Hello callabay,
Thank you for your question.
First, let me direct you to the disclaimer at the bottom of this page:
"Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers
are general information, and are not intended to substitute for
informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal,
investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not
endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product,
manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or
any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully
the Google Answers Terms of Service..."
That being said, let's see what we can find.
It appears the Ellis Act is a State act rather than City of San
Francisco. However, San Francisco has attempted to institute other
laws and regulations which have effects on the Ellis Act and some may
and may not be enforceable!
The San Francisco Examiner describes the act in simple terms on an
Opinion page in 2002 here:
http://www.examiner.com/opinion/default.jsp?story=op.voices.stryker.0827w
"Publication date: 08/27/2002
City to owners: Stop renting!
BY KIM STRYKER - Special to The Examiner
THE CITY'S OFFICIAL policy is to preserve residential rental
stock. In attempting to do so, The City has placed a series of
restrictions on owners' ability to use and control their properties.
These restrictions have had the unintended consequence of encouraging
owners to get out of the rental business altogether, thus eliminating
rental housing.
In 1994, The City put owners of one to four units under the rent
control ordinance. Many small-property owners' reaction to this has
been to simply stop renting out their apartments or rooms. The problem
is that, under rent control, a tenant is given a virtual life estate
when he or she signs a lease. Even if the owner finds he or she cannot
get along with the tenant, for whatever reason, the owner is stuck
with that person.
This is not an issue in a large apartment complex, but it is when
the tenant is living next door in the same building with the owner.
According to a report by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
Association (SPUR), the best estimate is that there are 10,000 units
being held off the rental market by small property owners for this
reason.
In 1998, The City's voters passed Proposition G, which put severe
restrictions on the ability of owners to move into their own homes.
When purchasing a small rental building (the only ones affected by
Prop. G), owners may only move into one unit in a building and may not
displace seniors and disabled tenants at all. If there is a vacant
unit, it will be the only one allowed the new owner, and is the
designated "owner's unit" for the life of the building.
After Prop. G went into effect, many owners elected to remove
their buildings from the rental market using the state Ellis Act. The
Ellis Act lets owners decide that they no longer want to rent their
buildings. In the year before Prop. G was passed, only 12 Ellis Act
eviction notices were filed. After Prop. G was enacted, Ellis Act
notices jumped to 200 the next year and to 440 the year after that,
according to Rent Board statistics. Thus, Prop. G actually encouraged
owners to permanently eliminate rental stock...."
Do read the entire article.
Recent changes (1999):
http://www.richlandproperties.net/newsletteroctober1999.htm
"State Law Changes to Ellis Act Effect Owner’s Ability to Move Into
Property
In San Francisco over the last year, many new purchasers of rental
property have been forced to use a state law known as the "Ellis Act"
to perform owner move-in evictions on tenants who receive protection
under San Francisco’s tough anti-owner move-in rules. As a result of
the attention the Ellis Act received, recent changes were made to this
law. The major changes to the law are as follows: (1) effective
January 1, 2000, an owner must give the local regulatory agency (rent
board) 120 days notice (increased from 60 days) prior to withdrawing
the unit from rental use; (2) if a tenant is at least 62 years of age
or disabled and has lived in his or her unit for at least one year
prior to the date of delivery of the notice to withdraw the unit from
rental use, then the tenant shall be allowed to stay in the unit for
one year before having to vacate; (3) if the owner re-rents the unit
within 2 years of withdrawing the unit from rental use, then the owner
will subject to severe penalties, right of first refusal by the prior
tenant and other regulatory burdens; and (4) if the owner re-rents the
unit 2 years or later up to 10 years after they remove the unit from
rental use, then the owner will be required to give the old tenant a
right of first refusal to rerent the unit and the unit’s rent can only
be offered at a rental rate based on the prior rental rate adjusted
for local allowable rental increases. This is a very complex law and
you should seek legal advice before attempting to perform an "Ellis
Act" eviction."
In San Francisco in particular, it does seem to be a very complex
situation. It may well be that a simple and complete text is not
available for the layman and legal help may well be advised.
This cached page at Google from The Blackstone Commentaries has
interesting comments:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:qM-4J01usNgJ:blackstone-buyersexclusively.com/235t.html+%22ellis+act%22+%2B%22san+francisco%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
"Note: re Condo Conversion
Since 1989 San Francisco has permitted the annual conversion to
condominiums of 200 units (not buildings) in two-six unit buildings.
Except for two unit buildings, both of which are owner occupied, this
is done by lottery. The conversion provisions are found at Article 9
of Division 1 of the Subdivision Code. Until the units are actually
converted, the owners of the apartment building are typically tenants
in common [TIC].
The number of tenants evicted from two-six unit buildings has grown
over the years. In response, a very aggressive tenant-oriented Board
of Supervisors enacted a series of controversial ordinances, beginning
in 1998, limiting the ability of buyers to evict tenants even if they
wish to move into their own property. The Owner Move In [OMI]
provisions are set forth at Section 37.9(g) of the Ordinance, cited
above. Two of the most severe restrictions are that there can be only
ONE owner-move-in eviction per building; and, that no one can evict
unless he/she has a 50% interest (some say 25% interest) in the
building.
These Draconian measures gave buyers, themselves tenants, an all or
nothing choice. Don't even try moving in, or, use the Ellis Act, which
is State law, permitting owners to cease being landlords, ie, to take
the building out of the rental market. Before the Board of Supervisors
began their fierce assault on those tenants who wanted to own a home,
I daresay that no one had ever heard of the Ellis Act.
The issues of condominium conversion and of rent control ordinance
protection of tenants are so fraught with legal quagmires that the
assistance of attorneys specializing in this arena is absolutely
necessary."
Following a link from that cached page provides interesting
information on the Ellis Act and San Francisco's Rent Control:
http://www.g3mh.com/downloads/2002%20OMI%20&%20Ellis%20Act%20Brochure.pdf
OWNER-OCCUPANCY AND ELLIS EVICTIONS
(UPDATED 8/10/02)
by D. Andrew Sirkin and David R. Gellman
GOLDSTEIN, GELLMAN, MELBOSTAD, GIBSON & HARRIS, LLP
www.g3mh.com
I think you will find this document clear and informative. Do read
this.
There is an article that may be of interest to you from the San
Francisco Bay Guardian, the city's liberal weekly:
http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/16/greed.html
"Pure greed
Why are so many San Franciscans losing their homes to the Ellis Act?
So their landlords can make even more money.
By Angela Rowen
DORA MUÑOZ'S FAMILY has lived at 802 Shotwell Street for 31 years.
They'll be out come April.
All five of the building's tenants – including Muñoz, Muñoz's
61-year-old disabled mother, and Michael Page, an HIV-positive man who
gets around on crutches or a wheelchair – are being evicted so that
Denman Drobisch, who recently inherited the building from his mother,
can make half a million dollars.
Drobisch got rid of the tenants using the Ellis Act, a state law that
enables landlords to go out of the rental business. Property owners
say it allows them to retire when San Francisco's tenant protection
laws get to be too much.
But for rich landlords like Drobisch, who owns millions of dollars'
worth of San Francisco property, it's mostly a good way to get even
richer. Drobisch didn't return our calls.
Muñoz says it makes her sick. "My mother gave this place life," she
told us. "And now he wants to cash in."...
Do read their opinion.
The San Francisco Tenants Union has this article on the Ellis Act:
http://www.sftu.org/ellis.html
"Ellis Act Evictions
(Includes 2002 Changes In Ellis Act)
The "Ellis Act" is a state law which says that landlords have the
unconditional right to "go out of business." For an Ellis eviction,
the landlord must remove all of the units in the building from the
rental market, i.e., the landlord must evict all the tenants and can
not single out one tenant (with low rent) and/or remove just one unit
from the rental market. When a landlord invokes the Ellis Act, the
apartments can not be re-rented, except at the same rent the evicted
tenant was paying, for five years following the evictions, While there
are restrictions on ever re-renting the units, there are no such
restrictions on converting them to ownership units (e.g., tenancies in
common or condos).
Ellis Act evictions generally are used to "change the use" of the
building. Most Ellis evictions are used to convert rental units to
condominiums, using loopholes in the condo law. If your Ellis stems
from a condo conversion see See Fighting TIC Conversions. A new
phenomenon, though, is the use of Ellis to convert multi-unit
buildings into single family homes—mansions.For fighting these, see
Mergers.
