The Student News Site of San Francisco State University

Golden Gate Xpress

The Student News Site of San Francisco State University

Golden Gate Xpress

The Student News Site of San Francisco State University

Golden Gate Xpress

San Francisco neighborhoods fed up with Ellis Act evictions

SF State professor and San Francisco Poet Laureate Alejandro Murguia used to carry poems in his pocket. But stopped because he kept pulling out eviction notices.

Murguia was one of more than 60 people who crammed into a Glen Park bookstore to listen to a panel of politicians and activists address San Francisco’s housing crisis Wednesday, March 12.

Attendees were concerned over the city’s drastic increase in Ellis Act evictions, of which the city’s rent board recorded a 145 percent increase between September 2012 and September 2013. Attendees shared personal stories and discussed its effects on the fabric of the city and what San Francisco’s politicos could do to regulate it.

The Ellis Act is a state law that gives landlords the right to evict all the tenants in a building and leave the rental business.

San Francisco Unified School District teacher and Ellis Act victim Sarah Brant represented her building on Dolores and Market streets at the panel. Bay Area real estate group Urban Green, which owns 385 units in San Francisco, purchased her building last year.

“(Urban Green) bought this building knowing who lives here,” Brant said. “These people are speculators, so why should we treat them like landlords?”

Members of the audience echoed her sentiment.

“If someone scrapes their money together and wants to live in their own building, then I have no problem with that,” said former University of California Berkeley professor David Linger. “Its everything else that I have a problem with.”

Almost everything else, said Linger, is real estate speculation. The recent housing boom in San Francisco has led to an increase in speculation — buyingproperty and hoping to resell it quickly for exorbitant profit — in many working class neighborhoods like the Mission District, Chinatown, the Fillmore and the Western Addition.

Supervisor John Avalos addressed the housing crisis and accused members of the Board of Supervisors of “pay to play politics”—supporting developers, speculators and tech companies —rather than the people city officials represent.

He discussed legalizing tens of thousands of illegal in-law units in San Francisco, making them susceptible to rent control and tenancy laws, and left the crowd with one of San Francisco’s most investment-crippling plans: an anti-speculation tax. The anti-speculation tax would claim 50 percent of the profits of bought-and-sold buildings if the new owner did not keep and maintain the building — as a landlord — for at least one and a half years.

“Let’s build a little more community tonight,” Murguia said.

View Comments (7)
More to Discover

Comments (7)

All Golden Gate Xpress Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • C

    CummbottomDec 6, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    Mr.Lee not hard to see another 4yrs. of agony for renters (rent controlled) be abolished Broad of Supervisors suggestions? Advocates seek, to get “Ellis Act on the ballots 2016 we must attend the meetings when submit hearings corporate concepts. Referring office and high rises development: if not trickle effect, once development allowed suddenly renters face uncertain future. Not oppose urban renewal just displacement of residents ignored from Ed Lee whom plea to provide how many? 30,000 rental units simply quantity is inaccurate going use statistics biggest trick former buildings. Specific cost of new communities which Ed trying avoid resolution could be finalized: London Breed champion of oppose bills. Fair housing why, leasing and decisions favor of ruling cartels enjoy assist the opposition San Francisco marginalized city affluent gotten control we must. Break there ingratitude don’t own San Francisco we pay taxes fight back! Notice before 2020,ratio of international corporations building San Francisco yes, office towers permits Rodney Fong,Jeff Joslin,Cindy Wu,Christine D.Johnson,Gil Kelly and John Rahaim elated approve development failed allow land for new housing. Enemies surround movement fair housing realtors especially LGBTQ impartial Ed Lee envisioning affluent majority by 2020. New era, for City by the Bay you must have sufficient pay in order to stay by the way San Franhattan, San Fraternity and San Frangentrified labels deceit of public policies. Alumni Golden Gate well aware international universities going open campuses San Francisco exclusive executive club. Whom, Imperial College,Hong Kong Institute of Technology and University of Glasgow why association technology and global trade presences foreign corporations. Trying recruit Americans to enroll colleges yes banking sector eventually equivalent London,NYC,Singapore and Berlin global for renters repeal is needed never defeated. Ellis Act is concern ballot 2016, contest measures of Ed Lee don’t own San Francisco elected provide essentials governmental policies. Opposite interest lobby to continue promote gentrification deny policies economic progress unity now!

