Post Protest: Castro Controversy Erupts After Hotly Debated TIC Condo Conversion Legislation Gets Ta

Monday a wide coalition of 200 activists from the Castro and nearly every City neighborhood gathered on the eastside steps of SF City Hall to voice their outrage over Supervisors Scott Wiener (Dist. 8) and Mark Farrel's (Dist. 2) proposed legislation altering how Tenancy-in-Common (TIC) properties convert into non-rent controlled condos. The protest proceeded a rancorous, five-hour long meeting where all sides on the issue vented their frustration and fears about: dwindling, affordable rental units, the ass backward current condo/TIC lottery system, the unchecked Citywide epidemic of evictions, the inability to make a profit from one's own property, the lack of vision from City leadership in stewarding the issue and outrage over the proposed change in the TIC law.

The law, authored by Wiener and Farrell, simply described as a, 'condo conversion impact fee', would've allowed as many as 2,000 TIC units to be immediately converted to condos for a fee, allowing owners to bypass a housing lottery system disliked by property owners that places an annual cap on conversions. Outside the protest was lively. Multiple speakers from different organizations spoke and several citizens who'd been evicted under the Ellis Act. "Will this law change stop evictions Mr. Weiner?" one recently evicted, angry, LGBT Senior Castro resident yelled. "That should be your priority-stopping evictions not helping them." Mr. Wiener under mounting public pressure posted an explanation of the law on his website writing in part, "Contrary to unfounded claims by some opponents of the legislation, it does not repeal rent control, it won’t result in evictions, and it won’t lead to future Ellis Act evictions."

"Not true." countered Brian Basinger, Exec. Director of SF AIDS Housing Alliance, as he addressed the rally. "I was evicted from my home when it was condo converted after it was deemed by the City to never, ever happen-yet it did." He cited a DPW report showing how TIC's like the one he lived in, which shouldn't be eligible for conversion, are illegally converted none the less. "If land speculators can bypass current laws why now can't they bypass this new one?" Inside chambers Sup. Mark Farrel was visibly irritated by the anger thrown his way and replied in terse and barely disguised disdain. The eviction argument is moot in his eyes since the law included a provision guaranteeing lifetime leases for existing tenants in units that qualified for condo conversion under the program. Sup. Jane Kim wasn't so sure about that wondering how it could possibly be tracked or enforced. Second term, BOS Pres., David Chiu, also had concerns and in the end proposed tabling the issue until Feb. 25th saying, “I do not support the legislation in its current form,” he said. If the current generation of TIC owners were allowed to convert this time, he explained, the next generation’s frustrations with the housing lottery would only “lead us back to an identical debate in a short period of time.”

Meanwhile, back in the Castro, local LGBT icon, David Weissman, film director of 'The Cockettes' and the much heralded, 'We Were Here', posted an open letter calling out Sup. Scott Wiener on his continued focus on the needs of those who can buy or own property over those who rent or will never be able to afford to buy. Mr. Weissman, a longtime personal friend, had sent me the letter in advance to posting and minced little words in his appraisal of the current state of life in the Castro and SF under Mr. Weiner's tutteledge. The letter went viral and has been reposted hundreds of times. One such repost occurred on the Facebook wall of SF AIDS/social activist, Rajat Dutta, an associate shared by both Mr. Weissman and Mr. Wiener. Mr. Wiener used that exchange as an opportunity to respond to Mr. Weissman directly. His comments have also gone viral especially amongst Mr. Weiner's many admirers. Either side one finds themselves on this topic the result has been a firestorm of dialogue regarding renters rights vs. landlords at the Castro's neighborhood bars and cafes. Heres both Mr. Weissman's letter and the Supervisors response in full: January 27, 2013 Supervisor Scott Wiener 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place City Hall, Room. 244 San Francisco, Ca 94102-4689 Scott - we've met a few times. I'm the producer of the documentaries We Were Here and The Cockettes, both of which chronicle the history of Gay San Francisco. I've been a San Franciscan since 1976. In 1979 I was on the campaign staff of Prop R, a rent-control initiative that didn't pass, but which pushed the Board of Supervisors to pass the significantly weaker Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Law. I subsequently became a Legislative Aide to Supervisor Harry Britt. I worked a couple of campaigns with Dick Pabich and Jim Rivaldo, and also worked closely with Bill Kraus - heroic leaders whose names I hope are familiar to you. I am being forced out of my apartment that I've rented since 1986 due to the Ellis Act. This will end my 37-year residency in San Francisco. I must say that I find your policies regarding housing in San Francisco - your consistent bias toward home ownership at the expense of tenants and affordability, to be dismaying, and an affront to the legacy of Harvey Milk. In my own situation, it has been extremely clear that the limitations on condo conversion provided somewhat of an impediment to the immediate eviction of everyone in my building (all gay, 3 out of 4 of us are seniors), motivating the landlord to at least pay us to leave rather than just evict us at very minimal cost to him. But even this is appalling - your efforts should be toward further combating the effects of the Ellis Act, rather than contributing to the tsunami of evictions that is destroying the fabric of our City. No buyout can compensate for the loss of our homes. I don’t doubt that you have good intentions, and that you have done some good things as Supervisor. Though you didn’t live here in the worst of the AIDS years, I assume you’ve been somewhat impacted by that history. But for those of us who elected Harvey Milk, who fought the Briggs Initiative and Anita Bryant, who created this amazing gay community centered around Castro Street, and then who fought for our lives and the lives of our brothers through two decades of AIDS deaths... having a gay supervisor promoting policies that are forcing so many of our generation out of our homes and out of the City to which we have given so much is heartbreaking. Sincerely, David Weissman -Supervisor Scott Weiner responds via Facebook posting on Jan. 28th on Mr. Dutta's page in two parts due to formatting space constraints:

Hi David. Yes, we have met several times, and I’ve always been a huge admirer of your work. You’re an icon in our community. “We Were Here” is one of the best and most moving films I’ve ever seen.Your email is deeply distressing to me. It’s awful that the Ellis Act was used to evict you and the other tenants out of your building. I don’t support the Ellis Act and I publicly supported Mark Leno’s (unfortunately unsuccessful) legislation to restrict its use. Back in the 90s, when I was a new lawyer, I defended numerous tenants against the wave of evictions at the time, both Ellis Act and Owner-Move-In evictions, and it was as heartbreaking then as it is now. I’m truly sorry that this happened to you and sorry for the City that you now are leaving. I would be more than interested in helping you find a place in San Francisco that you can afford. Please let me know if you want my help in that effort. I’m at your disposal.It took me a day to respond to this email, because it’s a challenging response to write. Something terrible happened to you. You have every right to be angry and frustrated that so many great years in San Francisco, building our community, may come to an end this way. (I truly hope that we can avoid that, of course.) But, I do need to respond to some things that you said in your email about me. I hate to have to respond – since what happened to you was so awful – but I don’t think that your comments about me, which you’ve now disseminated publicly, are fair or accurate. It’s not accurate to describe my policy bent as having a “consistent bias toward home ownership at the expense of tenants and affordability.” I know you disagree with my legislation to provide one-time relief to owner-occupied TICs that are at risk of foreclosure, and I’ll get to that in a bit. I’m not sure how much you know about my public positions and votes over a decade on housing issues, but I’ll describe them for you. While I do support helping people achieve home ownership – and I don’t in any way run away from that — I’ve supported just about every pro-tenant measure that’s appeared on the ballot, including measures that my predecessor and Mayor Newsom opposed (that’s not a criticism of my predecessor or Mayor Newsom, both of whom I strongly supported, but we had a difference of opinion). I supported Prop B, which required disclosure to prospective condo purchasers of the unit’s eviction history. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. I supported Prop H, which increased relocation payments to tenants in no-fault evictions. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. I supported Prop M, which banned and created penalties for harassment of tenants. That went on the ballot after the Mayor vetoed it, and I supported it. And, as noted, I supported Mark Leno’s effort to restrict the application of the Ellis Act. I also supported limiting or banning condo conversion for units that were made vacant through use of the Ellis Act.As a member of the Board of Supervisors I’ve continued my work supporting tenants. I authored and passed legislation banning universities (including Academy of Arts University) from converting rent-controlled apartment buildings into student dorms. That was a huge win for tenants, and I pushed it through against intense opposition. I authored and passed the Good Samaritan Ordinance, which was supported by tenants groups and which provides affordable temporary apartments for tenants who are displaced by disasters.Now, let’s talk about my work around affordable housing. I was one of the people who negotiated the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Prop C, which appeared on last November’s ballot and won. I campaigned for it passionately. It will generate $1.5 billion for affordable housing in coming decades. I’ve been closely involved with the 55 Laguna project, which will create quite a bit of affordable housing, including affordable housing for LGBT seniors. I’ve supported every transition-age youth housing project that’s come to the board, all of which have been controversial. I’ve publicly begged Larkin Street to create more youth housing in the Castro.I stand by my record on housing policy, including support for tenants and for creation of affordable housing. Your perception of my overall record simply isn’t accurate.As for my TIC legislation, I respect your opposition to it, but I don’t think it’s fair to state that by helping struggling TIC owners stay in their homes – and helping them avoid foreclosure – I’m forcing gay people from their homes. David, you and I don’t know each other well, but if you got to know me, you’d know that I’ve spent my