Courtesy of artist Jos Sances.

The fundraiser tonight for leading cultural figures Rene Yañez and Yolanda Lopez, who are being evicted from the home they have lived in for 35 years, will bring together some of the icons of the Latino art and performance world including the Culture Clash,  Guillermo Gomez-Peña and San Francisco Poet Laureate Alejandro Murgia.

Yañez, who helped found the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts and the Galería de la Raza, was issued an Ellis Act eviction and has until July 2014 to vacate his home on San Jose Avenue where his family lives in a two-unit duplex.

We’re not doing it for the money, but for cultural preservation and social activism, said Rene Yañez. “Being a Latino artist, you have certain responsibilities to activism.”

The Mission is turning into a place of cultural tourism, added Yañez.  “A lot of those artists in Clarion Alley that tourists come to see, no longer live in the Mission. It’s cultural eviction.”

Organizers of Our Mission: No Eviction!, which will be held at the Brava Theater, hope to  bring attention to rising rents and the increase of commercial and residential evictions.

The benefit will feature musical performances and an art auction with work donated by the artist and his family as well as by artists Enrique Chagoya, Ester Hernandez, Jesus Barraza, Melanie Cervantes, Ana Teresa Fernandez, Xuxo Perez, Jos Sances, Jean Melesaine, Alexa Treviño and others.

A piece by Ana Teresa Fernandez that will be auctioned at the benefit.

“My parents touched a lot of lives in the community,” said Rio Yañez, the son of  Yañez and Lopez.

Lopez and her son Rio, live in one of the units of a San Jose duplex.  They are already looking for a new place to live. Rene Yañez lives with his partner Cynthia Wallis,  in the second unit.  Both Yañez and Wallis are suffering from terminal cancer.

“They’ve been through a lot,” said Rio Yañez, who hopes the event will shine light on his parent’s situation, and possibly lead to an appeal of the eviction through public shaming. He’s hopeful, but adds, “Legally, Ellis Acts are pretty unstoppable.”

Rene Yañez said that he has a “history of challenging the system,” but he is also looking forward to seeing the performances and his friends.

The performers also include Marga Gomez, Las Bomberas de la Bahia, Dr. Loco, Cherrie Moraga, Celia Rodriguez, Loco Bloco, Maya Chinchilla and Mission Cultural Center’s Pedro Reyes, who will be DJing at the event.

“I’m overwhelmed with people caring so much,” he said and added that he will use part of the donations to relocate organize his archives.

Tickets are $10-$35 and can be purchased at Brava Theater. Donations are also accepted for those unable to attend. The doors open at 6:30 p.m. to bid on art work and the performances will begin at 8 p.m.

Brava Theater
2781 24th Street, San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 641-7657

Follow Us

Sarah McClure loves the colorful writing, and opportunity to connect to larger issues, that Arts & Culture reporting allows—she reads the Times’ Art Beat often. Here, she’s experiencing art on the street that the LA native is accustomed to seeing whiz-by from car windows. She is a Master's degree candidate at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, where she is specializing in multimedia, Spanish-language reporting and Latin America.

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. I am alarmed at the amount of “othering” going on in the Mission. Certain Latino activists are villainizing “white” tech workers and asking to keep the Mission “brown” and that it be maintained as a “Latino neighborhood.” Replace “Latino” with “gentile” and “white” with “Jewish” and you’ll see what I mean.

    1. For a so-called liberal and tolerant city, San Francisco’s tribalism can be galling. It’s often said that people come to SF because they do not want to grow up, and certainly if you want to be a 50 year old punk rocker or any other adolescent clique, then the Peter Pan nature of SF may appeal.

      All harmless fun, as far as it goes, but when it turns political, it quickly turns to some fairly nasty forms of racism and discrimination. The only difference is that the prejudice here is against being white, male, straight, successful or, more recently, a tech worker.

      The sad fact about modern America is that there are things you can say about whites that you can never say about blacks or hispanics. This reverse racism is often dressed up as identity politics but, in the end, it’s just trying to get more for my tribe but by taking it from another tribe.

      SF is sub-divided into different ethnic neighborhoods but there is no enforced segregation. Rather we choose to segment and fragment all by ourselves.

      Every issue gets made a race issue in this town AKA playing the race card.

