Supervisor Jackie Fielder will introduce legislation today to set a minimum amount of unpaid rent that can justify an eviction in San Francisco, a means to “provide renters some breathing room in the midst of unprecedented affordability and housing crises,” she said.
San Francisco’s Rent Ordinance allows evictions for any nonpayment of rent, regardless of how much is owed.
Fielder’s ordinance, which is being co-sponsored by five supervisors and supported by the mayor, would allow eviction only if a tenant owes more than a month’s rent, defined by the “fair market rent” that the federal government says a typical apartment of a certain size costs for one month in San Francisco.
That number is updated annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Right now, the fair market rent is $2,485 for a studio in San Francisco, $2,977 for a one-bedroom apartment, and $3,604 for a two-bedroom unit.
Evictions are top of mind: The city has seen a 26 percent rent spike year-over-year and is bracing for the IPOs of two AI giants. Evictions, predictably, have also risen.
“We’re in a classic San Francisco boom cycle, which comes with higher incentives for landlords to evict long-term, rent-controlled tenants,” said Tuesday Rose Thornton, an attorney at the Eviction Defense Collaborative.
With soaring rents, Thornton said landlords may be waiting for tenants “to miss these pretty nominal rent payments so that they can initiate eviction proceedings.”
About a quarter of evictions in a sample from the Eviction Defense Collaborative last year were for nonpayment below the fair market rent, Thornton said. With the new law, ideally, similar cases will be prevented. That could easily amount to hundreds of evictions a year, Thornton said.
Los Angeles, Oakland and Berkeley have all passed similar laws, each setting the bar at one month of fair market rent.
The legislation is “not going to erase a tenant’s debt to a landlord or enable tenants to permanently live rent-free,” Fielder said. “Once that one month fair market rent threshold has been met, landlords can pursue eviction.”
Co-sponsors include supervisors Myrna Melgar, Shamann Walton, Connie Chan, Bilal Mahmood and Chyanne Chen.
It is not yet known who will line up in opposition, though Fielder anticipates that landlord industry groups will take issue with it.
The mayor said he backs Fielder’s bill.
“This legislation will give much-needed stability to renters across our city, but it must be a first step,” Mayor Daniel Lurie said in a statement. “We are continuing to identify additional steps to support families so we can build a city that makes it easy for them to put down roots.”
The board will be voting on the matter in October at the earliest.
Might be a good idea but what does the data say? How many evictions for non payment happened last year? I guess we can accept Eviction Defense Collaborative’s estimate of “about a quarter” of those were for amounts less than the fair market value. (I suspect EDC is handling a lot of below market rent clients, which would also skew the data, but let’s not quibble.) How many potential evictions would this new law delay/ prevent? I hope it’s large enough to justify the legislative effort here. It does seem like a scrape of the barrel for ideas on how to make things better for renters. I do not have a better one other than the more impactful, but more complicated and expensive, affordable housing initiatives. Not to get too marxist or anything, but we really need to put a good chunk (not all by any means) of private real estate outside the private market to be used for the public good. Need a lot more public support for that one, especially in this “progressive” town, which is unlikely to come anytime soon. Meanwhile, we will put a lot of effort into delaying, preventing a few evictions. ( maybe, it’s more than a few: the numbers matter. Wish we had them!)
The city’s reliance on the free market for housing means we lack data about pretty much everything. No clue how many empty units of housing there are, no clue how much people (really) pay for rent, no clue how many evictions there are (since many are done via threats, “voluntary” evictions, etc). The real estate industry does NOT want cities to have this data, as that’s one step closer to a planned economy for housing, which would limit their profiting from the market economy.
Nothing free market about housing in San Francisco.
Y’all, the market rate represents that the landlord is missing out on the same money – it’s not about the tenants but to ensure landlords aren’t picking on rent control tenants. It’s specifically designed to protect rent control, just like we limit home assessments (which increase less than rent controlled units).
I apparently pay above market rate, and I’m fine with this legislation and the benefits for those with rent control. They are the ones who are getting smoked out. A friend’s new landlord has started entering units without asking, to take pictures and look for reasons to evict. After being called out, they are doing “safety inspections”. One shouldn’t live in threat of being evicted and potentially homeless because one thing goes wrong.
” A friend’s new landlord has started entering units without asking, to take pictures and look for reasons to evict. After being called out, they are doing “safety inspections”.
Casey, as a simple matter of law a landlord is allowed to perform safety inspections at reasonable intervals. Most choose to do so annually as that is when smoke detectors need to be checked and replaced if necessary.
Obviously a new property owner will want to assess the safety and legality of his housing units shortly after buying the property.
The law requires 24 hours written notice of such inspections. Tenants cannot unreasonably refuse them.
Need to see the actual text. For instance can a tenant of a two bedroom permanently be $3,600 behind in paying rent without being evicted? When, if ever, is a tenant required to be current, not owing any back rent?
