Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors continue debate on owner‑move‑in eviction reforms after hours of public testimony
Summary
The committee continued consideration of competing ordinances aimed at curbing fraudulent owner‑move‑in evictions and accepted a package of amendments to be refined and heard together on June 26. Tenant advocates urged stronger enforcement (private right of action, tracking, penalties); many small property owners warned against criminalization and disproportionate burdens.
An extended public hearing and robust public comment session on owner‑move‑in (OMI) eviction reform dominated the committee, prompting supervisors to accept a set of amendments and continue the item for further work.
Chair Mark Farrell introduced his ordinance requiring landlords who pursue possession for an owner or relative move‑in to file, under penalty of perjury, a statement that the unit will be the landlord’s principal residence for at least 36 months. Supervisor Aaron Peskin introduced substitute legislation that proponents and many tenant advocates characterize as stronger, adding tools such as annual occupancy tracking, a nonprofit private right of action and additional enforcement mechanisms.
More than two dozen members of the public testified. Tenant advocates and legal aid attorneys described repeated, documented instances of fraudulent OMIs and urged the Board to include a private right of action, annual occupancy verification and stronger penalties to deter fraud. Fernando Marti of the Council of Community Housing Organizations told the committee that a planning department report counted 2,300 owner‑move‑in evictions over the last 10 years and said the city needed "a piece of legislation that truly addresses those who are taking advantage of the system." Scott Weaver, a tenant attorney, cautioned about legal infirmities in presumptions of bad faith and cited Fisher v. City of Berkeley as a case to consider.
Small property owners and property‑owner associations urged caution, saying Peskin’s substitute would unduly burden mom‑and‑pop owners and create criminal exposure; several speakers worried about reporting requirements and potential penalties for inadvertent omissions.
Chair Farrell said he would introduce amendments that incorporate some of Supervisor Peskin’s ideas while making other changes: converting a rebuttable presumption into an "evidence of bad faith" standard, extending the statement‑of‑occupancy requirement to five years, requiring quarterly statements while the owner has not taken possession, having the rent board notify the district attorney and listing noncompliant owners, clarifying statute‑of‑limitations language, and moving the ordinance start date to Jan. 1, 2018 to allow implementation time. Supervisor Peskin moved to continue the item, and the committee agreed without objection to carry the consolidated and amended proposals to the June 26 meeting for further debate.
