Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Issues topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident leaders raise alleged rent-calculation and payment problems at 1880 Pine Street
Summary
A resident council leader told the Housing Authority board that many residents at 1880 Pine Street were receiving back-rent notices with allegedly incorrect calculations and were being required to sign repayment plans tied to current higher rents, which residents say could trigger evictions.
During the public comment period the board heard from tenant leaders about disputed back-rent notices and payment plans at a housing authority-managed building at 1880 Pine Street.
Michael Zorns, identified as president of the Citywide Council Senior Disabled Tenant Association (CCSD) and president of the resident council at 1880 Pine Street, told commissioners that many residents have received back-rent notices with calculations they believe are incorrect. "In my specific example, it's incorrect and the calculations are incorrect," Zorns said, adding that management is requiring residents to sign a payment plan that asks for 10% of current rent rather than basing payments on the amount in dispute. He said the agency's acceptance of only the new, higher rent amounts and refusal of prior rent checks could set residents up to fail and allow eviction proceedings to begin.
Zorns asked the board for assistance in resolving the dispute and described the proposed repayment plan as unaffordable for many residents. He repeated the building address as 1880 Pine Street during remarks so board staff could identify the property.
Board staff acknowledged the comment during the public comment period and closed the item without debate. Commissioners did not take formal action during the meeting on Zorns's complaint; staff follow-up and what process is available to residents regarding disputed calculations were not resolved on the record.
Contact information for staff and formal complaint channels were referenced in meeting instructions: members of the public were directed to submit communications to sfhapubliccomment@sfha. The public-comment script also reminded attendees that comments are not for debate and that commissioners generally do not engage with commenters on non-agendized matters.
The board did not make any findings or direct staff on the record; the comment was recorded for the minutes and for staff follow up.
