Tenant Law
Tenant Rights are Human Rights
Contributors
Prop M - SF Anti Harassment Measure Succeeds
(Yes We Can!)Friday, November 7, 2008
While we have been generally rejoicing the election results this week, the tally on the State and local San Francisco Propositions presents a surprisingly mixed picture. Proposition 8, which eliminates the right to same-sex marriage in California, though thoroughly opposed by San Franciscans, appears to have squeaked out a victory statewide. Locally, there were many propositions where San Francisco’s so-called “left-leaning” populace defied progressive expectations. Prop. K – which would have decriminalized prostitution – failed squarely, and also losing was Prop. B – the measure to establish a fund for construction of affordable housing. Moreover, Prop. V passed, as San Franciscan voters expressed surprisingly high disapproval with the School Board’s decision to remove the JROTC program from local schools. But in the spirit of optimism that has permeated throughout the country with the election of our 44th President - Barack Hussein Obama II - we’d like to focus on a local Proposition which did succeed, and which is advancing progressive policies in San Francisco. That Proposition – strengthening the protections for San Francisco’s population of renters – is Prop. M.
As of November 5, 2008 at 2:55 pm, The San Francisco Government Department of Elections website shows Prop. M ahead by a 20 point margin (60% yes, 40% no). The SF Rent Board has issued a news release announcing the measure has passed and stating the language of the new law, codified in the Rent Ordinance as SF Admin. Code Section 37.10B.
Proposition M defends the San Francisco renter by extending the San Francisco Rent Ordinance to prohibit acts of harassment by landlords against their tenants. Under Prop. M, tenants are now able to seek recourse through the SF Rent Board in the form of a “decrease in services” type petition. Where a landlord commits certain specified acts of harassment “in bad faith, with ulterior motive or without honest intent” the tenant can go to the rent board and get a rent deduction for the interference with her tenancy rights. Acts of harassment are defined in the new law to include such conduct as: attempting to influence a tenant to vacate their unit by “fraud, intimidation or coercion”; beginning repairs then never following through; illegally entering the unit; demanding proof of immigration status, social security card, etc.; continuing to offer to “buy-out” a tenancy after receiving notice from tenant that he is not willing to accept a buy-out; refusing to accept the rent, or to timely deposit the rent, or to acknowledge receipt of the rent; and interrupting, terminating or failing to provide housing services or maintenance.
While some of the acts prohibited by Prop. M are already illegal under State law, the prior inability to raise these issues successfully at the SF Rent Board has meant that, for many harassed San Francisco tenants, enforcement of these rights has been outside their reach. A tenant often cannot afford to hire an attorney to take a simple harassment case to court. In too many instances it has appeared that only where the harassment has been very longstanding, caused great amounts of damages, and/or has affected many tenants under a given landlord’s thumb; does the economics become such that an attorney can fully prosecute the case, get paid for their professional fees and costs incurred, and still allow for a just and reasonable recovery for those harmed. More often, tenants have felt their only viable option when harassed by their landlord is to avoid the aggravation, give up their home and move out. Proposition M empowers tenants to seek recourse themselves through the Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board; a relatively quick, cheap and efficient means of recourse to a previously difficult and lengthy problem.
In addition to extending Rent Board “decrease-in-services” petitions to encompass harassment, Proposition M grants to tenants that, when the landlord attempts a bogus eviction, attorney fees and court related costs will be paid by the landlord. Landlords will often try to evict tenants based on false claims, forcing a tenant to go through lengthy eviction proceedings with the financial burden of hiring an attorney, just to avoid being dispossessed. With Proposition M, a tenant facing a bogus eviction can now seek legal representation and shift the financial burden of defending the eviction to the landlord who instituted it.
With the passage of Proposition M, tenants have more to be encouraged about regarding the housing situation in San Francisco. (Also encouraging are the strong results by progressive candidates in the various races for Board of Supervisors.) Over the past summer, tenants voted overwhelmingly to protect the Rent Ordinance by voting down California Proposition 98, with a 61 percent to 39 percent victory, and now Prop. M serves as another link in the progress of renters’ rights in San Francisco. While many progressives hoped several other propositions would have been voted differently this election, with Prop. M it appears that we the renters of San Francisco have again spoken our minds, unified, to protect us from the greed and speculation which constantly threatens to overturn the housing market and to disrupt the lives and security of those who try to make this city Home.
