Posts Tagged ‘rent control’

ATTENTION RESIDENTS OF THE NEW “NEMA” BUILDING: A Massive Rent Increase is Coming Your Way – ‘Cause No Rent Control

Tuesday, November 4th, 2014

But don’t take my word for it, listen to one of your neighbors at 8 Tenth Street, 94103, via the Yelp:

“Please read this if you are considering any non-rent control building in San Francisco. I wish someone had told me this when I moved to the city and chose Nema. Please consider this advice.

If you have visited Nema, you probably can tell that the management, amenities and staff are outstanding. You may also notice that everyone living in the building has just moved from another city or state. Here’s why:

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you rent in a non-rent control building, unless you can sign a multi-year lease. Could you afford a double digit rent increase? 50% rent increase? Is your income doubling next year? It seems far away now, but you will probably want to renew your lease. Now is the time to make a good decision about housing, not next year because you will be paying much more then.”

So basically, buildings built AFTER rent control came to San Francisco in 1979 don’t have no rent control. (The relevant date is printed on your landlord’s Occupancy Permit, but if your crib went up in 1980 or later, don’t even bother checking.)

That means that your friends renting units in older buildings will face a maximum annual rent increase limited to 60% of a certain Cost of Living Index dealing with the Bay Area. That means one-something percent per year.

OTOH, if you moved into the NeMA at $1950 per month last year (as some did, 2nd or 3rd floor, lousy view* – Unit 324, for example**) and your lease is coming up, consider that there are no units available now for less than $2800 (I’m srsly – some studios go for $4000+)

Are you, the NeMA renter, looking at a 40% rent increase soon? 

If not this year, what about the next year too? How long will it take to have a 40% increase for your unit, you know, cumulatively?

Sooner than you think Auslander.

Sooner than you think, Outlander.

Why don’t websites aimed at tourists and newcomers tell you this? Well, because they’re on the take from … The NEMA!

I assign this story to the San Francisco Chronicle – this one writes itself. (This would be a good CW Nevius, I’m seriously.)

*Compared with the rest of the units in the Nema.

**This was not a BMR (Below Market Rate) unit reserved for those people making less than $38,000 per year, no no. Those places went for around $950 per month. I’m talking about market rate units back when market rate was $1950 per month for the least desirable apartments at NeMA – that was all the way back in 2013. 

Sympathy for the Landlord Who Inherited the Apartment You Rent: Writer CW Nevius Cries a River over Rent Control

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

HERE ARE JUST TEN OR SO THINGS WRONG WITH THE LATEST EFFORT FROM CW NEVIUS:

“Real estate attorney Elizabeth Erhardt has an incredibly unpopular outlook. She’s sympathetic to San Francisco landlords. And before being drowned out by a chorus of boos and hisses…”

THIS MIGHT COME AS A SURPRISE TO THE NEVIUS, BUT THIS “OUTLOOK” IS NOT “INCREDIBLY UNPOPULAR.” HOW ABOUT SOMEWHAT UNPOPULAR, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD?  STRIKE ONE

“They inherited a…. It’s her sole source of income.”

SO NEVIUS, YOU COULDN’T FIND ANY RICH SAN FRANCISCO LANDOWNER WHO DIDN’T INHERIT PROPERTY? EVERYBODY YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE GOT THEIR LAND FOR FREE WITH A STEPPED-UP BASIS, AND AT LEAST ONE IS LANDED GENTRY WITHOUT A J-O-B? WHAT IS THIS, ANOTHER EPISODE OF DOWNTON ABBEY? IT’S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP (LAND)LORD? DON’T YOU SEE THIS AS A PROBLEM FOR YOUR HARD-LUCK LANDLORD STORIES HERE? STRIKE TWO

“Oh come on, you say. Subletting without the landlord’s permission is illegal. Just toss them out.”

FIRST OF ALL NEVIUS, SUBLETTING WITHOUT THE LANDLORD’S PERMISSION ISN’T “ILLEGAL.” STRIKE THREE. AND SECOND OF ALL, WITHOUT REALIZING IT, YOU’RE CALLING INTO QUESTION THE MANAGEMENT SKILLZ OF THE OWNERS. OF COURSE MOST OF THESE ISSUES ARE WORKED OUT AT THE SF RENT BOARD, BUT YOU DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, OK FINE. BUT, FOR THAT, STRIKE FOUR.

