Sponsored link
Monday, September 27, 2021

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsPerspectives: How is San Francisco dealing with owner-move-in evictions?

Perspectives: How is San Francisco dealing with owner-move-in evictions?

The legislation will come to the Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday.

Perspectives: This post is part of an ongoing feature column to bring some broader perspectives. This post is a collaboration with the Bay City Beacon.

Competing legislation introduced by Supervisor Mark Farrell and by Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Jane Kim would change renters’ legal options for contesting an owner move-in eviction (OMI). They differ on several key points, and will be discussed by the full Board of Supervisors today.

Under California law, a property owner can evict tenants if they or their family members plan to live there. However, the property must be off the rental market for three years. If the landlord doesn’t move in – or moves in and then moves out — the evicted tenant has the right to return at the same rent.

One bill, sponsored by Supervisor Mark Farrell, would require property owners that carry out “owner move-in evictions” (OMI) to sign a declaration under oath that they intend to follow city’s existing eviction laws, and was passed without amendments yesterday by the Land Use and Transportation Committee. Some tenant advocates say it does not go far enough when it comes to enforcement.

Sups. Aaron Peskin and Jane Kim introduced their own bill that would extend the right-of-return restrictions from three to five years and allow nonprofit housing groups to sue landlords if the city fails to enforce the law. They also want to crack down on landlords who demand that tenants sign away their rights in exchange for “buyouts” that are never filed with the city. Some local property owners say the bill is too harsh on small landlords who depend on the income from their rental units.

The laws around OMI are hard to implement. Reports of fraud go uninvestigated, and OMI fraud cases are hard for the DA or wronged tenant to win, because the standard of proof is very high.

According to an investigation conducted by NBC Bay Area, more than 8,000 people have been evicted from their homes in San Francisco, with owner move-in evictions increasing by 200% in the past five years. Many of those evictions appeared to be fraudulent – the landlord never moved in.

Data from the Tenants Union shows that nearly half the landlords who filed OMI evictions failed to file the property paperwork with the city.

Farrell’s office is proposing that landlords provide additional annual “proof of tenancy” documents showing that they or a family member is living in the residence for the three-year period.

During the hearing, the committee heard from a long line of tenants who told horror stories about landlords fraudulently using OMIs to get rid of them. Families are facing displacement; longtime renters who refused to put up with mold and lack of habitability are getting OMIs in return.

But the committee moved forward only Farrell’s version, without key amendments. Those will come up at the full board on Tuesday, June 27.

In an effort to get some broader perspectives, 48hills and the Bay City Beacon are reaching out to people with whom we don’t always agree – in this case, Sonja Trauss, co-director of the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA), and founder of the SF Bay Area Renters Federation. Tim Redmond, editor of 48hills, also weighs in.

Sonja Trauss:

Currently, the Rent Board takes a random sample of OMIs filed each month and sends them to the District Attorney’s office. The DA is supposed to check in on whether the building owner or designated relative actually moved in and lives there, and if not, file charges. It’s already a misdemeanor to do a fraudulent OMI.

The DA never does these investigations though, because to win a case the DA would have to prove that the owner never intended to move in. It’s lawful for a landlord to change their mind for some reasonable sounding reason after the OMI and move out, or never move in in the first place. 

 The wronged tenant also has the standing to enforce the OMI rules, through a civil suit. This rarely occurs because, in addition to the difficulty the DA faces in proving the landlord’s secret interior plans, it’s hard for tenants to investigate who lives in their old apartment. 

 Supervisor Farrell’s legislation makes the penalty for fraudulent OMIing more severe. Supervisor Peskin’s legislation expands the universe of parties eligible to enforce the law to include non-profits like the Tenants Union. Neither proposal makes OMI cases easier to win or violations easier to catch.

 Peskin’s legislation is an improvement over the status quo. Local tenant non-profits are slightly more likely to be able to detect a fraudulent OMI and are much better able to pursue a remedy when they do discover one. But local tenant non-profits are as overwhelmed as the DA’s office is with their own bread and butter issues – defending ordinary evictions and educating tenants on their rights.

 The real solution for fraudulent OMI evictions is to outlaw this method of eviction altogether, which is perfectly doable at the state level. A complete repeal of Costa-Hawkins was proposed this session by Assemblyman Bloom. Tenant advocates inexplicably ignored it, and it died.  

Ordinarily – throughout the US – once a tenant has a lease, if the landlord wants the tenant to leave, the landlord, or new owner, has to negotiate a buyout with the tenant. The tenant’s bargaining position is as strong as the length of their lease.

