Gee, $50K Payout Not Enough?

1 Like

Property rights?

they want 5MIL

Some more coverage on the same suit:

“I want to live in my house. It’s my house. I have been there for 22 years. This is my community,” Padilla said.

Miranda said, “I have lived here for 15 years and the last three years here have been hell. I want to remain here, this is my home.”

Ellis eviction should be black and white (well I have never done this myself so it’s just my interpretation). Owner serves notice, promises payment amount based on the Ellis Act, then tenant moves out within the required notification period. Owner shouldn’t need to provide a reason and make it subject to public scrutiny. Now the lawyers try to drag the “owner’s unspeakable intention” into the debate and make a case for the tenants by soliciting public sympathy. These cases should be judged based on laws and facts. Once “public opinion” and “social good” is added into the equation the water is muddied and the case is less clear cut. The tenants are essentially trying to circumvent the law because the law is not on their side.


Wow, ok…

1 Like

There’s the problem. Renters think it’s their house as if they own it and get to decide what happens with it.

1 Like

I’m sure this is just a one-off bad apple. Most other drag queens are law-abiding and reasonable people who will never accuse their landlord of discrimination for no reason :wink:

If politicians are not on your side…

“Rafael Mandelman, the Castro District’s newly elected supervisor, said that Ellis Act evictions are a “continuing problem” throughout his district and The City.

“It’s frustrating, this has been going on for decades and the state legislature has not acted,” he said. “We haven’t come up with effective local tools to end these kinds of speculative eviction.””

Tenderloin Housing Clinic wants the city to buy the property so that Tenderloin Housing Clinic will become the owner and property manager to milk taxpayers for their employee’s benefit.

If this continues, communism will be achieved but there will be only one landlord in SF. If Tenderloin Housing Clinic becomes the only landlord and the only property manager in SF, it could be worse than Cuba

“Land trust idea floated
The tenants’ lawyers, Fox and Michael Zitani with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, are working with gay District 8 Supervisor Rafael Mandelman in hopes of getting the city to buy the property. Zitani said Mandelman has reached out to the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, which has a small sites acquisition fund, as well as the Mission Economic Development Agency.

“These five men and women are dealing with a situation no one should be subjected to, but, unfortunately, is all too common in San Francisco,” Zitani wrote in an email to the B.A.R. “Their landlord is trying to unjustly evict them from their decades-long home out of greed, prejudice toward homosexual and transgender individuals, and willful ignorance of the lasting damage eviction causes.”

Zitani also hopes to work with the San Francisco Community Land Trust, a nonprofit whose mission is to create permanently affordable, resident-controlled housing for low- to moderate-income people in San Francisco through community ownership of the land. ”

Is Tenderloin Housing Clinic already the largest landlord in SF? 22 large buildings, probably a huge slumlord using taxpayer money

Why is it even an eviction? The landlord should have the right to not renew the lease or not offer lease renewal. That’s how contracts work. They are for X amount of time. Once that time period ends the 2 sides either renew/extend or they don’t. No one feels bad when tenants decide to leave and create a vacancy for landlords.

1 Like

SF Examiner is going to be labeled as discriminatory press for calling out the tenants’ sexual orientation.

The goal of rent control is to keep the current tenants remain in their current rentals, regardless of whether/how unfair it is to the landlord or to other tenants who could’ve be living in this rental had there not been rent control. In my view it’s a very selfish goal that unfairly benefits the existing tenants at the expense of everyone else, rather than a noble cause aiming to achieve social good.

Staying at one rental place for too long gives the tenant the false impression that it becomes permanent housing, and tenant loses motivation to strive for actual permanent housing which is to purchase. In reality a tenant should probably move every few years in order to keep reminding him/herself that renting is just a temporary solution. If tenant gets too cozy, it likely will end up becoming a problem down the road.

1 Like

What about property tax rates being grandfathered though? Homeowners are definitely using that to our advantage and might have sold and moved elsewhere if that weren’t the case.

1 Like

Tax policies relating to housing are so convoluted that not sure whether they are favorable to tenants or landlords. Just navigate to your advantage :slight_smile:

1 Like

Think about where rents would go if landlords didn’t have prop 13 to keep costs low.

If we repeal property tax and replace it with consumption tax, this argument would go away

You guys have been landlords for too long that you forgot what it was like to be a tenant. Tenants paid market price at the inception of the lease and should have some sort of assurance that their rent would not immediately skyrocket within the next few years. Although I agree that SF’s rent controlled policies are too lopsided, some form of restriction on how much the landlord can raise rent by is not all bad. Not all landlords are reasonable people.


Prop 13 favors homeowners who live in their homes first and foremost. Landlords also benefit but it’s the primary homeowners who get the most bang for their buck out of it.

San Franciscans don’t believe in the constitution or property rights. They want Cuban laws with American benefits.

1 Like