“Erhardt says she had a case where the original tenant was paying $19 a month for his apartment because he’d installed sub-leasers to pay most of the way.”

SO FINE, TAKE IT TO THE RENT BOARD – WHAT’S THE PROBLEM HERE? PROVE UP YOUR CASE AND YOU’LL WIN, EASY-PEASY. AWWWW, THAT’S TOO HARD FOR YOU, YOU DON’T HAVE STOMACH TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF LANDLORDING IN SF? WELL, WHO PROMISED YOU, THE INHERITOR, THAT IT WOULD BE EASY, WHO PROMISED YOU A ROSE GARDEN? WHY NOT INSTEAD JUST SELL THE PROPERTY AND ENJOY YOUR UNEARNED INCOME? FOR NOT STATING THE OBVIOUS, THAT’S STRIKE FIVE FOR THE NEVIUS.

Critics say these are just a few anecdotal examples. 

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, NEVIUS? WHO ACTUALLY SAID THIS? AND HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF  STRAW DOGS HAVE YOU BIRTHED OVER THE YEARS, YOU LAZY WRITER, CW NEVIUS? STRIKE SIX. (LET’S BRING OUT THE “T”)

“…poperty owners.”

HEY NEVIUS, YOU DON’T HAVE AN EDITOR, HUH? I KNOW THAT BECAUSE OF TEH TYPOS. AND THAT’S NOT A PROBLEM IN ITSELF, BUT AN EDITOR WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM SAYING STUFF LIKE HOW NOT GETTING A LANDLORD’S PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING IS “ILLEGAL.” WHAT YOU NEED IS SOMEBODY TO GO THROUGH ALL YOUR SENTENCES AND THEN SAY, “NOW IS THIS ACTUALLY TRUE?” SO YEAH, SURE, YOU CAN FIX THE TYPOS, BUT WHAT ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ERRORS WHAT _AREN’T_ TYPOS? STRIKE SEVEN

A simple concept, rent-controlled apartments for those who need a financial break, has become as Byzantine as the tax code.

WELL, LET’S SEE HERE. NUMBER ONE, SF RENT CONTROL IS NOT “AS BYZANTINE AS OUR TAX CODE,” NOT BY A LONG SHOT. FOUL TIP. NUMBER TWO, RENT CONTROL WAS MEANT FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST “THOSE WHO NEED A FINANCIAL BREAK.” RIGHT? ‘CAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MEANS-TESTED, RIGHT? IN THAT WAY, IT’S SIMILAR TO PROP 13, RIGHT? HEY NEVIUS, DO YOU PROPOSE MEANS-TESTING PROP  13? OH YOU DON’T? MMMM… AND HEY, AREN’T YOU A SAN FRANCISCO NEWCOMER WHOSE SOMA CONDO IS UP IN VALUE BIG-TIME SINCE YOU BOUGHT JUST A FEW YEARS AGO? HEY, DON’T YOU BENEFIT FROM PROP 13? DO YOU REALLY NEED IT, NEVIUS? HEY, WHY DON’T WE MEANS-TEST YOUR PROP 13 BENEFITS, NEVIUS? STRIKE EIGHT

“Rent control was enacted in 1979,” said New. “The law has been changed, like, 72 times since then.”

AND SOME OF THOSE CHANGES WERE, LIKE, AT THE BEHEST OF … THE SFAA, RIGHT? IS JANAN NEW COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CHANGES HER ORG INSTIGATED? WHY DIDN’T YOU ASK HER THAT, MR. EVERYMAN? STRIKE NINE 

“It’s the haves against the have-nots,” Erhardt said, “and every tenant attorney thinks they are Robin Hood.”

AND DOES EVERY TENANT ATTORNEY THINK THEY ARE ROBIN HOOD, IRL? NOPE. STRIKE TEN, AND YOU, CW NEVIUS, THE MIGHTY CASEY, ARE OUT.

