We are back, once again, to dot-com-boom levels of Ellis Act evictions, begging the question of whether rent control really exists in any real way. And is there a way to protect longtime renters from the albeit reasonable desires of their more financially well off counterparts in the housing market, namely the people seeking to purchase TICs (Tenancies in Common) across town? Without stomping on the rights of those homeowners, that is?
The Board of Supervisors are debating this, and there was a committee hearing last week to discuss a proposal to allow a backlog of some 2,000 TIC units to convert to condos without the requisite waiting period and lottery system that has been employed over the last two decades. TIC owners are burdened by risky investments and higher mortgage rates than traditional condos, while renters are regularly victimized by the TIC system and the Ellis Act, which allows buildings to be cleared and remodeled for sale.
Backing the legislation, obviously, are Scott Wiener and Mark Farrell, while the more liberal contingent is weighing various options Jane Kim proposed an 8 or 10 year moratorium on condo conversions if this batch is allowed through in a rush.
The discussion has been tabled until later this month, but the citywide debate is likely to linger for a long time. The SFBG penned a good and thoughtful piece on the subject this week, taking (obviously) the perspective of renters evicted under the Ellis Act, and profiling them. They come from all walks of life, and what they have in common is just that they've lived here a long time, and they don't have the resources to relocate here if they wanted to. It's essentially the worst side effect of gentrification, and one that San Francisco has, at least historically, tried to be sensitive to: The involuntary displacement of the disenfranchised, especially the elderly and disabled.
For background, see the Tenants Union explanation of the Ellis Act, the original intent of which was to allow a landlord to "go out of business," not to profit from the sale of a rental property because its value as a TIC is now far greater.
Should building owners have the right to do what they wish with their properties, and shouldn't the ersatz condo owners in TICs be allowed to fully own their condos (which are not likely to return to the rental market anyway)? Sure.
But conversely, do we want a city where longtime residents, particularly in the creative classes, can only stay here if they are very, very lucky and their buildings never get sold? The character of the city is likely to change no matter what as we become a place associated with tech industries, but can we control the extent of that change?
Talk amongst yourselves.
[SFBG]
Previously: All Together Now: The S.F. Rental Market Is Insane