  • C

    CummbottomNov 1, 2015 at 3:13 pm

    Yes, do hear me fellow advocates willing vote for change not strange new era. I’ll see you Nov 3, 2015 if not uncertain, future and liabilities we against the machine of deceit whom retreating ignoring “housing” crisis. Board of Supervisors and Ed Lee plea to regain mayoral leadership you decide if your renters your not impartial. Enemies whom,SFAA,NAIOP,CAA,AOAUSA,Small-Pro-SF,CAAPAC,Thelpa-SF,EBRMAH,PPMAOSF,BOMA-SF and CCIM Institute have facts those lobbying. Whom support bureaucracy,
    lawyers,hedge fund mangers,poliiticians,I-bankers,insurance firms and cartels industries have proliferated “Bay area” secondary to NYC where gentrification entrenched. Those saying, vote not going repeal laws take effect are goals to retain cordial environment lacking in San Francisco ratio of affluent grown whom many 35% appeal of international cartels whom nations. India,Australia,Chile,France,Germany,BENELUX,China,Singapore,Thailand and Canada worth billions. Elated what about fair housing? Commercial banks and state financial corporations going open locations in United States whom targeted cities Los Angeles,Boston,San Francisco,Long Beach and Northern New Jersey going divide housing affordability. Why is there resolution when read journalism “LGBTQ” friendly cities are you sure realtors whom say “LGBTQ” commerce. Selling not properties neighborhoods failed, to lobby for change doubt me “Frank Nolan,Julie and Patty Kerrandjones representing whom not “LGBTQ” they attended. Symposium 2015 meeting urbanizing redevelopment enrich there pockets high rises and residential mention. South Van Ness,SOMA,Mission,Castro,Mid-Market,Candlestick Park,3rd. Evans,Muni depot developments air rights,3rd Townsend Caltrans station equivalent to Hudson Yards NYC and