This entry was written by Caroline Lee and Ari.
(Yes We Can!)Friday, November 7, 2008
While we have been generally rejoicing the election results this week, the tally on the State and local San Francisco Propositions presents a surprisingly mixed picture. Proposition 8, which eliminates the right to same-sex marriage in California, though thoroughly opposed by San Franciscans, appears to have squeaked out a victory statewide. Locally, there were many propositions where San Francisco’s so-called “left-leaning” populace defied progressive expectations. Prop. K – which would have decriminalized prostitution – failed squarely, and also losing was Prop. B – the measure to establish a fund for construction of affordable housing. Moreover, Prop. V passed, as San Franciscan voters expressed surprisingly high disapproval with the School Board’s decision to remove the JROTC program from local schools. But in the spirit of optimism that has permeated throughout the country with the election of our 44th President - Barack Hussein Obama II - we’d like to focus on a local Proposition which did succeed, and which is advancing progressive policies in San Francisco. That Proposition – strengthening the protections for San Francisco’s population of renters – is Prop. M.
As of November 5, 2008 at 2:55 pm, The San Francisco Government Department of Elections website shows Prop. M ahead by a 20 point margin (60% yes, 40% no). The SF Rent Board has issued a news release announcing the measure has passed and stating the language of the new law, codified in the Rent Ordinance as SF Admin. Code Section 37.10B.
Proposition M defends the San Francisco renter by extending the San Francisco Rent Ordinance to prohibit acts of harassment by landlords against their tenants. Under Prop. M, tenants are now able to seek recourse through the SF Rent Board in the form of a “decrease in services” type petition. Where a landlord commits certain specified acts of harassment “in bad faith, with ulterior motive or without honest intent” the tenant can go to the rent board and get a rent deduction for the interference with her tenancy rights. Acts of harassment are defined in the new law to include such conduct as: attempting to influence a tenant to vacate their unit by “fraud, intimidation or coercion”; beginning repairs then never following through; illegally entering the unit; demanding proof of immigration status, social security card, etc.; continuing to offer to “buy-out” a tenancy after receiving notice from tenant that he is not willing to accept a buy-out; refusing to accept the rent, or to timely deposit the rent, or to acknowledge receipt of the rent; and interrupting, terminating or failing to provide housing services or maintenance.
While some of the acts prohibited by Prop. M are already illegal under State law, the prior inability to raise these issues successfully at the SF Rent Board has meant that, for many harassed San Francisco tenants, enforcement of these rights has been outside their reach. A tenant often cannot afford to hire an attorney to take a simple harassment case to court. In too many instances it has appeared that only where the harassment has been very longstanding, caused great amounts of damages, and/or has affected many tenants under a given landlord’s thumb; does the economics become such that an attorney can fully prosecute the case, get paid for their professional fees and costs incurred, and still allow for a just and reasonable recovery for those harmed. More often, tenants have felt their only viable option when harassed by their landlord is to avoid the aggravation, give up their home and move out. Proposition M empowers tenants to seek recourse themselves through the Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board; a relatively quick, cheap and efficient means of recourse to a previously difficult and lengthy problem.
In addition to extending Rent Board “decrease-in-services” petitions to encompass harassment, Proposition M grants to tenants that, when the landlord attempts a bogus eviction, attorney fees and court related costs will be paid by the landlord. Landlords will often try to evict tenants based on false claims, forcing a tenant to go through lengthy eviction proceedings with the financial burden of hiring an attorney, just to avoid being dispossessed. With Proposition M, a tenant facing a bogus eviction can now seek legal representation and shift the financial burden of defending the eviction to the landlord who instituted it.
With the passage of Proposition M, tenants have more to be encouraged about regarding the housing situation in San Francisco. (Also encouraging are the strong results by progressive candidates in the various races for Board of Supervisors.) Over the past summer, tenants voted overwhelmingly to protect the Rent Ordinance by voting down California Proposition 98, with a 61 percent to 39 percent victory, and now Prop. M serves as another link in the progress of renters’ rights in San Francisco. While many progressives hoped several other propositions would have been voted differently this election, with Prop. M it appears that we the renters of San Francisco have again spoken our minds, unified, to protect us from the greed and speculation which constantly threatens to overturn the housing market and to disrupt the lives and security of those who try to make this city Home.
This entry was written by Caroline Lee and Ari.
<< Home