Tenant Law
Tenant Rights are Human Rights
Contributors
U.S. Supreme Court Rundown - Divided Court Making WavesFriday, June 27, 2008
The United States Supreme Court has been issuing opinions of great impact this term, with a flurry of decisions out this week. Nearly all decisions are very closely split, with the "conservative" four justices (Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) concurring in nearly every respect, and the "liberal" four (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer) grouped together on the other side.
Justice Kennedy is the ninth Justice and the swing vote, siding with the groups on one side or the other and thereby clarifying (and at times changing) the law of the land.
In a few decisions, such as the well-publicized June 12, 2008 decision in the Guantanamo detainee Habeas case BOUMEDIENE et al. v. BUSH, Justice Kennedy aligned himself with the liberal four. The 5/4 decision of the court, authored by Justice Kennedy, reaffirmed the great writ of Habeas Corpus and stated its applicability to alien detainees held in U.S.-controlled military territories outside the United States, like Guantanamo Bay, even if they are classified as "enemy combatant" by the Government. Thus, suspected terrorists held by the United States have the legal right to a court hearing to challenge their detention and/or their "enemy combatant" classification.
However, in a great many decisions released this week, Justice Kennedy sided with the "conservative" four justices, and controversial decisions on a host of issues are going to have an impact on U.S. law and policy for a long time to come. Some of these decisions have been well publicized, some have largely escaped notice. Here's a quick summary of many of this week's published decisions:
- In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, Justice Scalia wrote the 5/4 decision stating that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects a pre-existing individual right to keep firearms including handguns for self-defense purposes and for protection at home. The decision overturned a 30-years-old Washington D.C. ordinance which had banned handgun possession in homes within the district, and which required other firearms in homes to be dissembled or locked with trigger locks. While the decision states that the Second Amendment right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions and exceptions, challenges are already underway to other longstanding local gun-control measures in Chicago and elsewhere. The decision is being hailed as a big win for gun-owning rights groups, while gun-control groups are spinning the decision as a moderate decision which still might allow common-sense gun-control laws to survive.
- In DAVIS v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Justice Alito wrote the decision of the court, backed by the "conservative" bloc and Justice Kennedy. The decision overturns a campaign-finance law known as the “Millionaire’s Amendment.” Under the Millionaire’s Amendment, a person running for office -- against a candidate who spends huge sums of her or his own money on her or his own behalf -- is allowed looser restrictions in how much money the non-millionaire may raise from individual donors. The idea was to allow a poorer candidate to compete with a richer candidate who otherwise could buy themselves an election. The law also required the millionaire candidate to make disclosures of how much of her or his own money was being spent, so that it could be determined if the looser restrictions were to apply to the non-millionaire candidate. The decision here was rested on freedom of speech and equal protection grounds, essentially claiming that the law was an unlawful burden on millionaires' freedom to spend their money on their campaigns, and that by loosening the restrictions for the non-millionaire candidate only the law was unfair to the millionaire. These conservative justices are very adept at protecting rights, at least the rights of the ultra-rich and the ultra-powerful...
- In EXXON SHIPPING CO. et al. v. BAKER et al., in a 5/3 opinion (with Justice Souter joining Kennedy with the conservative bloc, and with Justice Alito taking no part in the matter), the Court reduced the punitive damages award against the Exxon Corporation, in civil suits brought after the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster, from $2.5 Billion to just over $500 Million. The court held that maritime law required an upper limit punitive damages ratio of 1:1, meaning that the amount of punitive damages awarded in excess of the actual or compensatory damages is unfair and unlawful. While the jury in this matter initially awarded punitive damages of $5 Billion, (which was then reduced on appeal to $2.5 Billion), the actual compensatory damages awarded on the case was about $500 Million, and the supreme court held that punitive damages therefore could not be awarded in excess of that amount. A huge relief for the huge oil company.
- Joining the "liberal" bloc, Justice Kennedy wrote the 5/4 decision in KENNEDY v. LOUISIANA, holding that there could be no death penalty for persons convicted of raping a child if the victim was not killed and was not intended to be killed. Such a punishment was held to be disproportionate to the crime and thus violates the Eighth Amendment's protection against "cruel and unusual punishment."