  • C

    CummbottomMar 14, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    Awaiting mayoral election of 2015 shall. Mr. Lee see another term? Whom supporting reelection Smallpro-SF,BOMA,SFAA and NAIOP. False assurance BMR below market rate. Housing many advocates dispute familiar. Gentrification whom behind majority of approvals. Mayoral office and board of supervisors. Recommend hold Ed to commitment improving. Housing 30,000 I’ll be specific you’ll. Say no more illustrations ready. Gather new impose to assure voters. Inclusionary act 15% why know Ed. Instead you led the evictions Ellis act. Mention retribution for those evicted. Proper amount to survived financially you. Never sign into low yes. Eventually veto in federal court. October 2014 supported by NAIOP,SFAA,Smallpro-SF,PPMAAF-SF and BOMA. Concern fellow advocates do have fighting chance. Yes plenty of scrutiny what given. Providing appropriations essential numbers 30,000. Ed said before 2020 affirmant balance. Quantity of housing for non affluent jargon. Is superficial when say Ed. Didn’t fulfill housing crisis address. Inept policies renters facing Ellis act. Failure majority neighborhoods Ed never. Built BMR housing including Castro and Mission. Mid-Market following were majority BMR units. Located only selected interest aware. 40% for sale this advantage for Ed. Decry favored sales oppose rentals. Bias cities need ratio of affordable rentals. Supporters going say MOHSF favors. Homeownership whom selected do have leaders. Approximately 25 lenders included on Mayor’s websites. Ed whom shall qualify? Tell us Visiation Valley,Hunter’s Point,Navy Yard,3rd Evans Post Office,Candlestick Park,Mission Bay and China Basin. Answer 30,000 units inaccurate Lennar properties. Favors for sale grants from HUD. Rally to fight placing majority sale. Not rentals 1400 Mission Street. 190 for sale units by TNDC selected by Ed. LGBTQ receive nothing further evictions. Ideal support Mr.Excellence Scott Weiner! Appropriate surname refuse assist district. Majority of lottery tickets for selected. Properties take off market were? Castro Tenderloin,Chinatown,mid-Market,Mission,Hayes Valley and Bayview. What to do rally facing evictions. No answers only it’s state law. No other alternative sure place. Higher tax on developments I’m. Not against future expansion of urban renewal. Dirty planning depts. believe building. Permits profits abundant could use. Housing developments Ed saids collaborates. Agencies whom? Always impartial response Ed your. Controlled by NAIOP and SFAA. Chinatown is frown around town Ed. They need BMR housing eager. To comply AHASF,Asian
    Neighborhood Design and CDC. Pushing them out due hotels office space. I know Chinatown schools,city college location and hospital. Fail to provide essential housing! Children of Shining Rainbow only two communities. Those disable within community Rich
    Sorro. 100 units for low income HIV/AIDS. Openhousesf senior housing LGBTQ 55 Laguna. Project lost funding now construction? Ed
    420 apts only 32 BMR LGBTQ get. Meager 110 units on referral unfair! Block 9 109 BMR units requirements city employees. Those displace around Mission get. Priority Ed is this socialism whom informing. You of whom getting housing. San Francisco Housing authority open. Limited time Jan 2015 Section 8. Rationalized only low income homeless. Submitted interest nonsense media income.
    Between $20,000 to 65,000 qualify. Section 8 Ed this HUD policy lies! Scott spoke of Micro housing aware two. Built were if you care
    Scott Mr.MicroHouse. Your insult not perceived saying. If you choice reside San Francisco. Don’t balk square footage is price! Well
    1394 Harrison St. 76 units and 9th Mission St. 160 apts reserved City college students. Few mental health what about others. If you least Micro apt. Can marry only remain single? Inept concept to save City hall interest. We pay taxes seek adequate housing. Reform
    950-975 Market St 310 apts tell us. Where’s BMR units project approved without. Theater Westfield California center. Anticipates Condo/Hotel 30 or 33fls top of mall. Approved Ed shall include BMR units? Tenderloin is prize for NAIOP and BOMA! Block 7 allot to
    Family House organization. Dedicated to families awaiting treatment children. UCSF Hospital yes support the need. Housing why 200
    unit apts Ed inaccurate. Block 6 200 units selected industries may. Apply what everyone housing BMR. San Francisco is charade 5th
    Howard St. 300-475 BMR units stipulation. City employees,federal and state priority! Unfair Ed these communities built from. Inclusion
    act of developers. Not city funds 888 7th St. 170 units, Tishman Speyer 160 Folsom St. disputing. Height and units Tishman are crooks! Evade taxations always getting funding. Yes they funded 3 communities San Francisco. BMR wasn’t incline to assist reason.
    Didn’t favor BMR in new communities! 75 Howard St rental 109 market rate units. MODSF recommend build TNDC 168-186 Eddy St.
    153 units along 1036 Mission St. Odd redevelopment 6th St many not. Aware rezoned for condo and rentals. SRO hotels going demolished for new. Buildings majority financed REIT and foreign. Investors no bankers and insurance companies. Ed your liar why?
    Going expose untruths also readers. Rincon Hill organization Ricon Center Tenant. Shows there many BMR units inexpensively never mention. Why? Chosen renters there cheap inquire!

  • S

    sweetieMay 24, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    Those jubilant upon 75 guilty. Companies whom making billions in revenue. Don’t have or give a clue. What to do with Ellis act. Has decide support Senator Leno. Bill on Ellis Act, not didn’t say. Abolished Ellis Act companies supporting. Bill shall destroyed promised. Tax exemptions yeah fellow. Advocates whom biggest land owner. San Francisco not prominent companies. Guess there hiding in silence. SFRA whom supported by writing. Specifically bankers,lawyers,developers and insurance executives. Glad to contribution quest fair housing. Everywhere geographically in Bay Area city. Officials control since voted in housing. Lobby pressure groups seeks to displace those. Not affluent have we lost. San Francisco we know Ellis Act. Cause gentrification share this developer. From Malaysia bought 24 sites in. San Francisco office,condo and hotels. Cash there selling new concepts. Either become rich or face eviction. Landlords taxes not relaxed dirty. Political game understand cause. Of motive of rental gentrification.

