(415)552-9060
Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Dear Readers: I want to respond to Steve, who commented on last week’s column, Smoky the Guest You may remember that I specifically avoided advising Princess about how she could take this issue to the landlord. I felt I was responding directly to her reticence to get her neighbor in trouble with the landlord. I also wanted to convey my conviction that it is rarely justifiable for a tenant to campaign for the eviction of another tenant.

Steve asked: This might not be a tenant-vs-tenant issue if: the lease prohibits longterm guests; the lease prohibits subleasing; and/or the lease prohibits smoking. In which case, it would potentially be a landlord-vs-tenant issue, right?

Can a lease in SF legally contain any of the above rules? If so can a landlord enforce them?

The short answer is, I agree, and yes to all of the above. A lease can contain all sorts of prohibitions. Many leases contain clauses prohibiting or limiting long term guests. Almost all leases prohibit or limit subletting. These days more and more leases prohibit smoking in the unit.

There are no laws or rules that regulate actual wording of a lease unless those terms are discriminatory, illegal or void as against public policy. That’s not to say that there aren’t a whole bunch of laws defining what is against public policy. For example, a term limiting or prohibiting a tenant’s right to complain about uninhabitable conditions is unenforceable, as is a term shifting the responsibility to correct those conditions from the landlord to the tenant.

So, yes, a lease in San Francisco can contain all of those terms and none of those categories of terms have been found void as against public policy. (I believe that terms restricting guests or visitors should be void as against public policy because they infringe on the constitutional right of free association, but I don’t think there is much case law on that issue.)

And, yes, the landlord in this case could enforce those terms if they were contained in the neighbor’s lease. But how would the landlord find out about the guest or the illegal sublet or the smoke? Princess or another tenant in the building would have to rat the neighbor out. Then, assuming he followed procedure and could prove his case for breach of the lease, the landlord could evict the neighbor for cause. He could righteously proclaim that he did it for Princess’s benefit, when in fact he did it to get rid of a long-term, rent-controlled tenant and raise the rent to $2,500.00!

As tenants, we have to be very careful about advocating the eviction of other tenants. Clearly, I’m not saying you have to put up with a knife-wielding psychopath who threatens your children. (Often, that’s the landlord anyway, except that he’s a lead-paint-chip wielding sociopath.) But seriously, tenants need to stick together as often as possible.

We need to try to create community in our buildings so that when problems like noisy neighbors or smoky neighbors arise, solutions can be discussed without mutual distrust. Think about it, it is in the landlord’s interest to keep tenants at each others’ throats. When tenants fight among one another they don’t band together politically to, say, make the landlord weatherstrip the front door to keep the smoke out of the hallway or pass laws to require landlords to noiseproof between floors to justify charging the $2,500.00.

Princess did the right thing by refusing to cave into an urge to try to just get rid the problem by getting rid of her neighbor. It’s unfortunate that she didn’t feel like she knew Smoky well enough to invite herself in for a beer and help him rewrite his resume.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Smoky The Guest

Smoky The Guest

Smoky The Guest

Smoky the guest.

I live in a rent controlled, 4 unit building owned by a regular person (not, like, CitiApartments or anything). I’m the newest tenant there, I’ve been here for 6 years, and everyone else has been here 20 or so more. Everyone is really nice, but I’m still the newbie. I like them all a lot!

But! My upstairs neighbor has started dating a guy, in fact, he’s moved in. And I’m both just pettily annoyed by him, and sometimes kind of scared of him.

Here’s the petty stuff: he smokes, constantly. And he’s unemployed, and here all the time (I work from home, so I promise I’m not judging the being at home all day thing, I’m just providing context), smoking. I keep all my windows on their side of the building closed, and the hall is smoky (their front door has a decent sized gap beneath it). And my apartment still smells smoky, as does my clothes, towels, etc.

Ideally, my first step would be to talk to Smoky the guest, I know. But, here’s the other thing, he’s a big, all day long drinker, and he scares me a little. He’s kind of a bully, and gets aggro really easily.

So maybe the solution is to talk to my landlord? But I worry about involving her because I’m concerned that by letting him move in, my neighbor is in violation of her lease, and I don’t want my landlord to use this situation to evict her.

So, here’s my first question: how would you advise me to approach the smoking thing, is there any good way (Maybe you’re just going to tell me to “suck it up, princess,” and I can accept that)? And, second, if I were to pass the buck to my landlord, are there laws that will protect my neighbor and that allow her to have him as a permanent guest? If my choices are to live with the smoke and or to lose my neighbor, I’ll live with the smoke.

Wow, you’ve just covered two of my least favorite issues to discuss!

