(415)552-9060
My Sink Stinks

My Sink Stinks

My Sink Stinks

I live in a very old building (circa 1924) and like many old buildings it has problems. Right now I’m having one where for some reason, my sink is bubbling up water and sludge like a geyser every few hours.

I had a similar problem at a similar vintage building. I called the management company, they had someone on the way within hours, and made sure the problem was fixed (it has to do with the vent system for the pipes.) No problem.

Here, however, the manager on site is taking longer to get this fixed. In the meantime I can’t use my sink to do dishes and the smell is awful. It’s not entirely the manager’s fault – the landlord (who lives far away) does not like to hire good contractors and has to approve big projects (in this case requiring the roofers to unblock the vent they accidentally blocked) thus dragging out what the manager has said is a fairly easy problem to solve.

Question is this: if this keeps up I’ll haven not had the use of my sink or my kitchen for at least a week. Do I have any recourse, financially or otherwise? It seems a bit much when I’m paying over $1000/month for a studio to have to put up with this too.

(and yes, I’ve taken photos, etc. and documented all of this).

Back in Florida, or wherever, your landlord thinks he has done enough. He reroofed the building for christsakes, what else do you want? He’s pissed that he had to spend the money, but he also thinks, “Hey, I’m a hero.” After all, how many landlords ever reroof their buildings? For more on this feel free to read my blog post, “A Cave By Any Other Name.”

This issue is more common than you might think. It happens with new tar and gravel roofs. The vents for the sewer pipes usually rise a couple feet over the roof. Yet somehow, either during the removal of the old roof or the application of the new, tar and gravel gets into the vents and falls to the bottom of the pipe assembly. The drains become clogged in the manner you describe. I don’t understand why this happens. Perhaps one of our roofer readers can help me out.

The stinky sink could become a health issue as well as a breach of the warranty of habitability. You have to get into “making a case” mode. It’s good that you have documentation. You should also begin to communicate your frustration to the manager or owner or both in writing. As I’ve said before, emails will do the trick. Tell the manager that you will be calling a Housing Inspector at the Department of Building Inspection if the problem isn’t solved in a couple of days.

You might consider hiring a plumber to repair the clog and deducting the cost from your rent, but that can get dicey. Civil Code §1942 governs the process, but you must make sure you have ample documentation to prove the landlord unreasonably delayed or refused to repair the problem. The code also provides that you cannot deduct more than one month’s rent. This remedy could come back to bite you because the landlord could try to evict you for nonpayment of rent. You don’t want to be a defendant in an unlawful detainer lawsuit, because, even if you’re right, it will cost an arm and a leg to defend the suit. And I rarely think it’s good idea to try to represent yourself in an eviction.

The better, although slower, approach is to call a Housing Inspector. She will definitely write a Notice of Violation for the problem you describe. Usually that gets the landlord to act because he could be fined by the City if he waits. An NOV also starts the clock for you to consider not paying your rent. Civil Code §1942.4 essentially provides that you can refuse to pay your rent 35 days after the NOV, if the landlord hasn’t done anything to fix the problem.

Join the San Francisco Tenants Union. They can help you evaluate your case and decide upon the best strategy to get the drain unclogged and to recover your damages. Good luck.

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

Can My Landlord Search My Apartment For Pot?

Can My Landlord Search My Apartment For Pot?

Can My Landlord Search My Apartment For Pot?

So, I just got this letter in the mail from the real estate company who owns the apartment building I’ve live in (about 15 units), and it just seems weird to me:

INSPECTION OF PREMISES – for Unsanitary Living Conditions, Hoarding, Alterations, Pets, and growing, cultivation, sale or use in any form of marijuana.

The owners and management company will notify and issue a 24-hour notice to inspect the units and building for Unsanitary Living Conditions, Hoarding, Alterations, Pets, and growing, cultivation, sale or use in any form of marijuana to protect and secure ALL tenants in the building.

