Jose Morales, well-known as “San Francisco’s most tenacious tenant,” prevailed at the California Court of Appeals yesterday to – once again – save his home from demolition. In the latest phase of a never-ending struggle for the 78-year-old activist, a unanimous three-judge panel affirmed a prior Court ruling that the San Francisco Planning Commission and the Board of Appeal did not abuse their discretion when they rejected his landlord’s permit to gut Jose’s building.

Incredibly, the landlord’s attorney (Andrew Zacks) argued that Jose had “called in political favors,” but the Court saw through such statements as hyperbole. Jose still faces an Ellis Act eviction, but yesterday’s court ruling was an encouraging step in the effort to save his home.

Morales is highly respected in local activist circles as a bold advocate for seniors, the disabled and renters. In 2005, for example, Senior Action Network named him “Senior of the Year” for his impressive record on behalf of the community.

Whenever the tenant movement needs someone to walk a picket line, attend a rally or speak at a public hearing, Jose Morales is there. Since 1965, he has lived in his modest rent-controlled flat in the Mission District. And since 1993, he has been in a non-stop battle to save his home from an owner move-in eviction, a demolition attempt, and an Ellis Act eviction. Most tenants do not fight for the rights of others like Jose Morales, and it is ironic that he now has had to fight so hard to just save himself.

In 2002, Morales’ landlord applied for a permit to convert the downstairs flat into a parking garage, gut and expand Morales’ upstairs flat, and add an extra unit above Morales. The entire project was going to take five years, with Morales having to be displaced.

In yesterday’s ruling, the Court said that it could be reasonably concluded from the plans that “both the shape and size of the building would be significantly altered, and the principal portions of the building would be removed or destroyed.” Therefore, it was a de facto demolition – not an “alteration,” as the landlords had argued.

The City, said the Court, was justified in denying the permit on the basis that it would adversely affect affordable housing. Jose was already paying more than 30% of his income in rent, and the landlord had suggested that he “find a roommate” after the work was complete – because the unit would rent for much more. In other words, the landlord had admitted that the unit would be more expensive, and affordable housing in San Francisco would take a hit.

Incredibly, Zacks tried to argue that the Planning Commission had no jurisdiction in assessing “tenancy-related issues,” because that was the purview of the Rent Board. But the Court ruled that Planning and the Board of Appeals can take into account what impact a project will have on a low-income tenant – as affordable housing deals directly with the health, safety and general welfare of San Francisco.

Since filing the permit, Jose’s landlords have filed an Ellis Act eviction on the property. Therefore, they argued, the permit could not be rejected on the basis of Jose’s tenancy because they were “going out of the landlord business.”

But the Court noted that Jose still resides at the apartment, and that his eviction notice does not expire until April 18, 2007. Whatever happens with the Ellis eviction is still an open question (e.g., the landlords could lose on the basis of retaliation), so the City is entitled to take into account Jose’s tenancy when assessing the permit.

But the most incredulous argument made in Court was that Jose had “called in political favors,” the City made findings that were “utterly pretextual,” and the landlords were “singled out solely for political reasons.”

Jose may be an activist who frequents City Hall, but to say that the decision was “political” ignores the fact that he is a 78-year-old tenant entitled to the same rights as other renters in the City who may not be “well-connected.” As the Court ruled, the landlords’ arguments were “overbroad,” “scattershot” and had “no support in the record.”

Jose’s story is an inspiration for low-income senior tenants everywhere, some – like Lola McKay – who died defending their homes. As he faces his Ellis Act eviction in April, the Court of Appeals decision is a significant victory in fighting to save the most tenacious tenant in San Francisco.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Jose’s attorney is Raquel Fox of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. Beyond Chron is published by the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org