Compliance with the statewide rent control requirements

The set of statutes defining the California statewide rent- and eviction-control were enacted back in September 2019 (the AB 1482 bill).  For the most part, it is a set of prohibitions, regulating how the rent can be raised or the tenancy terminated, in effect since January 1, 2020.  But the statutes also require of the landlords to include new language in their leases, and these requirements kick in on July 1, 2020. This article is written to help you not to overlook them.

California joins Oregon in approving statewide rent control

This was expected to pass for a few months, and just happened now.  The bill is expected to be signed in to law in a matter of days. Even municipalities with already existing local rent- and eviction-control ordinances may see a significant impact, because the statewide law will incompass buildings previously excluded through the year of completion (in San Francisco, it raises the cut-off from 1978 to 2004, a 15-year mark). As to the areas previously excluded, those where rents used to increase by large margins will be the first to feel the difference.

The "Educators" Ordinance Is Back

Today the court of appeals reversed in full its 2016 judgment, which up until today was holding the "educators" ordinance on hold. There is a hope that the certiorari review will follow, but, as of now, the ugly and self-contradicting piece is coming back on the books. And I mean it literally as well, I'll have to update the book again (only in this case, downgrade it back).

New 2018 edition of the "Eviction Notice In SF" is out

I could write my own introduction to this new edition, but I like this one instead:

"Having taken more than ordinary Pains in collecting the Materials which compose the following History, we could not be satisfied with our selves, if any Thing were wanting to it, which might render it entirely satisfactory to the Publick: It is for this Reason we have subjoined to the Work, a short Abstract of the Law now in Force [], and made Choice of some particular Cases, (the most curious we could meet with) which have been heretofore tried, by which it will appear what Actions have, and what have not been adjudged []." A General History of the Pyrates, 4th Ed., 1726.

Owner move-in regulation expanded and tightened

On July 18, 2017, the new proposed regulations (URL upd. 06/26) for the owner- and relative-move-in evictions passed in their final version, and yesterday the mayor has signed it into law. This legislation will significantly change the already heavily burdensome restrictions under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, S.F. Admin. Code, Section 37.9(a)(8). It will become effective on January 1. Let us peek into what the legislators packed for landlords' Christmas sock.

"Educators" ban on evictions is gone, no longer

[02-14-2018: Court of appeals reversed the judgment];
[Cal. Sup. Ct. denied review on April 25, 2018; Rent Ordinance reinstated back the "educators" ordinance's language on May 15, 2018, see the press release here].

On September 28, 2016, the San Francisco court adjudged the writ of mandate granted (URL upd. 06/26) on August 31, invalidating the infamous ordinance of last year, which was injecting a new type of a protected tenant, the "educators." That the new limitation was overbroad and unnecessary wide, both as to covering categories of tenants, and in including previously unheard-of amount of types of evictions (even the temporary move-out for repairs)—all that I have already had an opportunity to cover in my earlier post. Thus, the Court's decision, invalidating the ordinance, was not a surprise to me.

What is surprising is how the Court arrived to invalidating this ordinance. This path seems to me worth our attention, to make a mental note in case of a similar argument in the future.

10-year ban on residential mergers following non-fault eviction is confirmed as invalid by the appellate court

On September 19, 2016, San Francisco homeowners got confirmed in their relief, when the appellate court affirmed our county court's decision to strike a 10-year ban on residential mergers, following a non-fault eviction. The decision became final on October 24 (3 Cal.App 5th 463).  And yes, we are now in the fifth series of appellate decisions, since July 1, 2016.

Eviction Notice book - new edition is out

I can finally announce that the new edition (better to say, "addition"), of my eviction notice book is finally out and available on Amazon (print and e-book (URL upd. 06/26) versions). Since the 1st version came out in April 2015, all later iterations were improvements, corrections, and updates of the material outlined there, the "for-fault" evictions and the generally relevant information (exceptions, common elements, and other useful observations of general type).

This issue is different. It adds 22 pages of new material. Half of it covers topics common for all non-fault evictions, and there rest is dedicated to the first two "non-fault" just causes: owner move-in and relative move-in (37.9(a)(8)) evictions.

New Category Of Tenants In SF - Educators

[02-14-2018 update: Court of appeals reversed the judgment today];
[Cal. Sup. Ct. denied review on April 25, 2018; Rent Ordinance reinstated back the "educators" ordinance's language on May 15, 2018, see the press release here].

The rules of equality never meant to apply equally to the rule-makers themselves. This had often been the case since the times immemorial, and so observed by many, including Oliver Wendell Holmes.*  And in the context of our times and our local legislature on the issue of housing, examples of unequal treatment of classes of individuals in California are aplenty. Yet at least, for most of the times, you can see a public policy behind the legislatively created exceptions. Not all the times, but often. For a counter-example, when the reasoning is not immediately apparent, see CC §§ 43-53.9 and related sections, where the series of statutes provided a right to create senior-only housing (technically, a discrimination by age, albeit for a laudable purpose). In most of those statutes, one county (Riverside) is expressly excluded from these rules, see §§ 51.2(c), 51.3(j), 51.4(c), 51.10(d). I am sure there was some valid reason for that, but I don't know what it is.

