Posted on 10/26/2014 6:46:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
San Francisco is a cauldron of rights, unless you own a home.
Buy a property here and you might as well paint a target on your back. That's what Dan and Maria Levin discovered after they bought a two-unit North Beach home in 2008. They moved in to the upstairs one-bedroom apartment and told the downstairs tenant that they eventually planned to use the downstairs apartment for friends and family. (The state Ellis Act allows property owners to evict tenants without cause if they plan to take the property off the rental market.)
Five years later, the Levins served a notice of termination of tenancy and paid their tenant $2,600 -- the first half of a city-mandated relocation payment, with the second half due when the tenant moved out 120 days later. The tenant claimed a disability, which entitled her to a one-year extension and an extra $3,500.
Dan Levin told me the couple knew the rules and expected to pay off the tenant. They were OK with that. But the couple didn't expect what happened next.
In the spring, by a 9-2 vote, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance that "enhanced" the amount landlords would have to pay so it would compensate tenants for renting a comparable place for two years at market rates. Mayor Ed Lee didn't sign it, but with a veto-proof majority, it went into effect in June, even for cases already in the works. Factor in city rent control and the new ordinance can mean a big chunk of change. Suddenly, the Levins had to pay their tenant $118,000 to leave.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, found the ordinance unconstitutional. Breyer wrote that city law "requires an enormous payout untethered in both nature and amount to the social harm actually caused by the property owner's action." That is, the city wrongly is asking a handful of landowners to shoulder an unfair burden of the cost of an on-fire housing market.
No lie. The new San Francisco ordinance makes getting evicted akin to winning the lottery. There's nothing to stop the recipient from using the windfall funds for recreation -- or as a down payment on a property in a city that recognizes property rights. And without any needs test, Breyer wrote, "the ironic result" of the law is that "those tenants who can afford to pay the highest current monthly rents are entitled to a correspondingly higher payout amount." Two tenants who moved in to another building in 1997 and paid $8,500 per month in rent are now entitled to a payout of more than $220,000.
And then there's the fact that these huge new fees apply essentially retroactively. "I have talked to many people about this law, especially non-lawyers, from all sides of the spectrum, and I haven't found one that thinks it's reasonable," said J. David Breemer, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing the Levins pro bono.
Supervisor David Campos, who sponsored the ordinance, disagrees -- and he's a Harvard Law School grad. When you consider "what landlords are making in this market," he said, the ordinance "makes sense. I believe that it's reasonable." Evicted tenants will have to spend money on housing elsewhere. To Campos, the issue is "not just how much money (the Levins are) paying but also how much money are they making in the sale of the property." Except they aren't planning to sell the property now.
The Levins' relocation payment, Campos added, presents a "most extreme case." Better to look at "a typical case." OK. The city controller's office computed a payout of $45,000 for a $900-per-month apartment. That's a lot of money to pay someone to move.
Breyer doesn't disagree that San Francisco has a housing problem. He just doesn't think it's fair to make the Levins pay six figures to atone for a market that is unaffordable for a host of reasons not of their making.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera will appeal Breyer's decision. Campos argues that the ordinance is not retroactive, as it applies only to uncompleted and future evictions. Breemer would counter that the ordinance upset the "legitimate expectations" of property owners by levying an "exorbitant" cost without proper notice.
It came like a bomb you couldn't hear until after it landed.
I asked Levin about his politics. "I'm a lifelong Democrat myself," he told me. "My wife is, too. We vote that way." It bothers the couple that there's no means-testing for tenants, that people with six-figure incomes enjoy a windfall that small-property owners can ill afford.
City Hall drove these Democrats into the loving arms of the usually conservative property rights crowd. Levin told me he doesn't think it's political; it's "a constitutional issue." Don't be so naive. In San Francisco, everything is political, especially the U.S. Constitution.
According to the US Supreme Court, a government can do ANYTHING it wants if it simply calls it a “tax”.
—and , as with virtually everything the left does, it boils down to taking from people who “make” to give to those who wish to use the power of government to “take”—
Vote Communist, don't act shocked when Communism is enacted.
On the bright side, Levin’s lifelong democrat votes came home to roost.
Anybody thinking SF is a great place, watch the movie “Pacific Heights.”
It would be easier for them to “accidentally see” their tenant tumble head-over-heels down a flight of stairs.
Tru dat. He now sees the result of his ignorance.
I asked Levin about his politics. “I’m a lifelong Democrat myself,” he told me. “My wife is, too. We vote that way.” It bothers the couple that there’s no means-testing for tenants, that people with six-figure incomes enjoy a windfall that small-property owners can ill afford.
...
Where’s my microscopic violin? They got what they voted for.
Basically, the moron who sponsored garbage like this says it’s FAIR!!!! It’s not fair at all, not fair to the property owners.
If I owned property, I should be able to kick out anyone I please. Even if they are HIV ridden in a wheel chair with cancer. However I would have more sympathy than that. But I should still be able to kick them out, regardless of their disabilities, or financial situation. Without having to pay them.
The only “fair” is that the property owner has all the rights, and tenant has none. When did the parasites get more rights then the host? What the HELL is going on in our country. Thomas Jefferson would have used an ARMIES worth of ammunition, all the tar it took to pave the roads in this country, and every chicken alive would not have feathers by himself by now if he were alive today. We are cowards. This country is a joke. This garbage should have been shut down years ago. Liberalism should be a thing of the past. But until good people with common sense fight back HARD and mercilessly, this march to socialism will continue until they raid our houses and kill us to take our guns. Then we’ll have lost.
We haven’t owned our own property for a long time - until that is rectified, we are lost.
The Levin’s made a few mistakes...one is buying a home in San Fran...
I asked Levin about his politics. “I’m a lifelong Democrat myself,” he told me. “My wife is, too. We vote that way.”
I don’t understand why they would be complaining, this is for the “Little Guy”. HaHaHA.
Sad thing is they get disgusted with Calif....and move to other states bringing their politics with them. Think Colorado and Austin, TX. They cannot help themselves from wanting more and more govt. as long as it does not directly affect them....and then down the road the same thing.
This also goes for the illegals. Cool when you can earn all the cash you can and not give a dime to a government. In Mex. they have to pay taxes and other worker fees. Everything is free here so they get ahead and then hate this country cause it is not like their hell hole! We have too many giveaways to go home.
Not sure what that movie has to do with "San Francisco" beyond the fact that it was filmed there. You could reword the original sentence:
Anybody thinking buying rental property is a great idea, watch the movie “Pacific Heights.”
My wife has always been against the rental property we owned (one argument I won, perhaps the only one). But after we saw that movie she just looked at me, with the "I told you so look".
I sold our units a few months later.
You can limit to rental property if you want to. To my mind there is nothing redeeming about the place, period.
Fleet week, from atop the anchorage. Spectacular view of the Bay the ships and the airshow.
I love fleet week in SF for several reasons, one of which is the Letters to the editor: "The noise" "the Carbon emissions", "Military Industrial Complex"... yadda yadda yadda
It is the one rare time that the opposite POV is on display.
Just an FYI: I never lived in the city, lived 35 miles north and rarely ventured into SF except on business.
SF is not a place to raise kids.
Obviously the Levin’s are idiots. They voted to have their property rights stripped from them. They deserve what they get.
I’m not saying there are some aspects that are quite spectacular, but when you couple in the liberal madness that permeates it, it is a net-minus all way round.
I was there, actually in the Haight Ashbury area when I shipped out west in 1969. Spent three days there and loved it. It is definitely not the same place now.
I don’t think any place controlled by mindless liberals is a place to live.
I won’t even buy a plane ticket that flys over SFO “air”.
Sell it to the Chinese and change the name to Hong Kong America!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.