AUDI 5000…

The Most Airbnb People You Could Possibly Imagine, Alamo Square Area, Western Addition, USA

Monday, August 11th, 2014

(Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That.)

This has been a remarkable change, over the past half-decade.

You see them, all over the place, every day, coming and going, taking photos of buildings, looking at maps, asking where “the Seven Ladies” are, asking where the “Full House house” is, and rolling luggage up and down the street, you know, that kind of thing.

Sometimes I don’t know if they’re Airbnb people, but other times, like this time, it’s easy to tell: 

Click to expand

I don’t have a generalized beef against tourists – that makes me different from the typical Western Addition NIMBY.

In any event, this is what Airbnb looks like IRL on the street.

Will This Fall’s Half-Billion Transit Bond Allow Your Landlord to Raise Your Rent, Costing You Thousands? – “Pass-Throughs”

Friday, August 1st, 2014

I don’t know.

But check this out:

“Ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the City and County of San Francisco on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, for the purpose of submitting to San Francisco voters a proposition to incur the following bonded debt of the City and County: $500,000,000 to finance the construction, acquisition, and improvement of certain transportation and transit related improvements, and related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes; authorizing landlords to pass-through 50% of  the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants under Administrative Code Chapter 37…”

All right kids – you do the math. Start with $850,000,000 and divide that up among the denizens of the 415 / 628.

I don’t know how to do that but when I tried, I came up with a $30 a month rent increase for you, Gentle Reader, for the next 7-10 years.

Would the average landlord take the trouble to do a pass-through? IDK. I’m thinking the typical rent-controlled renter in SF doesn’t have to deal with pass-throughs currently. But maybe this big old honking bond would be the trigger for a wave of passthroughs?

Here’s what former SFGov employee Howard Wong has to say:

Arguments against MUNI infrastructure improvement bond

What does the ballot measure do:

Raises property taxes and rents (50% pass-through) to pay for General Obligation Bonds of $500 million, with $350 million in interest payments, for a total debt load of $850 million.

Funds “may be allocated” for transit and roads—carte blanche authority for unspecific projects.

If the Bond is rejected by voters, property taxes and rents would be reduced for everyone—not just for rich companies and the wealthy.

To read the Ordinance’s legal language is to oppose the Bond Measure.

http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/Meeting_Information/BSC/agendas/2014/November/1-B%20Transportation%20Road%20Improvement%20GO.pdf

The SFMTA wants more money, certainly. But the question is what will the SFMTA do for us in order to get the money, right? Otherwise, we’re just shoveling more coal into a broken-down machine. Why not use the bond as a carrot to get the SFMTA to reform?

Perhaps our SFMTA doesn’t deserve this bond?

Anyway, if I were promoting this bond, I’d figure out what the odds are that landlords would pass through 50% of the burden and also how much rents would be increased, on average, and for how long. And then I’d say, well this is what the SFMTA is going to do with your money and this is how much it will cost you, the renter, or you, the owner.

Is this massive transit bond a good idea?

I don’t know.

OMG, I’m Confused: Rent a Tiny “Sleeping Room” on Page Street for $1250/Mo? But What About Rent Control?

Wednesday, July 30th, 2014

[UPDATE:  It’s back, after being hounded off of CL – here it is for the low, low price of $995 per month as of August 4, 2014.]

Or $1150, that’s the latest price for 1880 Page Street #3B. Excerpts from craigslist:

“Video Tour at http://youtu.be/8OEgeklUCDQ
Large sleeping room has newer carpet, sink with granite counter & closet. There is a shared hall bath. No Kitchen.
This is a rent control apartment.
Students, international students, co-signers all welcome.
Studio / 1 Bath in Haight Ashbury
Rent: $1,150
Square feet: 200″

So I’m thinking there’s gotta be a kitchen associated with this apartment somewhere, right?

Hey, what about 1880 Page Street #3A?

Well, I think I’ve found the kitchen.

Mmmm. It might be hard to believe but when we were deep into our Great Recession back in aught-ten, you could rent a two-bed on Page in the Upper Haight for a mere $1600 per month. See?

