So this board of supervisors won’t approve new developments, but they are OK with people living in illegal units. These people are dumb AF.
An illegal unit is illegal by definition. If they can’t get insurance for this tenant, they’re right to be worried.
Yes, but the article says the board doesn’t want owners to evict tenants in illegal units. They are OK with people living in illegal units that might be unsafe.
Right classic SF leaders. Came up on a Market Street building case in which commercial space was illegally converted to live/work lofts. The new buyer figured it was perfectly appropriate to convert them back to their formal true legal form which is commercial. Wrong! Can’t take away these folks apartments even though they are illegal and obviously fire traps etc for all we know…Unbelievable!!! How is an owner supposed to run a business legitimately if he/she is asked to break the law essentially???
Aren’t they the ones to define what is illegal in the first place???
So the real question is this: when someone gets hurt, who gets sued? The landlord can’t buy insurance because the unit is illegal. The landlord did due diligence in attempting to evict. The family has chosen to stay. The BOS said they have to be allowed to stay. Does the BoS pay? Do they pass the lawsuit onto the tax-payers?
Yeah, that is the $64K question as they used to say…One would think it is clear cut, that if it is illegal the owners have every right to correct the situation, unfortunatlely at the expense of the occupants. But, noooooooooooo. Alas, the saga of the SF landlord. It aint milk and honey all the time, ladies and germs…
The owners pay an expense too–they no longer pull in the rent.