The first is smoking. Caveat: I still practice that nasty habit, much to my chagrin. It is still legal to smoke in your unit, but not in the common areas of a residential building. I, like many tenants advocates, am wary of any law prohibiting smoking in ones apartment because it will provide a pretext for landlords to evict rent controlled tenants.

The second is tenant versus tenant issues. Conflicts between tenants are common, however, unless a given tenant’s behavior is really bad or violent or illegal (i.e. nuisance), again, I don’t think it’s wise to give a landlord a reason to evict rent controlled tenants.

Alright, with that in mind, let’s see if we can figure this out.

You didn’t mention if your neighbor (the lessee) smokes. Maybe this is exactly what she needs to kick this guy in the ass to quit. Maybe this is her ticket to encourage him to look for a job. Believe me, if he’s sitting around the house all day slugging down a twelve pack and smoking a couple of packs of Raleighs, he ain’t lookin’ for work! In fact, she may just be ready to give this guy the boot. Talk to your neighbor. Tell her your concerns. See if you can come to some sort of compromise.

You may even want to introduce her to some guys with jobs who don’t smoke.

I have found that landlords are usually loath to deal with tenant versus tenant disputes. Often there isn’t much they can do; and in some cases siding with a given tenant could make the landlord legally liable to the other. In your case, it doesn’t look like the landlord could articulate a just cause to evict anyway.

You’ve already said you don’t want to present the landlord with the opportunity to evict a long-term tenant. There is no legal construct for “permanent guest.” Many form leases even restrict the number of days that a guest can stay. The boyfriend is likely a subtenant unless he has another place to live. Besides, they could get married or become registered domestic partners to avoid the taint of illegal subletting. Any rumbling from the landlord might accelerate that decision…and you need to show your neighbor why that would be a bad idea.

If you don’t succeed, you may just have to suck it up, Princess.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Hey, Landlord, Show Me Your Credit Report

Hey, Landlord, Show Me Your Credit Report

Hey, Landlord, Show Me Your Credit Report

I can vividly recall an afternoon in the late 1980s when I was apartment hunting. I went to an open house for a fairly nice one-bedroom in the Inner Richmond, large with a garage, $750 per month (not cheap then). I particularly liked the big working fireplace.  There were a few other people looking at the place, so I was ready. I told the landlord I’d like to fill out an application.

I was just about to dig the wad of C-notes out of my wallet to seal the deal. In those days showing up with enough cash for first, last and deposit usually got you to the head of the line.  I was shocked when the guy asked me for thirty bucks so he could run a credit report. “Are you fucking nuts?” I asked. “Do you actually expect me to pay you to get on your fucking list?” The other folks were getting nervous. When he replied that he did, I walked out and without much trouble found another place, just as nice. Those days are long gone.

Last week, my column, Tenant Troubles in the SF Appeal was entitled, “My Landlord Says He’s Bankrupt, So How Do I Get My Deposit Back?” I couldn’t contain my contempt for the landlord because he seemed to be joyously bankrupt, taunting the tenant, “Neener, neener, neener, you can’t get your security deposit!” It’s the taunt of a greedy landlord, no longer able to play with monopoly money and on his way down from Boardwalk to Mediterranean Avenue.

Since the mortgage meltdown, I hear from more and more tenants who find that their buildings are in foreclosure or close to foreclosure. The landlords are scrambling to squeeze every last dime before the buildings slip from their hands. They continue to collect rent, even after the building is owned by the bank. They refuse to refund security deposits. Even the banks claim (illegally) that they do not have to refund security deposits. Last week I pointed out that a subsequent owner is usually on the hook for security deposits. I have already proposed reforms to current California law to penalize owners who arbitrarily refuse to refund them.

There is another troubling and increasingly common scenariotenants who have recently rented from a landlord only to find that he’s in foreclosure. That got me thinking.

You show me your credit report and I’ll show you mine.

California Civil Code § 1950.6 specifically allows landlords to check tenants’ credit information and references. It also allows them to charge a tenant up to $30 with CPI adjustments from 1998. I think the typical charges are about $35 these days. Of course the rationale for landlords is that they want to be sure that tenants can and will pay the rent.

I never understood the logic because I know that in real life most tenants understand that you pay your rent before you pay the Macy’s bill. However, there are a growing number of landlords who collect rent and don’t use it to pay the mortgage! The law has no provision allowing tenants to find out if the landlord is a deadbeat!

Given the current financial crisis, it’s time to revise Civil Code § 1950.6 to allow tenants to get landlords’ credit reports. The law should require reciprocity. In other words, a landlord should not be able to get a tenant’s credit report unless he provides one for himself.