“Price: $1,595
2 Bedrooms
1 full Bathroom
650 sqft”

If this two-bedroom unit rented for $1600 back in 2010 and the same tenant(s) is/are still there, then the current rent is going to be $1600-something per month, let’s guess, assuming no pass-throughs from the landlord.

Let me now direct you to Topic No. 359: Section 6.15c(3) Petitions Based on Proportional Rent.

Uh oh.

But hey, maybe a new master tenant moved in to the two-bed just this year in high-rent 2014. In that case the rent could be what, like $4000 per month? IDK, I’m not up on things, pricewise. Anyway, imagining this, then maybe $1,000 or $1,250 or something like that per month is a fair price for just 30% of the apartment?

But then, no kitchen.

Uh oh:

California Civil Code section 1941 states that when a landlord rents property to a tenant as a place to live, the property must be in a “habitable” condition. (“Habitable” means fit to live in; “uninhabitable” means not fit to live in.) Section 1941 also states that the landlord must repair problems that make the property uninhabitable – except for problems caused by the tenant or the tenant’s guests, children or pets. In order for the property to be habitable, it must have … [a] kitchen with a sink, which cannot be made of an absorbent material (for example, wood)…”

Oh, and lastly, “SLEEPING ROOM?” Hey, you’re a naive international student right? Well, here’s your new sleeping room, hurray!

In the words of John Malkovich, WTF to that.

Or maybe Unit #3 used to be a three bedroom?

In closing, “Amenities:  Carpet”

In closing, never forget Kitchens.

[UPDATE: “This posting has been flagged for removal.” But you can still find the ad below – just click on over.]

$1150 / 200ft² – Page Street Sleeping Room – No Kitchen (haight ashbury)
image 1
image 1image 2image 3image 4image 5image 6image 7image 8image 9image 10image 11image 12image 13image 14image 15image 16image 17image 18

© craigslist – Map data © OpenStreetMap
1880 Page Street
(google map) (yahoo map)

0BR / sharedBa 200ft2 apartment available aug 01
laundry in bldg street parking

Open House Dates
tuesday 2014-07-29

1880 Page Street #3B

Bill Harkins Brokerage #01230576
www.billharkins.com

Video Tour at http://youtu.be/8OEgeklUCDQ

1880 Page Street is located close to Golden Gate Park, USF, UCSF, Haight Street & transportation and much more.

Large sleeping room has newer carpet, sink with granite counter & closet. There is a shared hall bath. No Kitchen.

This is a rent control apartment.

Lease Terms:
12 months then month to month rent control apartment. No pets. Students, international students, co-signers all welcome.

Tenants provide current downloaded pdf file of credit report showing FICO score by e-mail along with application provided by broker.

Please no applications prior to viewing. Co-signers provide same application and credit report. Students under 21 with co-signers do not need to provide credit reports. Some California high value property owner co-signers do not need to provide credit report. Service animals welcome please submit all requests for reasonable accommodation with application for owners approval.

PG&E, water and garbage included.
Coin laundry room off 1st level lobby.
Square feet is estimate.
Smoking designations follows.

10 unit complex designated non smoking building
Final smoking designation not yet named or due till 12/31/14
#3C, #4 and #6 are smoking optional
#1, #2, #3A, #3B, #5, #8, #9 non smoking (no unit #7 exists)

Details:
Studio / 1 Bath in Haight Ashbury
Rent: $1,150
Square feet: 200

Location:
1880 Page St #3B, San Francisco (Haight Ashbury)

Amenities:
* Carpet
* On Site Laundry

Contact:
Bill Harkins, Bill Harkins Brokerage, Inc

Spank the Landlord! – Infamous Owner of 312 Fillmore Gets a Notice of Violation from San Francisco – Tenants Strike Back

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

Well some tenant at 312 Fillmore got a letter from the landlord and sent it off to Hoodline.com and the rest is history.

Here’s the update. Some of the tenants contacted DBI. See?

And then DBI sent an Inspector out two days ago.

And then the Inspector looked around and filed a Notice of Violation yesterday.

On 5/21/14 Inspector Steve Mungovan investigated the complaint at unit #25 of the subject property and observed violations of the San Francisco Housing Code which are delineated within the Notice of Violation issued on 5/22/2014 identified by Complaint Tracking #201474055. Pertinent observations are as follows: Peeling paint and damaged wall surfaces.”

This is only going to get worse for this particular landlord.

Oh, and guess what? If the LL tries to evict anybody soon, that action just might be presumed to be a retaliatory eviction.

Ouch.

On It Goes…

Description: The kitchen sink hot water pipe was changed out previously from galvanized to bronze; they didnt change out the cold water, which is still leaking. Because the building and piping is old, there are blockages. He has had water leak out and found standing water in the apartment. **He has had a water leak from rain that is coming through the window and there is damage to the wall below. There was also a large crack about 2-3 inches deep and a crack on the outside, where the water is coming in. The apartment has not been painted since he moved in, in 1989. Cracks in walls.
Instructions: 311 SR# 3649450 , ** 3649409 rec’d by HIS on 5/16/2014

The Reason Why It’s Not “Illegal” for the Landlord at 312 Fillmore to Require $100K Income and a 725 FICO Score

Tuesday, May 6th, 2014

Here’s the post from Hoodline. It shows part of a letter given to all the tenants at, let’s say, 312 Fillmore on Haight.

Can’t say that I know the purpose, but it could be to give a heads up to tenants who might wish to replace a roommate under the rules laid out by the San Francisco Rent Board. There’s some stuff in there about landlords “unreasonably” withholding consent from existing tenants who want to get a new roomie. Of course there are all kinds of factors that determine who and how many people can live in a unit in rent controlled SF, so it’s not impossible that you’d have two people in a one bedroom and then one moves out and another wants to move in. And at that point, that’s where incomes and credit scores can become factors. And if the LL says no to a potential new roomie, that’s when things can go to the SFRB.

Now if you want to say that this letter means “Make $100k Or Get Out,” well that’s your right, but I think you’re jumping to conclusions. If you want to say that this is a kind of harassment, well, you’re going to need a lot more than this to be able to do anything with it. And if you’re irritated by this landlord coming into your studio all the time without giving proper notice first, well, the lawgivers in Sacramento didn’t exactly specify a penalty for not giving proper notice, so there’s not much you can do there either.

(But, by all means, go ask Robert (or whatever his name is) what his intent was. And if he says, “Well, I’m evicting everybody in the building who makes less than $100k,” well, then the conclusion you all jumped to was OK fine.)

The proper response here is to ignore the letter and store it away along with all the others.

“Mixed use property – 25 residential, 5 commercial  30 unit, 5-story building

 18 studios, 6-one bedrooms & spacious 3 bedroom, 1-1/2 bath penthouse with formal living/dining rooms, extra large kitchen, utility area, fireplace and panoramic views.
Building size: 17,750 sq. ft.
Lot size: 5,980 sq. ft.
Year built: 1925
Zoning: NC2
Parcel #: 0849-020
Current rents are $1800 to $3500 Studio to 1 bedrooms”

Life goes on, in high-rent Frsico, a block from the projects, on Webster…

All right, play us out, Victor Vasquez:

Kool A.D., living contradictory since ’83
Arkansas street, like a block from the projects
HP some more blocks from some other projects
To Alameda, so we not by the projects
Now look at me, getting nods for my projects

Wow, a Master Tenant Tells KQED He Rents Out Room for More Than Allowed by Rent Control – WTF? Plus, a Simple Solution

Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

All right here we go:

In San Francisco, Rooms for $1,000/Month Are Now Scarce - Sam Harnett | April 2, 2014

“Brian Harrigan is on the other side of the equation. He is on the lease of an iconic four-bedroom Victorian in the Lower Haight. He could probably rent the rooms out for as much as $1,500 each, but he doesn’t want to be greedy. At the same time, he said, ‘If I was to rent it out at like $500 I would have hundreds of emails. You would get everyone applying for it, and it wouldn’t be manageable.’ Harrigan recently had a room open up in the apartment and he decided to put it up at $1,000 — about double the rent-controlled rate and $500 below what he could have charged. Even with the inflated price, he received about 50 applications for the one room.”

What what what – the rent for the room is “about double the rent-controlled rate?”

Non non non! You can’t do it that way in SF.

Here are the three rules, IIRC:

1. Total rent paid by the subtenants may not exceed the rent paid by the master tenant to the landlord.

2. Rent paid by subtenants to the master must be proportional to the total rent – so if the rent controlled rate is for a two-bedroom is $1000 per month to the landlord and the master and sub each share 50-50 (like the rooms and everything else are identical) then the rent charged to the sub should be $500, or close enough to $500.

3. The rent paid by the master to the landlord shall be disclosed in writing to the sub before the sub moves in in the first place.

Those are the rules – live it love it learn it.

Now, can a subtenant get back money from the master if the rent charged is deemed to be disproportionate? Hell yes, going back years.

So is it wise to tell KQED how you set the rate for a room in rent-controlled San Francisco if you’re not sure you’re doin it right? No.

So what should master tenants do then? ‘Cause if you advertise a room for $400 a month on craigslist the world will beat a path to your door, right?

Here’s what you do, you figure what the rent should be for a room but you keep it a secret at first. Then you advertise the room at a market rate, $1400, whatever – and that will cut down on the riff-raff, that will avoid a 50-person beauty contest from every state in the nation, right? And then after you pick somebody to be your new roomie, then comes The Reveal, which is actually the rent is only $400 a month are you cool with that. And it will be, I guarantee it.

What’s that, this strategy isn’t for you because ____? Well all right, have it your way. But just make sure* you split the rent proportionally, that’s what I’m saying.

*Heavy is the head what wears the master tenant crown, right? Of course, there are pros and cons to being a master tenant in rent controlled SF – it’s not for everyone. 

Aha! Watch Supervisor Scott Wiener Attempt to Prove He’s Not the Best Friend of SF’s Real Estate Industry

Tuesday, February 25th, 2014

Supervisor Scott Wiener goes long-form in The Castro Biscuit

Roy: As an initial matter, if you’re going to run a one-sided hit piece suggesting that I’m taking “dirty money,” you should give me a real opportunity to respond before you run the piece.

UH, WHO MADE UP THIS RULE? UH, IF YOU CAN’T STAND THE HEAT, SCOTT WIENER, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN, SCOTT WIENER

As for Tim Redmond’s hit piece on me, I’ll say the following. First, I question why Tim didn’t run the numbers for other Supervisors running for reelection or for the Assembly.

SO THE RULE IS “ANY CRITICISM OF SCOTT WIENER COMMITTED TO WRITING IS A ‘HIT PIECE?’” I THINK NOT. AND IF ATTORNEY SCOTT WIENER EVER GETS ARRESTED FOR LOOTING, HE’LL BE SURE ASK HIS ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT ALL THE OTHER LOOTERS WHO _WEREN’T_ ARRESTED, RIGHT?

Second, my record on rent control is long and pro-renter.

AHAHAHAHAH! SCOTT WIENER IS THE SAN FRANCISCO REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY’S BEST FRIEND. THAT MEANS THAT HE’S DEFINITELY NOT “PRO-RENTER.” IF HE WANTS TO SAY THAT HE DOESN’T WANT TO BAN RENT CONTROL THIS YEAR I’LL BELIEVE HIM. BUT SCOTT WIENER HAS NEVER BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE THE “PRO-RENTER” CANDIDATE IN ANY CONTESTED ELECTION. SO YOUR LAUNDRY LIST IS WORTHLESS, SCOTT WIENER.

As for my campaign donations throughDecember 31, as disclosed on the recent campaign report, 85% of my donations…”

BLAH BLAH BLAH, ALL THAT DOESN’T MATTER. YOU, SCOTT WIENER, ARE THE SAN FRANCISCO REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY’S BEST FRIEND. WOULD ANYONE DENY THIS?

Unfortunately, there’s a troubling trend in some self-described progressive political circles to define who are “real San Franciscans” and who are not.

SCOTT WIENER, THOUGH HE’D LIKE TO DENY THIS, IS A RIGHT-OF-CENTER SAN FRANCISCO POLITICIAN. HE IS CRITICIZING “FOLKS” ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE FOR NOT LIVING UP TO HIS EXPECTATIONS. SO HE’S “TROUBLED” BY THIS. OK FINE. BUT YOU, SCOTT WIENER, ARE THE BEST FRIEND OF THE SAN FRANCISCO REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY, RIGHT? ISN’T THAT “TROUBLING” AS WELL?