    San Francisco not admitting the income. Racial prejudice mention Mission and 3rd Evans. Always police to induce whom? Developers make profits main post office. Torn down whom seeking Lennar. Australian developer following organizations. Represent financial political interest redevelopment. Do they care about Ellis Act. Answer is no 25% make there income. Upon allowing bigotry to continue housing. Finally residents waking up your. Not protected no matter the rental agreement! Now, you awaited the guilty whom. Bought new concepts of profits. Real estate organizations from aboard. FDK,RECAJ,JVBN,APREA,KREBA,FPREA,AMPI,SIPA,ZEN
    NICHI,Thai Apparisal and REHDA. Powerful associations whom allow to
    invest new. Bay area not only San Francisco. Geographically Bay Area Santa Clara county. Never offered low income now property. Owners whom
    once gotten tax credit. For allowing BMR housing suddenly. Decide break the agreement why? Making profits new developments market rate. Follow
    organizations mention prior. Giving cash for developments for immediate.

    Returns yes ratio wealthy no joke. Call Randy Zinn of Paragon friends affluent of NYC. Relying on Randy find them ideal. Location of profits vote
    for equality! Thank you giving us voice. Share truth were going to win! Bye.

  • C

    CummbottomApr 17, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    Yes,another entry upon. Subject neglect from whom? Board of Supervisors when mention resolution. Throwing ball around it’s state law! Was Ellis Act
    increase evictions deliberate. Landlords seeks profits San Francisco. Oppose to low income housing especially. BMR” below market rate always lies. Land is hot commodity yes many. Corporate developer receiving tax breaks. No, mistake getting away from. Assisting need for equality laws changing. You’ll read what is answer taxes. Utilized for low income housing which. San Francisco owns there not. Incline answer up keep of low income properties. Why? Board of Supervisors pro development ignore. Those renters whom dwell for years. Without attempt to purchase houses.

    So bias the statistical response. LGBTQ gotten awakening majority once. Noe Valley,Diamond Heights,Dolores Street and Corona Heights. Fully, aware scandal of taking. Units off the market my rental. 7units been vacant for 5yrs why? Yes, experience with Ellis Act matter. Fact endure 2 evictions property owners. Whom convert TIC receive tax credits. And higher profit for sales. The common logic only problem contradiction. Lack of stable rentals for those. Not high income bracket. Exaggeration upon tech firms yes. Gotten preference since dominate. Majority of commercial lease office space. Laugh Google donating Muni bus. Passes for needy excellent tax. Write off Board of Supervisors could do. Same with housing polices governor Brown. Passed 2013 developers exempt from. Inclusion of BMR units from there developments. Horrible is the defeat of fair housing. No laws can been repealed but win? Fight is among us two important. Developments in San Francisco hidden South Van Ness.

    And Tenderlion finally gotten okay to evict. Those residents form there dwellings. Media everyone immediate metropolitan area. Making abundant salaries all lies! Gentrification harm yes middle class San Francisco. No rental dwelling is exempt. We all face time when landlords. Seek profits since ratio of affluent. Dominate Bay Area realtors and bankers. Own the justice of housing policies. Equality now stop the Ellis Act! Fair housing policies renters!

  • H

    HappyHighwaymanMar 24, 2014 at 10:48 am

    Rental is not ownership

  • A

    Anna NgMar 20, 2014 at 7:27 pm

    Oh, and who is providing you with housing?
    Thank goodness for ‘speculators’ – they create housing, housing activists don’t. Rent Control doesn’t work. You have people paying $300/mth for a 3 bed in North Beach and newcomers paying 6k for the same thing.
    REPEAL RENT CONTROL – then small property owners won’t need to Ellis to get out of the business.

    In any case, most folks who Ellis do so because they are sick of the ever restrictive rules in San francisco. Small property owners who are fed up providing a service that the City and its residents disrespects because of ‘a few’ bad apples.

Activate Search
The Student News Site of San Francisco State University
San Francisco neighborhoods fed up with Ellis Act evictions