We reported yesterday that the state Assembly had dashed hopes for Ellis Act reform, but SF Gate reports today that after the 19-18 against moving forward with Mark Leno’s reform bill, last minute bargaining has resuscitated the bill.  The legislations would require owners to hold a building for five years before carrying out any Ellis Act evictions.

…. Leno promised to make several key amendments Thursday to garner the 21 votes needed to keep the bill afloat before a Friday deadline.

The yet-to-be-written amendments would exempt one or two small properties owned by “mom-and-pop” landlords from new Ellis Act restrictions and may also include a sunset date for the bill. READ MORE

Follow Us

Founder/Executive Editor. I’ve been a Mission resident since 1998 and a professor emeritus at Berkeley’s J-school since 2019 when I retired. I got my start in newspapers at the Albuquerque Tribune in the city where I was born and raised. Like many local news outlets, The Tribune no longer exists. I left daily newspapers after working at The New York Times for the business, foreign and city desks. Lucky for all of us, it is still there.

As an old friend once pointed out, local has long been in my bones. My Master’s Project at Columbia, later published in New York Magazine, was on New York City’s experiment in community boards.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how you make that long-held interest in local news sustainable. The answer continues to elude me.

Join the Conversation

6 Comments

  1. Reply

  2. Any small step to dismantle/change the Ellis Act as it currently stands is a small victory. We’ll look for the next step.

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
    Reply

    1. You only get occasional shots at changing a State law, so the fact that this attempt has been watered down means you have to accept to no further changes for a few years.

      There are not many Ellis evictions anyway and you would get a better return on efforts elsewhere. The State has drawn a line in the sand for how far municipalities can go in imposing on property rights and that has been reiterated here.

      I see this as a victory for fundamental freedoms and rights.

      0
      0
      votes. Sign in to vote
      Reply

  3. But the concessions that Leno has made to squeak this through create massive loopholes. Essentially anyone who owsn two building can immediately Ellis them right after buying them,

    Then their wife can own two different buildings and Ellis those.

    And my brother can own another two and Ellis those.

    Then there could be partnerships and corporations owning others.

    Few developers Ellis several buildings simultaneously anyway, so the main impact of this will be artificial changes of ownership to create an “arm’s length” between the set of related owners. Bingo, Leno’s bill is rendered moot.

    Of course, without that concession, his bill is dead. But with this concession, it’s almost useless.

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
    Reply

  4. If this becomes law, won’t it raise the value of buildings delivered vacant and/or significantly lower the value of those with low paying, long term tenants? Won’t this create a strong incentive to evict before selling?

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
    Reply
Leave a comment
Please keep your comments short and civil. Do not leave multiple comments under multiple names on one article. 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 *