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

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

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

according to sfgate, the rental price in san francisco raised 10.6% compared to the national average3% 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