Tag Archives: tenants’ rights

Uncategorized

“It’s Your Money” – Campaign Launches to Protect California Tenants from Security Deposit Theft

9 Comments

Hey folks!!  Glad to report that I’m currently volunteering at Tenants Together, California’s only statewide renters’ rights organization.  We have kicked off this campaign today to help tenants recover their security deposits.  Check out our new website, and stay tuned for possible legislative changes. –Paul

by Paul Hogarth

Earlier today, Tenants Together announced the launch of “It’s Your Money,” a new campaign to stop security deposit theft by California landlords. The campaign website, www.YourDeposit.org, features know-your-rights information for tenants, tips on how to protect deposits, tenant stories and policy recommendations. The site allows tenants to share their security deposit horror stories.

Security deposit theft is one of the most common grievances among California’s 15 million renters. In a recent survey, over 60% of Tenants Together members reported improper withholding of deposit money. This is an astonishing figure, but not one that surprises anyone working with California tenants.

“Millions of dollars are being stolen from tenants every year,” commented Dean Preston, Executive Director of Tenants Together, California’s statewide organization for renters’ rights. “It’s gotten so bad that tenants paying their security deposits don’t ever expect to see that money again. Something has got to change.”

Unlike in many other states, California law does not require deposit money to be held in a separate account, does not require a landlord to pay interest on the deposit to tenants, and rarely imposes any penalty on landlords that improperly withhold deposits.

The “It’s Your Money” campaign seeks to change the dynamic and bring about basic fairness when it comes to security deposits. The campaign coalition is united around three basic principles:

1. Deposit money should not be comingled with other landlord assets

2. Tenants deserve interest on security deposits

3. Landlords who improperly withhold deposits must face meaningful penalties

For more information about the campaign, visit www.YourDeposit.org.  

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown

California Tenants Have No Friends in Governor’s Race

Last Friday at 5:00 p.m. (which he’s apt to do when releasing bad news), San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed three pro-tenant ordinances designed to help renters facing hard times.  He even nixed a relatively mild proposal to limit “banked” rent increases to 8% – despite this being consistent with existing policies at the Mayor’s Office of Housing.  Newsom’s record on tenant issues in San Francisco has always been bad, and his latest act does not bode well for next year’s statewide elections.  California’s 14 million renters need a champion in the Governor’s Mansion after six years of a hostile Republican Administration, but Newsom currently only has one opponent for the Democratic primary – California Attorney General Jerry Brown.  Based on his record as Mayor of Oakland, Brown can be counted on to be just as anti-tenant – if not worse – than Newsom.  There is no excuse why a deep blue state like California can’t have a pro-tenant Governor, and the current field of Democratic candidates creates an opening for a new person to jump into the fray.

Sacramento Politics Out of Step With Renters

When Schwarzenegger became Governor in 2003, the tenants’ rights agenda in the State Captiol – which had made some progress in the Gray Davis years – came to a grinding halt.  Arnold owns rental property in Santa Monica, and made it clear from the very start that he views California law as too “pro-tenant.”  Besides the legislative victory of 60-day notices for “no-fault” evictions, renters have made virtually no progress in Sacramento ever since.

And it has been a nightmare.  The Governor has vetoed legislation to help tenants in foreclosed properties, and single-handedly killed the renters’ tax credit.  We can’t get the state legislature to pass desperately needed Ellis Act reform, because too many Democrats are afraid of angering realtors in their districts – if they know Schwarzenegger would not sign the bill into law anyway.  We are at a standstill.

For a state whose voters soundly defeated Proposition 98 last year, there is no excuse why we can’t have a pro-tenant Governor.  A wide coalition opposed Prop 98 (it was so extreme that even Pete Wilson and the Chamber of Commerce opposed it), but polling throughout the campaign repeatedly showed a majority of Californians support rent control – suggesting we should be making more progress.