These days, tenants need to know if the landlord is qualified to rent his overpriced dump to them.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Sorry, CitiApartments, “Routine Inspections” Are Illegal

Sorry, CitiApartments, “Routine Inspections” Are Illegal

Sorry, CitiApartments, “Routine Inspections” Are Illegal

I’ve rented the same apartment from Citi Properties for 6 years. Up until about 6 months ago, they kept the building tidy, had an on-site manager, and did monthly bug inspections. Now they’re trying to sell the building and they have gotten rid of all that stuff. The only thing they do now is “inspect” each unit once a month. Here’s what they post on my door once a month:

Citi Properties, LLC 2099 Market Street S.F., CA 94114 January 22nd, 2010

24 Hour Notice of Entry

(Civil Code Section 1954)

To: all occupants

There will be a building inspection of all units and the common area’s on Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 at 11:00AM. If you have any questions, please contact Jorge Castillo at 415-308-0908.

Thank you for your cooperation.

First, they only did this every year or two, now they’re doing it once a month. Second, what are they inspecting for? And more importantly: do they really have a right to come into my home once a month? It’s always during the day of a weekday, so I can’t be home to see what’s going on. But one time my toilet seat was left up. It didn’t bother me, but it did peak my interest. Whenever I call the number listed I get vague answers and a promise to call back, which doesn’t happen. Any insight would be gladly appreciated.

Good question. What are they inspecting for? First, I hope you understand who you’re dealing with. A Citi by any other name just stinks. These guys ought to know better by now. They probably do but, as we all know, they just don’t give a rat’s ass about the law. The reason they are inspecting your unit is simple–they’re looking for a reason to evict you because, in their eyes, you’ve lived there too long and your rent is too low. They’re looking for your bong!

California Civil Code 1954 states that a landlord can only enter your unit:
(1) In case of emergency.
(2) To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors or to make a tenant requested move-out inspection.
(3) When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.
(4) Pursuant to court order.

Except in the case of an emergency or abandonment, the landlord must give you a 24-hour written notice that includes the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. As you can see, the example notice you provided is defective because it does not in include the purpose of the entry. Routine inspections violate California law.

You should read, The Unnecessary Conflict in Landlord Entries, by J. Wallace Oman, a respected tenant attorney here in San Francisco. In the article he points out that landlords have no inherent right to inspection:

“Under old common-law doctrines, when the parties enter into a rental agreement, the landlord grants a right of “exclusive possession” to the tenant against everyone, including the property owner. The landlord additionally promises the tenant “quiet enjoyment”; the term guarantees that the landlord will not permit or do anything that interferes with the tenant’s peace and quiet in the rental unit.”

He also proposes effective methods to deal with entries during the sale of a building.

For a lighter (more outraged?) take on the subject, check out my blog entry from last year, Even Dracula Had to Have an Invite Before He Could Enter.

You and all of the tenants in the building should write a letter to the management citing the law and letting them know that you’re not going to put up with monthly entries any longer. You should also remind them that California Civil Code 1940.2(a)(4)states that it is unlawful for a landlord to commit a significant and intentional violation of section1954 for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling. And that it provides for civil penalties of up to $2,000.00 per violation.

You and all of the tenants should also contact CitiStop the tenacious tenants’ organizers who helped bring down the Lembi empire.

While you’re at it, point out to the geniuses at Citi…whatever that you don’t need an apostrophe to pluralize a word.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Rents Are Dropping, Can I Renegotiate?

Rents Are Dropping, Can I Renegotiate?

Rents Are Dropping, Can I Renegotiate?

Rents are dropping.

I signed a lease on 3-1-09 for $1425/month, but rents have dropped in my building and area. Same unit on the top floor rented for $1300, I am on the 2nd of 3 floors. How should I negotiate? Write a letter now or wait until lease renewal on 3-1-10, when it goes month to month? I love the building and I am a great tenant. Help!

Rents are dropping. Should tenants rejoice? Hardly. I think that would be akin to celebrating when Capital One lowers your interest rate from 29.9% to 27.9%. Whoopeee! I talk to many tenants who are searching for apartments. Anecdotally, I just don’t perceive that rents are going down that much, more vacancies for sure, but the rents still seem to be sky high.

I do, however, know that some landlords are willing to lower their rents, especially for good tenants.

Technically you are bound by the contracted rate until the lease expires, however you and the landlord can agree to modify the lease at any time. If you live in a rent controlled apartment in San Francisco, I don’t see why there is any reason to wait. The rent will be fixed anyway, with increases according to the allowable annual rate. Beginning March 1, 2010, the allowable increase is 0.1%.