IMPORTANT NOTE
Refusal to allow access is just cause ground for eviction Please do not lock the bedrooms, our owners; contractor and insurance representative would like to see the condition of each room.

Your advance cooperation is greatly appreciated by the Owners and [redacted].

Do no hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions or comments.

(All whacky punctuation is theirs.)

So, first, the obvious: Marijuana growing or any kind of use?? Are they going to check all the ashtrays and garbage cans for roaches and seeds? How much are they allowed to search? And ARE they allowed to search for something like a half smoked joint somewhere on the premises? I realize pot is illegal, and that counts as illegal activity, but do I really have to toss my stash? (Just kidding. Of COURSE I don’t have a stash!)

Second, does 24-hour notice have to come in the form of a phone call? Or can they mail a letter that I might not get until the day of or after the inspection and have that count as 24-hour notice? And do I really not have the right to insist on a different day if I prefer?

Lastly, who decides what counts as “hoarding” anyway? Could they evict a tenant for having too many magazines stacked next to the bed because they deem that as hoarding? I mean seriously, WTF? And even if they were to claim something like that as hoarding, can they evict you then and there, or does a tenant have a legal right to rectify the situation and keep their apartment?

From what I understand of the code about landlord entry and from your earlier column, they can only come in the case on an emergency, to make repairs etc. that we’ve agreed upon, or to show the unit to potential buyers or tenants. I guess the real question is, are they allowed come in for the reasons they are listing?

If they aren’t, then they can’t really evict me for refusing, right? And, if they aren’t allowed to come in for this “inspection,” and were to do it anyway, essentially illegally, then how could they use anything they find as a legal means of eviction?

But seriously. Looking for POT? And hoarding? WTF?!

WTF?! I have always said that successful real estate brokers and sales people are proof that the United States is not a meritocracy. Imagine my disdain for those involved in property management–real estate “industry” groupies who will do anything to rub up against the big money. I’m guessing that the recent real estate conference, “It May Not Be As Easy To Steal, But Sure As Shoot You Can Still Lie!” had a seminar called, “Evict ‘Em Now Before It Becomes Legal.”

This notice comes straight from the CitiApartments playbook.You probably heard the story about how their goon squad illegally entered an apartment, videoed a bong and then threatened the tenant with eviction for illegal drug use. An entry based on this notice or a subsequent notice with a date and time would be just as illegal from my reading of California Civil Code §1954. Reread “Sorry, CitiApartments, Routine Inspections Are Illegal.” Remember any such notice must be in writing, no phone calls.

We live in a cynical era where politicians and demagogues advance their own petty agendas by justifying them in the name of security. We all know that the Fourth Amendment, indeed the entire Constitution, has taken a beating for the last 30 years. It’s not surprising that I have seen an uptick in landlord demands for passports and greencards of visitors and relatives or inspections like this. My take on this (and I may be too idealistic) is that one still has to get a warrant to search for marijuana in this manner. The key exception is emergency or “exigent circumstances” when the court will allow a warrantless search. But this applies to the police.

Landlords still can’t deputize themselves, declare an emergency and demand entry. I hope I’m not being naïve. Because we don’t live in Arizona, I find it hard to believe that the police would act on an emergency call from the management company based on any of the allegations above. That’s not to say the landlord won’t make something else up, however, they would not be able to conduct the inspection in the manner they wish if the cops are searching for roaches and seeds. If you find yourself in the unfortunate position of asking a cop to see the warrant, show him the notices and suggest (as delicately as possible) that he has been duped by the landlord, wasting valuable public resources.

Real hoarding and cluttering, not a stack of magazines next to the bed, is often the symptom of a disability–depression, elderly dementia, obsessive/compulsive disorder. In my experience at the Homeless Advocacy Project where I more or less specialized in the issue, you know hoarding and cluttering when you see it or smell it. There is a real nuisance or fire hazard.

I’ve seen three-bedroom apartments stacked to the ceilings with newspapers, magazines, clothes and trash. I had a client who, literally, picked up every cigarette butt and every shiny object or piece of metal he found on the street and took it home to supply and construct his spaceship.

