Chris Daly Still Hates Property Owners
I understand that times are tough. Renters, property owners, landlords and everyone in between is faving tough economic times.Â
We get it.Â
But at what point is a private landlowner responsible for subsidizing the rent of their tenant???
I’m going to give you a little background on my stance on the topic of rent control in San Francisco.Â
I’m against it.Â
I have MANY reasons why I’m against it, but mainly, it’s because I’ve seen three different people take advantage of the protection rent control offers them to the point that WHILE STILL RENTING, they actually purchased property.
One person bought the property to live in while he subletted his unit at more than what he was paying on a monthly basis.
Another couple bought property as income property in another state, while living in their rent controlled apartment.
And a third person bought a vacation home all while living in a large rent controlled flat.
Meanwhile, I know property owners that have had to refinance their properties to make capital improvements like a new roof or major stucco repairs, and now, the income they receive from their rentals isn’t even enough to carry their mortgage, tax and insurance payments.
I’m not sure how to fix the problem of low housing affordability. But I know that putting property owners, many of which are struggling themselves to make ends meet (not all, but I personally know several), in the position of somehow subsidizing a tenant’s rent is just not fair.
Why the long tangent?Â
Because Chris Daly is, yet again, striking out against property owners in San Francisco.Â
Don’t take this the wrong way – most of my friends are renters. Many work in the non-profit sector and frankly, unless they find themselves a rich husband, wife or partner, they’ll stay renters forever. But I don’t see that most of them think their landlord owes them any subsidies.
I can see all sorts of things wrong with Daly’s plan and all of the ways that property owners can get taken advantage of in the various scenarios he is proposing.Â
What I charge you in rent shouldn’t depend on how much money your earn. The specific apartment you CHOOSE to live in should be determined by the amount of money that you earn.Â
Allowing an insane amount of tenants to live in a property puts increased wear and tear on the property that the landlord in turn is going to be responsible for.
And not allowing a landlord to do an increase based on “banked†rent is taking yet another right away from property owners and will result in rental properties falling into disrepair.
And let us not forget the incredible amount of property owners that ARE facing foreclosure. If they are unable to increase rent as their own living expenses and property maintenance expenses increase, then they too will be facing hardships.
The San Francisco Association of REALTORS has provided the summary below. I ask that if you believe that property ownership should come with some basic right to earn a living from your property, so long as it is not come at the unreasonable expense of your tenants, that you contact your supervisor (or every supervisor) and voice yoru concern.
Sphere: Related ContentDaly Proposes “Renters Economic Relief Packageâ€
Last week, San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, projecting increases in residential rents of seven percent in 2009, introduced his “Renters Economic Relief Package.†The legislation, according to Daly, is intended to provide some economic relief to tenants at a time when governments at all levels are throwing billions of dollars at homeowners. The package consists of three significant amendments to San Francisco’s Rent Ordinance. The amendments are described below.
- The first amendment would allow the Rent Board to “suspend any rent increases which will cause a tenant’s rent to exceed 33 percent of their income.†This would be accomplished by expanding an existing provision in the Rent Ordinance that allows the Rent Board to suspend rent increases based on “tenant hardship.†Under the expanded provision, “hardship†would be redefined to allow a tenant to claim hardship any time a tenant’s rent exceeds 33 percent of the tenant’s gross income.
Â- The second amendment would expand the rights of tenants to add roommates to help pay the rent. This would be accomplished by including in the Rent Ordinance occupancy allowances from the San Francisco Housing Code based on the size and number of bedrooms in an apartment. Currently, rental property owners are able to limit the number of renters to levels below those the law allows.
Â- The third amendment would limit the amount of “banked†rent increases which can be imposed in any one year. Currently, rental property owners are able to “bank†annual rent increases and to pass them on to renters at will. The amendment would limit banked rent increases to no more than 8 percent in any one year.
The San Francisco Association of REALTORS® is strongly opposed to Supervisor Daly’s Renters Economic Relief Package. San Francisco has stringent rent control in effect and rents are not “overly inflated†as the supervisor contends. To prevent owners from raising rents above a tenant’s ability to pay is outrageous. And, allowing as many tenants to occupy a dwelling unit as the Housing Code allows is simply reckless and irresponsible.