When you begin to negotiate with your landlord you should understand that there may be a time in the future when he will want to increase your rent back up to the contracted rate, i.e. $1,425.00 per month. The Rent Board’s policy, when considering tenant petitions alleging illegal rent increases in these cases, is to inquire if the decrease was based on the tenant’s hardship or a change in the market.

If the Board decides that the landlord decreased the rent because you were having a hard time, in the future they will allow the landlord to increase the rate based on the original contract. If the Board decides that the landlord decreased the rent solely based on the softer market, they will find that he can only increase the rent based on the rate you negotiated.

Landlords who are aware of this policy, even if they want to negotiate a decrease, may want to depict the decrease as one based on hardship. They are usually very reluctant to attribute the decrease to market conditions.

It sounds like you are in a good position to negotiate. The top floor just rented for $1,300.00 per month, so you can justify your request using the pure logic of mathematics. The market has been established at $1,300.00. If you move and the landlord tries to rent your unit for $1,425.00 and it stays vacant for just one month until he gets a tenant, it will take him more than 10 months to amortize the cost of the vacancy. You already know that he can’t rent it for $1,425.00 anyway. The math is powerful.

Assuming you agree on a new price, it will be tougher to get the landlord to acknowledge that the decrease is based on the market. The best way to do this is to write it in the lease modification document. The next best way is to make sure that all of your negotiations are in writing. You can prove at a later date that you never asked for a favor, and that you based your request on the market rate. Everything should be in writing anyway.

Good luck and let us know how it goes.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Happy New Year, For Tenants Nothing’s Changed!

Happy New Year, For Tenants Nothing’s Changed!

Happy New Year, For Tenants Nothing’s Changed!

Ask yourself, how many landlords made New Year’s resolutions that included, “This year I’m going to be more compassionate to my tenants.” Or more practically,  “This year, I’m going to treat my tenants like I would have them treat me—like human beings.”  Unfortunately, 2009 proved for many big-city tenants that the golden rule was promiscuously traded for gold. Why would 2010 be any different?

In my blog post, Tenants, Thugs and CDOs, I summarized several articles outlining the effect of the predatory equity meltdown on tenants. In San Francisco and New York, the abuse and harassment of tenants by Tishman Speyer and CitiApartments are well known. In both cases the companies over-financed huge residential rental portfolios relying on business plans that included increasing rents by ousting rent-controlled tenants. For them and their ilk tenants are nothing more than cattle to be bought, sold and slaughtered.

A week after I posted the article, The New York Times outlined tenant struggles following  the bankruptcy of another megalandlord–British company, Dawnay Day. Just last week there were reports about rats and bedbugs in the Dawnay Day properties; East Palo Alto’s Page Mill Properties’ buildings were beginning to be auctioned after their $50 million default last year; and both Tishman Speyer and BlackRock  missed a scheduled repayment to senior lenders on a bond used to finance debt from the joint purchase of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village apartments.

It’s only going to get worse for commercial property owners. Remember that residential apartment building are also considered to be commercial properties. In 24/7 Wall Street’s, Commercial Real Estate Begins To Mirror Residential Market, Douglas A. McIntyre muses, “Most analysts believe that the commercial real estate loan market is about to reach the place that the residential part of the market was a year ago. ‘Losses from commercial real estate will be quite high by historic standards,’ the former Comptroller of the Currency, Eugene Ludwig, told Bloomberg. Some experts think it will be even worse than that. Many community and regional banks could be ruined by defaults on the commercial mortgages that they hold.”  I also think it’s important to heed the words of Paul Krugman in his column, Disaster and Denial:  “[C]onservatives simply ignore the catastrophe in commercial real estate: in their universe the only bad loans were those made to poor people and members of minority groups, because bad loans to developers of shopping malls and office towers don’t fit the narrative.”

What does this mean for tenants living in buildings owed by predatory mega-landlords? Probably more of the same.

Meanwhile, on the home front, last week Dean Preston of Tenants Together wrote that Judicial Bias Out of Control in SF Superior Court, “I’ve thought long and hard about why San Francisco judges are so hostile to tenants. I’ve concluded that most simply do not believe in tenants’ rights, particularly rent control and its eviction protections, and view their job in housing cases as protecting a landlord’s ‘right’ to do what he or she wants with his/her property.” Does that ring a bell?

