Tenant Law
Tenant Rights are Human Rights
Contributors
San Francisco Supervisors Weigh in on Black DisplacementThursday, August 21, 2008
A string of articles have been published regarding the displacement of San Francisco’s African American population, the most recent of which is titled Black Exodus Emergency by Sarah Phelan in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. Sarah Phelan outlines the plight of the African American Out-Migration task force, put together by Mayor Gavin Newsom last year. It recently issued a draft report demonstrating the harsh reality -- based on 2005 US Census and state demographic data -- that the African American population constitutes a mere 1/16 of the city’s population, a number that has decreased by 40.9 percent since 1990. “‘That’s not enough people to fill Candlestick Park,’ observed Fred Blackwell, executive director of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.”
And this is not a new phenomenon. In response to San Francisco’s history of displacement, specifically the urban renewal projects of the 1950s and 1960s in the Fillmore area and in Hunters Point in the 1970s, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote on a Mayoral supported proposal on September 9th. If passed, it would extend housing reparations in the form of certificates allowing the recipient to jump to the front of long affordable housing lines, not only to the original tenants who were displaced but to their descendants as well. “They would be put at the top of the city’s lottery system that awards much-coveted affordable housing units,” reported Leslie Fulbright in the SF Chronicle on August 18th, 2008.
I applaud this proposed legislation as a symbol of making something right within a history of wrong. However the question must be asked, is this too little too late? It may not even be feasible to expect past residents and their families from forty-plus years ago to jump at an offer of a high lottery position certificate for a chance to move back to San Francisco. According to Fred Blackwell, executive director of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (as quoted in the Guardian article), the city has a “lack of affordable housing, as well as a lack of educational and economic opportunity, severe environmental injustice, an epidemic of violence, and lack of cultural and social pride.” I agree with Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi's statement to the Chronicle: “I highly doubt there will be a flood of people coming in to redeem them (the certificates).”
So what do we do in response to the African American depopulation? We must start by preserving and improving the housing supply that already exists. A watchful and critical eye must be placed on the Redevelopment Agency’s new plan to “clean up” Bay View-Hunters Point, one of the few predominantly African American neighborhoods remaining in San Francisco.
From the San Francisco Chronicle, August 18th, 2008:
SF Chron: Foreclosure Crisis Victimizes SF TenantsFriday, August 15, 2008
The Chronicle today published a good if somewhat belated piece documenting the fallout of the ongoing housing and foreclosure crisis on San Francisco and Bay Area renters. As we've been hearing for months, the banks foreclosing on properties and the agencies they hire to 'manage' the properties and prepare them for resale often have been neglecting and abusing the tenants in those properties, tenants who have done nothing wrong. These tenants have been subject to repeated aggressive demands to move out, and have sometimes had their utilities abruptly (and wrongfully) cut, leaving them in untenantable conditions, as the agents try to exert pressure on the tenants to leave the property vacant so it can sell higher and more easily.
As reported in the Chronicle, SF tenants' rights and protections are supposed to continue after their landlord's property has gone into foreclosure. However, tenants do not always understand their rights or the extent of their protection in these situations, and the banks and property agents are not always interested in learning (or following) the laws. Many are relatively new to the business of landlording -- especially in a strong rent- and eviction-control jurisdiction -- and their design for these properties is nothing more then to turn them over quickly for the highest price they can muster. The tenants are all too often disregarded, neglected, even harassed as they are seen more as an obstacle to the banks' bottom line rather than as humans with legitimate needs and rights in their homes.
Any S.F. tenant whose landlord has been foreclosed upon, and who is now being told or pressured to leave, or suffering from unilateral lease changes instituted by agents for the foreclosing banks -- stand up for your rights! Contact one of the supportive agencies (there are some links on the left side of this blog page) or a qualified attorney specializing in (and dedicated to) the needs and rights of tenants. Find out your options, and where possible you may be able to successfully fight off the bank, and maintain the quiet enjoyment of your home.