Because a rent controlled tenant in SF has the equivalent of a permanent lease, if OMI evictions were outlawed completely tenants would be in very enviable bargaining positions with respect to their landlords, new or old.

Tim Redmond:

If we banned all OMI evictions, it would absolutely bring property values down — only people who wanted to be landlords would buy occupied rental property. That would be a good thing (and I say this as a property owner). And we would prevent a lot of tenants from losing their homes. I am all in favor of taking housing out of the private sector entirely, and that would be a step.

I fear it won’t fly under state and federal law (generally, in capitalist America, if you buy a place you have the right to live there). But what the Supervisors can do is eliminate a lot of the fraudulent OMI evictions – the cases that we heard about over and over at the Land Use Committee today, where landlords toss out long-term tenants and then never actually move in.

The key elements to making the law work are not yet in the final language that the Land Use Committee passed yesterday. The City Attorney’s Office will never have the bandwidth to go after every bogus OMI, which is why advocates want tenant groups to have the right to sue when they find an illegal eviction.

The current bill, which will face some amendments today, also allows landlords to demand that tenants sign a document giving up their right to sue in exchange for a cash buyout. Tenants who are convinced that they will be forced to leave anyway often take those deals out of desperation – but if it turns out the landlord cheated and never moved in, they have no recourse.

The Committee today failed to include language that would say a landlord who violates the law (by not filing a notice of the buyout with the Rent Board, so the city can track it and also make sure there is no illegal condo conversion) would be unable to enforce the no-sue provisions.

The problem with a lot of what comes out of City Hall these days is that it sounds good – but has no teeth. Without strong enforcement provisions, the landlords will continue to cheat the system.

This piece was updated at 10:45 pm



Sana Saleem
Sana Saleem is a writer with a focus on social justice and human stories. She's member board of advisory for the Courage Foundation, Edward Snowden's legal defense fund.
Sponsored link


  1. And by “literally”, I mean I’d like to see guys and gals like him (including Calvin, Randy Shaw, Peskin, Campos, etc) transfer their homes to the ‘public good’ or a ‘public agency’ or even something like the Land Trust.

    They can call for increasing regs & rules on private LLs – to the point of confiscation. But if they aren’t willing to let go of their own *private property*, then its nothing but stealing.

  2. “competent and hardworking” … not from my experience; although there are some. And its not even about the workers – its the ‘culture’ of that workplace, which is about ‘job-creation’ over ‘profit’ or ‘service’.

    And yes, some (plenty) of small LLs aren’t that good. But I’d take them over the Housing Authority or most corp LLs. (Maybe cuz i prefer to live in smaller properties that feel more ‘homey’ than large complexes.

    Speaking of which, most MIL bases are, yes, socialistic. Its an incredible irony that the MIL is used to prop up Capitalism over Communism (and now, Crony Capitalism). In many ways, MIL life is a good example of socialism – for good and bad. Health care? Schooling? Child care? Order? Amenities? But don’t forget that most people living on MIL bases only do so for short periods of time (2 yrs). If everyone in SF had to rotate or move out every 2 yrs, we’d see a lot of nonsense dissipate quickly, imho.

  3. It means everywhere land ownership would be like it is currently on military bases. No one would own their homes, rather we would all rent, and there would only be one landlord: the government.

    You might be saying, “That doesn’t make sense, the government isn’t one thing, the government is a network of organizations.” That’s a good point. The Presidio Trust is a fully self funded department of the Federal Government, the MTA and the School District are organs of the SF City Government, the Public Utilities Commission and the Port Authority are departments of the state government, and each of those government entities own land and are landlords to residents, small businesses, people who rent space to park their cars or office workers.

    So even if all land was owned by “the government,” there could still be quite a lot of diversity in landlords. The advantage of all land being owned publicly is that the revenues over and above the operating costs of the property – whether it’s apartments, a mall, an office building, single family homes or whatever, go to the operating budget of the government agency you are renting from.

    Two real life examples we have in San Francisco currently are the parking garages owned and operated by the MTA and the Presidio Trust housing. The revenue from the MTA garages goes into the MTA operating fund and helps pay for Muni.

    The houses on the Presidio are rented at market rate to whoever applies: http://www.presidio.gov/presidio-residences-leasing-internal/ The Presidio Trust is part of the Federal government and is the landlord for those houses. The revenue from those rental properties goes into the operating budget of the Presidio and helps pay for the upkeep of the park.

    So as a practical matter it’s not at all far fetched that we could have much more publicly owned and operated land than we have now.

