are gonna screw you over...Why do it?


3 posted on 06/24/2009 7:59:58 AM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

How’s this going to sit with “Mr. Feinstein”?
The dear Senator’s husband is a bigwig with CBRE - one of the largest property owners in CA - they deal mostly in commercial pieces, but this should still be interesting...


4 posted on 06/24/2009 8:02:29 AM PDT by BlueNgold (... Feed the tree!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

They are working hard to make sure that no rentals are available in SF. Landlord’s will sell out their property as condo’s or single family.


5 posted on 06/24/2009 8:03:04 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
... introduced a measure that would make it illegal for owners who want to move into their property to evict families with children.

And the unintended consequence is people won't rent to families with children.

6 posted on 06/24/2009 8:03:57 AM PDT by GOPJ (I'm..opposed to shooting abortionists,but don't believe in imposing my morality on others-Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
And the unintended consequence is people won't rent to families with children.

Ahh, but then they'll get sued for discrimination.

7 posted on 06/24/2009 8:04:38 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Hmmmm, seems like this will cause landlords to not rent to those with children. Guess the doogooders didn’t think of that.


8 posted on 06/24/2009 8:06:12 AM PDT by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

It’s not considered “discrimination” based on number of bedrooms. Every place will become a “one bedroom” with study...


9 posted on 06/24/2009 8:10:33 AM PDT by GOPJ (I'm..opposed to shooting abortionists,but don't believe in imposing my morality on others-Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"Too often children are being forced to leave the city where they were born."

What can you say - amazing...

10 posted on 06/24/2009 9:04:48 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonno
"Too often children are being forced to leave the city where they were born."

Welcome to New York! If the Hipster Trustafarians want to pay $2,500 a month for the 400 sq ft tenement flat that your janitor father and/or MTA file clerk mother struggled to get out of when it was a slum, so be it.

11 posted on 06/24/2009 9:09:16 AM PDT by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson