Supervisors debate competing OMI reform proposals; committee advances one file and tables the other
Loading...
Summary
Two competing owner‑move‑in (OMI) eviction reform ordinances were debated at length. The committee advanced one file (Item 4) with amendments requiring sworn occupancy statements, reporting and smaller administrative fines and referred it to the full Board; a rival measure (Item 5) containing broader enforcement tools was amended and then tabled after a roll‑call vote.
Two competing ordinances aimed at stemming fraudulent owner‑move‑in (OMI) evictions dominated much of the committee meeting.
Chair Mark Farrell described his item (filed with supervisors Sheehy, Cohen and Breed) as a substitute ordinance that would require landlords seeking to recover possession for an owner or relative move‑in to submit a sworn statement of occupancy, annual reporting for five years and permit the rent of the unit to revert to the previous rent for controlled units. Farrell proposed a $250 administrative penalty for failing to file the statement of occupancy. He also said the bill raises the statute of limitations to five years in some proposals and would allow civil remedies for tenants who are charged excess rent.
Supervisor Aaron Peskin and Supervisor Kim (and cosponsors Ronan, Feuer) advocated for a competing package (filed as Item 5) that included a narrowly tailored private right of action for nonprofit tenant‑protection organizations, invalidation of waiver provisions in buyout agreements when landlords fail to occupy, and steeper administrative penalties. Supporters said stronger enforcement was essential because the district attorney’s office and city attorney lacked capacity to prosecute many fraudulent OMI cases; advocates cited local investigative reporting and intake reviews suggesting a substantial portion of OMIs were fraudulent.
Tenant advocates, housing counselors and nonprofit groups offered lengthy public testimony describing patterns of harassment, unfiled buyout agreements and coordinated OMI filings across buildings; many urged adoption of the Peskin/Kim approach with private‑right‑of‑action and invalidation of buyout waivers. The San Francisco Apartment Association urged caution, warned that overly punitive rules can push owners to use other eviction mechanisms (e.g., Ellis Act) that remove units entirely, and opposed an expansive private right of action.
Committee members worked to reconcile provisions. Several amendments were proposed and accepted: clarifying that “failure” to file (rather than “refusal”) triggers enforcement steps; adding a narrowly circumscribed nonprofit private‑right‑of‑action that gives the City Attorney 30 days to pursue a case first; and standardizing administrative penalty amounts with a first violation lower than subsequent penalties.
At the end of the discussion the committee moved to refer Supervisor Farrell’s file (Item 4) as amended to the Board as a committee report without recommendation and took a separate motion to send Supervisor Peskin and Kim’s file (Item 5) forward as amended without recommendation as well. The committee then voted to table Item 5; the roll call on the motion to table recorded Supervisors Tang and Farrell as "aye" and Supervisor Peskin as "no," and the motion to table passed.
The committee’s actions leave the Board with competing files and a record of substantial public testimony and multiple proposed amendments for further deliberation.