- In a rare instance of judicial unity, the Court held in ROTHGERY v. GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS that a criminal defendant's right to counsel attaches at the "initial appearance before a magistrate judge, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction." The decision was 8/1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting. In Justice Thomas's lone opinion, the procedure of Gillespie County was proper, whereby it denied the accused counsel until a later court appearance which specifically involved a public prosecutor. Justice Thomas would so hold even given the facts of this case, where a wrongfully accused man (due to a database error misidentifying him as a felon) was jailed twice and forced to raise substantial bail, all before he was ever granted an attorney. Once he had an attorney it was a simple matter of having the attorney file a bit of paperwork to clear the database error and have the man released. The nearly unanimous opinion of the Court upholds the substance and intent of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
New York Landlord Takes Over Sections of Residential BuildingFriday, June 20, 2008
In the New York Times on June 15th, there was a story by Marc Santora (link) about a young landlord (only 37) and his family, trying to turn a big apartment building in the East Village into a mansion. The only problem for the Economakis family was that most of the tenants in the 15 units had rent control and were willing to fight to keep their homes.
This story is instructive for S.F. tenants in large buildings because there is the possibility of this happening to them. Usually landlords will use the Ellis Act, which means they have to remove the building from the rental market for 5 years. Often the landlord will then sell the individual units as a Tenancy in Common. The owner of Skyy Vodka is known to have taken over a whole property in S.F. and turned it into his family's home. It is so unjust how some of these greedy landlords could care less about their tenant's long-term homes, all for the mighty dollar. Some people just can never get enough money.
SF Rent Board Closes Loophole, Clarifies that Disabled Persons Receive Eviction Protection Regardless of IncomeThursday, June 12, 2008
As reported yesterday by Paul Hogarth of BeyondChron (an excellent online alternative daily news source with a progressive slant and a locally oriented focus), the San Francisco Rent Board at their public meeting Tuesday, June 10, 2008, approved a change to their rules and regulations, making fully clear that disabled tenants are protected from Owner-Move-In evictions (which are often used by landlords as a pretense for speculative purposes, to free units of long-term rent-controlled tenancies prior to offering the property for sale, or simply to jack up rents to market rates), regardless of their income status.
Previously the regulations had a loophole in that they referenced the qualifications for SSI (supplemental security income - a welfare system for elderly and disabled persons with limited means) as a determining factor, without clarifying that it was the definition of 'disabled' under SSI which was to be determinative. Since SSI also has a "means test" to determine eligibility -- meaning that persons with certain minimum income or assets are not eligable -- some landlord advocates have been arguing that the same means-testing should determine eligibility for the eviction protections in the Rent Board regulations.
At the Tuesday meeting, the Board confirmed that the intention of the regulation is to protect disabled tenants, with no means test involved. This closes the loophole which landlords have been exploiting, and represents a solid step toward tightening the common-sense tenant protections which San Franciscans have been favoring over recent years -- including the disability protections passed by voters as Prop G in 1998, designed to protect just such disabled San Franciscan tenants.
For the full article: see here.
Gerry Spence Wins Final CaseFriday, June 6, 2008
Gerry Spence, one of the most renowned trial attorneys in U.S. history, prevailed in his final case before retirement earlier this week. He went 50 years without losing one criminal defense case and he was made famous by securing a $10.5 million verdict for the family of Karen Silkwood and for helping to defend O.J. Simpson. He is the author of 16 books.
This last case was tried in Detroit federal court and involved an attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, who was accused of making illegal campaign contributions to John Edwards. The indictment was especially suspicious because it was made against a well known supporter of Democratic candidates by a Justice Department which has flagrantly violated numerous laws. Information on the case this week is available at http://www.mlive.com/... and http://www.newsobserver.com/1565/story/1093505.html.
Prop 98 Loses!Thursday, June 5, 2008
Proposition 98, the California initiative which would have banned rent control and other important tenant protections, lost on Tuesday by more than 20 percentage points in a major victory for tenants, environmentalists, retired persons and a broad coalition. Tenants throughout California celebrated the hard fought win. We want to congratulate all of the activists and organizations who helped make this victory possible.
However, landlords and other property owners have vowed not to give up the fight. They now intend to take it to the State Legislature in an L.A. Times article. I don't think they have much chance of getting a new law passed, at least not until the Republicans control the State Legislature, a day which hopefully which will not come.
