San Francisco city supervisors unanimously passed a law on Tuesday afternoon that would give “lower income” tenants three and a half years of rental aid if they are displaced.
It’s a bid to ensure the city is minding the consequences of its housing growth after it passed a citywide upzoning earlier this month.
The bill increases the rental assistance provided by developers for lower-income tenants — those making up to 80 percent of the area median income, or $87,300 for a single person — displaced by building demolition, fires and renovations.
It also requires developers to meet more criteria if they want to demolish part or all of a building.
Rents in San Francisco remain high, and are heading back toward pre-pandemic levels amid an AI-induced boom. The average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment is nearly $3,300.
“Over the last year, so many of our housing policy discussions in this committee have been focused on streamlining and rezoning,” Supervisor Chyanne Chen, who sponsored the ordinance, said at a committee meeting Monday, before the bill advanced to the full board on Tuesday.
“This legislation attempts to center the conversation to address the impacts to existing tenants and residents.”
The Planning Department and Board of Supervisors have been working since February with advocates from tenant-advocacy groups, including the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition and the Race and Equity in all Planning Coalition, to write the legislation.
Under the new law, developers would be required to meet at least six of the following eight criteria if they want to demolish existing housing that has been occupied by tenants in the past ten years:
- The new project must be a rental project.
- The owner must have lived there for at least three years if there was an owner-move-in eviction.
- The number of units in the new building must be more than before.
- The new project must have more rent-controlled units than before.
- No affordable housing must be demolished.
- The new project must have more two-bedroom units than the original project.
- The property must have no violations with the Planning Department or Building Inspection Department.
- The new project must not significantly change a historic landmark.
If the landlord has harassed tenants or conducted an illegal buyout in the past five years, the Planning Commission can refuse to grant the demolition permits.
In the past, the Commission had full discretion over whether or not to grant such permits, but now state law requires them to use “objective criteria,” like the list above, to do so.
Once redevelopment is under way, any lower-income tenants would receive 42 months of relocation assistance from the developer.
The new building is required to build back any rent-controlled apartments and below market rate condos and, once it’s been built, lower-income tenants must be offered a unit.
The new ordinance, Chen said, was drafted in response to state legislation that has weakened tenants rights in San Francisco, like SB 330, a law that prevents local jurisdictions from banning demolition of existing housing as long as at least one additional housing unit is added.
She also called out the state-mandated upzoning plan to allow taller buildings, which critics say incentivizes the redevelopment of existing housing.
Because “most of the projects that involve demolitions … are generally vacant” when they go before the city for review, if buyouts or evictions were misused, the last tenant to live in the units would be eligible to receive aid even if they do not live there now, said Joseph Smooke, an organizer with the Race and Equity coalition.
Tenant advocates said that, with this law, the city of San Francisco had taken tenant protections just about as far as it legally can. But they have their sights on SB 330, which they say constrained some of the protections they wanted to provide.
On Dec. 2, Supervisor Myrna Melgar introduced a resolution expressing her intent to work with state legislators to reform that bill.
There are a few changes Melgar and tenant advocates have in mind. For one, developers can demolish a rental building and build it back as condos for sale, which may not suit the needs or desires of the previous tenants hoping to return to the building.
Another issue: building owners can hold properties vacant for five years and a day to get around the requirement that they replace rent-controlled or below-market-rate units.
Also, enhanced relocation assistance is also only available to those making less than 80 percent of the area’s median income, but tenant advocates think everyone should be able access the help.
For now, though, advocates are onto the next battle: Spreading the word.
“Tenant rights rely on tenants enforcing their rights,” Meg Heisler, a policy director at the Anti-Displacement Coalition, said. “And they can only enforce their rights if they know about them.”
Any threat to housing for renters terrifies me. I have lived in the same apartment in SF for many years, long enough that I am now elderly. If for any reason I should have to move, there is not a snowball’s chance in Hell that I could afford current market rates. I would be on the street. New housing is important, but it must not come at the expense of people who have a place to live now which they can afford.
This is an illustration of the problem with rent control. Through no fault of the tenant he’s now locked into a financial situation that collapses if any change is made…..fire, major building repair, need to move to housing with elder care.
Would the tenant be better off had their financial decisions been made to reflect “market rate” rents (i.e. demanding pay raises to keep with with the real cost of housing) ?
Agreed, Als. Thomas is in a trap of his own making. He has spent all these years living in a town he cannot really afford, all due to a subsidy from the very person who took a risk to rent to him. And who at the time had no idea that Thomas would desperately squat in this property for decades.
The model is broken if housing providers are trapped into a lifetime of subsidies.
Amen. YIMBYs don’t believe you exist or matter.
Yes, Wiener, Lurie and the “moderate” members of the board of supervisors sold out our city to big real estate.. Lurie’s family up-zoning plan incentivizes speculators and developers to demolish small businesses and evict existing tenants living in rent controlled units to make way for hideously luxury towers .😢
This should be a universal affordability measure that should apply to all displaced tenants, not just low income tenants.
“Low income” meaning less than 100k / yr.
Who cares? Why should means testing be used to limit developer responsibility for making displaced tenants whole?
“[tenants] can only enforce their rights if they know about them.”
where do residents who rent learn about their rights?
some specific information would be helpful.
thanks.
The SF Tenants Union (sftu.org) was very helpful when I suddenly needed this sort of knowledge. They have free drop-in counseling hours, and a “handbook” you can buy for a few bucks which covers tons of different subjects and is written very clearly. I recommend both.
