So, Mirkarimi wants to change rent control?

I was a bit sad to see a writer of your talent join the Malia Cohens and Sean Elsbernds to attack rent control, but ...

It's pretty hard for me to believe that Ross Mirkarimi wants to challenge laws that protect 70% of SF voters. Whom, I assume he wants to vote for him for Sheriff?

You sure you got that right?

Giants win 2-1 in a mud wrestler in D.C.

In typical fashion, Wilson loads bases in 9th and strikes his way out!

h.

Mr. Koniuk seems like a wonderful man and I have sympathy for his position. The fact remains however that his "asset" on Divisadero is just that: a piece of inherited wealth.

Mr. Koniuk's desire to give his son the gift of a four bedroom apartment is understandable, but so is the desire for the tenant who has lived there for 30 years to stay in his home. Bringing death bed pronouncements and free prosthetic limbs into the story doesn't change the underlying facts of the case.

Mr. Koniuk controls an extremely valuable asset that he did nothing to earn. The restrictions placed on that asset are designed to make the system more fair. Ayn Rand would deplore this "fairness," but it is part of our values as San Franciscans, as expressed through our city's democratic process.

My understanding that "Facts Trump Opinions," as it says on the bus kiosk on my corner, would seem to preclude Ms. Stevens' bizarre ad hominem attacks on various San Franciscans. Her regular column does the Bay Citizen no favors and is a stain on the NYT when it appears there. Please consider keeping this sort of work on the internet where it belongs.

If I promise to sing a lamentation for the poor property owners in all of the city's vacation spots who've turned their rental housing into 28-day vacation rentals for $3,000 - $6,000 a go, may I have a gold star by my belly button? Or would that simply screw up the writer's whinging?

Millionaires and billionaires trying to convince the rest of us how unfair life is for them is really a sign of the times on so many levels.

http://www.ceoperspective.com/bios-elizabeth-stevens.html

What is "CEO Perspective Group" some kind of Koch Bros front sounds like.

"Elizabeth Lesly Stevens brings nearly two decades of media experience to CEO Perspective Group's impact practice. In addition to advising executives on influence and visibility, she coaches select media and technology leaders...."

Does this mean 'senior financial-services executives' are becoming small-time landlords now?

"A longtime New Yorker, she now lives in San Francisco with her husband, a senior financial-services executive."

I'd like to know what percentage of those vacant units are owned by small-time landlords and how many are owned by the biggies.

Regardless, that unit may be Koniuk's house but it's been Murphy's home for thirty years, and think there should be a high bar to remove him.

I would really like to know if Ms. Stevens was hired by this landlord or something similiar and wrote this piece as a part of her services, working for CEO Perspective. It feels like a media piece to me.

I would have preferred more facts, rather than sympathy for any 'good works' of the landlord - or more info about the 'good works' and good tempermant of the tenant.

For example, does the landlord pay property taxes on the full, current value of his property, or does he have reduced taxes because the property inherited? It must also be extremely low, and i'm thinking, relative to the rent he collects. So, monetarily, one good dead, Prop 13 helps him easily keep the property, deserves another good deed, low rent for longterm tenant? This is merely a stream of inquiry.

Lastly, 'media representation' might have gotten it's first big start when big wigs of the early 20th century were encouraged to bequeath large sums of money to universities, giving them lots of ongoing 'good PR', as well as a seat on a university board, and then university boards funded research that benefited the corporations... that's how the AMA got such a foothold on our culture. So I'd really appreciate media pieces be labelled as such - disclosure. In magazines, Ads that mimic news are labelled, even if it is small print at the top of the page.

Thanks for reading.

Just the facts, ma'am... yet so few are contained in this column.
Jumping to conclusions is rife, though.
For example: the high vacancy rate is blamed on SF's rent control/pro-tenant policies despite the highest unemployment since the great depression and an equally bad economy. So had economy plays no part in the vacancy rate?

I have reread the column but no where does it explain what unit was used for the "once in a life-time" owner move in; was it a smaller unit and the son needs the four bedroom unit? I am asking since the reason the SF law is so strict is because of landlords abusing the owner move-in basically clearing out tenants under this pretext only to re-rent the now vacant unit at market-rate. The lack of the rational for the current law while pointing out a tenant who owns a $1.7 million building shows a bias suitable for a blog but not journalism.

The headline and lede seem to have little to do with the experience of the Koniuks. They don't have a vacant unit in their building. I don't see the connection.

Did you talk to landlords of buildings with vacant units to find out why they are vacant? Mirkarimi's explanation of "frustration with the laws" doesn't suffice. The fact is that landlords can charge whatever they want for vacant units, so what's the problem?

I feel like a lot of people commenting so far are missing the point of the article.

It is simply to make you consider the other side of the rent control debate, and to shed light on the "grey area" between tenants and landlords.

For one thing, the right to own property in is the constitution for the exact reason Walter Koniuk bought it: so your family will have a place to go, forever. Just because their family is fortunate enough to own some and yours isn't does not automatically make them the bad-guy, or extravagantly wealthy.

For another thing, it would appear the Wayne Koniuk is anything but a ruthless landlord. By all accounts he is a kind, hard-working family man and independent small-business owner; the kind of people all you "progressives" want to protect.

And for another point: a two-unit rental building on Divisadero with units stuck at $500 a month? I'm no expert, but it would seem these tenants probably COST Wayne money living there, and that is not right any way you slice it.

Don't forget Murphy does not OWN the building, he pays for the privilege to live there; he has no right to it otherwise.

Stop trying to "fight the man" for a minute and put yourself in the shoes of this father who just wants to do right by his family, the same way all of you would if you were in his position.

This piece is a judgment on who has the right to live where. I think a person who is living a home should have the right to stay, whereas the writer thinks certain people have the right to eject other people from a home and take it over for themselves.

Actually if one looks at the mapping of the data on vacant units in SF (and the datta does not differentiate between rental and ownership), it's pretty clear that the bulk of the vacant units are in the newly built condominium building in Soutch Beach and South of Market. There are relatoively few vacant units in the neighborhoods where renters live.

o to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
and query on housing and san francisco to see the breakdown by census tract and a map.

Crawford, Mpax and Marushka,

I also disagree strongly with this piece because I think Ms. Stevens was selling a cherry-picked case which (to me) nevertheless failed to advance her real point which is that SF's 1979 Rent Control (the 'Sangiacomo law') ... she feels it should be overturned. Clearly she's prejudiced as would be most 'Pacific Heights' types.

But, to say she can't write is idiotic. An embarrassment to the NYT? They're plenty able to embarrass themselves without her help. Who can forget their clarion call to George Bush in 2001 to, "Give war a chance."? Longest war in U.S. history and the New York Times assisted in its birth.

Stevens has shown a willingness to give an honest telling of all sides in the Pension Reform story which no one else in town has done. She didn't shy away from casting one of the most powerful men in town (Gordon Getty) in a bad light.

Stevens and the Bay Citizen rock. Not always to the beat that I prefer but you won't get these kinds of substantial responses from ANY other newsroom in San Francisco.

Brandon Belt drove in 2 more for Fresno yesterday. Up to .458

h.

The Press Conference that SaveMuni SF (savemuni.com) held on March 28 gave a complete examination of the finances and financing of the Central Subway project. There were quite a few charts and graphs with exhaustive explanation of each, showing exactly *how* unfeasible this boondoggle really is.
Unfortunately, the SFExaminer's Katie Worth reported on some other issues which hadn't been covered in that press conference.
(http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2011/03/central-subway-design-moscone-center-san-franciscio-called-inefficient).

Financial expert Tom Rubin, CPA brought the data together. He can be interviewed on it should there be any interest.
Tom Rubin tarubin@earthlink.net

I find Adam Walters' comment refreshing: reminding us of the point of the article.

There is a lot of gray area to this subject.
Everyone on both sides has at least one horror story of the evil landlord / tenant.
This is not always the case... hence the gray area.

We need to look at how this can be applied to SF as a whole and in the long term:
Applicable to this subject is the ABAG dictate that SF must build 30,000 new units of housing.

Also throw in all the various bits and pieces that Planning Director John Rahaim was hired to do, and that SPUR has been pushing since Gabe Metcalf took its reins:
"streamline" the new unit building process by "easing" the demolition process, changing the city's zoning: building high, dense, no parking. Cut neighborhoods and any other dissenters and their voices out of the picture altogether.

In all of that, the developers have taken matters -- and the language itself -- into their own hands: one never hears the pejorative term "Manhattanization" of SF any more.
Instead, we hear about "much needed housing" and "get people out of cars."
Both terms refer to the same concept, but the developers have the edge in their language. Developers love to build without providing parking: they can't really profit from garage space.

One must also remember that developers' fees go directly to the Planning Dept, rather than into the SF General Fund, so there is a direct profit for planners to OK the demolition of older, affordable housing and approve new development.

Interestingly, developers have gathered some strange bedfellows into their boudoir. I would guess that many are unwittingly (or at least are unpaid) performing a great service for them in advocating for a dense, tall city of new buildings. (Analogy acknowledged!)

Forgive me if I have taken this subject and run with it to its logical conclusion. These matters are related, and many have not peered down the road to see where we are headed.

I applaud Ms. Stevens for writing this article. Reading it I was very sympathetic to the Koniuk family’s situation. They are small property owners who want their family members to be able to live in a building they own. They should have that right after reasonable compensation to the tenant is made.

Clearly the rental issues in SF are complex and passions run high. Still, I view Mr. Murphy’s requirement that he be paid the large sum of $70,000 to move out of an apartment, after having already been offered a financial incentive much higher than is required by SF and state laws, as extortion, plain and simple. I also commend Supervisor Mirkarimi for his willingness to take a fresh look at the impact that rental laws are having on small property owners in SF.

I have to say I'm surprised there are so many people that feel a RENTAL tenant deserves any monetary compensation at all. A month to find a new place should be it.

If you want the same security as a home-owner, go buy a home. Can't afford one? Guess you should have done better in school.

Wayne and his kids should be able to reap the benefits of Walter's foresight to the fullest of their ability.

Robert Murphy, who has lived there for 30 years without a lease, remains, paying $525.82 a month.
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12lM2)

Criminal. & everybody knows it.

Finally, an article that provides balance to problems associated with rent control. Bravo to Supervisor Mirkarimi for being willing to listen to another side and hopefully open to leading the city in a new direction.

All this article really tells me is the real estate people think they have a chance to go after rent control this year.

Because imagine the pain of the majority of families in SF who don't have the fantastic sums of money to purchase real estate, and can't provide security for their children, who know that at any time a millionaire heir can throw them out and totally disrupt their lives like Caligula playing with condemned prisoners. How much does it hurt to see your children become homeless?

Where I come from, someone who takes the side of rich people over poor people is called the "C" word.....

I sold my house on Noe Street because of the relentless attacks on landlords in San Francisco by the Board of Supervisors. Every election there was a measure on the ballot designed to lure the tenant vote--it didn't matter whether it outraged the small landlord or not. That's just a big "So what!, after all they're just milking the tenants for all they're worth"--so goes the Tenants Union reasoning, which is the mirror image view of 90% of the Board of Supervisors.

After 30 years of being a landlord, the last few--following the 1994 enactment of rent control laws covering all units--were so unpleasant that I decided it wasn't worth the anxiety and frustration of dealing with this situation anymore.

I'd also like to point out that I rarely raised the rent--maybe a total of three or four times over thirty years--and certainly never did so in the case of an ill tenant. I had this situation occur about five or six times during my tenure as a small landlord in the Castro district.

FYI....here's the cached text of the ceoperspective.com bio that was deleted.
Elizabeth Lesly Stevens

Elizabeth Lesly Stevens brings nearly two decades of media experience to CEO Perspective Group's impact practice. In addition to advising executives on influence and visibility, she coaches select media and technology leaders. Over her many years as an editor and writer with Business Week magazine in New York, Elizabeth covered the emergence of the corporate-governance movement, including numerous fascinating corporate takeovers and power-struggles. Then, as Business Week's media editor, she authored many notable cover stories during a time of tremendous growth, ambition, consolidation and convergence in the media, entertainment and technology industries.

She has interviewed U.S. Senators and policy wonks; finance titans from KKR's Henry Kravis to Lazard's Michel David-Weill; visionary corporate leaders from Jack Welch to Bill Gates; a besieged CEO who quietly wept while ticking off his company's problems in an interview (tactfully not mentioned in the resulting story); a financier so excited to be profiled in Business Week that he chose to be photographed for the magazine clad only in a small bathing suit; and media titans including Rupert Murdoch, Howard Stringer, Bob Iger, Richard Parsons, Sumner Redstone, John Malone, and Jeff Bewkes.

Elizabeth was a media business columnist for New York magazine, and executive editor of Brill's Content, Steve Brill's high-profile if short-lived media magazine. She also spent a very educational year as a senior editor specializing in business- and political coverage at Tina Brown's Talk magazine, where she conceptualized and edited noteworthy pieces on Marc Rich, Bill Gates, and an amazing tale of a dissolute British peer and a New Jersey technology entrepreneur who had just gleefully struck a deal with the Taliban for Afghanistan's cell-phone concession.

She was a staff member, contributed to, or provided analysis as an interview subject for New York magazine, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, PBS's NewsHour, NPR's On the Media, Washington Monthly, among others.

Elizabeth has cheerfully endured her work being covered by the Village Voice, the New York Post columnists Keith Kelly and Liz Smith, the New York Times, and the late Molly Ivins. Given that breadth of experience, her insights and advice are helpful in prepping top executives for key media interviews.

Elizabeth graduated from the University of California and has a master's degree from Northwestern University. A longtime New Yorker, she now lives in San Francisco with her husband, a senior financial-services executive.

$70,000 is not a bad request for move out and I have lost respect for Mirakarimi if what is quoted here is true. The first number mentioned in a letter from a lawyer to a landlord is the beginning of a negotiation, not the end.

Mr. Murphy will have to leave SF, let alone the neighborhood he had lived in for 30 years. The landlord gets an open unit in an increasingly desirable neighorhood.

Own[ohn]
–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or belonging to oneself or itself (usually used after a possessive to emphasize the idea of ownership, interest, or relation conveyed by the possessive): He spent only his own money.

Rent [rent]
–noun
1.
a payment made periodically by a tenant to a landlord in return for the USE of land, a building, an apartment, an office, or other property.

Lease    [lees]
–noun
1.
a contract renting land, buildings, etc., to another; a contract or instrument conveying property to another for a specified period or for a period determinable at the will of either lessor or lessee in consideration of rent or other compensation.

I do not feel landlords should be able to evict without cause or jack up rents at their leisure.

But this situation is WRONG. Anyone who tries to pretend that legislation which allows tenants to literally hold apartments for "ransom" is downright stupid.

I give Ms. Stevens credit for writing on this topic. It's obviously a heated debate that few are willing to venture into, but one that impacts a wide range of citizens on both sides of the debate within SF. Personally, I'm not a believer of rent control, as I believe market manipulation leads to a wide range of unintended circumstances for all parties involved. I also have a difficult time finding that the person that was willing to make an investment in a building is at fault for wanting to receive a fair market return and have the ability to utilize the property as they see fit.

Having said that, though, I think that both those in favor of rent control and those opposed need to be open to recognizing the pros and cons of both sides. The comments on this article, however, point out what appears to be the harsh reality of such a proposal. Simply stated, it won't work. If you take a fair read of the postings, it's interesting to note that those in favor of the landlord have taken a more open approach. For the most part looking to engage in the discussion and attempting to express their opinions to the pro-rent control commenters. Instead of engaging in an open discussion on the pros and cons, to educate both sides, the pro-rent control response is to harass and belittle the commentators and politicians in the hopes that they'll keep their opinions to themselves. And, if successful, keep the topic off the table.

Personally, I'm willing to listen to both sides and adjust my opinions as appropriate. I only wish I could find a pro-rent control advocate open to the discussion.

It is hardly newsworthy that Mr. Koniuk, or any property owner, is unhappy that he cannot evict law-abiding tenants to enrich his own heirs. His position, which can be summed up as, "because my dad said so," is so arrogant and simplistic that it is laughable. If he is so displeased with what Ms. Stevens calls the "bother," or what would more fairly be called the "responsibility," he should sell the building. This owner's inconvenience does not trump this tenant's right to live out his days in the place he has made home, if that is his wish.

Supervisor Mirkarimi might stand a chance of improving the vacancy rates, and therefore the affordability, of housing in his district by investigating the owners of vacant units. If a housing owner hoards vacant properties, thereby artificially inflating market values, he or she should be compelled to put them on the market for sale or rental. The city needs more affordable housing, as Mr. Koniuk's son can no doubt attest.

Finally, I'm disappointed the only renter in a similar circumstance Ms. Stevens could be bothered to get on the record in this article is a millionaire. As she demonstrates, Mr. Tarrone made a poor choice as a subject of a Chronicle column on a similar situation. But he is no better a subject for this column. She offers no substantiation that Mr. Murphy is also a "Big Time Tenant" as her column title implies. And even if he is, she doesn't bother to speculate on what would happen to the many of us small-time renters without these protections.

I like that there seems to be an interest in this from both sides, but I still feel a lot of people are missing the point.

The point is that there are occasions on both sides that are simply unfair.

Is it fair for a landlord to kick a person from their home for no reason other than to maximize profit? Of course not.

Is it fair that some small landlords are unable to break even let alone make a fair profit? No way. Don't pretend for a second that is ok in any way.

Think about it. Really. $500 dollars a month. Mr. Tarrone lived at that rent and was able to put down half a milly CASH on a house. Really think he couldn't afford to pay more?

Sometimes the situation is so bad that tenants are able to utilize the property as an asset while the actual owner loses money.

Mr. Murphy is literally holding his unit for ransom. And let's be honest: If he has lived somewhere for 30 years at $500 a month and didn't stack any money, should that really be Mr. Koniuk's problem? Meanwhile, he son is being told that "some guy" has more right than him over a BIRTHRIGHT.

Another point: Imagine your faucet starts leaking. Happens maybe once a year. Getting a plumber to fix it is gonna run at LEAST $250. Don't forget this is the landlord's responsibility. In a huge building with tens or hundreds of units this is no big deal.

Mr. Koniuk just lost HALF A MONTH'S rent. Now I have no idea what the circumstances are, but under SF sub-tenant laws, Murphy could rent out as much space as he wants (charging whatever) and be able to remove people for any cause with 30 days notice. It's true, look it up.

This is totally broken.

Whoever is compiling the data on the actual number of vacant rental units that fall under rent control and owned by "small-time" landlords (whatever that is in a market where 2 unit buildings start at a million dollars) doesn't want to release it. This article is based on innuendo and propaganda ultimately from some nasty offshore bank probably.

Thanks a lot Elizabeth, and thanks to your "senior financial services executive" husband?

Because you real estate people have created such a huge ridiculous mess that there aren't enough lawyers in the whole world to clean it up HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHA and your sad little media propagandas.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703304576300151691529610.html

"Foreclosures Trapped by a Lack of Lawyers

Moves by banks to ditch law firms snared in the "robo-signing" mess are spreading delays and confusion to borrowers, while angering judges grappling with thousands of foreclosure cases now trapped in limbo.

The trouble began when U.S. banks and government-owned mortgage giants lost confidence in some law firms that handled a huge volume of foreclosures. After controversy erupted last fall over the shoddy review of loan documents known as robo-signing, banks dropped some law firms.

Finding replacement lawyers who can pick up the slack quickly has been a struggle...."

Shadow inventory: google it.

Hazy, this isn't an article about shady mega-banks doing what they do.

This is about rent control- and how laws put into place to stop ruthless mega-landlords are choking the life out of the little guy.

By the way, dude its 2011. If you are still living under the assumption that a milly is some unbelievably high number that hardly anyone can achieve you need to open your eyes. That bracket has moved up to tens of millions.

Also, owning property that is worth a mil is not the same as having a mil in the bank.

Dealing with people who don't think a million dollars is a lot of money has always been a problem for renters.

Rent control is definitely the problem.

http://www.theblaze.com/the-wire/6539350/fannie-mae-reports-8-69-billion-loss-for-q1/

Fannie Mae reports $8.69 billion loss for Q1

WASHINGTON (AP) — Mortgage buyer Fannie Mae is reporting a loss of $8.7 billion for the January-March quarter, and asking for an additional $8.5 billion in federal aid.

The new request is more than three times the $2.6 billion in government aid it sought in the final three months of last year.

The government rescued Fannie Mae and sibling company Freddie Mac in September 2008 to cover their losses on soured mortgage loans. It estimates the bailouts will cost taxpayers about $259 billion.

Fannie Mae's January-March loss attributable to common shareholders works out to $1.52 per share. It takes into account $2.2 billion in dividend payments to the government. That compares with a loss of $13.1 billion, or $2.29 per share, in the same period last year.

Income Inequality In U.S. Worse Than Ivory Coast, Pakistan, Ethiopia

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_62935.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+axisoflogic%2FAxisFeed+%28axisoflogic.com%29

As ThinkProgress has repeatedly noted, crucial services and public investments for Main Street America are being gutted as taxes on the richest Americans are the lowest they’ve been in a generation. Yet many Americans may not know exactly how unfair this is, as the country has grown increasingly unequal at the same time. Using data from the CIA Factbook based on the Gini coefficient — a measure of income inequality within a society — ThinkProgress has assembled the following graph, which demonstrates that the United States is now about as economically unequal as Uganda and more unequal than countries like Pakistan or the Ivory Coast:

Income inequality in the United States is actually higher than at any other time in modern history since the Great Depression. There is also a tremendous amount of inequality even in life expectancy, with the American Human Development Index reporting in 2010 that there is now a 6 year gap in average life expectancy between Mississippi, in the Deep South, and Connecticut, in prosperous New England.” As ThinkProgress previously reported [see TP report below], one of the major factors in this hike in income inequality has been the decline of unionization in America.

For all those on the side of the tenant please clear something up with me. According to the article:

"Robert Murphy, who has lived there for 30 years without a lease, remains, paying $525.82 a month."
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12lM2)

$525 a month for a four bedroom apartment? I pay $1910 a month for a three bedroom in Davis. Shouldn't it be much higher for SF?

Why is it so low? I must be missing something or else this is insanity.

If the owner has owned the building for 30 years his mortgage payments must be zero. His taxes must be negligible. What's the problem?

Because its called "investigation," Elizabeth. Fired yet?

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/05/06/myth-poor-landlord

"And Stevens’ line about Koniak being a “less than wealthy man” seems a bit of a stretch. He owns a home in Belmont. He owns (free and clear) a building in the city worth well over $1 million. His mother owns another rental building just down the street, as well as a home in the Sunset. “Over the years,” he told me, “my dad bought up properties in the city, and fixed them up and sold them or gave them to his kids.”

People seem to forget the landlord who is not able to charge a fair market value rent, is basically subsidizing the rent.
Remember the landlord has hefty mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance payments as the landlord each month.

If the city loves helping folks pay cheap rent then the city needs to create a Section 8 type housing assistance plan,where the city pays the difference, so the landlord isn't the one getting stiffed.

We still need, EVERYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES, renters unions, such as exist in MONTREAL, where we can force rent prices DOWN, which would force real estate prices down, which would help, among many other workable strategies, idiot Americans to wake up and demand more social spending and less military and corporate welfare spending in favor of the kind of social spending that prevents ANYONE from ending up a victim of sit-lie laws. Cheers.

Brilliant coverage and perfect solution - it's as fair as it can get.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/05/06/myth-poor-landlord

This article doesn't make me feel particularly sympathetic to Mr Koniak.

On the other hand, it's a real issue that someone who gets a two year assignment in another country, who would like to rent out their property (both making some money and providing housing) is discouraged from doing so by laws making it impossible to guarantee that they can move back in when they return. Or an elderly owner, who is not hard up for money, and would be willing to rent at low rates, who is too afraid of getting into a legal battle with his tenants, and so leaves his apartment empty until a family member needs it. Who benefits from this arrangement?

I am not opposed to rent control in principle. The logic behind it is reasonable, and the private property absolutionists are absurd.

However, there are many, many unintended consequences to rent control which should be examined, because the results may be worse than the problem it was intended to treat. A few:

- eviction controls. In a non-rent-control area, both landlord and tenant have an incentive to keep each other happy. With rent control, the landlord has a huge incentive to evict people, so that he can raise the rent. So laws are needed to prevent this. But the laws have the side effect of protecting assholes who harass their neighbors, who smoke in non-smoking places, etc, because they can claim that they're being evicted unlawfully. As a result, it becomes especially hard for anyone who has a less-than-spotless rental/reference/credit history to get a place. No one can afford to take a chance. It also encourages landlords to not rent an apartment at all, if they plan to use it in the future. Who benefits from that?

- people have to be banned from renting apartments short-term. This sucks for people who are moving into the area, tourists who don't want to stay in a hotel, and residents who go on vacation who might pick up a little money by opening up their house to someone else. (If short-term renting wasn't banned, it could be used to sidestep rent control). Likewise, other deals which could be used to sidestep rent control have to be banned or heavily regulated, from discounts. The board of supes recently passed a rule that allows landlords to offer discounted rent to victims of disasters, and even so they have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to do so. It's a pretty crazy system when you have to pass a special law to allow people to offer LOWER rent! Talk about unintended consequences.

My preferred solution would be for the city to make it easier to build lots of housing, with fewer hoops to jump through-- no parking requirements, less oversight by neighborhood groups which block any attempt to build more housing-- so that people wouldn't have to fight like crazy over the limited amount of housing that exists. I can understand that people object to building six-story buildings adjacent to three story houses, but when people succeed in killing major housing projects like the Ocean Beach safeway and the Haight St Whole Foods (which were originally planned to have dozens of apartments), well, you end up with a shortage of apartments. No kidding!