    As a political matter it is unlikely because the people who _say_ they want it are people like Tim – full of slogans but short on … doing anything. I mean, he managed to cast the fact that the Progressives left work early on Friday to party while the Moderates finished working on the budget as somehow a reason to criticize the Moderates: https://48hills.org/2017/06/23/mayors-allies-push-divisive-budget-plan/

    I can see why people wouldn’t want Progressive Supervisors as landlords, but not all government workers are like that. Most of them are competent and hardworking. And we all know there are plenty of private landlords are not very good at their jobs.

  4. It makes no sense at all. He might as well be saying that he hopes to be heavyweight champion of the world.

  5. “Ordinarily – throughout the US – once a tenant has a lease, if the landlord wants the tenant to leave, the landlord, or new owner, has to negotiate a buyout with the tenant. The tenant’s bargaining position is as strong as the length of their lease.

    Because a rent controlled tenant in SF has the equivalent of a permanent lease,”

    Yeah, well, leases typically come to an end. And any continuation is negotiated by BOTH parties. But, not in San Francisco. Where the lease is only one way – lifetime for the tenant yet terminated at any time; lifetime also for the LL, but never terminated, and paid with cheaper and cheaper dollars every year.

    If Tim were really committed – or even interested – in “taking housing out of the private sector”, he should start at home. Literally.

  6. “I am all in favor of taking housing out of the private sector entirely, and that would be a step.” Can Tim elaborate on this point? How does one take housing out of the private sector? What does that mean, exactly? Curious.

  7. The data in this article distorts the facts. The number OMI evictions last year, 400, was insignificant in the larger picture. And the 200% increase in 5 years is misleading. Go back a few years from that and the percent decrease was a large or larger. It was 422 evictions in 2003 and 1,400 in 1998. If half the landlords failed to file proper OMI paperwork I guess that mean 600 OMI evictions?

    Small mom and pop landlords can’t compete with the increasing tenant protections and are being taken over by hardhearted professionals. If you block this path to evictions, professional landlord will find another path. Rent control in an increasing market provides a large incentive to get rid of long-term tenants.

  8. Yes but it would be even more helpful if representatives from both sides were included. In this case, someone outlining the perspective of a small landlord.

    These aren’t big corporations that we’re talking about. The landlord has to personally live in the building if his/her relative moves in. There is only one OMI allowed per building (at a time).

    If you read what Sonja Trauss wrote you get the impression that the net effective difference between Farrell and Peskin, on a total universe that is measured in hundreds, is so minuscule as to be undetectable.

  9. Wow, very interesting format. I’d love to see more of these on hot button issues.

  10. According to an investigation conducted by NBC Bay Area, more than 8,000 people have been evicted from their homes in San Francisco, with owner move-in evictions increasing by 200% in the past five years.

    Whoa. Lets be clear here. A casual (but rational reader) would get the impression that the 8,000 figure relates in some way to the OMI evictions that are the subject of this article. Those evictions have increased significantly but there were a total of 397 last year. The number of total evictions was 1,881 last year. The 8,000 figure is probably 5 years of total evictions, the majority of which are for some type of non-payment of rent or other breach by the tenant.

    Also, I have a real problem believing what Tim Redmond said is true:

    The current bill, which will face some amendments today, also allows landlords to demand that tenants sign a document giving up their right to sue in exchange for a cash buyout.

    Really? A landlord can demand that a tenant give up their rights for a buyout? For how much? Can the landlord just offer them $1 and demand that they give up their rights? Would like to hear some clarification on this one.

  11. I agree with Trauss and Redmond that OMI evictions should ideally just go away. I don’t know their history, but I suppose that once upon a time there was some sense to them: they were convenient for the landlord, and not that inconvenient to the tenant, who could find a similar unit for a similar price. The latter is not true anymore.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

A new dark-money group with GOP support seeks to raise crime fears

A misleading mailer attacking the record of DA Chesa Boudin hits the streets—but who paid for it?

Robots in the crash pad: The twisted takeover of the Red Victorian Hotel

How Haight Ashbury countercultural ideals were distorted by a tech "co-living" experiment, and a trans performance community was displaced.

Sorting out the upcoming election madness

Plus: Private electric-car charging in neighborhood curbsides? And a key vote on housing in the Tenderloin. That's The Agenda for Sept. 27-Oct. 4

More by this author

Garcia Zarate gets time served — but won’t go free

Judge sentences him to three years, which he has already served -- but now the feds want to try him again for the same gun crime

Firearms expert says Steinle killing fits pattern of an accident

Defense witness says there are 'all indicators for an accidental discharge'

Zarate looked confused, disoriented during police interrogation

Cops lied to homeless defendant -- but in the end, he insisted that he stumbled onto the gun by accident and it fired
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED