Lily's Diary

by Lily

February 20
While walking to a second-hand clothing shop on Sacramento Street this morning, I passed a nail salon and stopped for a moment to view the women having their nails filed and varnished. I wondered when the time would come that I’d be the one sitting there. Not so long as I have rental property, I told myself. My friend Mindy, who has a three-unit building on Douglass, swears by false nails. “I can put my hands in a solution of TSP, and they still don’t come off.” But I see a disconnect here, in being a day laborer (which, with two vacancies, is how I view myself these days) and sporting crimson talons. Beautiful nails are one of those things I am postponing until the day I sell. Trouble is that when I do the numbers, I realize that I can’t get out of the rental business and still live in San Francisco. And that would be a very sad day for me.

February 23
My smart buddy Robert emailed me an article written about a rent-control case taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. The Washington Post reported that when the attorney who represented the plaintiff complained that rent control deprived his client of full compensation from the rental of his property even though there was no proven benefit to the community, Justice Stephen Bryer was quoted as saying, “That has nothing to do with whether they ought to pay compensation.” (And he, a Lowell High School graduate.) The broader feeling of the court was that rent control was the prerogative of the individual states, and the justices were loath to touch it. Even though we know in our bones that rent control, as administered in San Francisco, is an unconstitutional taking, a case like this one will have to be in a court closer to home if we are to ever see justice.

March 12
I recently read that future world struggles will be motivated not by the scarcity of oil but of water. Little did I think it was going to happen so fast! The San Francisco PUC, which raised our water rates 11% last year, will do the same this July with hikes continuing on a five-year schedule. They say pipelines need to be replaced, as do the sewers; and the rate freeze that was in effect for some five years has resulted in deferred maintenance. Anyhow, they seem immovable on the new fees and offer only tips on conservation. That’s easy for them to say. Most small property owners each have a single water meter and a single bill that they pay. Hence there’s no incentive for a tenant to conserve. (As Tony Soprano says, “Them that pays, learns.”) But, in this case, the one who is paying can’t really do much. After we’ve put in the low-flow showerheads and toilets, that’s about all we can do.

March 19
This morning I was having a cafe con leche with Maggie at the Café lo Cubano in Laurel Village, when the subject of the recent Gonzalez amendment came up. “I’m not sure what happens to our leases,” she said. I’d been wondering the same thing. Since the legislation permits a tenant to share a unit with a spouse or domestic partner as well as a laughably wide range of family members, it invalidates any lease that designates a specific number of occupants. “Will there be any regulations on bringing in protected tenants?” she asked. “Has city government now expanded the landlord’s burden from providing below-market housing all the way to, well, nursing care?” I knew how she felt. I’m all for people taking care of their relatives, but not at the expense of a third party, unless that third party is the population at large—the commonweal, as my Jesuit cousin would say. Matt Gonzalez, the former supervisor, told me last year that his legislation was prompted by a roommate who wasn’t able to live in his new wife’s apartment. But instead of dealing with that issue, which could be defended in certain cases, he went too far. Now you have little control over who joins your tenant and, as if that weren’t enough, you’re prohibited from charging extra rent, and you no longer have the right to evict because of lease noncompliance.

March 23
Yes, yes, I know. Lily had her brief moment of fame a few of months ago in the Chronicle. I couldn’t have been more surprised when an attractive young journalist named Carol Lloyd interviewed me for the “Real Estate Section.” She came to my office and asked me all sorts of questions that I answered with my usual long-winded enthusiasm. (She looked drained by the time she left.) When the article came out (12-31-04), it took up an entire page. This delighted me and my pals, most of whose “landlord stories” I’ve related over the years.

March 30
At a neighborhood meeting last night, there was a heated debate on driveway parking. Half those present wanted zero tolerance, while the other half thought the inconvenience to pedestrians was worth getting one more car off the street and that it was, after all, the building-owner’s sidewalk. (Doesn’t the city hold us legally responsible for maintaining it?) The other side would not even accept cars parked in such a way that space would be left for a pedestrian to pass. They insisted that the smaller width would make it difficult for wheel chairs and the elderly; and it would also result in oil on the sidewalk, resulting in the possible danger of slipping. They also claimed that vehicle weight breaks sidewalks, creating uneven walking surfaces. (An engineer vehemently denied the latter as fantasy.) Then there were all the horror stories of those whose lives apparently revolve around the search for parking, which was slightly off-topic but entertaining nevertheless. Most persuasive on the pro-driveway parking was my neighbor Robert’s tenant, who feared mugging when she walked late at night from a far-off parking space. Someone from SFWalk pointed out that one-third of San Franciscans don’t own a car and walk many places, and that most people rely on the sidewalks for their exercise. (Did you know that sidewalks are collectively the city’s largest open space?) This is a problem that will only get worse as the Planning Department, smitten with higher density, is approving new multi-unit buildings without garages.

April 2
Assemblyman Mark Leno is going after the Ellis Act, trying to make it harder for people to go out of the landlord business. If his legislation goes through, you will have to have owned your building five years before being eligible to Ellis it. The idea is that this approach will prevent landlords from selling their buildings to so-called developers who, using Ellis, will immediately empty the building and resell the units as TICs. Even though we small property owners are in the business for the income, selling our buildings to developers is sometimes the only fast way out. Old friends Reba and Frank are elderly landlords with two long-time tenants and three who qualify as protected. When Frank had a stroke, Reba found it hard to accept the fact that, after maintaining a property for decades, their building is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars less, simply because of the restrictions in the Rent Ordinance. They ended up selling it to a developer who paid more for the building simply because he will make a profit. No, I don’t like it. I wish it wasn’t like that. But it wasn’t our idea to escalate the Rent Ordinance to the point where rental units are a public entitlement. So, as this measure progresses through the legislative process, don’t think it doesn’t apply to you.

April 5
I got an email from my realtor friend Ivan who, after reading my Chronicle interview, wrote, “What you said is all well and good for landlords who live in their own buildings, but what about absentee owners who never visit their buildings and let them deteriorate?” Well, he had me. Those landlords are the bane of my existence. And if any of those landlords are reading this, shape up! In our battle of ideas with tenant activists, we have to be responsible and ethical. We can’t act together as property owners to restore balance to the tenant-landlord relationship if we have to carry deadbeat landlords.