With the crushing statewide defeat of Proposition 98 – and a 75-25 margin in San Francisco – tenant advocates hope to pass a local measure for the November ballot. Prop 98’s defeat doesn’t preclude the fact that San Francisco rents have exploded – and it’s still tough for tenants to find a new place to live. This month, the Board of Supervisors will consider three measures to place to the voters, addressing three separate issues affecting San Francisco’s rental market: (a) an anti-landlord harassment measure to curb attempts to bully out tenants, (b) amending eviction protections to include families with children, and (c) bringing owner-occupied duplexes under the City’s condominium conversion law. The third measure would probably have the largest impact at slowing gentrification, as the City’s own data demonstrate how this loophole has gutted our basic condo conversion ordinance. As the presidential election will bring a healthy San Francisco turnout, such measures could pass.

Tenant Harassment Measure:

As the Board of Supervisors heard last month at the Land Use Committee, Skyline Realty – a.k.a. CitiApartments – has gobbled up large apartment buildings throughout San Francisco, employing overhanded tactics to force out long-term tenants from their homes. As the City Attorney sues Skyline for its unfair business practices that short-change honest property owners, amending the Rent Ordinance could give tenants individual recourse themselves.

For years, tenants have gone to the Rent Board to seek a refund for “decrease in services” when the landlord violates the Housing Code – or takes away a service that is part of the tenancy. But if the landlord employs a campaign of harassment to get you out, there are few remedies under law – unless it is truly severe. One measure would include “landlord harassment” as a decreased housing service – so the tenant could file a Rent Board petition if the owner has engaged in a deliberate and malicious effort to drive them out.

As a tenant counselor for many years, I have often had clients tell me that their landlord is “harassing” them – without providing details that could give them a legal remedy. This measure offers concrete definitions of “harassment,” which would include (1) failing to exercise due diligence in repairs and maintenance, (2) abusing the landlord’s right of access, (3) abusing the tenant with offensive words likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction, and (4) repeated frivolous court proceedings against the tenant.

Skyline tenants often encounter such treatment when the company buys their building, and the company has admitted to offering “buy-outs.” Tenants, meanwhile, have reported not-so-subtle harassment campaigns if they refuse to take the money and leave.

Which is why the measure also defines harassment to include: the “attempt to influence a tenant to vacate a rental housing unit through fraud, intimidation or coercion, including attempts to coerce the tenant to vacate with offer(s) of payments to vacate which are accompanied with threats or intimidation or which continue to be offered after the tenant(s) has told the landlord that such offers of payment are unwelcome.”

Beyond giving tenants a right to get their rent lowered for such treatment, the measure would also make these practices a criminal misdemeanor. This measure is likely to be popular with many tenants in San Francisco – but like most other protections, it’s only worth the paper it’s printed on if renters navigate the system to assert their rights.

Family Renter Protections:

As the City struggles to resolve the exodus of middle-class families through creative planning solutions, some basic amendments to the Rent Ordinance could help stem the tide. Proposition G – which voters passed in 1998 to protect senior and disabled tenants from owner move-in evictions – does not include families with children as a protected class.

One measure would amend Prop G to include children under 18 years old who have lived in the rental unit for over a year. While Supervisor Jake McGoldrick proposed legislation a few years ago to restrict Ellis evictions of families with school-age children during the academic year, this measure would help curb OMI evictions that devastate families who are just trying to stay in San Francisco. It’s a common-sense clean-up measure.

Ending the Condo Conversion Loophole:

San Francisco only allows for 200 condominium conversions a year – stemming the tide of Ellis Act evictions in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods. But as Randy Shaw reported last month, there have been 1500 condo conversions in the last two years alone – due to a loophole with owner-occupied duplexes. Under current law, an owner can move into one unit in a duplex – and evict the other without going through the formal condo lottery.

Anyone who knows San Francisco – and the basic structure of Victorian rental units – can see how this can lead to mass displacement. It is one thing when two owners buy a building together, occupy each unit and then want to condo-convert the property. But when this falls under the radar after only half the units are owner-occupied, it’s quite a different story –and the City’s rental housing stock will slowly erode.

The final measure being considered would amend the Subdivision Code so that only duplexes where both units are owner-occupied for a year before the conversion process will be exempt from the condominium lottery. This would help the City more diligently control the rash of condo conversions that slip under the radar, while protecting tenants from displacement and rewarding homeowners who didn’t get there by evicting someone else. Ultimately, that’s what will help stem runaway gentrification.