Why the byzantine SFRB.org, of course.
The SF Tenants Union and Housing Rights Committee claim to have tenants’ backs on this.
I rent to a person for 20 years below market rate, but I still owe that renter even more free rental!
One addition I’d like to see alongside this 42 months of rental assistance is optional credit counseling or financial coaching for recipients. At roughly $3,300 a month, 42 months comes out to about $138,600. With the right guidance, that level of support could help someone build real long-term stability—whether through savings, improved credit, education, or even a down payment on a modest home. Without financial planning support, there’s a real risk that people could exhaust this assistance over three to four years and still end up unable to afford housing afterward. Since this assistance would be paid by developers to tenants displaced by new projects, offering education and guidance would help ensure this significant support truly gives renters a path to long-term stability rather than just delaying displacement.
Where would they then live if housing is unaffordable? Real estate speculators’ darling politician Scott Weiner and Mayor Lurie’s developers will now be allowed to build up to 8 stories on Jefferson, Bay, and Northpoint streets; 16 stories on Geary and Clement streets; and more than 50 stories on Van Ness Ave, along the waterfront and in the Sunset, including Ocean Beach.
There are absolutely no protections for the rent control units or small businesses along these corridors.
Congressional candidate and real estate speculator politician Scott Weiner and Mayor Lurie’s theory is that the neighborhood small businesses might return after being displaced by years of mass demolition and then the construction of high end luxury condominium skyscraping towers is highly implausible.
A vote for Scott Weiner endorses mass demolition in our neighborhoods for the mass construction of multi-million dollar skyscraping luxury condominiums towers.
Weiner and Lurie’s upzoning plan neglects to interrupt the peaceful tranquility of wealthy neighborhoods such as Pacific Heights or Seacliff, however.
The Weiner/Lurie upzoning housing plan not only demolishes rent control units that will not be replaced, it does nothing to include affordability for working people whatsoever.
The Weiner/Lurie development plan concentrates on selling off public access by flipping these properties that face the ocean or bay to satisfy the appetites of the multi- millionaire and billionaire house hunting buyer, leaving access to our waterfront and beach severely restricted.
A vote for Connie Chan for Congress is for sensible development that protects our small businesses and retains irreplaceable rent control units, while keeping our neighborhoods intact.
Connie Chan for Congress is the most important vote San Franciscans will make in June & November 2026!
“Where would they then live if housing is unaffordable?”
Oakland?
GC, you will be called many names when you bring that up. They can’t argue with your point so they’ll resort to calling you evil for even considering those statistics. People in SF don’t like facts getting in the way of their feelings.
Sounds good on paper but won’t work. Developers are not dumb, if this is even enforceable. They’re just going to wait you out and not renew your lease and then kick you out. Why would they need to pay you for three and a half years.
The building on mission and 20th is a good example.How many years has this burnt structure just been sitting there and the landlord has not even bothered to start tearing it down , let alone rebuild it.
That’s why the law looks back up to five years at the last tenant who lived there and how they left. Developers aren’t dumb, and our lawmakers aren’t either.
(If the developer is more stubborn than sane, they could still kick you out and then wait five years. But a five-year delay sounds a lot more expensive for them than helping with your rent for a few years.)
Where do they get this data?
How do they know what total household income is?
More rules…. No wonder we have high prices. Sounds like they want to make sure nothing ever gets built. Fine with me.
I hope someone sues the City over this.
The WSJ just published an informative article about the Twin Cites. The data shows rent control reduces development and directly increases rents. It sounds great and many uninformed people champion rent control measures, but the fact is they increase cost for everyone.
Poor Donald.
This measure seems to be guaranteed to result in no new or rehabilitated housing. It is inconceivable that a development could break even (not to mention turning a modest profit) with the conditions cited. I assume that this is the intended result, however.
Correct, Stephen. But it could also lead to the State deciding that SF is acting in bad faith here, and implement a state takeover of planning.
Uh huh,
So, when did the BOS get the power to overrule Lord Wiener in Sacramento ?
Am I right or does your chart say that I can get a subsidy if I make “199k a year and spent $99k a year on rent ?
Strange world.
Personally, I live like a king on minimum SSA and a Vet’s pension with housing voucher that runs my yearly costs to $60k with $40k of that being Navy’s share of my small Mission 1BR’s $3,300 monthly rent.
.
I think my situation could be a baseline entry for single adults under UBI.
The GDP can easily handle that and I donate 10% of my take home $1,420 to a half dozen publications and one community center and another 10% on costume jewelry to make people smile and the dog costs about $50 a month which is cheaper than a wife.
lol
Face it, right now Wiener has more power over SF Housing than the entire BOS and the Mayor.
Take the ‘O’ out of ‘BOS’ cause that’s what the Supervisors are now since Breed and her stooge, Arnold Townsend gerrymandered districts 6 and 4 and 10 and 5 and I still don’t believe Mahmood or London beat Preston in their respective district contests.
And, this new guy in the race for Pelosi’s seat ?
He gave ten grand to Mahmood to beat Dean and he got fired by AOC and we’re supposed to believe he’s a Progressive ?
Connie Chan for Congress is what I’m trying to say.
go Niners !!
I love it that Shanahan barely used McCaffrey once the blowout was confirmed.
He should get to keep a ‘Coach of the Year’ award in his house.
Of course, name of trophy should be ‘Dan Shula’ about whom Bum Phillips once said:
“He can take his’n and beat yur’n and then take yur’n and beat ‘his’n.”
Go Niners !!
h.