If they’re behind you set up a payment plan in arbitration or secure a small court judgment for the amount rather than evict. If they truly and verifiably do not have it you can’t get blood from a stone, but a judgment is the next best thing.
The headline sounds quite reasonable — don’t allow evictions unless the tenant is more than 1 month behind in rent. Reasonable. Then they muck it up with the “fair market rent” calculation. So for a 2BR, a tenant paying $4,000 a month faces eviction for being 1 month behind, but a rent controlled tenant paying $600 a month can go 6 months without paying. That is incredibly inequitable for tenants and unreasonable for landlords
Correct this policy makes no sense when median rent paid is under $2000 and long term rent controlled tenants are paying much less than that. You’d wait 3 months to a year to file an UD. These tenants are also “judgment proof” so landlords are never getting the money owed back.
Nonsense. The only sure-fire way to secure an eviction in SF is for non-payment of rent. The process takes more than a single month anyway, by a factor of 3-6 almost no matter what, so whining unreasonably about the single month requirement is just that. If it’s less than a single month’s rent it’s not even worth the court’s time given the cost to all parties.
Oh ok so since landlords are already not getting their rights to a speedy trial for UD cases and free tenants attorneys are extorting the legal process to drag unwinnable cases out by months, it’s cool to extend the time to evict by another 2-8 months depending on how much the rent controlled lease is below market. This kind of stupid reasoning is why the constitutionality of such ordinances is certified for hearing at the CA Supreme Court (APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (Community Power Collective), S297183).
“Trump spends on illegal war on Iran & mass deportations, and cuts taxes for billionaires, while claiming there’s no money for healthcare.
Lurie spends on illegal mass detention of drug users & mass surveillance of residents and cuts taxes on billionaires, while claiming there’s no money for affordable housing or community services.
The problem isn’t scarcity. It’s ruling class priorities: punishment for the poor and treats for the rich.” PUML
So let me get this straight: if you own the building, use the rent to pay the mortgage, and a tenant comes up short, what do you tell the bank? Is there some administrative relief on the mortgage?
You borrow from the significant equity in the asset, obviously, and get your financial situation managed better – unless you’re a penniless slumlord with no financial sense whatsoever. If they owe under 1 month rent and that’s what’s throwing your real estate empire into disarray, you have no business leasing residential property in SF or anywhere.
Similarly, I believe that your employer should be allowed to fall a little behind in paying you as long as it doesn’t exceed “fair market wages”.
“Los Angeles, Oakland and Berkeley have all passed similar laws, each setting the bar at one month of fair market rent.”
Just because other jurisdictions have partaken in such idiocy, doesn’t mean that we have to do likewise.
So a tenant can basically skip paying a month’s rent? And then as long as they pay the following month’s rent then they cannot ever be evicted for that gap in payment?
No. A tenant cannot “skip” paying a months rent; the legislation does not erase the debt of one month’s rent. However, tenants can delay paying a months rent, and pay it later, or over time. Perhaps there’s some details in the legislation about the mechanism by which that one month’s rent is re-paid.
Oh the horror, won’t somebody think of the poor landlords?
It’s not about which classes of people you personally and capriciously prefer. It is about honoring a contractual payment that you have freely agreed to.
If tenants think that they can skip out of paying any rent then they will do. The reason that evictions for non-payment of rent are so short and brutal is that otherwise tenants would not be diligent about paying on time and in full.
Back when I was a landlord I would issue a 3-day notice to quit on the 4th of a month if I didn’t have a check. And 4 days after that I was ready to file a UD. I never had a non-payment , a partial payment or even a late payment.
you were a landlord? shocker!
Notice, WAS a landlord. Not anymore and we know why.
No. They still owe the back rent, and when that rent reaches the amount deemed “market rate,” they can then be evicted. Also, regardless of how much is owed, being chronically late with the rent is also grounds for eviction.
Yes, the law says on paper that a landlord can still pursue debt for unpaid rent. But practically speaking, a lot of eviction cases for unpaid rent end with a settlement where the landlord agrees to write off debt and not report it to credit agencies. That’s because the cost of actually pursuing that debt are high – in the form of legal fees and more months of unpaid rent from a tenant who gets to stay in your unit as the suit slowly makes its way through the courts.
I’m not crying for the large predatory corporate landlords out there. But if you’re a small mom and pop landlord, or a homeowner who wants to rent out an ADU or second unit in your home, the system is broken. It’s no surprise that a lot of tenants are opting to leave units vacant.
Eviction is only one course of action and does not automatically collect a debt anyway.
So the City of San Francisco values a one-bedroom at roughly $3,000–$4,000 per month, while many rent-controlled tenants pay $500–$800. That gap will effectively allow those tenants to remain for several extra months without paying. Fidler and all of her socialist buddies should be gone for ever!
I would love to see a $500 to $800 one bedroom in this City. I paid more than that in the 90’s.