  2. It was a wonderful evening. Very heartfelt. Rene and Yolanda were honored for the incredible work they have done for the San Francisco community. While there might have been students who obtained free tickets, I saw the audience full of friends, acquaintances who have followed the work of Renee and Yolanda for the past 30 to 40 years. There was an outpouring of love for these two and it came from young and old.

  3. I hope the benefit was a complete success. I wanted to attend, but arrived just after 8 to find that it was sold out.

    1. the tickets were bought up by the City on behalf of students who were given free rides to the event on MUNI so they would not have to pay for the privilege of attending, sorry you were shut out. Great event though.

      1. This comment comfirms my belief that you aren’t a nice person despite your claims of “philanthropy.”

        Nothing like belittling other people’s efforts at helping out each other to make yourself feel better about yourself. Does it work?

        1. No one is belittling the event organizers, their cause or their sincerity–they have every right to organize, march, hold meetings and fundraisers, whatever–and good luck to them.

          The only folks deserving of criticism or a disdainful response are those that can’t have a robust policy discussion without becoming personal, making intolerant remarks or becoming petty. C’mon landline, show some self-effacement and accept that not everyone sees the world according to your views, that there is a lot of room in policy and political discussions for different views that are not motivated by malice or mean-spritiedness, and please, stop being a humorless ideologue.

          1. Yes, Caz, I think the hallmark of civil debate is to not personalize the discussion.

            There is sadly a segment on the left who cannot hear a contrary opinion without getting all riled up and bitter. I find this odd given San Francisco’s much vaunted reputation for tolerance of diversity.

            Even serious topics can be debated with good-natured banter, but that can mean everyone taking themselves a little less seriously.

  4. Word definitions matter.

    Here’s the definition of subsidy: “money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function.”

    There are others from Merriam-Webster, but none would apply to a rent regulated under rent control, since all definitions include a transfer of money from one person or entity to another.

    1. Personally I would extend that definition of the word “subsidy” to include not just direct government handouts, but also cases where a private individual or entity is compelled by government policy to charge less for something than it is worth.

      The reason why this should be included has already been pointed out. Voters will not approve the tax increases necessary to subsidize rents, but they are willing to put that burden on a relatively small number of people – the landlords – many of whom may not even have a vote in that jurisdiction and who, in any event, are not sufficient in numbers to change the result.

      Enter the Ellis Act, which restores the rights of a minority who have had their rights unreasonably taken away by a majority, in much the same way as CA voters rejected gay marriage but the courts said that a minority could not be denied basic rights by a majority.

      1. You can extend the definition however you want, but that doesn’t change the accepted definition of the word.

        1. No, landline, you have chosen a definition which suits your ideology.

          Either way, the tenant enjoys a subsidy. The insidious thing about rent control is that the government gives that subsidy not in an honest, direct way, but via the backdoor by imposing it on the person who provides the housing.

          Call it a second-hand subsidy if you like. But no other word can reasonably be used to describe a situation where the government forces the provider of a service to sell it for less than it is worth.

          That said, property owners can live with the subsidy mandate, as long as there is an exit. And there is – Ellis.

          I’ve only used it once, but it was critical.

    2. Geez landline, your making my case–the key words in definition “paid by the government.” Somewhere I’m missing the government payment, where is the government payment in affordable housing or rent control?

      There is, of course, no payment by the government or the greater class of taxpayers, the payment comes only from the owner of the land, who is forced by local laws to accept less than what the market would otherwise pay him for his capital simply because it is invested in real property, as opposed to stocks, bonds, gold, precious metals, art collections, coins, etc., etc. Something wrong with that picture landline.

      1. True, I wonder why landline thinks people like you and I invest in Re in San Francisco? He seems to think we are compelled to do that, and should not be rewarded at all for that commitment.

        indeed, it is the epitome of entitlement that he believes that products and services should be provided at below cost just so someone like him can live in a place which, rather obviously, he could not otherwise afford.

        and that begs the question of why public policy deems it worthwhile that he be here at all rather than, say, in Oakland or Stockton.

        1. a few of my favorite “John” quotes. Enjoy!
          “…they want the Mission frozen in time like it is some low-end theme park”

          “…higher rents often mean more eclectic and interesting stores”

          “The evidence that the poor do better in wealthier places is everywhere you look”

          “I would suggest to you that you haven’t even seen the beginning of the real (re)development.”

          “The city moved on and left you behind. Accept it with some grace and dignity.”

          1. And I notice that you cannot refute a single one of them.

            But rather just state them as if you want people to think it is “obvious” that they are false.

            You can do better.

        2. You don’t even follow your own advice:

          “I comment on the topic of the article, and I offer relevant facts, evidence, experience and statistics.

          It seems to me that you’re the one dragging this comments section down by making everything personal and confrontational, as here.

          I appeal to you to post only about the topic, and to focus on the message, and not on whom you (wrongly) assume to be the messenger.”

          And yet you launch an attack and accuse me of entitlement when I point out your misuse of the word “subsidy.”

 comments, here we come.

          1. I always comment on topic.

            But if someone personalizes an issue, and you have done little else so far, then I will point that out, before returning to the topic.

            Do you want to debate the topic or throw allegations around? My advice remains sound.

  5. Ellis Act Primer:

    1. Ellis Act evictions are a response to local land use and rent control laws that exacerbate housing scarcity by discouraging investment in new housing–nobody wants to risk the captial to build more buildings that will not return a market rate (or an unregaulated rate) of return or deprive the landowner of the batural premium (and burden) that comes with owning the land.

    2. Ellis Act evictions represent a dispute over the most fundamental right that comes with real property, i.e., the right to exclude others from its use, or in the case of a renter/tenant, for the term of his tenancy. What the tenants want is what they have never paid for: a life time lease or a life interest in the property and the right to exclude the landlord from taking it back to use for some other purpose.

    3. The flaw in the tenant’s reasoning in this article is that somehow living in a place for a long time becomes an involuntary transaction with the landowner that somehow amounts to the acquisition of a life estate or a lifetime lease by the tenant–fortunately, it is is not.

    4. But at its core, this dispute is all about nothing more than who owns the right to exclude others from the property. When one thinks about the issue logically, you quickly realize that there is no point in owning real property if you do not have the right to exclude others from its use or to charge others to lease it at level reflective of its value. Tenants would be well advised to think about this issue in this fashion, that tends to eliminate a lot of the class warfare rhetoric that gets flared up in Ellis Act cases.

    5. The problem is not the Ellis Act, but rent control and local land use policies that discourage investment in upgrading existing housing and the building of new stock. Land, for better or worse, is a commodity like everything else. When you adopt policies that make people not want to improve or buld new bulldings, invariably rents go up and land values rise. Landlords, derpived of the premium associated with the cost and risk of owning the property, do what comes naturally–they seek to gain that premium another way and “Bingo,” exhausted and blocked by most other local laws, they turn to the statewide Ellis Act to evict underpaying or subsidized tenants who are (unfairly) enjoying the value associated with the right to exclude others (i.e., the premium of ownership) and then they sell the property as tenancies in common to unlock the premium earned by their risk taking and capital through investment or apreciation so they can achieve a return commensurate with the value of their property (i.e., not the tenant’s long term residency).

    6. Regrettably, so called affordable housing requirements (now matter how well-intentioned) applicable to new construction have the same flaws because they discourage new investment, which leads to less new construction, more scarcity, higher rents, higher land values, etc., etc.

    7. Comments like “Our MIssion, No Eviction,” really make little sense other than to inflame people into believing that something untowards or mean-spirited is happening, when the owner of property simply wants the basic rights that come with ownership of land. Remember, if the tenant wanted to acquire a life time lease or a life estate, he should have bargained for that when he entered into the tenacy–whose fault is it that the tenant failed to ask for or bargain for what he now claims he owns (i..e, a lifetime subsidized lease) when he signed the first lease–certainly its not the landlord’s fault.

    8. Finally, no one “owns” the Mission anymore than these tenants own the buildings they are being evicted from. If you want the rights of ownership there is one way to acquire those rights and most importantly, the cricual right to exclude others from real property–you buy it on the open market. It isn’t complicated and it certainly isn’t sinister, its just the way our system has worked for hundreds of years.

    1. Really excellent summary, Cazanoma, and as such I cannot add too much.

      Except to say that all this hysteria about Ellis evictions is misplaced anyway. Far more tenants are displaced for other reasons, particularly non-payment of rent and breach of their lease. Why aren’t people outraged by those much larger numbers?

      One other thing. The irony of the Ellis Act is that it was passed because of municipal land use abuse not in San Francisco, which never had vacancy control, but in Santa Monica. Yet it is San Francisco now that sees the majority of the still small number of Ellis evictions state-wide.

      Finally, note that most buyers of SF TIC’s are existing SF tenants. Which creates new rental vacancies.