Our county of San Francisco has its own rich history of laws treating us differently from elsewhere, especially in the field of housing regulations. Discriminating or differentiating the application of laws to individuals based on their age, disability, or familial status were for many years recognized applications of public policy of supporting those groups, by offering them additional protections, including such protections from evictions. Until now, however, it was more or less applied with care, providing a right for these individuals to claim a "protected" status as a tenant, in the concept of owner- or relative-move-in evictions, and there was a counter-balance for similarly disadvantaged landlords, by recognizing that the moving-in person could be in a similar position of being old or having children.**

Yet now we have a new and unprecedented piece of legislation, discriminating individuals by the source of income: Ordinance 55-16 created a new category, an "Educator," and it will widely apply to almost all non-fault kinds of evictions. Not only it offers no counter-balancing exceptions, but it takes away the ones existed before. I have a feeling that this legislative gem will be soon tested in courts, but for now it is the law, coming into effect on May 23, 2016. I had a chance to speculate on it, when it was introduced, let's now look more closely at what's coming.

Another upside-down amendment to Rent Ordinance is introduced - Campos Bill Re: Educator Evictions

Politics have an inherited dependency on voters. At the core of politics is "making of a common decision for a group of people." [Wikipedia] Not surprisingly, politicians get voters' support by proposing decisions favorited by majority groups of people. The danger of democracy voting itself out was noticed long time ago. A fresh example from far away: Switzerland is going to vote on guaranteeing each citizen a monthly payment of approximately $2,800 fixed income, directly from the government, no effort required. How do you think this proposed measure will survive at the polls? I too think it will pass with a rare rate of success. [I was wrong--Swiss voted against it on June 5]

Example from a recent local past: in September 2015, our supervisors had to vote on the proposed vast package of anti-lanlord measures. Each of the decision-making voting members, a supervisor, is an elected figure, naturally concerned with influencing the electorate of her/his district, so that the majority group votes in support. If tenants constitute a majority of voters, how do you think the elected candidates would vote, especially when the a supervisor's voting is weeks away from her own re-election? Supervisors unanimously (on most points) supported the measure, and it is left to stay with us, at least until being examined by the courts,* even if the supervisors are gone. It did not help some of the sups who were due for re-election. In this city, one quote, even remotely suggesting something against the "eviction crisis" theme, can cost supervisor a seat. And it did. Read the coverage on ballotpedia.org, you will see that the winner for that district was supported by the Tenants' Union. The losing candidate was obviously not.

And turning to the current events, here is a new example of a successful attempt of winning tenant-voters' hearts: Supervisor David Campos (whose bid for reelection is up this year) introduced an amendment to eviction regulations, to limit evictions of anyone related in employment to education. What can be wrong with that? Let's count ways.

Ellis Act Victory for SPOSFI -- Ordinance 68-15 Is Stricken

Another great victory for the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute and Zacks & Freedman (URL upd. 06/26): Rent Ordinance No. 68-15 is stricken and found as "unreasonable" as its predecessor, Ordinance No. 54-14. Look at the case's online record here, (URL upd. 06/26) to see the October 2, 2015, order.

Passing On Eviction Protections 2.0

On September 22, 2015, the Board of Supervisors passed a set of proposed amendments to the Rent Ordinance. The did it in first reading, and for the most parts of the proposal voted for it 11 to none. This amendment must be a no brainer then, if it met such support, yet the joyous media coverage avoids to talk details. Let's give it a try here.
[Update 11-21-15] - the amendments became effective on November 9, 2015. The Rent Board's published version of the Rent Ordinance now reflects the changes; the multilingual form now required to be attached to the eviction notice is published here (URL upd. 05/26).
[Update 12-5-15] - 3 amended and 1 new Rule in 6.xx series became adopted, effective December 4.

City of Richmond, CA, enacts Rent Ordinance

Our neighbor city across the Bay became the latest municipality to enact a rent ordinance. It was adopted on August 5, 2015, and is codified as Richmond Municipal Code, Article XI, Section I, Chapter 11.000, named the "Rent Control and Just Cause for Eviction" ordinance. It goes into effect on September 4, 2015, 30 days after its adoption.
[UPDATE 10-1-2015: the ordinance is suspended (URL upd. 06/26) while placed on the referendum ballot for voting]

Drafting the Owner Move-In Notice in San Francisco

Termination of tenancy starts from drafting and serving the notice of such termination, and the importance of making that notice as accurate and complete as possible is hard to understate. If the notice is defective, the landlord most likely will have to go back to the square one, starting the whole process again by reissuing and reserving the notice. Sometimes, months will pass before the landlord finds out about the deficiency. It may become a very expensive mistake to learn.

This article concentrates on the elements of a notice of termination of tenancy on the grounds of owner's move-in, the so called "OMI notice." It has quite a few elements and steps to be concerned about.

ATTENTION: this article was published in 2014, and things have changed since. Commencing on January 1, 2018, significant changes in the OMI/RMI procedure came into force. Read more here.  This is a fluid area of local law, your diligence in checking with the latest version of the law currently in force is required.