Lily’s Diary

by Lily

May 15
Received a note from Laura in #6 on cute paper with rabbits and raccoons racing around the border. She explained that she had been in the unit three years and was entitled by law to have her unit repainted. Boy, that stopped me cold. Where did she come up with that? I called the Rent Board and they said that there is no such rule. As a landlord, I am obliged to maintain a habitable apartment and, of course, I want the units to be well maintained, but there is no hard and fast rul e regarding when precisely I have to paint. Still, she’s a nice girl and, in this market, I didn’t want her to leave. I asked her if I could look at the walls with her and see how bad they were. (Who says Zoloft doesn’t make a difference?) Anyhow, as she pointed out this and that, I could see that her issue was not about the poor condition of the paint but about an entitlement she would be foolish not to claim. I told her that I would come up and clean the spots with a special cleaner I had (warm water, 3-M pad and a terry towel) and we would talk about painting next year. She was satisfied.

May 22
Jackie is an old friend who lives in Millbrae. Her mother recently died and left her a rather large home in Midtown Terrace with a young man, named Brian renting an extra room. When the old lady died, he quickly brought in roommates. Jackie—against my advice—took the path of least resistance and just let the guy and his friends stay, grateful for the $3,000 she could get in rent. After all, Jackie was dealing with her grief. The predictable happened. The roommates multiplied, Brian developed anger issues, two of the roommates lost their jobs and, one by one, they left Brian alone to pay the rent, which he couldn’t do of course. Because he had known and lived with the deceased, he felt he should be treated as a special case. Eventually, he realized that he really couldn’t pay the rent and gave notice. Jackie was greatly relieved. On the day after he was to leave, she arrived with a cleaning crew and discovered—you guessed it—Brian is still there. His anger issues flared up. He agreed to leave that day but claimed his deposit must be returned within 24 hours. She called her attorney right in front of him and was informed she had 21 days. He made a few wild threats, boxed up his things and as the sun lowered over the Farallones, finally left. What do I think? Only someone clueless from the Peninsula could have such good luck.

June 2
The older guy in #4 finally moved out. As I inspected the apartment, I had to ask myself just what comprises normal wear and tear? Nail holes are expected, paint worn off from scrubbing woodwork is understandable, and spots on wall-to-wall carpeting are normal. What about an ink stain right in the middle of the living room carpet? I will have to replace the carpeting for the whole room, so can the tenant be charged for the entire job? If this had not happened, the carpet wouldn’t have to be replaced for at least four years. Well, I got an estimate and told the tenant I would subtract it from his security deposit. He balked and now he wants us to go into arbitration at the Community Boards. Gulp. Maybe it’s fear, but I’m having second thoughts. Perhaps I should walk into the meeting prepared to split the cost, if pressured. Trouble is, I always liked the guy and I honestly don’t know what’s fair in this case.

June 7
Had lunch at Zazie’s with Robert, who’s always a fountain of gossip. A friend of ours, who shall remain nameless, owns and lives in a nearby apartment building. Recently, she moved her daughter into the building, performing a “relative move-in” eviction. Still legal in San Francisco, the law requires the relative to be a child or parent who must reside there for three years. However, in this case, once the tenants were gone, Ms. Nameless decides that her daughter would be much more comfortable in another apartment inhabited by—need I say—long-term tenants. They quickly read the writing on the wall and enter Terence Hallinan’s office. Charges are pressed and Ms. Nameless is fast becoming a poster child on the Tenants Union Web site. And why does she take this moral detour in the first place? Because, she tells Robert, she has wrongful eviction insurance! Alas, Robert had to be the one to tell her that you cannot insure yourself against a criminal act. Once she is found at fault in a criminal action, all bets are off. So, yes, it is wise to get this coverage, but not if you plan to break the law. The insurance is to protect you if you get yourself in a situation you didn’t intend. Admit it, people like M.N. are indispensable to the tenants rights movement.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the SFAA or the SF Apartment Magazine.A longtime rental property owner who reserves the right to remain anonymous on the grounds that her tenants might gang up on her writes “Lily’s Diary.” © Copyright 2002.