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).

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.

New practice of S.F. tax assessor requesting extensive info

A new practice of assessing the property tax gains speed in San Francisco. No longer it is enough to report your sale's price to establish the new value. Instead, new owners now receive a letter like this from the San Francisco Tax Assessor Office. It asks the new buyer about a lot of additional information, even some that buyer may not even know, such as future rent values. What a buyer to do?

Anti-Ellis Act SF Ordinance Found Unconstitutional (Fed) and Unreasonable (State)

Federal Judge Breyer found the recently enacted San Francisco [anti] Ellis Act ordinance unconstitutional in a memorandum published on October 21, 2014. (Scribd copy). It is interesting that the court addressed the application of ordinance's formula as bringing counterintuitive results in amounts payable to the tenants (see page 8 of the memo), in line with the hypotheticals I made in my June post. In February, state Judge Quidachay found the ordinance "unreasonable." (Rent Board copy).

Update: the Rent Board issued a bulletin confirming that the subject payment requirements under the new ordinance are currently off, and the payments proceed under the prior scheme.

Update 2-20-15: on the state trial court level, demurrer to Jacoby's petition is overruled, on the distinction between characterizing the payment to evicted tenants as "unreasonable" or "prohibitive."

Update 3-25-15: the Rent Board had the decision on demurrer in Jacoby case published as well, but what is more interesting is the annual report, issued March 23, 2015, covering the statistics on eviction notices filed from March 1, 2014, through February 28, 2015. Page 2 shows the impact this unreasonable [state court] and unconstitutional [Fed. court] legislation had on the housing: 48% decline in filed notices under the Ellis Act cause for eviction. For the short time the legislation was alive, it slashed the total number of a whole of Ellis Act filings in half--a huge impact by all means.

Update 6-14-15: the Rent Board caps proposed total payment amounts at $50,000. More on this here.
Update 10-2-15: the court strikes this new 50K cap proposal, as even more unreasonable than the original regulation (Coyne case, CPF-15-514382)

Update 3-21-17: the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in Coyne and Jacoby, invalidating both 54-14 and 68-15 ordinances.



______________________

More real property posts

Your options and available strategies in handling evictions will depend on your case's particular facts. If you want to learn on your options, rights, and obligations in contesting or preserving your real property rights, including the Ellis Act evictions, make your first step toward taking control over the circumstances, and call my office at (415) 987-7000. I will be glad to assist in guiding you through the jungle. The only thing you can't afford is to stay put and uninformed. My office provides a confidential assessment of your particular scenario, free of charge, and I will share with you the results of the analysis along with my thoughts on available solutions.

In re: Christmas Trees

In the spirit of this season, I want to share a short post on the subject of Christmas trees. Decorating a tree seems to be an ancient tradition, predating Christ himself, and a custom of having a Christmas Tree also seems to exist for several centuries, yet the appearance of Christmas celebration in the US law is not that old--the oldest cases I was able to find only date back to 1879.

e-Filing comes to San Francisco, hopefully without Jim Crow laws

Filing court papers online (termed as "e-filing") is a very useful feature. It was implemented already 10 years ago in the Federal courts, through the so called ECF/Pacer system. The efficiency of ECF/Pacer was recently put on the test, during the Federal Government's shutdown, allowing the courts to remain functional. In his address to the bar, Chief Judge Jaroslovsky commented that he would be writing a much different letter, should no eFiling system be in place at the time of the government's closure.

[UPDATE 11-5-14] 3 vendors are finally approved for the SF Court, in addition to the previously approved sole provider "File & Serve Xpress." Given the e-filing becomes mandatory in this court starting December 8, it's about time to get the providers on board.

[UPDATE 7-24-14] The voluntary e-filing became available on almost all kinds of cases, and I have personally successfully filed my first document through this system today.

[UPDATE 1-27-14] The "mandatory" e-filing is changed to "voluntary," while the second provider is getting up and running. New estimate for mandatory e-filing's cut-off date is June 30, 2014.

[UPDATE 1-6-14] San Francisco Court moves forward with one vendor and announces an additional vendor selected "through a competitive process." Competitor's name is not yet disclosed. Expansion of the mandatory e-filing kicks in on January 27, 2014.

Mandatory Health Exchange Notice - Where A California Employer Can Look For Help

It is a sad coincidence that the deadline of one event (federal budget) matched with the date when another event started rolling out (Health Care Reform). It is even sadder if the two events are related and the impasse on one may get the other stuck in its opening gates. It is for politicians to wrestle in search of a compromise; meanwhile, the law's one of the initial stages came into force, people are enrolling, and the California Employer is now mandated* to give employees a certain notice about health exchange. Where can one look for tips and hints, or, better, for suggestions on the notice's form? I have assembled here what I was able to find so far:

Federal Courts Will Remain Open During Shutdown

I just started wondering today, what would happen procedurally with the cases pending before the Federal courts during the Shutdown, when I received an email from our District's Bankruptcy Court, stating that "[t]he federal Judiciary will remain open for business for approximately the next 10 business days. On or around October 15, 2013, the Judiciary will reassess its situation and provide further guidance." This arrived at 9:30 A.M. and I couldn't stop myself from imagining scenarios, what would happen to the cases and whether it can be used to my clients' advantage. I felt half-worried half-excited approaching the Unknown.

A Case For July 4

I came across a good case to present for the July 4: Nixon v. United States, 978 F.2d 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1992). I was looking to find a case describing past presidents, seeing if any decision reflected the fact that three presidents died on that day. I found this case instead, and, although it does not directly relate to July 4th, it has all the elements of a rightly fitting case for the occasion.

Not So Hard a Deadline On Posting Jury Fees

Since I've learned this rule, I always lived under an impression that the deadline to post jury fees is a "hard" deadline: one who misses it, deemed waived her/his right to a jury trial. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 631(f)(5)*). When the rule was amended in the middle of 2012, some pending cases got caught mid-way with the change, leading to unexpected quirks in the local procedure. This recent decision may become handy for arguing failures to post jury fees under the new version of CCP 631.

Involuntary Un-Servitude

There is a recent move in the State of New York to increase the age limit for judges, to allow them to serve beyond the currently imposed 70 years. New York Times' article states that there are more than 30 states, plus D.C., that have an age limit on jurists. I found the article very interesting: it gives a reader a broad set of facts and, at least to me, feels like an exam set, inviting to "discuss this" and spot possible issues. I came up with these:

The Time Has Come to Abolish the Slave Law

Slavery was abolished with the passage of 13th Amendment in 1865, and now, with the State of Mississippi completing formalities of filing their ratification this year, it seems fully and universally approved, nationwide. It should be only logical that the "slave law," a body of pre-Amendment court decisions regarding slavery aspects, would become outlawed just as its subject did, instantaneously with it. I was surprised to find out that it didn't. Majority of the slave cases are still marked as "good law." Many of them are cited in decisions made decades after the Amendment. Some are even recognized authority in up-to-date treatises. I think this is an important issue, worthy of our attention, something we should, and now can, fix.