BEWARE OF ELLIS THREATS: Filing an Ellis Act with the Rent Board means
that the re-rental restrictions will be recorded on the deed of the
property (this is regardless of whether or not the landlord completes
the Ellis withdrawal. Thus landlords are motivated to issue Ellis
"warnings" and "advisories," to the tenants–these usually warn that an
Ellis will be coming in a month or two. (especially when they want to
simply sell a buildings since realtors report that vacant buildings
are worth 20% more). The Daly eviction threats law has made this more
difficult to do, as have changes in state law and Rent Board
procedures but some landlords still try it—don't move based on a
bluff!
FIGHT THE ELLIS: Defenses may be limited but tenants who fight the
Ellis eviction win surprisingly often. Tenants who don't win often
drag out the eviction for well over a year and get into a position
where they can settle on their terms. The first rule of an Ellis is
not to panic but to become resolved to fight for your home..."
The article continues with extensive information on the Ellis Act from
the Tenant's point of view. It may well be the most clear description
I am able to find online.
Landlord.com has this from the Landlord's perspective:
http://www.landlord.com/ellis_act_frame.htm
"Uses For and The Benefits of the Ellis Act
© Copyright 2000-2001 Landlord.com
Let’s face it, rent control in any form stinks. In those jurisdictions
in California that have it, there is an important law that every
landlord and property manager needs to know more about. The Ellis Act
was passed by the California legislature in 1986. It was designed to
supersede a judicial decision which effectively granted to city
councils and county boards of supervisors the power to force a
landlord to continue to offer his property for rent, regardless of the
landlord’s desire to retire from the rental business. The act sets up
an unconditional right to go out of business -- something which one
would have thought was protected by the 13th Amendment to the US
Constitution anyway -- and limits the power of localities to regulate
the process by which it may be exercised.
The purpose of this column is to acquaint the landlord with his right
to withdraw his unit from rental use in a jurisdiction with rent and
eviction controls. In addition, we will consider the regulations which
localities may impose on the exercise of that right. The precise
limitations imposed differ in each jurisdiction, and from time to
time, as they have been the subject of some litigation. For this
reason, not all jurisdictions have necessarily imposed all the
limitations which they are permitted to impose, or to their fullest
permissible extent. The landlord should check with his local rent
control board to determine what is in effect, as such an undertaking
for each rent control jurisdiction is beyond the scope of this
article..."
This is another extensive and informative article.
For the text of the Ellis Act in all of its legalese, see the Rent
Stabilization Board:
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/rent/ellis/Ellisact.html
State of California
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 7060-7060.7
Other links of interest:
San Francisco Apartment Magazine Online
http://www.sfaa.org/magazine/archives/03/feb/0203.kraus.html
McTic Ruled Unconstitutional
By James B. Kraus
and http://www.sfaa.org/magazine/archives/2002/0102/features/0102.dowling.html
The Basic Burdens of the Ellis Act
January 2002
by Curtis Dowling
The Generalist
http://www.thegeneralist.com/mcgoldrick-decision.htm
"Judge rules recent S.F. housing law invalid Tenancies in common in
conflict with state
San Francisco -- A Superior Court judge ruled yesterday that a key
component of a San Francisco law restricting tenancies in common is
invalid because it conflicts with a state statute favoring property
rights..."
Continuing Education of the Bar • California
http://www.ceb.com/CEBSite/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CEB&product%5Fid=RE32080&Page=1
California Eviction Defense Manual
2d edition, 1100 pages, 2 looseleaf volumes, updated 5/03
RE32080, $179.00
"Whether you are defending a residential or a commercial tenant, this
is the most comprehensive, efficient, and easy-to-use eviction defense
book ever published. The Appendix has nearly 50 litigation forms,
providing state-of-the-art tools for defending evictions. For the May
2003 update, the chapters on 30-day notices and federally assisted
housing have been rewritten, and the rent control chapter adds even
more strategies for defending Ellis Act evictions. The 2003 update
discusses the impact of the new security deposit law, which gives a
tenant the right to a pretermination inspection and opportunity to
remedy damage to the premises caused by the tenant..."
Search Strategy:
"ellis act" +"san francisco"
"ellis act" +"complete text"
"ellis act" +complete
"ellis act" +text OR Law
Ellis Act +simplified
I trust my research has provided you with articles, links and
interpretations of this law that will be easier to understand than the
complete legal text. If a link above should fail to work or anything
require further explanation or research, please do post a Request for
Clarification prior to rating the answer and closing the question and
I will be pleased to assist further.
Regards,
-=clouseau=- |
,
0 Comments
)