Vote on June 3rd, NO on 98, Yes on 99Monday, June 2, 2008
The vote to outlaw rent control and just cause for eviction is TOMORROW, so people need to make sure to vote NO on Prop 98. If Prop 99 gets more votes than Prop 98 then it will supercede a yes vote on 98.
The latest Field Poll from last week of likely voters shows Prop 98 losing 43 to 33, but about 20 percent are undecided. Also, June usually has low voter turnout, so make sure to cast that ballot.
Justice Kennedy is the ninth Justice and the swing vote, siding with the groups on one side or the other and thereby clarifying (and at times changing) the law of the land.
In a few decisions, such as the well-publicized June 12, 2008 decision in the Guantanamo detainee Habeas case BOUMEDIENE et al. v. BUSH, Justice Kennedy aligned himself with the liberal four. The 5/4 decision of the court, authored by Justice Kennedy, reaffirmed the great writ of Habeas Corpus and stated its applicability to alien detainees held in U.S.-controlled military territories outside the United States, like Guantanamo Bay, even if they are classified as "enemy combatant" by the Government. Thus, suspected terrorists held by the United States have the legal right to a court hearing to challenge their detention and/or their "enemy combatant" classification.
However, in a great many decisions released this week, Justice Kennedy sided with the "conservative" four justices, and controversial decisions on a host of issues are going to have an impact on U.S. law and policy for a long time to come. Some of these decisions have been well publicized, some have largely escaped notice. Here's a quick summary of many of this week's published decisions:
- In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, Justice Scalia wrote the 5/4 decision stating that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects a pre-existing individual right to keep firearms including handguns for self-defense purposes and for protection at home. The decision overturned a 30-years-old Washington D.C. ordinance which had banned handgun possession in homes within the district, and which required other firearms in homes to be dissembled or locked with trigger locks. While the decision states that the Second Amendment right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions and exceptions, challenges are already underway to other longstanding local gun-control measures in Chicago and elsewhere. The decision is being hailed as a big win for gun-owning rights groups, while gun-control groups are spinning the decision as a moderate decision which still might allow common-sense gun-control laws to survive.
- In DAVIS v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Justice Alito wrote the decision of the court, backed by the "conservative" bloc and Justice Kennedy. The decision overturns a campaign-finance law known as the “Millionaire’s Amendment.” Under the Millionaire’s Amendment, a person running for office -- against a candidate who spends huge sums of her or his own money on her or his own behalf -- is allowed looser restrictions in how much money the non-millionaire may raise from individual donors. The idea was to allow a poorer candidate to compete with a richer candidate who otherwise could buy themselves an election. The law also required the millionaire candidate to make disclosures of how much of her or his own money was being spent, so that it could be determined if the looser restrictions were to apply to the non-millionaire candidate. The decision here was rested on freedom of speech and equal protection grounds, essentially claiming that the law was an unlawful burden on millionaires' freedom to spend their money on their campaigns, and that by loosening the restrictions for the non-millionaire candidate only the law was unfair to the millionaire. These conservative justices are very adept at protecting rights, at least the rights of the ultra-rich and the ultra-powerful...
- In EXXON SHIPPING CO. et al. v. BAKER et al., in a 5/3 opinion (with Justice Souter joining Kennedy with the conservative bloc, and with Justice Alito taking no part in the matter), the Court reduced the punitive damages award against the Exxon Corporation, in civil suits brought after the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster, from $2.5 Billion to just over $500 Million. The court held that maritime law required an upper limit punitive damages ratio of 1:1, meaning that the amount of punitive damages awarded in excess of the actual or compensatory damages is unfair and unlawful. While the jury in this matter initially awarded punitive damages of $5 Billion, (which was then reduced on appeal to $2.5 Billion), the actual compensatory damages awarded on the case was about $500 Million, and the supreme court held that punitive damages therefore could not be awarded in excess of that amount. A huge relief for the huge oil company.
- Joining the "liberal" bloc, Justice Kennedy wrote the 5/4 decision in KENNEDY v. LOUISIANA, holding that there could be no death penalty for persons convicted of raping a child if the victim was not killed and was not intended to be killed. Such a punishment was held to be disproportionate to the crime and thus violates the Eighth Amendment's protection against "cruel and unusual punishment."