entire adult life (which has been more years than you might think) fighting for the LGBT community. Whether playing a key role in building the LGBT community center, fighting my neighbors on Collingwood Street when they tried to get rid of LYRIC, leading the charge to restore HIV funding cuts in our city budget, to helping get transgender people health coverage under Healthy San Francisco, or sponsoring the legislation that created the LGBT senior task force, support for my brothers and sisters in this community has been at the core of everything I do.Scott Wiener Part 2:The TIC legislation is not what its opponents have painted it to be. I’ve posted a full explanation of the legislation at:http://www.scottwiener.com/content/supervisor-wieners-statement-tic-reform-legislation-and-misinformation-about-legislation This legislation provides one-time relief to TIC owners in owner-occupied TICs that are in the condo lottery. San Francisco law restricts or prohibits condo conversion for buildings that have had Ellis Act or other bad eviction history. This legislation sticks by those restrictions. These TIC owners are in serious trouble. They purchased thinking they’d be able to convert in 5-7 years. It’s now looking like 15-20 years. That’s 15-20 years on a group mortgage – where if one owner defaults everyone defaults – paying double the interest rate of other homeowners, and being unable to refinance even if you’re about to experience a balloon payment on the mortgage. If we don’t help these TIC owners, we’re going to see a wave of foreclosures and people losing their homes. While I fully understand the opposition to condo conversion, I guess my question is whether allowing these homeowners to go into foreclosure is a good thing for the city. I don’t think it is. This is a one-time and discrete piece of legislation designed to help a group of San Francisco residents – primarily long-time residents – who are in serious trouble.These TIC owners aren’t aliens who landed here and snapped up units. Almost every TIC owner I’ve ever met is a first-time homeowner who rented for years (often renting for a lot of years) and then scraped together a down payment to be able to purchase a place. They’re middle class, since if they were wealthy they’d be able to buy more than a TIC. Many are people who’ve lived here for a very long time – 15, 20 years or longer. Many are gay. These are San Franciscans just like you and I are. They, too, are part of the fabric of our city. I don’t think it’s anti-tenant, anti-gay, or anti-anything to provide them with some help by letting them condo convert their units so that they can have housing stability.It’s estimated that 85% of these TIC units are owner-occupied. And for the very small number of tenants who live in these buildings, the legislation mandates that they receive lifetime leases with full rent and eviction controls. Again, 85% of the units are occupied by their owners. David, I regret having to respond to you like this. That’s pretty much the last thing I want to do with someone who’s going through something as traumatic as what you’re experiencing. But, since you made a pretty bald public assertion about what I stand for and who I advocate for, I thought it necessary to respond. Again, if you want my help with finding housing, I’m at your disposal, as is my office.

The impact of both men's statements has spilled beyond the confines of the Castro and social sites. Local media have weighed in. The SF Bay Guardian ran a story about the mano e mano face off. Their current cover story profiles Mr. Wiener, his abilities and his relationship with his community as a whole. In writer Steven T. Jones' intimate and thorough profile of Mr. Wiener, dubbed 'The Machine' for his tireless work ethic and mono political focus, wonders among other things if he has a real understanding of his constituents as people over 'issues'. The Wiener/Farrel TIC proposal comes back up on the agenda before the Supes on February 25th. If this is an issue within the community you have strong feelings around please mark your calendar and attend. While Mr. Wiener wrestles with the political realities of his district we lose Mr. Weissman to Portland which, due to the influx of SF ex-pats over the last fifteen years, jokingly referred to as 'Little San Fran'. His love, committment and vision of the Castro and City is documented forever in film, but, perhaps he's unaware how much his leaving affects the LGBT, Arts, Activist communities and the City as a whole. Personally I wish him well, continued success and will miss him terribly. -This post enjoyed the additional input and reporting of Carmen Simon