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.

Is There A True Ellis Act Eviction Epidemy—A Study In Reading Statistics

On March 23, 2015, the Rent Board published its annual statistical report (URL upd. 05/26) on eviction notices, filed with the Board from March 1, 2014, through February 28, 2015. Page 2 shows a break-down by the types of notices and their change in usage in comparison to the previous year. I noticed a 48% decline in filed notices under the Ellis Act cause for eviction, and wondered, whether this decline is connected with the last year's attempt to increase the relocation payments due to the tenants to some cosmic amount, something the courts currently holding as unreasonable and unconstitutional. I saw it closely related, and along with that I also made several peculiar findings on how statistics work in scaling up (scarring up?) the reported amount of the Ellis Act evictions.

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 (URL upd. 05/26 — Wayback snapshot; original Rent Board copy gone) 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 (URL upd. 06/26), 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 (URL upd. 05/26 — Wayback snapshot; original Rent Board copy gone) as well, but what is more interesting is the annual report (URL upd. 05/26), 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 (URL upd. 05/26) 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 (URL upd. 06/26) 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.

A Lose-Lose Scenario: Changes In Rent Ordinance Regarding Ellis Act Treatment Appear To Be Counterproductive

Update 10-21-14: Federal District Court finds this ordinance unconstitutional, see judge Breyer's opinion as published on PACER (scribd copy), case No. 14-cv-03352-CRB.

A significant change in the treatment of the Ellis Act went into effect in San Francisco on June 1, 2014 (Ordinance No.54-14). It is no longer enough to just look up the current amount for the fixed relocation assistance payment. To calculate what is due to tenants vacating under the Ellis Act one now has to employ a formula to select the greater from the two options: either the fixed amount, or "an amount equal to the difference between the unit's rental rate at the time the landlord files the notice of intent to withdraw rental units with the Board, and the market rental rate for a comparable unit in San Francisco as determined by the Controller's Office, multiplied to cover a two-year period, and divided equally by the number of tenants in the unit." Section 37.9A(e)(3)(E)(ii). The funny part is in the math: lesser entitled tenants stand a higher chance to recover large payments.