Often landlords learn of the problem because other tenants report cockroach and mice infestations or unrepaired leaks from above. If a person is threatened with eviction for creating a nuisance by hoarding, they can often request a reasonable accommodation for their disability to get the time and resources to clean up the mess. If you know anyone in your building who may be hoarding and vulnerable to eviction, refer them to the San Francisco Mental Health Association or the Homeless Advocacy Project.

Your final question is the most difficult one because it presents the universal tenant conundrum. How can you enforce your rights if the landlord tries to evict you illegally based on this idiotic notice? Lawyers are expensive. While many tenant lawyers, ourselves included, will take an occasional case to make a point, it doesn’t happen that often. That’s why many advocacy groups may suggest that you allow entry so you won’t jeopardize your tenancy.

It’s a shitty deal. It’s the reason to contact your legislators, the courts and anyone else involved in the program to find out how you can voice your issues to help implement the new law in California guaranteeing low income tenants the right to representation at an unlawful detainer. Call Tenants Together and ask how you can get involved.

In the meantime, put down that joint, hide your stash, toss the magazines and inform the management Nazis, in writing, that you feel secure enough in your building and that their pre-notice is illegal pursuant to Civil Code §1954.

If you receive another notice, try to take it to the San Francisco Tenants Union or a tenant lawyer to develop a strategy for your next response.

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

My Building Manager Says I’m Denying Access To My Apt., But I’m Not!

My Building Manager Says I’m Denying Access To My Apt., But I’m Not!

My Building Manager Says I’m Denying Access To My Apt., But I’m Not!

One of the owners of my building, I’ll call him DJ, was also the former manager until Jan 2010 when management was turned over to a professional managing firm, I’ll call Slumco. I have been having problems getting the managing firm Slumco to remedy an outstanding notice of violation issued by SF DBI over eight weeks ago.

Last week, out of the blue, the former manager DJ emailed me and said he wanted to send in a work crew within a day. I had not received any notice of change in management, so I asked him whether he was acting as the manager and if he was still a partial owner.

He did not answer those questions and then accused me of denying access, which I did not. I have been more than accommodating and never denied access. I’ve allowed many people in to evaluate and estimate repairs but nobody has actually done any work.

I emailed the president of Slumco and asked him if DJ was now the acting manger and he replied “DJ is our Attorney”. I had no idea he was a lawyer, let alone the acting lawyer for Slumco. He never disclosed this fact and used his same old email address as when he was the former building manager.

In communication, is he required to inform me which capacity he is acting in? Doesn’t he have to disclose that he is a lawyer? Does he have a conflict of interest?

The first thing I do when a tenant tells me that a landlord is represented by a lawyer who I don’t know either personally or by reputation is look him up. It doesn’t happen often, but every once in awhile I’ll run across someone who thinks that he can intimidate tenants by claiming to be a lawyer. It’s easy to set them straight. On two occasions, I caught unlicensed attorneys filing unlawful detainers. Now that’s a real kick!

Check the State Bar attorney search engine to see if DJ has his JD. Actually, California is one of few states left that does not require one to graduate from a law school to be licensed to practice law. You don’t need a JD (Juris Doctor) if you do a rigorous course of study under a practicing attorney or judge. It’s very possible DJ is a lawyer. Check out how long he’s been in practice and if he has any disciplinary actions filed against him.

I did a quick search in The Rules of Professional Responsibility and a few cases. I can’t see any requirement that DJ has to tell you he is a lawyer. There is very little possible conflict of interest. He has always been in an adversarial position with you. That is, unless he is getting confidential information by seeking to represent you, he has always been a potential enemy. And you know it. Next time you communicate with him (in writing), ask him who he is representing.

I don’t think any of that really matters. The real questions are: How many fricking inspections and estimates does it take to abate the violations? And where is your formal 24-hour written notice to enter? Check out “Sorry, CitiApartments, ‘Routine Inspections’ Are Illegal” for a refresher.