Unfortunately, neither of the two Democratic candidates for Governor are pro-tenant.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom

San Francisco tenant activists know that throughout his career, Gavin Newsom has not been an ally.  Newsom was a landlord when he served on the Board of Supervisors, and the City’s conflict-of-interest rules prevented him from taking a stand on many pro-tenant ballot measures.  But his consultant, Eric Jaye, made his mark in June 1998 by running the unsuccessful campaign to pass Prop E – which would have repealed rent control and eviction protections for owner-occupied buildings with four units or less.

In 2001, Newsom was one of three Supervisors to vote “no” on Jake McGoldrick’s T.I.C. legislation – which was designed to curb Ellis Act evictions.  In 2002, he signed the main ballot argument for Prop R – the measure that would have resulted in mass condominium conversions.  The SF Tenants Union prioritized its defeat, and Prop R lost by 20 points.

As Mayor, Newsom has vetoed most pro-tenant measures.  In 2004, he vetoed the Housing Preservation Ordinance – which stopped the mass demolition of rent-controlled properties.  In 2006, he vetoed two measures designed to curb Ellis Act evictions: (a) one that would have allowed the Planning Commission to weigh in on such cases, and (b) one requiring real estate brokers to disclose a prior Ellis Act eviction to potential T.I.C. buyers at open houses.  The voters passed the latter ordinance in the next election, a “veto override” that remains law today.

But Newsom has been willing to do the right thing – if it serves his political purposes.  In 2006, he signed into law a measure that effectively halted condo conversions on buildings with a prior Ellis eviction.  He also let an ordinance preventing landlords from arbitrarily taking away services become law.   Newsom did this because: (a) tenant activists effectively publicized an eviction epidemic and (b) Supervisor Bevan Dufty – who had been the fourth vote to sustain the Mayor’s vetoes – was up for re-election, and he hoped to deter a serious challenger.

What does this prove?  Newsom may not be “pro-tenant” – but if renters organize to shift the political dynamics, they can occasionally push him to respond.  A Governor Newsom would probably not advance legislation to curtail the Ellis Act or strengthen rent control, but by working with friendly Democratic legislators tenants could score the rare victory.

It’s instructive to see what occurred in San Francisco after tenant issues died down in prominence.  Besides vetoing the “renters’ relief” package, Newsom is pushing a very dangerous idea to fast-track thousands of condo conversion applications.  Billed as a way to “raise revenue” for the City’s coffers, the measure would encourage more Ellis Act evictions down the road – and cannibalize our rental housing stock.  Newsom even ditched recent City budget talks to meet at Medjool’s with the pro-gentrification group Plan C to discuss this proposal.

Newsom opposed Proposition 98.  At the time, he said it would “effectively gut local land use planning and severely weaken environmental protections,” and a “disaster for cities and counties.”  But now, his gubernatorial campaign has taken $25,000 from Thomas Coates – a real estate investor who gave one million dollars to the Prop 98 effort.  Expect landlords and realtors to heavily fund Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign.

California Attorney General – and former Oakland Mayor – Jerry Brown:

Progressives who remember when Jerry Brown was Governor – from 1974 to 1982 – are inclined to believe he would be pro-tenant, and thus better than Gavin Newsom.  And it’s true that in 1976, he vetoed AB 3788 – which would have pre-empted rent control in California.  (Other states were not so lucky, where the legislatures have forbidden cities from doing so.)  But Brown waited until the very last minute to veto the legislation, and it was a very tough call what he’d do – he opposed blanket preemption of local governments, but was against rent control.

Brown is notorious for being quirky and unpredictable, and his politics have drastically changed over a very long career.  Therefore, it’s not very helpful to look at his career as Governor in the 1970’s and 80’s.  A more accurate prediction is to see where he’s been since 1998 – when he made a political comeback by getting elected Mayor of Oakland.

