I have to admit, watching the banks, AIG, the automakers, and finally, homeowners get a bail out, I did more than once cry out piteously: “But who the f— will bail out me?”
Answer: Chris Daly.
I didn’t really ask for this kind of bailout, but Daly’s constituents are largely renters; and hey, so is San Francisco. Thus a little protection for us too is a nice gesture.
Specifically, Daly’s proposals, to quote from the Chron, are as follows:
Three laws proposed by Supervisor Chris Daly on Tuesday would bar landlords from increasing rent to more than one-third of a tenant’s income, would expand the rights of tenants who want to add roommates, and would limit the amount of so-called banked rent increases in which annual increases allowed under city laws are saved up and then imposed all at once.
I should embrace this, since I am a renter. However, I’m also aware of the ironic side effect of many “renter protection laws” that actually end up keeping the rental market as expensive and competitive as it is here, even now. So I eye these laws cautiously, though they excite me, if only because I hope they make my landlady unhappy. Because I hate her.
But I digress. Surprisingly, Mayor Newsom, who is by all accounts not a member of the Daly fan club (in fact, I believe he’s probably the founder of whatever club is the opposite of that one), appears amenable to these laws.
It’s not yet clear whether the proposed laws will have sufficient support at the Board of Supervisors, but Mayor Gavin Newsom – who advocates had expected to oppose the measures – appeared open to the ideas.
So, does that mean SF is about to get even harder on landlords?
In the end, I’m out of my league. My bias is obvious, but I don’t want to rent forever, so I like to undertand long term effects. I bring this article to you, the educated Front Steps populace, to explain why these laws are a bad idea, a good idea, a crazy idea, or a pipe dream.