      What is shocking isn’t how many property owners Ellis, but how few.

    2. Property rights are routinely limited in the interests of justice and the pubic good.

      Some examples:
      1) You may not own certain things, like slaves.
      2) You may not employ children to work 14 hours per day.
      3) You may not carve your building’s damp dark basement into tiny cubicles to rent out.
      4) You may not use your building for toxic industrial purposes.
      5) You may not evict tenants without notice and just cause.

      In 1840’s London, property rights ruled supreme and the owning class COULD do those things, resulting in a horrible existence for the majority.

      Libertarians like the above commenter want to take us back to 1840. Don’t buy into their BS.

      In a democracy, laws are made by the majority in their own interests… unless they are tricked by fast-talking real estate sleazebags.

      1. But the point is also that land use restrictions can be taken too far and, when that happens, there is a backlash. In CA’s case, that backlash took the form of the Ellis Act which essentially balances out those restrictions by providing an exit strategy.

        So yes, have your land use rules if the voters agree, but also provide a safety valve to allow the excess pressure to escape. Ellis is that safety valve.

      2. Nutrisystem, you make some valid points but at the end of the discussion, they are essentialy unresponsive to the issue at hand. The specificity of your analysis also leaves a lot to be desired. No one doubts government has a limited rights to regulate the use of property in a constitutional way (i.e., so long as it is reasonble), but government cannot take property or burden property rights in a manner that essentially nullifies their value. More importantly, no constitutional law allows a government to adopt policieis which transfer property or the inherent value of proeprty rights to the state or third persons without condemning the property. Other than that:

        The Ellis Act:

        1. has nothing to do with slavery, keeping slaves deprives the slave of his liberty interest-not always, but now clearly unconstutitional, imoral and outrageous. This is a classic red herring, you confuse property rights, with the right to liberty. You can only lose your liberty if you commit a crime and the state convicts you, property can be regulated so long as the regulation is reasonble and no taking occurs. That being said, even some “constitutionally permissible” regulations do not necessarily mean they are good societal policy. Like most of what we have in SF that exacerbates housing scarcity, casuses rents to rise and discourages investment.
        2. has nothing to do with employing underage children. Another red herring. That kind of practice again deals with a liberty interest. Public health laws also regulate who can work, at what age and for how long, this has zilch to do with who owns the premium assocaited with property ownership as opposed to a tenancy.
        3. has nothing to do with the zoning rules, like how you carve up your property or what a proper use of that property is at a given location.
        4. has nothing to do with maintaining a nuisance on your property harmful to others, like an industrial facility in a residential area. If you maintain a nusiance you can be thrown out regardless of your status as a landlord or a tenant–and properly so.
        5. The Ellis Act has notice provisions for evictions and they have passed constitutional muster–no one is saying you can evict without notice, just another red herring. You are wrong about the just cause point as well, certainly if a tenant uses the property lawfully during the term and doesn’t breach by failing to pay rent or doing something else, the landlord cannot evict. But no cause is required to end the tenancy either at the end of the lease term or at the end of a month to month period. A holding over tenant can be evicted and properly so. That in many respects is the very essence of an Ellis Act eviction, if the landlord indicates he wants to move in himself or leave the rental market by selling the units, he can evict the tenant so that he, not the tenant may enjoy the premium associated with owning the property and the essential right to exclude others.

        Finally, my view is not libertarian, far from it really, my view is basically what our property laws are already are–reasonable government regulation of propepty is ok and desirable, but an involuntary transfer of the benefits of ownership to tenants under the guise of “housing policy” is not ok–that is what the Ellis Act guards against. Increasingly what we have in SF is a system where the owner loses the benefit of ownership of his property through laws that transfer that right to exclude to the tenant absent a sale or reasonable compensation to the owner. Certainly I don’t see the SF City Gov stepping in to pay the delta between the value of the property and the subsidized rent being payed by the tenant–so what you have amounts ot a one person tax on the owner for the benefit of the “communtiy.” Of course, the government does not advocate a tax to raise the money to pay the amount of the subsidy for these below market rents, because it knows that such a law would be widely unpopular and would likely never pass. Instead, cities like SF prefer the divide and conquer, one man subsidy/tax approach, where the burdens of a failed local housing policy get piled on the backs of property owners, not all the taxpayers in general.

        You speak of majority rule as being your guide in these matters, but you forget that our constitution, (which is the law that requires the regulation of property interests to be reasonable), is essentially at its core a protection against majority destruction of constitutional rights, like the rights to own property, have liberty, pursue happiness, travel and free speech, etc. You can’t pick and choose when you want constitutional rights and when you don’t based solely on majority voting and simply voting your own economic interest–if that was the case we could well still have obnoxious rules like slavery, child labor or detention without trial.

        1. A regulated price is not a subsidy. That is your red herring.

          Also, in San Francisco, under the rent control ordinance, just cause is required to end a tenancy regardless of lease status.

          And of course the following issue is not the one being discussed, but since you raised it, the US does have detention without trial of detainees in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and the President currently has the power to detain without trial any enemy combatants or their affiliates (whatever that means) under the NDAA, although he has not used that authority domestically yet.

          1. Whether the “discount” that a rent-controlled rent gives tenants is regarded as a subsidy or not probably depends on the vantage point of the observer.

            Certainly from the point of view of the landlord, it’s a subsidy, because it is foregone revenue.

            In fact, “rent control” is a misnomer, because it doesn’t control rents at all. A landlord is free to charge whatever rent he wants for a vacant unit. Rather it is the subsequent increases in that rent that are controlled.

            And that is a huge problem because it means that rent is related to tenure and not to value or income. As such it is a highly inefficient protection and, indeed, can be seen as actually punishing new tenants at the expense of old tenants.

            A fairer system would be to have more formal subsidies, which is the approach that Section 8 takes. Base subsidies on actual need rather than random, coincidental factors like tenure. And exclude high earners.

            Paradoxically, the same people who hate Prop13 strangely seem to like rent control.

          2. and so returneth the self-righteous to the discussion.
            Landline old friend, of course a regulated price is a subsidy if it fails to return a reasonable rate of return to the owner of the property being regulated. No red herring there.

            If the return is not reasonable, i.e., usually at least about a 7 % return on the market value of the capital being regulated in most constitutional takings cases (not the market rate for loans, of course, because real property lacks similar liquidity–even hard money loans today go for about 5-%.5%), its an unreasonable, unconstitutional and almost assuredly expropriative. I bet a $1000 rent for a 1 bedroom virtually anywhere in SF fails to pass this test.

            I can’t and won’t defend Guantanamo or detention without trial anywhere–its unconstitutiional and shocking in my opinion. But then again, so is depriving people of their property on the basis of misguided housing policies that hurt the very people they are designed to help. Of course, the Prez does have broad powers on the overseas battlefield, but that’s far from 16th and Mission I think, even if gun play is pretty much a daily occurence at that troubled corner.

            You’re just taking this all too personally.

          3. Totally agree, Caz, except perhaps that a 7% return probably isn’t enough. The long term return from stocks is close to 105 pa, and that goes back about 100 years. Moreover stocks don’t call you at 2am because the toilet is blocked, do not require you to attend a rent board hearing because some tenant is whining that you took away his bike storage, and you do not have the risk of holding an illiquid asset.

            Given the 10% return on stocks, I expect more than 10% pa on RE and, in that context, only Ellis gives me that in this market.

            The tenant mob need to stop trying to punish those of us who take risks to provide housing, and start talking about how much we need not to Ellis their asses.

  6. John wasn’t satisfied helping drag the comment section of the Bay Guardian into the muck and turning it into the cesspool it has become.

    He has set his sights on Mission Local and successfully baited marcos into yesterday’s flame war.

    This behavior will end badly for the comment section here. Just look at comments and try to read them to understand what a few commenters without self-control can do to the comment pages of a website.

    1. landline, I comment on the topic of the article, and I offer relevant facts, evidence, experience and statistics.

      It seems to me that you’re the one dragging this comments section down by making everything personal and confrontational, as here.

      I appeal to you to post only about the topic, and to focus on the message, and not on whom you (wrongly) assume to be the messenger.

  7. The Yanez family has two apartments that each cost them $400. They enjoyed this dirt-cheap rent for over 30 years. While I sympathize with their health situation it is still very hard to see them as victims.

  8. The Yanez’ rented for 35+ years 2 units at $450/mo. By now they should have saved enough to buy a place. Very lucky that they have until July to move.The landlord is being very generous in giving them plenty of notice/time to move on. The neighborhood is changing for the better as new people buy and improve the property they own.