Our own Ken Greenstein was interviewed for the article, and was quoted therein. Excerpts appear below (follow this link to read the whole article):
Squatters Occupying Foreclosed Homes in MiamiTuesday, August 12, 2008
There's an informal squatting program in Miami, Florida, which was created by a Miami affordable housing group called Take Back the Lands. There were more than 26,000 foreclosures in Miami-Dade County last year, which is about a three-fold increase from 2006, according to Tristam Korten, in an article she wrote for a article in Mother Jones magazine in the May/June issue.
Take Back the Lands (hereafter "TBL") has put a large number of families into housing and has 14 families on its waiting list to squat new homes. TBL calls it "liberating the housing." Of the 26,000 foreclosures last year alone, a multitude of those along with this years foreclosures remain vacant. As an aside, this is a nationwide problem, including right here in the Bay Area. I just saw a piece on KRON News yesterday, showing half a neighborhood in Antioch, California which has vacant houses.
The way the squatting usually transpires in the TBL program, is staff from TBL "will break in, change the locks, paint and clean, innovate a way to connect water and electricity, and then move a homeless family into the house. The criminal laws they'll violate in the process range from trespassing to breaking and entering (even burglary, if the police get ambitious), which requires the organization to keep a pro bono lawyer on standby," according to Korten in the Mother Jones piece.
"As far as the neighbors are concerned, the current tenants—squatters though they are—are a vast improvement over the crack den the vacant house had become. One neighbor even loaned the family electricity via an extension cord until a mysterious man sympathetic to Take Back's cause turned on power at the house."
TBL also helped erect a shantytown for the homeless on a vacant city lot in 2006 and it lasted for 6 months until it was accidentally burned down. TBL employees are aware that their program and the actual squatting is against the law, but they believe it is more important to have people housed than the possible criminal prosecutions that could occur.
As a lawyer I can't officially advocate illegal conduct, but clearly with the current economic downturn and the homeless population on the rise in the U.S., our citizens are having to become more creative about housing. There is a severe shortage of public housing and often nowhere to turn for people who lose their homes for one reason or another.
Beware the fake rental scamFriday, August 1, 2008
As reported on the website of KCBS/CBS5 earlier this month (link), an old scam has been resurrected in the Bay Area due in part to the current mortgage foreclosure crisis. Scam artists are breaking into vacant homes up for sale, changing the locks, removing the "for sale" signs, and then marketing the places for rent.
Victims of the scam see a place they'd like to rent, and then make deals with the scammers, often paying first and/or last month's rent and a security deposit in cash -- in exchange for a "lease" and keys. Only later do they find out their "lease" is a fraud and that they have no rental agreement with the owners. By this time the fraudulent "landlord" is long gone, and the victim is out of considerable money and may be put out of the home with very little recourse available.
Beware a landlord or rental agency which requires initial payments in cash. Also, as suggested in the article, it is prudent to check that the rental agency is licensed with the California Department of Real Estate (here) or check the property owner's name against records kept in the county recorder's office (in San Francisco, the office of the assessor-recorder is on the first floor of City Hall, and recent ownership records may be looked up quickly and for free on computer terminals set up there in the "public access" area of the office.)
A string of articles have been published regarding the displacement of San Francisco’s African American population, the most recent of which is titled Black Exodus Emergency by Sarah Phelan in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. Sarah Phelan outlines the plight of the African American Out-Migration task force, put together by Mayor Gavin Newsom last year. It recently issued a draft report demonstrating the harsh reality -- based on 2005 US Census and state demographic data -- that the African American population constitutes a mere 1/16 of the city’s population, a number that has decreased by 40.9 percent since 1990. “‘That’s not enough people to fill Candlestick Park,’ observed Fred Blackwell, executive director of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.”
And this is not a new phenomenon. In response to San Francisco’s history of displacement, specifically the urban renewal projects of the 1950s and 1960s in the Fillmore area and in Hunters Point in the 1970s, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote on a Mayoral supported proposal on September 9th. If passed, it would extend housing reparations in the form of certificates allowing the recipient to jump to the front of long affordable housing lines, not only to the original tenants who were displaced but to their descendants as well. “They would be put at the top of the city’s lottery system that awards much-coveted affordable housing units,” reported Leslie Fulbright in the SF Chronicle on August 18th, 2008.
