Posted on 10/10/2002 4:32:38 AM PDT by chance33_98
Prop. R gives HOPE to renters BY CYNTHIA ARNOLD Special to The Examiner
AS A VOLUNTEER for the Yes on R campaign, I recently participated in an issues forum held by one of The City's neighborhood associations. Proposition R is the HOPE initiative -- The Home Ownership Plan for Everyone. My opponent for the No on R discussion was Steve Collier, an attorney with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, often referred to as the legal arm of the San Francisco Tenants Union.
I offered a brief explanation of the HOPE ordinance and why it's good for renters who aspire to become homeowners, as well as for renters who are seeking greater security as renters. Then it was Mr. Collier's turn.
He began by referring to a lawsuit that I filed against The City in response to a legislative coup by Supervisor Jake McGoldrick in the spring of 2001. Collier's goal was to portray me as some type of evil being. Interestingly, an examination of that lawsuit and the unforeseen consequences of McGoldrick's law prove the exact opposite. When renters understand what McGoldrick was trying to do, they'll understand that passing Prop. R is crucial to them, whether they wish to continue renting or someday own their own apartments.
In November 2000, the Tenants Union placed a measure on the ballot designed to stop moderate-income renters from banding together to buy multiple-unit buildings as tenancies-in-common. When this is done, each buyer could then occupy a particular unit as their own home. A component of this type of ownership was the right of the buyers to each claim an exclusive right of occupancy to their own unit. The TIC partners would then join The City's condo lottery and seek to have the units subdivided into individual condominiums.
TIC arrangements are a bit more risky than owning a condo or a single-family home. However, for many first-time buyers, TICs are the best way to achieve the dream of homeownership in San Francisco. In November 2000, the voters agreed. The Tenants Union initiative was defeated.
In 2001, supervisors overturned the will of the voters by passing the same law that was turned down by voters. This law subsequently became known as McTIC, since its sponsor was Supervisor Jake McGoldrick. This act of the supervisors was a repulsive abuse of power, commonplace in Third World dictatorships but not in democratic societies. A lawsuit was the only remedy.
The suit was filed on behalf of myself, other individuals, the Small Property Owners of S.F., the Board of Realtors and the S.F. Apartment Association. The suit is still in litigation, but the Tenants Union did score a partial victory. Only multiple-unit buildings that have been emptied out via the Ellis Act can still be sold as TICs.
If McTIC is declared valid, Ellis Act evictions will skyrocket. Current renters won't be able to buy their own apartments as TICs because they won't be purchasing empty units. This is because landlords will have to resort to the Ellis Act to remove tenants in order to sell their property to other tenants as TICs. McGoldrick's failure to understand the consequences of his actions is astonishing. Prop. R is a well-thought-out response to his obstructionist agenda.
McGoldrick stated that TICs were a "very risky" form of homeownership. Prop. R eliminates that risk by converting HOPE units into condominiums. McGoldrick also stated that he wanted to advance a "meaningful" ownership plan. Occupied units are always less expensive than empty units. Under the HOPE ordinance, renters will purchase their own apartments, benefiting by paying more modest prices.
Some San Franciscans already benefit from lifetime leases. Under HOPE, even greater numbers will be protected. Evictions will drop and homeownership opportunities will rise.
The goals of the Tenants Union are the enslavement of hard-working San Franciscans and keeping the disproportionate influence that the group exercises over progressive members of the Board of Supervisors.
Prop. R will pass because renters are rejecting the notion that we should trudge happily down the road to serfdom, giving up our power to the extremists, who care only about themselves. Vote Yes on R!
Not being from the area I am not sure I fully grasp this whole Prop R deal, and given neither side will go into details about the ups and downs hopefully someone here could explain it a little better.
It appears that the author, because the author refers to our republic as a democracy, which means the author's personal bias is towards socialism/communism, is an advocate of violating Amendment V, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation," until the author refers to the perfectly legitimate activity of tenanats banding together their resources to "buy" a multi user building for their use.
However, phrases such as "tennacies in common" and "Ellis Act evictions" are phrases that make no sense to me.
Does anyone know what these mean?
http://www.hrcsf.org/tenant_info/evictions/evic_5elli.html |
It was worst than I expected. In particular, the following in the Ellis Act Evictions:
"If the tenants are low-income, landlords must pay each household $4,500 in relocation costs. Regardless of income status, all tenants who are disabled or over 62 must receive $3,000 in relocation costs."
Amendment V, U.S. Constiutuion, Bill of Rights,
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Blantantly, unconstitutional.
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.