A Senate committee voted 19-18 against the legislation by Mark Leno to reform the Ellis Act, according to a report in SF Gate. It does so just as Mission Local reports that planned affordable housing is in limbo.
The San Francisco Democrat may try once more to garner additional support before Friday’s deadline to move bills out of their house of origin.
SB1182 would have required a San Francisco landlord to own a building for at least five years before they could evict tenants using the Ellis Act. The 1986 state law allows property owners to evict tenants in order to get out of the rental business, but it has been used by speculators as a way to buy affordable properties, evict tenants and flip the rental for profit.
Not so fast. Here’s an update: http://ow.ly/xqhp7
Guess we San Franciscans aren’t all “loosers” after all, to use Ass’s term.
Exempting property owners who own one or two buildings effectively guts the measure, because most Ellis evicters only do one or two project at a time. There are no hedge funds simultaneously owning, Ellising and redeveloping many buildings at a time. It is a one-off, selective process.
All an owner has to do is never own/Ellis more than two buildings at a time. Then when you sell off one, buy and Ellis another. Bingo.
Oh yes, you still are losers big time. If you think this bill will help easy housing constraint, you are sorely mistaken. This bill will further raise the floor on TIC values, just as the condo ban last year elevated condo prices (especially converted units in small buildings in desirable neighborhoods.) these politicians are amazingly stupid.
And, I used the correct term, loose. Not “loosers”.
Making a typo is one thing — we all do it. But defending your typo — “you loose” — is a hilarious bit of self-parody.
Oh, and by the way, the modified bill passed, so you “loose”….”landlord”!
1- actually I’m so superior to you alls that I can afford to defend a typo.
2- I actually “gain” with this stupid legislation (IF, IF, IF it actually becomes law) because it will restrict TIC conversions and immediately put upward pressure on real estate values. So it’s actually good for me.
isn’t it a little early to be drinking?
TwoBeers, Leno’s bill has been eviscerated by the concession Leno made, because it now means that any owner can simultaneously Ellis two buildings that he bought yesterday.
As soon as they are sold off, he can buy and sell two more. As can his wife. As can anyone else he partners with.
Enjoy your pyrrhic victory.
The camel’s nose is now under the tent. That seems to be what you’re most afraid of.
Ha! Ha! All you housing “activists”, you loose!
Please spare us your twisted misapplication of science, “John.”
Now we just need Campos’ Bill to be tossed by the courts.
This excellent news. Leno’s bill was always seriously flawed, because it placed the emphasis on who owns the building rather than the financials of the building.
Moreover, seeking to exclude just one city from a State law is a bad idea, setting dangerous precedents and undermining the state’s authority over counties and cities.
There may be a deal to be worked out and Leno should have sat down with RE interests rather than try and railroad a speculative non-consultative attack on an important right and safeguard for property owners.