e. a small property owner in san francisco. i am here today to oppose the rent amendment 150646. the first part of this amendment requests landlord after certain vacancis to set new base rent. this presents a big disadvantage to homeowners who want to rent units or their property after a long period of time. according to sfgate, the rental price in san francisco raised 10.6% compared to the national average of 3% in 2013. if this ordinance is passed those homeowners will be less motivated to rent out their property. therefore, decreasing the number of properties for the rent in san francisco, a city with an increased population is really bad. okay? secondly, i strongly oppose the

third part of this law, because the tenant is occupying a unit not authorized for residency. this part of the ordinance posed a big safety risk to the tenant. if an in-law is illegal, it's most likely due to safety problems. therefore, by not allowing those owners to evict the tenants and if the tenant decides to stay, they will live in a dangerous environment. if this ordinance passed, it will allow the people staying in their illegal units. the process of legalizing -- i think it should be an option of owners' choice. overall, i think the ordinance has good intentions, but there should be a better way to support the course. today we heard so many stories and i think we need to set some

laws that could balance both tenants and the landlords. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is jim. i'm a small property owner. i came here as a teenager with $10 in my pocket and paid myself through college and now i have a job that i can afford to support myself. the problem is that i saved my money. it took me ten years to pay my college loan and another ten years to put money down for my house. now i manage and support myself with that money and all that, but this law is one-sided and it's going to make the landlord's job very difficult. a few years back you changed the law so we had to pay for parking spaces. i know the same board, most of the people on the panel here agreed on putting tax -- on

top of property tax we have to pay for parking fee and business registration and renting out a parking space. to make this law, it will make it very difficult. we already pay enough taxes and trying to keep up with it. it would be very expensive for us to upkeep the building so it's nicely habitable and safe for everybody. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker. >> translator: i oppose this -- i demand our city to also consider homeowners.

property tax go up. why our rent cannot be up? this year property taxes went up a lot. we cannot afford the property tax. we need to get equivalent increases. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. my name is -- i'm a small property owner in san francisco. i say no to this law. in san francisco, bad tenants are much more than the bad landlords. how come supervisor don't make the law for the bad tenants? when the tenant move on without cleaning or paying the water bill, the owner those pay for them. the other counties don't have that requirement.

[speaker not understood] the owner spends $500 to $1,000 to trim the tree each time. all small property owners are working hard for their mortgage and property taxes. some work two, three jobs and don't qualify for ssi, only tenants can. don't touch this law. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. ? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is sonya and i'm a small property owner. today, the small property owner are attending this public hearing because the small property owner makes money to pay for the property and the

house we pay. when the housing market less properties on the market, you know why? because of the ridiculous law scares property owners. they are afraid -- they have pay their own money to hire the lawyer, but tenants have free lawyers to help them. it makes the city's housing crisis worse and worse. we pay for the bonds and everything, but we don't have any right. the rent-control make the

tenants -- if they are trouble, they can get a lot of money from the small property owner. you know, in san francisco, enough with this ridiculous rent-control law. >> next speaker. >> my name is tom ray. i'm a native san franciscan. i live in the mission district. i encourage the supervisors to pass the eviction protections 2.0 ordinance. many san francisco tenants have been living in their homes for years with no complaints from their landlords. now people's homes and apartments have been turned into investment properties, not homes. because of market-rate greed. what was acceptable in the past

by landlords and property managers have been turned into frivolous complaints to evict tenants in order to make an obscene profit during the current gold-rush real estate and property boom in san francisco. my friend rented a place in haight ashbury and has been there over 25 years and the landlord really harassed everybody else out and the people upstairs are paying $5000 a month rent. so this greed is becoming a virus in this city. i mean, i can feel for the small property owners, but these big property owners are buying the small property owners and this is a problem. this is a big problem. this whole greed factor from big developers and wall street. so i think this ordinance is a

good start and it helps create a more far, due process for evictions. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker phoning, , please. . >> good afternoon, i am a small property owner. [speaker not understood] thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i didn't think it was possible, but to drive a bigger wedge between landlords and tenants this legislation does it. first of all, your numbers, you can cherry-pick five years ago. if you want to show an accurate picture, show all of the numbers. i appreciate all of the human relation stories that running back espoused. just from one from the other side, i must be the best

landlord in the city, because i have a tenant that own a 9-unit building a block from the fairmount hotel who prefers to live in my building rather than hers. if you want to do something creative to the rent-control ordinance, which has been changed hundreds of times, and by the way, stakeholders, property owners, do not understand the full ramifications until they actually this stuff hits them in the face. hundreds of times have been changed since 1979, including when it was first passed. four units or less weren't even in the ordinance. so it changes. it changes over time this. is bad law. it's bad precedence. if you want to do something creative, why don't we means-test everybody? so everybody knows what we're getting?and we help the people