I have to agree with the majority of other commenters in stating that this is just poor journalism and should be an opinion piece. While it's understandable that a landlord would want to save money and support his son, it is in my view inhumane to displace someone out after 30 years of loyal patronage.

Furthermore, I don't see the connection between the census data and vacancy rate. I believe that the absurdly high rates for a place in San Francisco is the true reason. Ms. Stevens use of Eric Fisher's map is misleading as San Francisco is the (2nd) largest and more importantly densest city in the region, and therefore would have more blue dots by default. That map is simply a reflection of San Francisco's density, and not the high vacancy rates. Invoking such a map in this piece is poor journalism and I feel that Ms. Stevens' credentials as a journalist, critical thinker, member of the rational society are questionable at best.

I'd implore the editor, and NY Times, to reconsider allowing this blemish on an otherwise impeccable institution from reporting any longer.

This is called speculation. The game is played by taking the property off the market-- and then claiming a loss-- meanwhile no fair share of taxes are paid-- and the speculator waits to capitalize on increase in rents with out doing any work.
The renter pays with their labor. The landlords scream that it costs them to
rent properties-- yet few maintain as they should.
The Two rate property system in the U.S. places taxes on land and one on improvements. The tax can go higher on improvements -- it should be the other way around to discourage slumlords and vacant properties that are left to ruin.

Rent Control won't fix the issues surrounding the tax rate system
http://masongaffney.org/essays/Great_Crash_of_2008.pdf

http://masongaffney.org/blog/index.php/2009/02/empty-spaces-how-our-tax-policies-caused-the-present-seizure-by-unbalancing-hard-and-soft-capital/

At first glance, it appears that the only money made from owning rental housing comes from rent. In fact, only a fraction of the profit comes from this source. Using "other people's money" is the key to making money in rental housing. Rarely do landlords pay for a rental property entirely with their own money. Tenants buy it for them. Once they find a property to purchase, they find a bank to lend them the money. Even if a landlords had enough money to buy a rental property, they would not. Landlords only put a "down payment" on the house out of their own money, usually ten to twenty percent of the purchase price. A bank or other lending institution loans them the remainder of the cost in the form of a mortgage.

University of Cambridge economist, Ha-Joon Chang, in his book 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, gets right to the point in his very first chapter: “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Market.”

What there is, instead, as Chang points out, are political and moral decisions about whose welfare (economic and other) most deserves to be defended and about whose rights are more important.

Excerpt from his book: : What they don’t tell you

The free market doesn’t exist. Every market has some rules and boundaries that restrict freedom of choice. A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them. How “free” a market is cannot be objectively defined. It is a political definition. The usual claim by free-market economists that they are trying to defend the market from politically motivated interference by the government is false. Overcoming the myth that there is such a thing as an objectively defined “free market” is the first step towards understanding capitalism.

The value of rent stabilization is that people don't have to move out of a neighborhood that they have provided value to when forces beyond their control start moving rents up. There is nothing un-American about that, and I would say that most people would see the value in that.

The lack of civility in many of the posts above is depressing.

Almost as depressing as observing decades of the spreading increase of abandoned buildings in parts New York City, filled with squatters living without utilities. I could not see any advantage to renters in that situation. Just urban blight.

A just social compact rationally and fairly protects both landlords and renters, as well as the larger interests of the City.

any statistics on the number of landlords physically attacked by renters each year? Renters' misplaced sense of empowerment sometimes has dire consequences. Buying a service does not create ownership.

I almost cried when I read your article. Thank you so much for pointing out the other side of rent control and how it hurts home owners/buyers.

My boyfriend just bought a place for the first time in his life. We are both not from SF and didn't realize the craziness of this rent control situation before he bought. And now he can't move in because the tenants won't move out and a legal battle has ensued.

I really wish he could sell it. I would move away from here so fast. It is completely ludicrous that the tenants can use the law to demand so much money from you that it really isn't worth buying.

And for all those that responded about the poor tenant...he has been getting practically free rent for years!

I've made less than poverty level income for years and yet I have never had rent control or collected unemployment or any other assistance. I live simply and have found ways to make due. And I would never consider demanding $70k to move out of someone else's home. How can this man live with himself? How can the system allow this extortion to happen?