I applaud this proposed legislation as a symbol of making something right within a history of wrong. However the question must be asked, is this too little too late? It may not even be feasible to expect past residents and their families from forty-plus years ago to jump at an offer of a high lottery position certificate for a chance to move back to San Francisco. According to Fred Blackwell, executive director of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (as quoted in the Guardian article), the city has a “lack of affordable housing, as well as a lack of educational and economic opportunity, severe environmental injustice, an epidemic of violence, and lack of cultural and social pride.” I agree with Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi's statement to the Chronicle: “I highly doubt there will be a flood of people coming in to redeem them (the certificates).”
So what do we do in response to the African American depopulation? We must start by preserving and improving the housing supply that already exists. A watchful and critical eye must be placed on the Redevelopment Agency’s new plan to “clean up” Bay View-Hunters Point, one of the few predominantly African American neighborhoods remaining in San Francisco.
From the San Francisco Chronicle, August 18th, 2008:
If you, a parent or grandparent lived in the Western Addition in the 1950s or 1960s or Hunters Point in the 1970s, you may be eligible for a housing certificate of preference. To find out, call the San Francisco Housing Development Corporation at (415) 822-1022 or the Mayor’s Office of Housing at (415) 701-5500
The Chronicle today published a good if somewhat belated piece documenting the fallout of the ongoing housing and foreclosure crisis on San Francisco and Bay Area renters. As we've been hearing for months, the banks foreclosing on properties and the agencies they hire to 'manage' the properties and prepare them for resale often have been neglecting and abusing the tenants in those properties, tenants who have done nothing wrong. These tenants have been subject to repeated aggressive demands to move out, and have sometimes had their utilities abruptly (and wrongfully) cut, leaving them in untenantable conditions, as the agents try to exert pressure on the tenants to leave the property vacant so it can sell higher and more easily.
As reported in the Chronicle, SF tenants' rights and protections are supposed to continue after their landlord's property has gone into foreclosure. However, tenants do not always understand their rights or the extent of their protection in these situations, and the banks and property agents are not always interested in learning (or following) the laws. Many are relatively new to the business of landlording -- especially in a strong rent- and eviction-control jurisdiction -- and their design for these properties is nothing more then to turn them over quickly for the highest price they can muster. The tenants are all too often disregarded, neglected, even harassed as they are seen more as an obstacle to the banks' bottom line rather than as humans with legitimate needs and rights in their homes.
Any S.F. tenant whose landlord has been foreclosed upon, and who is now being told or pressured to leave, or suffering from unilateral lease changes instituted by agents for the foreclosing banks -- stand up for your rights! Contact one of the supportive agencies (there are some links on the left side of this blog page) or a qualified attorney specializing in (and dedicated to) the needs and rights of tenants. Find out your options, and where possible you may be able to successfully fight off the bank, and maintain the quiet enjoyment of your home.
Our own Ken Greenstein was interviewed for the article, and was quoted therein. Excerpts appear below (follow this link to read the whole article):
In early June, a handwritten note appeared on the front door of Bing Ling Zeng's San Francisco apartment, written in a language she couldn't understand.
"You will be needing to vacate this property soon," it said.
The following month, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. shut off the power. The food in the refrigerator spoiled, forcing Zeng to go out several times a day to buy groceries and milk for her three young children. Her 62-year-old mother-in-law couldn't recharge her electric wheelchair.
Zeng and the other Chinese family sharing the space hadn't fallen behind in their rent or bills. The only thing they did wrong was to lease an apartment from a landlord who fell into foreclosure, an unforeseeable mistake that hundreds are grappling with across San Francisco.
Tenants' groups around the city report a sharp rise in such cases, as lenders repossess growing numbers of local homes. Renters are being told to leave, are living in the dark or are receiving little response to their complaints as their homes fall into disrepair.
* * * * *
The issue was virtually unheard of a year ago. The San Francisco Tenants Union had to circulate a memo to its counselors earlier this year because few had ever encountered it before.