- In a rare instance of judicial unity, the Court held in ROTHGERY v. GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS that a criminal defendant's right to counsel attaches at the "initial appearance before a magistrate judge, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction." The decision was 8/1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting. In Justice Thomas's lone opinion, the procedure of Gillespie County was proper, whereby it denied the accused counsel until a later court appearance which specifically involved a public prosecutor. Justice Thomas would so hold even given the facts of this case, where a wrongfully accused man (due to a database error misidentifying him as a felon) was jailed twice and forced to raise substantial bail, all before he was ever granted an attorney. Once he had an attorney it was a simple matter of having the attorney file a bit of paperwork to clear the database error and have the man released. The nearly unanimous opinion of the Court upholds the substance and intent of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
[T]hese dreams have turned into a five-year nightmare including three court rulings, the most recent from the State Court of Appeals this month; countless letters written by lawyers; dueling Web sites; and dozens of skirmishes over the use of air-conditioners and the positioning of flowerpots. The Economakises reached financial settlements with six of the original occupants, turning those units into a three-story space for themselves and a duplex for guests. Now that the Court of Appeals has sent the case back to housing court, lawyers estimate a resolution could still be two years away.
At its core, the fight involves a law allowing landlords to displace rent-stabilized tenants if the landlords will use the space as their primary residence. The Economakis family has prevailed, thus far, on the principle that the law applies even to a building this large. But the tenants continue to press the notion that given the scope of the proposed home — which calls for seven bathrooms, a gym and a library — the owners are just trying to clear them out so they can sell the building off to become so many market-rate condos.
This story is instructive for S.F. tenants in large buildings because there is the possibility of this happening to them. Usually landlords will use the Ellis Act, which means they have to remove the building from the rental market for 5 years. Often the landlord will then sell the individual units as a Tenancy in Common. The owner of Skyy Vodka is known to have taken over a whole property in S.F. and turned it into his family's home. It is so unjust how some of these greedy landlords could care less about their tenant's long-term homes, all for the mighty dollar. Some people just can never get enough money.
As reported yesterday by Paul Hogarth of BeyondChron (an excellent online alternative daily news source with a progressive slant and a locally oriented focus), the San Francisco Rent Board at their public meeting Tuesday, June 10, 2008, approved a change to their rules and regulations, making fully clear that disabled tenants are protected from Owner-Move-In evictions (which are often used by landlords as a pretense for speculative purposes, to free units of long-term rent-controlled tenancies prior to offering the property for sale, or simply to jack up rents to market rates), regardless of their income status.
Previously the regulations had a loophole in that they referenced the qualifications for SSI (supplemental security income - a welfare system for elderly and disabled persons with limited means) as a determining factor, without clarifying that it was the definition of 'disabled' under SSI which was to be determinative. Since SSI also has a "means test" to determine eligibility -- meaning that persons with certain minimum income or assets are not eligable -- some landlord advocates have been arguing that the same means-testing should determine eligibility for the eviction protections in the Rent Board regulations.
At the Tuesday meeting, the Board confirmed that the intention of the regulation is to protect disabled tenants, with no means test involved. This closes the loophole which landlords have been exploiting, and represents a solid step toward tightening the common-sense tenant protections which San Franciscans have been favoring over recent years -- including the disability protections passed by voters as Prop G in 1998, designed to protect just such disabled San Franciscan tenants.
For the full article: see here.
This last case was tried in Detroit federal court and involved an attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, who was accused of making illegal campaign contributions to John Edwards. The indictment was especially suspicious because it was made against a well known supporter of Democratic candidates by a Justice Department which has flagrantly violated numerous laws. Information on the case this week is available at http://www.mlive.com/... and http://www.newsobserver.com/1565/story/1093505.html.
However, landlords and other property owners have vowed not to give up the fight. They now intend to take it to the State Legislature in an L.A. Times article. I don't think they have much chance of getting a new law passed, at least not until the Republicans control the State Legislature, a day which hopefully which will not come.
The latest Field Poll from last week of likely voters shows Prop 98 losing 43 to 33, but about 20 percent are undecided. Also, June usually has low voter turnout, so make sure to cast that ballot.