Anti-Eviction Protest Targets Landlord

  • left arrow
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • right arrow

As rain fell, anti-eviction protesters marched to the offices of landlord Kaushik Dattani on 22nd Street at noon today. Mr. Dattani was not in the office at the time so the protesters phoned and sent text messages calling on him to stop the eviction of longtime Mission resident Patricia Kerman and her roommate Thomas Rapp.

Kerman and Rapp received an eviction notice from their landlord Kaushik Dattani last August. Because of age and disability, Kerman, with legal assistance, was able to push back the deadline until August of this year. A similar protest in December called for Dattani to rescind the eviction of the building that Rapp and Kerman are occupying.

The protest was billed as a “March Against Greed” and according to protest organizer Carmen Simon, “Specifically we are protesting landlord Kaushik Dattani as an example of what speculation, under-regulated, does to a community.”

By targetting Dattani, one of the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project’s “Dirty Dozen,” protesters also aimed to call attention to the rampant speculation occurring under the Ellis Act. They argue Dattani has been using the Ellis Act to evict tenants since the dot-com wave of the 90s and is responsible for evictions of 24 units.

Some in the crowd are fighting similar eviction notices while others came in solidarity. Protester Lena Seagrave spoke for many of the 50-75 attending when she said, “I’ve lived here all my life. The City is for everybody. We all have to defend and stand with our neighbors.”

The protests come just as Senator Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano have proposed new legislation in Sacramento to stop or slow Ellis Act evictions.

Leno’s Senate Bill 1439 would prevent owners from filing Ellis Act evictions until they have owned the property for at least five years.

Ammiano’s Assembly Bill 2405  would allow local governments to halt Ellis Act evictions and condo conversions when failing to meet the state’s housing requirements.

Share!FacebookGoogle+PinterestRedditLinkedInEmail

Filed under: Mobile, SNAPS, Today's Mission

18 Comments

  1. John

    Is the suggestion here that the eviction is illegal?

    If so, the courts will reject it. If not, what is the basis of their complaint?

    • zig

      I assume they are trying to shame the landlord. I couldn’t stomach evicting sick and old people

      • John

        The law provides for additional protections for old, sick and disabled tenants anyway.

        For instance, an Ellis takes one year rather than 120 days. And an OMI isn’t possible (unless the owner is old, sick or disabled or their relative is).

        So it isn’t clear to me how that can be the issue here.

        The real problem is that it is often the older folks who have the cheapest rents simply because rent control rewards those who never move. It would be better if the city provided help rather than relying on private landlords to be charitable.

    • nutrisystem

      South Carolina, 1850:
      —————————–
      Is the suggestion here that owning blacks is illegal?

      If so, the courts will reject it. If not, what is the basis of their complaint?

      Germany, 1943:
      ———————-
      Is the suggestion here that exterminating Jews is illegal?

      If so, the courts will reject it. If not, what is the basis of their complaint?

      • John

        nutrisytem, a little early in the thread for Godwin’s Law and all the fluff typically associated with that, no?

      • poor.ass.millionaire

        Gotta admit , that’s cute.

        John- I get your rationalist perspective, but I think you do irk those who also identify with the human side of this situation. Even though Ellis acts are perfectly legal, you gotta admit, evicting elderly and disabled is kinda douchy. I have a lot of disagreements with entitled rent control advocates, but I do sympathize, at least on an emotional level, with the ones who are elderly and get evicted. Yes, the city really should step up and find them housing, instead of putting that burden on private landlords. But still, I find it hard to neglect the human side to this. Doesn’t mean I don’t support the Ellis act as is, but I sympathize also. Just food for thought.

        • John

          Well, it depends. Being old is not ipso facto a vulnerability. Most stats show that older Americans have most of the wealth, even when you do not allow for the accumulated wealth from decades of paying below-market rents.

          Sick and disabled, I get, but again by pushing that responsibility onto businessmen rather than welfare, a situation is created where a LL has a massive disincentive to ever rent to someone old, sick or disabled.

          When I have a vacancy, the overwhelming majority of applicants and young, white and healthy, so it is moot. And I have only ever done two no-fault evictions.

          But as long as the city pushes it’s welfare obligation onto landlords, then evictions are appropriate in order to try and get the city to take it’s obligations seriously.

        • What did those old people do with all the money they saved over the years? And why did they no buy when thing were cheap? in the early 70″s you could have bought a whole 3 flat building for 25 K… Should we all spend now and let everyone else pay for us when we are old ?

  2. pete

    This is the woman who put the ‘bad neighbors’ sign above Schmidt’s. Seems like she’s not only entitled to cheap life long rent, but to live inside a soundproof bubble as well.

    • poor.ass.millionaire

      Oh Lordy, she is a total nutter! Figures she’s a rent control advocate too. I’m willing to put money that she’s a neurotic, fifty-something, living alone, angry bitter white hag. (And no, not some nice elderly lady that is getting evicted and has no other options. No sympathy here. Did you see the way she treated the Schmidt restaurant? Total bitch. I’d of sued her ass on principal, just to fuck with her, even if I couldn’t win.)

      WRT my post right above. OK, so much for the nice guy. Phew…that was short :~)

      • John

        Why don’t these “50 to 75″ protesters instead put in some funds to offer the landlord a one-time fee to withdraw the eviction?

        IOW, why don’t they actually do something constructive rather than just whine?

  3. Jackand

    so leno is trying to pass legislation to protect 4/1000 of the population. Typical SF. Great place to visit but I wouldn’t want to own property or a business there.

  4. Amy Tallon

    Property owners took their losses on real estate during the great recession. Now tenants say it’s unfair when owners take profits during the recovery. How’s that fair?

  5. 24-24

    I was evicted before, it sucked, bummer. I took my buyout, didn’t whine to the press. Just move on with your life.. Who would have thought my 3 bedroom apartment for $1,050 a month wouldnt last forever

  6. The tenants being evicted are creeps from hell and deserve worse than just being evicted….

  7. Missionite

    If you read closely, this article fails to mention that Kerman and Rapp are not being Ellis acted, but slyly tries to imply it by mentioning it the owner of the building has invoked the Ellis act on other properties.
    Being evicted for non-payment of rent is not greed, it’s simply acknowledging that the other party has failed to live up to their end of the agreement.
    If those protesters really wanted to be constructive they could have done a fundraiser for the tenants, rather than shaming and demonizing the owner of the building, who is on the hook for the building mortgage.
    With this caliber of reporting, no wonder UC Berkeley is washing their hands of Mission Local.

    • landline

      The landlord invoked the Ellis Act, and the tenants have until August because one of them is elderly and disabled.

      Pity the poor landlord.

      • John

        Missionite has a point though. The article doesn’t explicitly state that the eviction is an Ellis – it just implies that because this landlord has done an Ellis eviction before.

        If it really is for non-payment of rent or nay other tenant misbehavior, then this is really a non-issue.

        That said, a tenant would not normally get a “stay” of a year on a fault eviction, so that strikes me as odd.

        Maybe the article should just have made this clearer.

Comments are closed.