Certainly, the landlord has the right to enter to exhibit to workers for repair estimates and to make the repairs. However, DJ should be aware that he could be violating your covenant of quiet enjoyment. Here’s a legal concept: He could also be in violation of California Civil Code 1940.2(4) which makes it illegal to commit significant and intentional violations of Section 1954 for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate. The statute provides for penalties of up to $2,000.00 for each violation.

You also might want to provide a bit more continuing legal education for DJ and inform him that you’re not paying your rent next month if the repairs are not completed. California Civil Code 1942.4 provides that landlord cannot demand or collect rent if a dwelling has substantial habitability defects that are not your fault, reported by a government official and outstanding for more than 35 days. Check with the San Francisco Tenants Union or a tenant attorney before you withhold the rent.

The threat of a legally sanctioned rent strike is something that all landlords understand, lawyers or not.

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

What Constitutes a “Decrease In Services”?

What Constitutes a “Decrease In Services”?

What Constitutes a “Decrease In Services”?

I have lived in a particular flat in the Mission for about 3 years. It was in horrible shape when I moved in, but my partner and I cleaned it up. The landlord always comments on how great it looks.

The problem is that there are a number of maintenance issues that never seem to get addressed. There are some wiring issues in the front of the flat where the lights don’t work. The roof leaks in several places, as well as the windows. The linoleum in the kitchen is peeling and there is a chronic mold problem in the bathroom (tub needs to be re-grouted).

Also, it doesn’t appear that we have regular trash service as we throw it out on our back stairs and it doesn’t get taken away every week. He also has refused our request for our FREE recycling and composting bins. I’ve written a couple of letters and I pretty much get a flat out “no” (in terms of the lights, flooring, garbage bins) or it takes him months to get anything done (like the roof, which is still a work in progress).

I almost want to call an inspector to force him to make the fixes, however I’m afraid that we will have to move out for an extended period of time and we risk losing the place. Our landlord only owns one rentable property, the rest of the building is his small business.

His main excuse is a lack of funds, which I can sympathize with. However, I would like to know what our options are. As I mentioned, the place was pretty much in worse condition when I moved in so I’m not sure if a “decrease in services” rent reduction is the way to go.

Of course you have a decrease in services! You’re living in a unit with a leaking roof, faulty wiring, persistent mold and no garbage service. You could be describing a trailer in Mississippi as opposed to a flat in San Francisco and your rent should be reduced accordingly.

This may be difficult to fathom, but you could be living in a death trap. I recently spoke to a tenant who described similar living conditions that were a pain in the ass but bearable because the rent was cheap. Bearable until the electrical outlets started sparking and a fire broke out in her young daughter’s bedroom.

Your landlord is a classic Cheese Ball. He’s so cheap he squeaks. He’s not above collecting your overpriced San Francisco rent. He’s happy to take all of the tax write-offs that are available to him and not to you. He’s a shabby little version of an insurance company–he wants to take your money and provide nothing in return. Believe me, the landlords who cry poor, like insurance companies, are some of the richest ones out there because they’ve squirreled away all their dough. In the worst cases these landlords kill tenants.

As I describe in Wet, Cold, and Moldy, my first SF Appeal column, you have already notified the Cheese Ball and now you need to do something about it.

Call a housing inspector from the Department of Building Inspection. Check to see if the building has complaints or violations from the past.

What? No garbage pick-up? You throw the garbage on the back stairs? Are we still living in the 18th century? Landlords are absolutely required to provide garbage service for both residential and business tenants. San Francisco Health Code 291.1, et seq. (and following sections) is clear on this point. Landlords who fail to provide garbage service can be convicted of a misdemeanor.

Will you be forced to move from your apartment because of the repairs? I think it is unlikely because the repairs do not, from your description, seem to be extensive enough to render your unit completely uninhabitable.

