Lily�s Diary

San Francisco Should Learn from Chicago

by Lily

October 20
Don’t get me wrong—I have a real fondness for Cole Hardware. They carry a little of everything, the staff is accommodating and they’re mindful of their civic duty. That’s why I was so surprised when I called one of the service people on their contact list and got a man I’ll call “the society electrician.” This guy warned me on the phone that he wouldn’t be the cheapest, that I had to pay him $60 for an estimate and that he was very busy. In spite of that, he could rearrange his schedule and come out the next day. I hadn’t heard of paying for an electrician’s estimate, but he said he would deduct it if I hired him and I could see his point. When I answered the door, there he was: immaculate, with whitened teeth and hair a little too perfectly in place. He analyzed the job, emphasizing its difficulty and making little snuffing noises of incredulity. His two-page estimate arrived as an email attachment that evening. It included things like travel time to location (I’m in the center of the city), cleanup time, traveling home time, time spent with inspectors, every possible move an electrician could make was enumerated. As I read, I felt the tab running up and my heart beating faster. He was right about one thing: he wasn’t the cheapest. In fact, he was twice as high as the electrician I ended up choosing. My only regret is that I didn’t get the name of his cologne.

October 26
Maggie and I packed bag lunches and went to a noon lecture at the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association the other day. A group from the San Francisco Planning Department had recently taken a trip to Chicago to see how things were done there. We saw slides of one innovative new building after another, which led to the most pressing question, “How did they get them built?” Turns out that in Chicago you don’t have to wait six months to get a planner to review your blueprints, as we do here. They’re not afraid of density either. They seem to actually welcome new buildings, even (gasp) market-rate housing. The city encourages the construction of “demo” buildings that push the design envelope. As a result, the city offers as many as 70 architectural tours per day. Inclusionary housing (a mandatory percentage of low-income units) is determined ward by ward at the discretion of the alderman. There is so much housing stock that small condos in the middle of town go for as little as $150,000 and there are great choices to boot. Our mayor has adopted some of his “best practices” from tours of the Windy City. I only wish it would extend to city planning.

November 5
I received a press release from City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office trumpeting his success in a lawsuit against the owners of a Tenderloin building who had let it go to rack and ruin. The violations looked like the list a set decorator might make for a horror movie. How can an owner let things get so bad, I wondered? Then I read further down. Seems there had been earlier complaints about tenants finding hypodermic needles in the hallway and unknown visitors coming and going at all hours, suggesting there were drug users in residence. Not to defend these negligent building owners, but I have heard enough of my landlord pals complain that unless they can get a tenant to testify against another tenant (with the resulting risk of retaliation), or have a cop actually catch someone in the act of selling an illegal drug, they’re powerless to do anything. Now there’s a situation that would tempt me to “Ellis” my building.

November 17
Whoever owns the large building across from me is driving me crazy. Every time there’s a vacancy—and that’s practically every month—the tenants leave all their unwanted belongings on the street. Since it’s the Haight, I’m sure they feel it’s an act of benevolence. To the rest of us, it’s an eyesore and an unwanted obligation to call the San Francisco Department of Public Works to cart it away, which is just what I do every month like a well-trained dog. Why doesn’t the management see the pattern and warn each vacating tenant not to do it? I have yet to go down to San Francisco City Hall to find out who the owner is. I am weak. I just wait for the end of the month to come and dutifully make my call.

November 23
My old school chum Robert, who owns a three-flat building in the Excelsior, received a 30-day notice from a long-term tenant. We went out to celebrate with a martini at Aub Zam Zam. You know the feeling. Except for his own unit, the building was now empty and he could go full-throttle on his renovations. Thanks to Supervisor Bevan Dufty’s legislation last year, his lottery seniority gives him a pretty solid chance of being selected next February. He’s aching to sell the units and get out of the landlording business forever. “Let’s toast to that,” he said, and we ordered another round. The next week his attorney broke the news that he would have to have a sitting tenant in one of his units if he wanted to go ahead with the conversion. “You must be kidding,” he replied. “This is the perfect scenario: I’m going to condo my units and I won’t be evicting anybody. What could be better?” The lawyer explained that he had to have 40% of the residents sign a statement attesting to the fact that they would be interested in purchasing their apartment. He, occupying one of the three units, could only represent 30%. “But there are no tenants but me and the city already knows I want to sell. I’ve been in the lottery for nine years,” he said. He was told that it didn’t matter—he must follow the letter of the law. Under San Francisco’s loony land-use policy, conversions are only permitted on the condition that it provides a tenant the opportunity to own his or her own home. Great. Now Robert must advertise one unit and try to get tenants, wait six months, persuade them to sign a meaningless document, knowing that the unit will be shown to prospective buyers and they will have to move out. There may even be under-the-table money involved, which I certainly won’t discuss here. He is inconsolable.

December 2
Jon and Richard, tenants in apartment two, gave me a 30-day notice of their move-out, which was to be the last day of October. Since there had been a bright-blue epoxy-painted bathtub (not my fault) in the unit when they moved in six years before, I had been marking time until I had the opportunity to replace it. The carpenter advised installing new tile around the tub enclosure while we were at it and, figuring it was a good investment, I agreed. I picked out a new tub at Home Depot; found some narrow white tile in Berkeley that could pass for “Victorian” (well, sort of) and the work was to start on November 2. The only trouble was, Jon and Richard didn’t leave. November 4 came and went, as did November 5 and 6. Each day I would inquire as to when they were leaving and they would promise me “tomorrow or the next day.” In the meantime, I had to cancel the carpenter, who promptly took another job. Both tenants assured me, of course, that they would pay for the extra days they’re staying on, but that’s not the point. All my plans have been put on hold and the time extension will put me into a second month’s rental cycle. I called my attorney to ask if I could force them to leave and he told me I had no legal rights other than what I could negotiate myself. It’s just another case where tenants hold all the cards. As always, I try not to be bitter.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of SFAA or SF Apartment Magazine. “Lily’s Diary” is written by a longtime rental property owner who reserves the right to remain anonymous on the grounds that her tenants might gang up on her. Comments, corrections or ideas are welcome at lilysdiary@aol.com. Copyright © 2006 by SF Apartment Magazine. All rights reserved.