If Gavin Newsom has been a bad Mayor for tenants, Jerry Brown was a real nightmare.  Oakland had rent control, but no “just cause” protections – which meant a landlord could simply ask a tenant to leave in thirty days for no reason at all.  In the late 1990’s, as the dot-com boom gentrified Oakland (and Brown promoted massive downtown real estate development), tenants pushed for a “just cause” ordinance.  When the measure qualified for the 2002 ballot, Brown vehemently opposed it – but the voters passed it, after a tough campaign.  In 2004, Brown campaigned against pro-tenant Councilwoman Nancy Nadel.

During the mass real estate boom of the Brown years, Oakland had no inclusionary housing ordinance – which meant that private developers were not required to build any “below-market rate” units.  Brown resisted any efforts to impose modest requirements, and his final act as Mayor in 2006 was to veto an inclusionary ordinance.  In contrast, San Francisco passed an inclusionary ordinance in 2001 – which over the years has been strengthened to have higher affordability levels.  Supervisor Gavin Newsom voted for it.

As Oakland Mayor, Brown was an unapologetic cheerleader of condo conversions – even if it displaced tenants.  In November 2006, City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente – who had been Brown’s endorsed candidate for Mayor to replace him that year – proposed such legislation, and attempted to pass it in a hurry while Brown was still in office.  This effort, however was thwarted by Mayor-elect Ron Dellums.  Brown’s position is disturbing, given that real estate speculators are taking the fight to Sacramento.  Would a Governor Brown sign state legislation that preempts cities from passing restrictions on condominium conversions?

As far as I can tell, Jerry Brown never took a stand on last year’s Proposition 98 to ban rent control – even though practically everyone else opposed it.  It cannot be because Brown was California Attorney General – since that didn’t stop him from opposing other propositions.  But Brown used his position as Attorney General to write the measure’s official ballot title, and opted not to mention that Prop 98 would abolish rent control in California.  A couple tenant groups sued him for an abuse of discretion, but a judge refused to require Brown to re-write it.

Can a “Pro-Tenant” Democrat Win the Governor’s Race?

Gray Davis was not exactly a “pro-tenant” Democrat, but as Governor he signed bills that the state legislature passed – such as (a) one-year Ellis eviction notices for seniors and the disabled, (b) strict habitability standards, (c) restrictions on re-renting property that had been Ellised, (d) exempting residential hotels (SRO’s) from the Ellis Act, and (e) 60-day notices for “no-fault” evictions.  The latter law expired in 2005, and it took two attempts by tenant advocates in the Schwarzenegger years to successfully have it re-instated as permanent.

It is questionable if Governors Gavin Newsom or Jerry Brown would sign such bills into law.  As for Brown, there is an added danger that he could even enact laws that would be a step backwards for tenants.  But there are “pro-tenant” Democrats in California who could get elected Governor – if they bothered to run.  Antonio Villaraigosa bowed out of the race, which is unfortunate – given his track record as Los Angeles Mayor at enacting some good legislation.  Time is running out on politicians to enter the Governor’s race.  Will anyone else jump in??

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth was an elected Commissioner on the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board from 2000 to 2004, and has been a tenant activist for years.  He is now a tenants’ rights attorney living in San Francisco, and is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, where this piece was first published.

Uncategorized

Realtors Lie About Don Perata to Defeat Ellis Act Reform

1 Comment

(Whoa! Wild stuff. – promoted by atdleft)

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily

As the State Senate plans to vote next week on SB 464 to prevent real estate speculators from abusing the Ellis Act, the San Francisco Association of Realtors recently sent a mass e-mail to its members stressing the need to “aggressively oppose any change” to the Ellis Act whatsoever.  The Realtors also claimed in the same e-mail that State Senate President Don Perata had “convened a meeting” with other legislators about SB 464 and was leading a “tag team” with Senator Sheila Kuehl (the bill’s sponsor) to get it passed.  But Perata has not taken a position on SB 464, and Beyond Chron has learned from Perata’s staff (later confirmed by Perata himself) that there was no such meeting.  In an effort to whip up a hysterical frenzy to defeat SB 464, why would the San Francisco Association of Realtors blatantly lie to their own members about a basic fact?