As with every elected official, I raise money from a wide array of sources. And, yes, that includes architects, real estate agents, folks in construction, trade unions, and folks who build housing. A number of the realtors who contributed are folks I’ve known for a long time…

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOU GOTTA CAPITALIZE THE “R” IN REALTORS, LIKE DUH, DUDE. SECOND OF ALL, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, THAT’S SCOTT WIENER’S FAVORITEST CRUTCH WORD.

As noted, donors to my campaign, overwhelmingly, are San Francisco residents, and almost half of them live in the district. They include folks who work in real estate and folks who don’t.

OBVIOUSLY, SUPERVISOR SCOTT WIENER IS VERY VERY AFRAID OF BEING VIEWED AS BEING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY. OBVIOUSLY, SUPERVISOR SCOTT WIENER THINKS THAT HE CAN CHANGE PEOPLE’S MINDS ON THIS SITUATION BY USING THE TERM “FOLKS” SEVEN TIMES IN THREE PARAGRAPHS. IS THIS HIS BEST EFFORT?

SCOTT WIENER, IF YOU DON’T LIKE YOUR JOB, IF YOU HAVE SO SO MANY COMPLAINTS, WHY DON’T YOU QUIT?

Here’s What You Should Do When Your Landlord Sends You This Mandatory Tobacco Smoke Disclosure Letter This Month

Monday, November 18th, 2013

Absolutely nothing.

Say it again, y’all: Absolutely nothing.

Background: District One (aka The Richmond, more or less) Supervisor Eric Mar is a bird of another feather – he wasn’t satisfied with issuing edicts from Academia oh no. He descended from the ivory tower to put dreams into action. And his father passed away from lung cancer (AFAIK, pretty sure), so it would make sense that he wanted to do something for San Francisco renters who have to deal with secondhand smoke coming in from other units.

Get all the deets on San Francisco’s 2013 Tobacco Smoke Disclosure Policy as of last year via this excellent article from Christian Watjen right here.

So that’s the background. What’s going on now is that tenants all over the City are getting alarming/confusing letters from landlords. To wit:

Nervous Gay Couple Living With AIDS Get Letter from the Landlord

Now here’s what you’ll get* if your landlord toes the party line of the San Francisco Apartment Association – an excerpt of the pledge they want you to make:

“For purposes of the Tobacco Smoke Disclosure Policy and SF Health Code 19M, I would like to designate my apartment as non-smoking. I verify that neither I nor my guests will ever smoke tobacco within the rental apartment listed below.”

Uh, so why should tenants make this pledge? It’s not explained in this official SFAA letter now is it? And what if Barack Obama or Bill Clinton drops by your pad a few years from now? They puff puff every now and then, right? So what about your signed pledge, what about that?

And here’s what the lawyer(s) of  the SFAA have for you at the bottom of the letter:

“If you do voluntarily decide to designate your apartment as non-smoking, which you are not required to do, the designation is permanent and becomes a consensual change in the terms of your tenancy.”

Oh.

If you’re living in rent-controlled San Francisco, I think you should get some kind of benefit when you change the terms of your tenancy, you know, as a general rule .

And later on, is your landlord going to complain about how you’re violating the terms of your tenancy when you allowed your future bud / date / friend smoke one cigarette to help her get through one of her stressed out moments?

Or your Euro fiance can’t move in with you in 2015 because your “designation is permanent?”

And should we assume second-hand smoke from clove cigarettes and/or the Mary Jane is good for you, since it’s not covered?

Now, IRL, is this issue going to affect you? Prolly not. But I’m just saying.

So, sign your pledge or just ignore it – choose or lose, maybe.

*Assuming that you’re living in a building with fewer than 50 units and you aren’t restricted from smoking now. This is the notification you’ll get otherwise, possibly, and it’s fair enough. And here’s the full rundown from the SFAA. Again, no objections.

All the deets, after the jump

(more…)