The SF Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee has voted to send legislation granting landlords special rent increases for water charges to the full Board for an October 21 vote. Although some landlord groups have threatened to launch a mail campaign against Prop A, the San Francisco General Hospital bond, unless the Board passed the measure, no representatives of these groups even bothered to attend yesterday’s hearing. Instead, a flood of tenant advocates expressed anger at landlord attempts to blackmail the Board, while also questioning the policy basis for enacting a poorly-conceived measure that charges tenants for allegedly “excessive” water use. The Committee appeared to send the item to the full Board because they were tired of holding hearings, and wanted their colleagues to finally kill the measure.

A Bizarre Hearing

The October 1 hearing on water pass-through legislation was bizarre on a number of levels.

First, the PUC began the hearing by announcing amendments to the legislation that no tenant representatives had previously seen. Since these amendments were clearly substantive, there appeared to be no legal basis for considering these amendments at the hearing.

Although this procedural defect went ignored and uncommented upon, the whole idea of public notice is that those impacted by legislation have an opportunity to read proposed legislation in advance. The amendments incorporated into the landlord bailout measure were not only not publicly noticed, but they were not even handed out at the hearing.

Should the Board pass this legislation on October 21, count upon a legal challenge to the insufficient public notice for amendments heard at the October 1 hearing.

Landlord and Supervisor Arrogance

The second bizarre aspect to the hearing was that the landlord groups promoting the legislation did not attend.

How’s that for arrogance? Even top-level Wall Street bankers felt they had to get down in the trenches and lobby for the federal bailout, but the landlords threatening to kill SF General could not be bothered to publicly defend their position.

Third, the full Board will be considering legislation that potentially impacts over 200,000 tenants without tenant representatives having had any input. The PUC gave landlords so much input that they virtually co-authored the measure—but tenants and their advocates were completely excluded from the process.

I’ve been involved with tenant politics in San Francisco since 1979, and cannot recall the last time, if ever, tenants interests were similarly excluded. Even the most pro-landlord politicians go through the motions to give tenant interests a seat at the table—but Supervisor Alioto-Pier and the new PUC leadership even ignored this longstanding precedent.

A Solution in Search of a Problem

Finally, I defy anyone who watched yesterday’s hearing to explain why legislation making tenants pay landlords for water use is even being considered in 2008. Proponents may have their arguments, but shouldn’t they be raised at the public hearing?

Supervisor Maxwell wisely noted that the PUC should be promoting water conservation irrespective of this legislation. Tenant groups would join with landlords and the PUC in promoting such a goal. But this measure is designed to get landlords more money, not to save water.

When you have a crowd of people speaking against legislation, and nobody explaining why it’s needed, the hearing takes on an almost satirical bent. It as if we are playing a game called “Legislation,” where the substance doesn’t count.

But when unfair rent increases to the city’s tenants are at issue, this is not a joke or a game. And given the proponents unwillingness to make a case for their measure, it deserves to go down to defeat on October 21.

The measure will likely be defeated. But San Francisco Tenants Union leader Ted Gullicksen warned the committee that his group would switch from their current support of Prop A to aggressively opposing the bond if the Board caves into the landlord’s blackmail.

And the fact is that the Tenants Union would not have to even campaign against Prop A for tenant anger against the Board’s action to result in the measure’s defeat. Like the millions upon millions of people on Main Street who opposed the original bailout, tenants know when they are being taken advantage of, and vote accordingly.