The Ellis Act is a state law that allows property owners to evict an entire building of tenants when they want to “go out of business.”  SB 464 is a modest but necessary reform that would limit the Ellis Act to landlords who have owned the building for more than five years.  In San Francisco and Los Angeles, real estate speculators who never intended to become landlords have bought rental properties, used the Ellis Act to evict tenants within days, and then re-sold them at a massive profit.  Average landlords who want to “go out of business” after years of renting out property would be unaffected by SB 464.

Several weeks ago, the sponsors of SB 464 amended it in committee so that it would not cover property owners who bought a building before March 27th of this year.  Therefore, SB 464 will not affect anyone who already owns property but will discourage real estate speculators who want to buy a building to evict tenants.  In the e-mail to its members, the Realtors acknowledged that this change “softens the effect” of SB 464, but argued that it was “critically important” to “aggressively oppose any change to the Ellis Act.” 

That’s right.  The Realtors oppose “any change” to the Ellis Act at all.  In other words, the Ellis Act is a sacred cow – and they will always oppose any reforms, no matter how modest, reasonable or measured.  The Ellis Act was supposed to be an exit for property owners who were sick of being landlords, not real estate speculators who buy up the property to then evict tenants.  But for the Realtors, any reform at all is anathema.

It is precisely this kind of knee-jerk extremism that Senator Leland Yee (who is currently undecided on SB 464) says he abhors.  Yee told the San Francisco Tenants Union last year that he was a “moderate” on tenants’ rights, and agreed during the endorsement interview that something needs to be done about the Ellis Act.  With the Realtors now saying that they will oppose any change to the Ellis Act whatsoever, Yee now has the opportunity to prove that he’s a moderate by supporting SB 464.

As the late U.S. Senator Patrick Moynihan once said, “you can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own facts.”  The San Francisco Association of Realtors are entitled to have a knee-jerk opposition to Ellis Act reform, but one would hope that they wouldn’t completely make up facts when peddling their agenda.

But in the e-mail to its members, the Association of Realtors lied about State Senate President Don Perata and his involvement with SB 464.  “The opposition efforts of realtors,” they said, “have Sheila Kuehl on the ropes.  But from the reports we have received, Kuehl is attempting to put a tag team together, led by Senate President pro Tem Don Perata of Oakland.”

If only that were true.  Perata has not taken a position on SB 464, and he certainly isn’t working with Sheila Kuehl as a “tag team” to pressure other Senators to support it as well.  His housing policy adviser says that she hasn’t even had a conversation with Perata about the bill.  The Realtors are nervous about SB 464’s passage because it will hurt real estate speculators – so they’ve resorted to exaggerating the extent of support that the bill has to whip up their members into a hysterical frenzy.

But the e-mail went even further by talking about a meeting of state legislators that never existed.  “Disturbingly,” it said, “Perata convened a meeting of leading Democrats in Sacramento yesterday to discuss SB 464.”  Because the e-mail was probably sent out on Saturday, April 28th (although some received it as late as Tuesday), that means the meeting would have been on Friday, April 27th – or possibly a few days later.

But the legislature was not in session on Friday, and most Senators were off to San Diego for the Democratic Convention.  Perata’s office confirmed to us that he was in Oakland on that day, was in a car accident later that evening, and has not left the Bay Area since.  A number of legislators (but not Perata) left for D.C. on a lobbying trip Sunday, so there’s no way that the meeting could have happened later.

Last night, Perata confirmed that there had been “no such meeting.”  This was not a case of merely exaggerating the facts.  The Association of Realtors flat-out lied to their own members about a meeting that did not exist.  If that’s how they communicate with their own members, how do they communicate with the media?  The public?  Legislators?

Hopefully, the State Senate will pass the SB 464 to help save tenants from speculative evictions – not to mention knee-jerk extremists who lie about basic facts to peddle their insidious agenda.

Send feedback to [email protected]