that need the help, and to tell you the truth, it looks to me like if we tag-team tenants from google, we're going to have people in these apartments for decades. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm here today because i'm concerned that this legislation will hurt both tenants and landlords and make the housing problem even worse. first the legislation regarding irl legal in-laws punish and scare away from those who encourage in-law rentals that the city needs. there are non-rent-controled single homes in the city, but the threat of any rent-control will scare away further develops of in-laws. second i hope our elected officials and elected leaders keep a balanced view and protect right of both tenants and landlords. it seems very

popular and easy to vilify landlords, but please remember that the small landlords are also regular middle-class people. they are retired teachers plumbers and nurses that somehow even in the '80s about interest rates were 15-16%, they managed to keep their homes. the current eviction process exists to protect both tenants and landlords and this bad legislation ensures that if the landlord follows the law and goes through the court process, and wins the eviction case, he or she will still be punished with rent-control. finally, we live in one of the world's most exciting and innovative and creative cities , but sadly our rental laws and building codes and ideas have remained stagnant. why is it donald trump and bill gates decided to move to a

two-bedroom apartment in the richmond, they could still benefit from rent-control? we need better regulation s to protect both tenants and landlords. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is howard epstein and i'm the vice president of the small property owners of san francisco. and we're here to oppose this bad law. a couple of things that haven't been mentioned -- i don't want to go over everything that has been mentioned last hour or so, but something that hasn't been mentioned is the fact when people sign leases, leases are, in fact, contracts. and according to this legislation, it says contracts are no good in san francisco. if you say we're going to have two people move in, and you can't have anybody else, and you consenting adults sign the lease, this says that is no

good. you can move anybody else in you want. some of the other ramifications are, again somebody earlier mentioned the number of vacancy-by-choice units. this will skyrocket that number, because we, the landlords and i have been a small property owner -- it will be 30 years in december and i'm getting about fed up with all of this. as it keeps coming in and coming in and coming in. the people are not going to take it anymore, and that will happen, but more than that, as i mentioned before, the contracts are no good. attorneys are going to have a field day with this. suing the city, and the city is going to pay their legal charges afterwards because any court in the world that looks that the is going to say it's illegal. thank for your time.

>> this legislation or ordinance actually we have rent-control ordinance as it is. i am not against limiting increases in rent-control to a reasonable amount. i am not a greedy landlord, but this seems to punish small property owners that are good landlords because of the few bad ones and i totally sympathize with all of the cases that came up today, and the landlords that just bugged the people and harassed them. that is not right. but adding these additional ordinances does not solve our problem. it only, in my view, gives the tenants more rights and as property owners who have bought the buildings some at times that nobody was buying because the economy turned down and we were fixing them up. it punishes up because we have no rights against our tenants.

they have all of the rights and we have none. please, i beg you, relook at this issue and do not pass this ordinance. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is mary. i own seven units. it's been in the family 100 years. i consider myself a very good landlord. i am facing now $100000 plus retrofit, which i will gladly do. it makes everybody safe, but all of these changes that you are going to make is going to make it more and more difficult for me to hang on to this lovely building, that has been in the family 100 years and i take great pride in it and i have wonderful tenants. i am a goodwill good landlord. there are a lot of us in san francisco. i am a native here believe me. thank youch thank you, next

speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i am with united food commercial workers local 648. i'm here because i was born and raised in san francisco. my mom has lived in the same apartment and rented for 45 years. i have seen what a big- time landlord can indirectly and directly bully a tenant. we also live across the street from silvia smith, who you mentioned earlier and her dealings with her new landlord. i can see what a landlord like that can do to a family. i am here to support tenants. i think the piece of legislation that you have put forward is wonderful and great. and i support it. my union supports, and it's time that tenants fought back the abuse, and fight the evictions. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisorses. my name is angela and i'm a small business owner and my parents don't speak perfect english and i will here to represent them. i will note on the proposed ordinance to residential the rent stabilize and arbitration ordinance and i'm deeply troubled by the four areas of the ordinance. notch 1, the new base rent equal to the time at vacancy means that if i have vacated a unit in 2009, but supervisor kim will limit me to set the rent at $1000 still. so the question is who is the owner of my property, you a renter

politician or me, the property owner? who gets to decide the market-rate? you, the supervisor, or the real estate market? who works his or her butts off to save a down payment and pay bills for the unit, he or she, renter or property owner? in other words, if the tenants do drugs, conduct prostitution or make dynamite in the unit, i, the landlord cannot evict them? three, if the tenant being evicted for nuisances or damages, it must be ongoing at the time that the notice is served. in other words, if the tenants are having a drug party i the landlord must wait there and serve the 3-day notice? in sum i'm strongly opposed to

supervisor jane kim's ordinance because with you and supervisor avalos, supervisor campos and supervisor mar have been biased to the landlords -- >> thank you. >> just as a reminder, asa courtesy to your fellow public commenters, please adhere to the 2-minute limit, so that everyone has an opportunity to speak here today. no one message is more important than the other. >> good afternoon, supervisors and everybody, i am the co-owner --