Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:01 PM Oct 2015

Judge strikes down San Francisco eviction law

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-strikes-down-San-Francisco-eviction-law-6554447.php

San Francisco’s latest attempt to make landlords pay relocation costs for tenants they evict when the property owners go out of the rental business has hit another judicial roadblock.

The ordinance, scaled down from a previous measure, would require landlords to pay displaced tenants the difference between their current rent and the market rate for a similar unit in the city for two years, up to a maximum of $50,000. Tenants would have to show they were using the funds solely for relocation costs and rents, and landlords who faced hardships could appeal to the city Rent Board to reduce their payments.

But Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay said the required payments exceed the “reasonable” relocation assistance authorized by the Ellis Act, the state law that allows landlords to evict all their tenants when they leave the rental business without having to show any other grounds for an eviction....

She said the state law allows local governments to “require mitigation of any adverse impact” on evicted tenants. “We think having to pay dramatically new, higher rents is an adverse impact of the eviction,” Van Aken said.


5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Judge strikes down San Francisco eviction law (Original Post) KamaAina Oct 2015 OP
I think if they add the reason they are selling the apartment yeoman6987 Oct 2015 #1
I don't understand why cities like S.F. don't get into the rental business Auggie Oct 2015 #2
Linky? KamaAina Oct 2015 #3
It was in the Chron a few days ago ... Auggie Oct 2015 #4
Dang. I was hoping something like this would flamingdem Oct 2015 #5
 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
1. I think if they add the reason they are selling the apartment
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:15 PM
Oct 2015

And an exemption for worthy reasons may give the ruling a better chance. For example, the owner dies. What can you do? That happens. The owner goes bankrupt. That happens too. Maybe if the reason is to sell to a corporation for a large sum of money that would be grounds for that rule.

Auggie

(31,167 posts)
2. I don't understand why cities like S.F. don't get into the rental business
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 07:05 PM
Oct 2015

Just saw a piece a few days back how the city owns a lot of unused and/or vacant property. One of the supervisors wants to start selling this land to housing developers but to me that just promotes continued profiteering.

Why can't the city build and own affordable housing with rents just high enough to cover building and maintenance expenses? Even if the rentals are earmarked only are municipal employees or teachers they're helping out a lot of folks that otherwise are commuting vast distances or living in difficult situations.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
3. Linky?
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 07:18 PM
Oct 2015

As a housing advocate, that would be news I could use.

edit: And I can just imagine which supe.

Auggie

(31,167 posts)
4. It was in the Chron a few days ago ...
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 07:49 PM
Oct 2015

can't find a link. I don't think I confused it with Proposition K either.



flamingdem

(39,313 posts)
5. Dang. I was hoping something like this would
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 01:24 AM
Oct 2015

be approved in Santa Monica or West Hollywood and other rent stabilized areas.

It's frightening to think of getting the Ellis boot.

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»California»Judge strikes down San Fr...