The exact number of tenants dealing with the aftermath of a landlord foreclosure is difficult to ascertain. Three tenants groups contacted by The Chronicle reported around 130 cases this year, but most counselors believe that many more tenants aren't contacting the organizations. What is known is that lenders foreclosed on 492 homes in San Francisco during the last year and a half, according to DataQuick Information Systems.
* * * * *
Unless tenants have stopped paying rent or otherwise have misbehaved, generally they can be forced out only when a new owner plans to demolish the property, has secured the necessary approvals to convert into it condominiums or plans to move in family members or him or herself, according to the city's rent ordinance. Even then, the owner typically must provide several months' notice and thousands of dollars in relocation costs.
In addition, new owners - a bank, a trustee or otherwise - generally become liable for the same obligations of the previous landlord, said Robert Collins, deputy director of the San Francisco Rent Board. That means that if the original lease said the landlord pays for electricity, as Zeng said was the case for her Excelsior apartment, the company that bought it is responsible now.
* * * * *
Even if the law is largely on the tenants' side in these circumstances, relaying the rights of tenants and responsibilities of landlords is a challenge, said Ken Greenstein, partner at San Francisco tenant law firm Greenstein and McDonald.
* * * * *
If a renter is harassed into leaving an apartment, or if he or she vacates without receiving the proper amount of notice or relocation money due under local regulations, that person could have a case to sue, Greenstein said. Likewise, when a new owner doesn't pay for or shuts off utilities, the tenant could have grounds to sue under the state civil code, he said.
But tenant protections do have their limits. While Zeng and her family probably can't be evicted by the current owner, she remains worried about what will happen when the building is sold again, as Medina says the company intends to do. The new owners may want to move in, which probably would allow them to begin legitimate eviction proceedings.
"It will be very difficult to find a place we can afford in San Francisco," Zeng said through a translator, adding that rents have increased and landlords often don't want to lease to families with children. "We're very scared that we won't be able to find a new place to live. It makes me very sad."
Take Back the Lands (hereafter "TBL") has put a large number of families into housing and has 14 families on its waiting list to squat new homes. TBL calls it "liberating the housing." Of the 26,000 foreclosures last year alone, a multitude of those along with this years foreclosures remain vacant. As an aside, this is a nationwide problem, including right here in the Bay Area. I just saw a piece on KRON News yesterday, showing half a neighborhood in Antioch, California which has vacant houses.
The way the squatting usually transpires in the TBL program, is staff from TBL "will break in, change the locks, paint and clean, innovate a way to connect water and electricity, and then move a homeless family into the house. The criminal laws they'll violate in the process range from trespassing to breaking and entering (even burglary, if the police get ambitious), which requires the organization to keep a pro bono lawyer on standby," according to Korten in the Mother Jones piece.
"As far as the neighbors are concerned, the current tenants—squatters though they are—are a vast improvement over the crack den the vacant house had become. One neighbor even loaned the family electricity via an extension cord until a mysterious man sympathetic to Take Back's cause turned on power at the house."
TBL also helped erect a shantytown for the homeless on a vacant city lot in 2006 and it lasted for 6 months until it was accidentally burned down. TBL employees are aware that their program and the actual squatting is against the law, but they believe it is more important to have people housed than the possible criminal prosecutions that could occur.
As a lawyer I can't officially advocate illegal conduct, but clearly with the current economic downturn and the homeless population on the rise in the U.S., our citizens are having to become more creative about housing. There is a severe shortage of public housing and often nowhere to turn for people who lose their homes for one reason or another.
Victims of the scam see a place they'd like to rent, and then make deals with the scammers, often paying first and/or last month's rent and a security deposit in cash -- in exchange for a "lease" and keys. Only later do they find out their "lease" is a fraud and that they have no rental agreement with the owners. By this time the fraudulent "landlord" is long gone, and the victim is out of considerable money and may be put out of the home with very little recourse available.
Beware a landlord or rental agency which requires initial payments in cash. Also, as suggested in the article, it is prudent to check that the rental agency is licensed with the California Department of Real Estate (here) or check the property owner's name against records kept in the county recorder's office (in San Francisco, the office of the assessor-recorder is on the first floor of City Hall, and recent ownership records may be looked up quickly and for free on computer terminals set up there in the "public access" area of the office.)