The Association is working to prevent Supervisor Daly’s legislation from becoming law. But REALTORS® [AND SAN FRANCISCO PROPERTY OWNERS] can assist that effort by contacting the supervisors and the mayor and voicing their opposition. The names of the supervisors and their contact information are shown below. Please take a few minutes to contact the supervisors and the mayor today. Tell them, or their aides, the impact this irresponsible legislation would have on rental property owners who are already saddled with Rent Ordinance that is among the most stringent in the nation.
District 1
Eric Mar
(415) 554-7410
Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.orgDistrict 2
Michela Alioto-Pier
(415) 554-7752
Michela.Alioto-Pier@sfgov.orgDistrict 3
David Chui- Board President
(415) 554-7450
David.Chiu@sfgov.orgDistrict 4
Carmen Chu
(415) 554-7460
Carmen.Chu@sfgov.orgDistrict 5
Ross Mirkarimi
(415) 554-7630
Ross.Mirkarimi@sfgov.orgDistrict 6
Chris Daly
(415) 554-7970
Chris.Daly@sfgov.orgDistrict 7
Sean Elsbernd
(415) 554-6516
Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.orgDistrict 8
Bevan Dufty
(415) 554-6968
Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.orgDistrict 9
David Campos
(415) 554-5144
David.Campos@sfgov.orgDistrict 10
Sophie Maxwell
(415) 554-7670
Sophie.Maxwell@sfgov.orgDistrict 11
John Avalos
(415) 554-6975
John.Avalos@sfgov.orgMayor Gavin Newsom
(415) 554-6141
gavin.newsom@sfgov.org
How can this be right? Countrywide foreclosed on a house on 26th Avenue, Sunset District- last year June 2008. There has been a tenant living in the lower unit who has not paid any rent since June 2008. Its approaching one year!!! He hides and cant get served. He cant be evicted. He lives rent free, mortgage free. I know he works in accounting field, he travels out of country, he lives a great life. No rent since June 2008. Manipulating the rent control system…..this guy can play cat and mouse- hide and seek from the “big bad bank” for 1 year or maybe 2 years- disgusting…I cant do a thing…I am just a realtor trying to help the bank sell their foreclosed homes.
Problem #1 – Caps Increases in Perpetuity — Renters in San Francisco already have rent control, so I do not understand the need for additional protectionist measures. Furthermore, why should landlords subsidize poor financial decisions on the part of tenants. If a tenant signs a rent contact and their circumstances change (jobloss, etc.), I do not see the bank providing mortgage relief to the landlord. Unfortunately, the tenant needs to move to a unit that is in keeping with their financial means. There is a glut of rental property on the market which allows the tenant to find an option that is more affordable.
Problem #2 – Cap Increases in Perpetuity — The yearly increase in rent is well below the appreciation of the property. Effectively, a tenant could forever limit the increase of their rent by signing a lease that was in excess of 33% of their take home pay.
Problem #3 — Roommates — Allowing additional roommates without the consent of the owner just perpetuates scamming the rent control ordinances. As an owner, I should be able to propose a limit to the number of people I want in my building. The tenant is entering into a legal contract agreeing to that limit. If their circumstances change and they want roommate — the tenant should move to a unit that will take that number of roommates. The landlord should not be forced to accept additional damage that comes from additional people in the unit.
Problem #4 — Verification — If this legislation were to pass — how would it be verified? Would the landlord or city need to review the tax returns of renters for income? Is the city going to do that? We are asking for additional oversight at a time when we a running a multi-million dollar deficit.
This economic downturn is difficult on everyone. I fail to see why renters that have the least amount of risk and the greatest amount of portability should receive financial relief to the disadvantage of those who are paying their mortgage. The banks are not offering to provide relief to the landlords. If a jobloss has forced a renter into a situation beyond what they can afford — they should move to a situation commensurate with their income. The landlord should not finance the renters’ life circumstances — just as a landlord does not ask the renter to finance their financial situation.
RTM – Well put!!!! On so many levels, this is unacceptable. The reality is that many people I know that are landlords are actually retired, with that being their only source of income. You start forcing them to subsidize the poor choices of tenants. And then THEY’LL lose their income. But no one will be there to help the property owners. I know we live in a rent friendly city, but if landlords can’t afford to own rental property, then they will just get out of the business all together.