I did my stint at the San Francisco Tenants Union this week, and guess what? Yes, allegations of over $3,000.00 of security deposits stolen by landlords. And video-taped illegal entries, showing once again that landlords think they can do whatever they want…

So this year tenants can settle into the New Year with the lucid understanding that we really get what our ancestors were feeling and thinking a thousand years ago. Let’s party like it’s 1010!

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Tenants, Thugs and CDOs

Tenants, Thugs and CDOs

Tenants, Thugs and CDOs

Tenants, Thugs, CDOs

San Francisco Magazine’s “War of Values” is certainly a local tale of unmitigated greed and the criminal enterprise of one family to corner the residential real estate market in San Francisco, buying large rent controlled buildings and ousting long-term tenants by any means possible. When my good friend Danelle Morton began to work on this article more than a year and half ago, the story seemed to be just that.  But as she dug deeper, Danelle’s investigation led her to the shady world of collateralized debt obligations, derivatives and the real villains without whose free-wheeled lending, the Lembis’ crimes against tenants could not have been financed.

“It’s a cascade of connections that’s almost impossible to believe: that the agony of one old lady on Leavenworth Street, who couldn’t get downstairs for three days because her elevator had been shut off, could have anything to do with the annual bonus of a banker in Switzerland. Or that a sudden edict forbidding tenants in a building near Union Square from using the lobby for Friday-night happy hour might be even remotely connected to the same Wall Street financial instruments that have pushed the world economy to the brink.”

Landlord thugs.

It turns out that this just isn’t a San Francisco problem. As Robin Shulman reports in The Washington Post, November 23, “A new wave of foreclosures stands to hurt people who may have never taken out a mortgage: renters. In cities such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, where many investors are carrying upside-down mortgages on large rental buildings, some tenants are watching their homes fall apart along with the financing.”

Or as Amanda Fung writes in Crain’s New York Business, December 7, “Nearly 10%, or 100,000 units, of the city’s affordable housing stock were overleveraged by predatory equity investors, and several of them are heading toward financial default, according to a recent report from a housing advocacy group.” The report, “Predatory Equity: Evolution of a Crisis,” by The Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development,” should be read as a companion piece to Ms. Morton’s article. It’s the same story in New York. Investors “used tenant harassment as a business model to drive out rent-regulated tenants on a wholesale level by evicting and replacing them with market-rate renters.”

Banker thugs.

Credit Suisse was promoting the Lembis’ relocation practices as a savvy business plan while simultaneously misleading their own investors.

A driving force behind the financing in of some of the buildings analyzed in the ANHD Report is Credit Suisse Bank, a major financial backer of subprime lenders according to The Center for Public Integrity in its article, “Who’s Behind the Financial Meltdown?” Ms. Morton uncovered a prospectus prepared by Credit Suisse, dated Winter 2008, to offer the best piece of a collateralized debt obligation to investors. “CitiApartments has a successful track record of relocating units upon acquisition. Since the program’s inception, Lembi has relocated over 2,500 units. In 2007 the Lembis relocated 899 units. In conjunction with an aggressive relocation ramp-up, Borrower recently added a fourth team, bringing the number of employees dedicated to this effort to 18.” Credit Suisse never mentions the lawsuit filed by the San Francisco City Attorney for unfair business practices. Clearly, Credit Suisse was promoting the Lembis’ relocation practices as a savvy business plan while simultaneously misleading their own investors.

David Jones, President and CEO, Community Service Society of New York, in his Huffington Post article, “Predatory Equity,” writes about the Stuyvesant Town mess and tepidly concludes, “The individual real estate firms and banks that set up these deals can’t be allowed to walk away, particularly when even cursory due diligence on many if not most of these deals indicate they weren’t sustainable even in good times. They have to be examined legally, by investors, regulators, and legislators, to make sure that tenants are protected, prosecutions are brought if necessary, and taxpayers aren’t left holding the bag for the excessive greed of speculators.”

If this is a war of values, it is a war that has not yet begun. A cadre of unscrupulous landlords and financial terrorists claiming they’re doing God’s work—those with no values—have declared war. But those charged with the legal and moral responsibility to prosecute and imprison these crooks have capitulated. It is no accident that the financial meltdown has been blamed on homeowners rather than the rich landlords, real estate speculators like Tishman Speyer and Walter Lembi and banks like Chase and Credit Suisse who only borrow from and lend to one another. Then when they can’t sell their toxic shit to unsuspecting investors, they turn to us for a bailout and blame us for their messes.

Bailout is just another name for a get-out-of-jail-free card. The banks and speculators are out on bail alright, released on their own recognizance with a little spending money to continue business as usual. To read that President Obama has to suck up and implore banks to loan money that they get for free from us (taxpayers) back to us is to understand that hope is powerless.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060