You may, however, reconsider moving out when you get sick of the landlord coming over every day to “inspect” rather than doing any work on the place. For this reason I insist that landlords use licensed contractors and that they provide 24-hour written notice pursuant to Civil Code 1954.

When all the violations are in place you should certainly file a petition at the Rent Board to reduce your rent due to substantial decreases housing services or call a competent tenant attorney to considering filing a lawsuit.

Good luck. You’re going to need it.

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

Is My Building’s High Water Bill My Problem?

Is My Building’s High Water Bill My Problem?

Is My Building’s High Water Bill My Problem?

I’m a loyal reader and always figured the day I had trouble with my landlord you were gonna be one of the first people I contact. Last Friday night (11:00 p.m.) my girlfriend got a call from the landlord saying our water bill was out of control, and she was going to stop by to see what was going on, and to have my lady call her in the morning.

7:30 a.m. Saturday morning the doorbell rings, next thing you know she’s knockin’ on our door (we’re in an in-law). She proceeds to leave a memo (with copies of both March/May bills) stating we’re responsible for the increase and have to pay the difference with our upstairs neighbors. She says she doesn’t want to raise our rent, but might have to if we don’t conserve. The bill is crazy, $932, usually it’s about $125 (according to her) it says we used over 90,000 gallons of water in the last billing period. There’s NO WAY we used that much water, and if there’s a leak in the house, I haven’t noticed a thing. Oh, and to add to that, in our lease it states we only pay 25% of PG&E, that’s it.

So I did a little research about my rights (along with the ladies who live above us) and everything I’m finding says she can’t do that. We contacted the Water Dept. and have set up a walk through, but the whole thing just doesn’t seem right. There’s no way she can make us pay for a problem we had nothing to do with right? I mean it sucks it’s a huge bill, but it’s not in the lease and it’s not my problem anyway.

I also believe she violated the lease by entering the house with less than 24 hours notice and that her threat to raise the rent was pretty empty. I believe we qualify for the .1% rent increase. Any information on where I should go from here would be greatly appreciated.

Also, if I happen to be wrong about anything could you let me know where I could find more info to help me out in this situation.

To begin with, an 8 hour phone notice just doesn’t cut it. It’s not only rude, it’s illegal. It’s not a violation of the lease, but a violation of the law–California Civil Code 1954 which requires 24-hour written notice. I wrote about this in “Tenant Troubles: Sorry, CitiApartments, ‘Routine Inspections’ Are Illegal,” February 3, 2010. Of course, the exception to the statute is entry in case of emergency. In this landlord’s self-centered, penurious, pea-brain the water bill may have constituted one. Try calling her at 11:00 p.m. some night and cheerfully announce, “We’re coming over for breakfast. We’re hungry!” See how that plays.

Sure the water bill is a problem…the landlord’s problem, unless she can prove that you or the tenants upstairs did something to cause the spike in usage. We had a case in which the landlord accused our clients of running all the faucets after they vacated, creating an enormous bill for 200,000 gallons of water. The landlords could not provide any evidence. They were guessing and they lost. The same is probably true here.

You did the right thing in calling the Water Department (Public Utilities commission) It will be interesting to see what the PUC technician has to say. Leaks can be caused by cracks in the pipes anywhere on the property or any number of other things. Leaky toilets are often the culprits. If you notice a leaking or running toilet you should report it to the landlord. But it’s still the landlord’s responsibility to fix it.

Unless the landlord can prove the tenants caused the leak, she’s SOL. She can’t raise the rent in any scenario. Assuming you live in a rent-controlled apartment, excess water usage is not a justification to raise the rent beyond the .1% allowable increase for 2010. From what you’re telling me, your lease seems to indicate that the landlord is obligated to pay the water bill anyway.

This is a subject for another column, but from the facts as you state them, I think you’re living in an illegal in-law unit. You should go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to check that out. Don’t call any housing inspectors until you do.

Why don’t you send me your landlord’s phone number? I’m hungry!

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(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

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