    1. Agreed, Pamela, it’s astonishing that the landlord was so patient for so long, although it’s possible that the building changed hands several times in that period. It’s ironic but in San Francisco, tenants often have multiple landlords over the lifetime of their tenancy, rather than landlords having multiple tenants.

      I have owned three rental buildings in the Mission and, gradually, converted six units from rented to owner-occupied. I do not consider that I deprived anyone of a home. Rather I created home ownership opportunities in our community.

    2. The Yanez family did not pay $450 month for each unit. This was incorrectly quoted in the paper. Yes it would be nice to pay 450.00 a month for rent in San Francisco but WAKE UP, those type of deals don’t exist.

        1. In all honesty,I didn’t ask. I didn’t think it was my business to know. If I was told by the Yanez family that rent was more, that was enough for me.

          1. I think that knowing their rent is relevant if the community here is being asked to assess the validity and reasonableness of their eviction.

            The reality is that Ellis evictions are almost always because the rent is low to the point where it is risible.

            The one exemption i know of is a two-unit where one set of tenants were paying 3K a month but they were Ellis’ed anyway. I do not know for sure but I suspect it was more a behavoral issue in that case.

            The best defense against an Ellis eviction is to pay a rent that has some basis in reality.

          2. I didn’t realize the community was being asked to assess the validity and reasonableness of their eviction. Do issues get resolved in this assessment? Seems more effective to work within your community to strengthen your point of of view with like minded people. Somehow sitting in front of a computer, arguing points with those clearly in disagreement and no face to face contact seems a waste of very precious time.

          3. Martha, the discussion here was on the pro-s and con’s of Ellis evictions, so it seems entirely reasonably to review the facts of this particular case to see how fair the situation is. It was being suggested by some that this is some kind of injustice and that is what is being debated. An Ellis eviction in the fact of a peppercorn rent might be seen as fair to many.

            To your other point, if you think debating issues here is a waste of precious time, then why are you engaging in doing exactly that?

          4. My Dearest John: I believe the original point of this discussion was the event that took place Saturday night. I responded because I know the Yanez family and it is difficult to see their lives lambasted and distorted.I don’t like to respond to these “discussions” because they turn into “us vs them tirades.” Your “discussions” reek of arrogant, insidious chatter. This is the end of my discussion here since I was waiting for you to respond with, “if you think debating issues here is a waste of precious time, then why are you engaging in doing exactly that?” Very predictable. Say what tirades you need to now to “WIN’ this discussion but I have wasted too much of my precious life to continue here. Your words will never control or win the community.

          5. Martha, you only have to read the other comments to see that there was a more broad-reaching debate about Ellis and property rights. If that discussion doesn’t interest you then it is not clear to me why you started to engage in it.

            Knowing some of the players in this little drama makes this personal for you, I feel sure. But it also means that you may not be as objective as some others here.

            With all this focus on the evictees, I think it’s instructive to also consider the property owner, how he has been deprived of his property rights for decades, and why the law fully supports the actions he took here.

            Balance, if you will.

  9. So sad to see raza booted out of our barrio. Chale to these techie, parasite hipsters. All they do is come to the hood open 50 coffee shops that sell a latte for 5.00.
    Oh well at least they must be on their toes. Because the hood never sleeps.

      1. Ellis evictions are a response to a situation where the burden of rent control and subsidizing the rent of tenants becomes so egregious that a property owner has to capitulate.

        As such, we should not be looking to blame those property owners in isolation, but rather to learn what that tells us about the flaws in our system of rent control.

        There is an argument that, if we are going to subsidize rents at all, it should be paid for by the entire community, via taxes, rather than fall on a very small number of people.

        Rent control was origianlly envisaged in 1979 only applying to large corporate landlords of large buildings. they get turnover anyway and so rent control isn’t so onerous for them. But the 1994 extension of rent control to mom’n’pop landlords changed that emphasis, and it is that which causes most of the problems.

        By the way, I don’t like the emphasis on Hispanics particularly here. Evictions occur regardless of race, and housing is not a race issue. It’s a red herring that distracts from the topic.

    1. Are you promoting violence against whites and/or tech workers? Because that’s what your comment sounds like. Is this message board a forum for threats and racism now?

      1. Never under-estimate the power of envy.

        It was one of the seven medieval sins and it’s still around, alive and kicking now, anywhere where people are successful and prosperous.

        But I agree with you that it is sad when people rely on stereotypes (white, tech worker, prospering) to fuel hatred based on member ship of a perceived class.