lily's diary

By Lily

October 10
Scam artists have gotten so clever. Maggie and I were having lunch at California Pizza Kitchen after attending a meeting of the housing committee at San Francisco City Hall, and she told me about a friend in La Jolla named Bea who rented an apartment to a highly qualified doctor. His credit was good and he explained that he had no prior landlord because he had been living in his own home in London for many years. When she received a money order the next day for double the amount of the first month’s rent and security deposit combined, she put any hesitation aside and took it as proof of how much he loved the unit—always flattering for an owner. She deposited the money order and sent him a check for the excess, which was nearly $2,000. A few days later, the bank returned the money order saying it was a fake. She immediately stopped payment on her check, but it had already been cashed. Maggie thinks the scam worked because of the skill of the counterfeiter. Having met Bea, I think it was because she sized him up as husband material and wanted to believe he was the real deal.

October 15
Ah, the times they are a’changin’ in the Haight. This morning’s mail brought a realtor’s notice that 409 Clayton St. is on the market. Once the headquarters of Calvin Welch’s Ecumenical Ministry, the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council and myriad other progressive endeavors, the lovely old Edwardian is being offered as a fixer upper for under a million dollars, easily worth double that if it had been maintained. I remember its living room well: the sagging sofas, dust covered shelves and oversized poster of Che Guevara. Owned by Happening House Ventures, a real-estate consortium involving Dr. David Smith and the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, which also kept offices there, it had been left to rot, literally, for many years. Whoever buys it will be getting a building with excellent bones but questionable karma.

October 20
George in Apartment 2 is a longtime tenant who retired from Bank of America after working there for 40 years. I have watched him over time as his shoulders have stooped and his gait has slowed, much the way he has probably observed me aging. When I look at him I see myself in a few years and realize that, because of rent control, he is assured a home in a well-maintained building for the rest of his life. That is a great blessing for George. For me, it is maybe not so good.

George came to mind today when I was in the plumbing department of Builders’ Exchange and ran into an old friend from the Proposition I battle (the 1994 measure that brought owner-occupied buildings of 2-4 units under rent control). He was there to buy sheet rock, part of a project to repair the ceiling of a unit that had been weakened by an overflowing bathtub in the apartment above. “The worst part is that the tenant has done it twice before,” he said. When I asked why he didn’t evict him, my friend explained that the tenant was in his late 80s, so there were both moral and legal problems. We talked a bit longer and I went away with a feeling of sadness at the strange position rental property owners are in. Since Medicare doesn’t provide the incremental assistance required by old people to continue living safely in their own apartments-—daily bathing, dressing and shopping—these oldsters become the worry of their landlords. But do we ever get any credit for it?

October 25
It’s no secret that San Francisco’s on a building binge, raising density faster than you can say, “Hey, if you’re walking to your car, may I have your parking space?” Cranes and skeletal skyscrapers jut over the cityscape like giant tinker toys. The city’s new General Plan for housing, which supports this edifice complex, was approved three years ago with little worry over the unintended consequences. Rather than just sit back and let it happen, a group of citizens, led by attorney Kathryn Devincenzi, filed a suit against the San Francisco Planning Department saying it should not proceed with its new plan without first getting an environmental impact report (EIR). Their thinking was, what happens when the transit corridors are upzoned and—in the name of “new urbanism” and “transit first”—parking spaces are no longer required of new buildings? What is the cumulative effect on our aging infrastructure when the 40,000 new units in the pipeline are occupied? In a now-rare win for the slow-growth gang, the California Supreme Court last month, by refusing to hear an appeal, ruled that the housing plan approved by the City Planning Commission in 2004 could, in fact, increase traffic and pollution and was invalid because the city had failed to prepare an EIR. But this legal victory, itself, has unintended consequences. Now bureaucrats are struggling to agree on exactly which planning code is currently legal.

October 30
Just before the SFAA meeting was about to start last week—as I was stuffing the last few cookies into my mouth—an elderly woman sitting next to me asked if I knew anything about “Ellising” a building. She was clearly distraught and I asked her why she was contemplating such an extreme measure. She said she had a single-family house in the Excelsior District that she wanted to sell. A realtor had told her that she would get a lot more if she evicted the tenant and fixed it up before putting it on the market. Since—in spite of their exemption from rent control’s annual increase restrictions—single-family homes (and condos) still remain under the city’s just-cause eviction rules, she couldn’t legally evict. Her attorney had advised her that Ellising the building would be the only solution. I said, “Wait a minute. You have the power to raise the rent with a 60-day notice. If you raise it beyond the tenant’s ability to pay, he will move out.” She said she couldn’t do that to the tenant. At that point, a man sitting in the row in front of us, turned around and blurted out, “Just sell it with the sitting tenant and let the buyer do an owner-move-in. Why should you go to the expense and delay involved in an Ellis Act eviction, not to mention its restrictions on the deed?” Even I was impressed. This woman had come to the 6 p.m. lawyers’ question period and had gotten good advice before the panel was even seated. Hey, we’re all in it together here. And even though we respect and appreciate the attorneys who devote so much time to our organization, we have to remember that what is a burden for us, is a living for them.

November 2
I got entangled in it once, but only once. I’m talking about the fate of the security deposit when one roommate moves out and wants her share returned. Don’t do what I did. The co-tenant was a girl I was very fond of and she needed the money to get into her new digs. I gave it to her, leaving myself with only half the security deposit to ensure against any damages the remaining tenant might incur. What a rookie I was! The security deposit should always stay with the unit. It’s up to the tenants to work out its division. You always want to inspect an apartment when one co-tenant moves out, if only to impress upon the remaining tenant that anything not reported becomes her responsibility when she moves out.

When you find damage, ask for the cost of repair immediately. Last year, I had a tenant whose iron bed frame gouged the hardwood floor of her bedroom. The cost of floor refinishing was $500. She ended up giving me a check for the amount, which I banked until the remaining tenant moved out. I would have done the job right then, but the remaining tenant didn’t want the inconvenience of sanding dust, varnish fumes, etc. But, whatever the roommates decide between themselves, get the money for the damages caused by the outgoing tenant and don’t reduce your security deposit.

November 4
I have always supported Mayor Gavin Newsom. But, reading the recent articles by C.W. Nevius in the San Francisco Chronicle, I’m beginning to realize that we San Franciscans don’t get much for what we give. This city, which takes the national prize in the per capita budget and number of city employees, still has overflowing trash receptacles, graffitied news racks and, most importantly, indigent mentally ill living on the streets. Newsom is a courageous man. He has proven that with Care Not Cash and his support of gay marriage. But why can’t he muster the strength to insist on involuntary commitment for those among us who lack the judgment to take care of ourselves? Especially when he was given the opportunity by the State of California in a 2002 measure called Laura’s Law? Because it lowered the threshold for those who could be taken off the street involuntarily, it was a shock to learn last month that the city had not used it as part of its well-publicized “homeless outreach.” The worst part is that the law is going to sunset at the end of this year unless a bill introduced by State Senator Leland Yee is successful in making it permanent. If you care for our city and its mentally ill, you will support AB 2357. As property owners, housing providers and committed San Franciscans, it is our issue as much as any other.

---

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors 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 © 2007 by SF Apartment Magazine. All rights reserved.