sb79 has no protection for a huge number of long term rent controlled tenants who will be forced out of SF if their buildings are targeted wiener knows this
Replies
That's not true at all. SB 79 does not allow the demolition of rent controlled buildings with more than two units, and tenants get the same relocation benefits and potential right-to-return as they get with any other development (yes, there are flaws in those rights, which I am trying to fix)
aug 28, 2025, 4:33 am • 9 0 • view
See, you're lyning. "More than two units" <-- at least you were honest about hat. What comprises a HUGE number of rent-controlled units in SF (which must be older homes)? Two-family Victorians snugged right up to transit lines. Who lives in them? Long-time rent-controlled tenants. 1/2
aug 28, 2025, 4:36 am • 1 0 • view
we know from LONG experience that "renoviction" is very effective at kicking people out of SF. Fewer than 50%, maybe 1/3 at most, can use "right to return" because they can't survive in SF for 1-3 years at market rate during reno. Also the replacement will be smaller (only requires same # bedrooms)
aug 28, 2025, 4:38 am • 0 0 • view
IDK the details in SF, but in LA, tenants get MUCH higher relocation assistance payments for new construction (Chart B) than for renovations (Chart A). I think $84k - $112k should be enough to cover rent for 1-3 years?
aug 28, 2025, 4:51 am • 2 0 • view
Those large sums are for low income people. What are the cutoffs? Middle class won't get that. Rent Assume$2500/mo = $30K/or or more to market rate. $20K one-time won't help. AND the "temp" place will want 12mo leases. When "return" time comes w/ 2 mos to move or lose, they have to break a lease.
aug 28, 2025, 4:58 am • 0 0 • view
The cutoff for low income for a one person household in Los Angeles is $84,850
aug 28, 2025, 5:03 am • 1 0 • view
Wait. i'm confused. so the first chart you posted isn't relo sums but income cutoffs? the 2nd is the amount received?
aug 28, 2025, 5:07 am • 0 0 • view
No, for some reason the payment for a low-income household is equal to the cut-off income for a low-income household I guess?
aug 28, 2025, 5:09 am • 1 0 • view
There's still a CLIFF at $84K that hurts all 2-income households=MANY middle class tenants. SF is ground zero for rent-controlled LT tenants w/ afaik comp nowhere near those levels. We've watched devs/LLs exhaust tenants by slow-rolling projects. LT tenants in 2-families are at huge risk.
aug 28, 2025, 5:17 am • 0 0 • view
TBQH I am sure Scott knows his "vision" doesn't "pencil" w/o destroying 2-family rent-controlled housing in SF. And as I said, the new units the survivors return to "at the old rent + 5%(?)" will be smaller than what they left. eg 1100sf 2br --> 850sf 2br. "a home" is differentiable, not commodity
aug 28, 2025, 5:20 am • 0 0 • view
Breaking a lease means ON THE HOOK for all remaining months if they can't re-rent the unit. We know from experience that when tenants are "temporarily" evicted for reno, most leave the city forever. SB79 its written to target exactly these tenancies as they are DEFINED as "underutilized"
aug 28, 2025, 4:59 am • 0 0 • view
btw am i for more housing? fuck yes. but Scott knows EXACTLY what he was doing when he set up 2-family homes AND housing above retail to have no protection. Those are the targets of SB79. It's easy to see once you exclude all the "protected" homes.
aug 28, 2025, 4:41 am • 0 0 • view