June 8’s municipal ballot will have one proposition that will effect both landlords and renters. Proposition F (Renters’ Financial Hardship Applications) would allow renters to file a petition claiming financial hardship at any time with respect to any rent increase.

Payment of the rent increase would be stayed for a period of 60 days from the date of filing or until a hearing is held and a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge.

From my understanding, how it will be determined whether a renter’s claim of financial hardship is to be granted, the Rent Board and the Administrative Law Judge would base their decision on:

• Whether a tenant in a household is either unemployed or has had wages reduced by 20 percent or more compared to 12 months prior, or whose sole income consists of government benefits such as Social Security, SSI, SDI or similar benefits and has not received a cost of living increase in the past 12 months;
• Whether the rent including the increase comprises or will comprise 33 percent or more of the tenant’s gross income;
• Renter’s assets also are to be considered in making the determination.

Upon a finding that the tenant has financial hardship, the Administrative Law Judge will order that the rent increase will not be in effect for a specific period of time based on the tenant’s circumstances and schedule a review at the end of that period.

If the rent increase is later allowed, it will take effect as of the date the tenant’s income or assets changed to permit the increase.

Of course, this hasn’t gone into effect as it is part of the ballot in June – so if you’re a renter or a landlord, it probably is important to remind yourself about this and go to the ballet to have your vote counted.

Just in – Governor Schwarzenegger has signed AB 183 (the Home Buyers Tax Credit legislation) into law. $200 Million in tax credit for Californians, with half of it for qualified first-time home buyers who purchase existing homes; and the other half for purchasers of new construction homes.

Important dates to know, eligible taxpayers who close escrow on qualified principal residences between May 1, 2010 and December, 31, 2010, or who close escrow on a qualified principal residence on and after December 31, 2010 and before August 1, 2011, pursuant to an enforceable contract executed on or before December 31, 2010, will be able to take the allowed tax credit.

Under the bill, purchasers will be required to live in the home as their principal residence for at least two years or forfeit the credit (i.e. repay it to the state…doubt you want to do that, so keep that timetable in mind). Buyers also must be at least 18 years old and be unrelated to the seller.

By the way, if you have forgotten, first-time buyers are defined as those who have not owned a home in the past three years, so if you have been renting the past three years and want to get back in as we’re seeing more activity in the San Francisco market, now maybe a good time for you to do so.

This is a limited time tax credit upwards of $18,000. As always, you should consult with your tax advisor on how this new tax credit will or can effect you before jumping into anything.

Give me a call (415-680-8031) to find out.

New ordinance starts March 14th 2010 if you haven’t heard – the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have passed the number of votes and the mayor has signed into law, legislation that will prohibit owner move-in evictions during the school year with tenants under the age of 18.

Didn’t know about that? Why haven’t you signed up to the newsletter then?

Well, either way, now you know. So if you were considering purchasing a home and trying to get the Tax Credit from the government, you defiantly will have to consider a time frame when you can move if there are tenants currently residing in the home as it is still currently the school year until late May.
Although…there are exceptions.

“The law will not apply where there is only one rental unit owned by the landlord in the building, or where the owner who will move into the unit pursuant to Section 37.9(a)(8) eviction has a custodial or family relationship with a child under the age of 18 who will reside in the unit with the owner.”

Today’s San Francisco Examiner has an article about how the city of San Francisco is mailing fines to property owners who “fail to register vacant or abandoned buildings.”

I bet you probably didn’t know about this little rule from the city did ya?

“Under rules introduced late last year (2009) by city leaders in an attempt to reduce neighborhood blight, a property owner is required to pay a $765 annual fee to register a vacant building and maintain it in a secure and good condition”.

Source: SF Examiner

Although the original Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance specifically exempted from rent control all buildings with a certificate of occupancy issued after the ordinance took effect (June 13, 1979), recently elected Supervisor John Avalos is now proposing an amendment to the ordinance designed to bring these units under the just cause eviction provision of the Rent Control Ordinance. The proposal additionally extends the residential rental unit fee (currently $29.00 per apartment unit) to these units.

The Avalos amendments would be given effect by removing the following two provisions from the section of the Rent Ordinance that establishes exclusions from just cause eviction protections and payment of the residential rental unit fee:

• “Rental units located in a structure for which a certificate of occupancy was first issued after the effective date of this ordinance; and
  
• “Rental units otherwise subject to [the Rent Ordinance], to the extent such dwelling units are exempt from rent increase limitations under the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act.”

The Costa-Hawkins Act basically provides that: (1) housing constructed after 1995 must be exempt from local rent controls, (2) single-family homes and other units like condominiums that are separate from the title to any other dwelling units must be exempt from local rent controls, and (3) rental property owners must have the ability to establish their own rental rates when dwelling units change tenancy. So, the Avalos amendments will not bring post-1979 units under the ordinances price controls.

But the amendments, according to some, will impede an owner’s ability to move back into a condominium unit in a post-1979 project, a problem many owners never believed they would be facing.

The Avalos amendments will be the subject of a public hearing to be conducted by the Land Use and Economic Development Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Monday, November 2 at 1 p.m. in Room 263 at City Hall.

If the amendments are to have any chance of being defeated, landlords, homeowners who rent out their in-laws, and other interested parties will need to deluge the members of the committee with telephone calls and e-mail messages opposing the amendments before the public hearing on Monday. In addition, a massive crowd will need to show up at City Hall on Monday to speak in opposition to the amendments at the public hearing.

District 3
David Chiu—Board President
(415) 554-7450
Fax: (415) 554-7454
David.Chiu@sfgov.org

District 10
Sophie Maxwell
(415) 554-7670
Fax: (415) 554-7674
Sophie.Maxwell@sfgov.org

District 1
Eric Mar
(415) 554-7410
Fax: (415) 554-7415
Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org

Mayor Gavin Newsom
(415) 554-6141
Fax: (415) 554-6160
gavin.newsom@sfgov.org