m****a
发帖数: 2593 | 1 三藩市房东的血泪史 The Tragic History of SF Landlords
作者：苦叶
| 发表于2011年9月22日《星岛日报》
（零）前言
最近『星岛日报』新闻上，有位三藩市华人房东因租霸长期欠租，而被迫银主盘。在银
行清盘的过程中，发现这些导致他破产的租客仍然住在他的楼房里，激愤难当！他与这
些租客发生骂战，并升级到肢体冲突。事后，租霸恶人先告状，报警把房东送进了牢房
。可怜的房东，因为不懂租务法律，白白失去了心爱的房子，一生的积蓄也化为虚有，
还失去了做人的尊严。
这样的故事天天发生，华人业主的租务纠纷，让许多人倾家荡产。甜美的美国梦，有可
能一下子就掉进官非的深渊。这样的故事罄竹难书，令人心酸。三藩市的租务法律为何
到了这种不公平的地步？这要从其租务条例的简史说起。
（一）背景
三藩市是弹丸之地，面积7英里x7英里（121平方公里），人口约80万。人口密度与香港
大致一样（约6200人/平方公里），面积只是香港的十分之一，却没有多少民用的高楼
大厦，因此住房一贯紧张。90%以上的民居是建于20年代的两层或三层的墙贴墙的窄长
房子。每个房子格局都差不多，第一层都是单门车房在前面，后面有个非法的小套间（
illegal in-law apartment），约400平方尺（40平米）。二楼和三楼（有些房子没有
三楼）都约1500平方尺（150平米）。每一层都是独立的门口，可独立出租。所以，所
有业主都有条件做房东。
开埠以来，三藩市一直被誉为“最受美国人欢迎的城市”，金融、文化、景点和夜生活
丰富多彩，吸引很多外来人口，尤其是小地方的年轻人，趋之若鹜。由于大量的需求，
造成屋价飞涨、房租飞涨。各种吸引和压力，绝大多数业主都做了房东。
（二）租务条例
一栋房子通常有3、4个房东，却可以住进约10个人。因此，三藩市人口有66%的是租客
，34%是业主。到了1979，由于需求极为强劲，加上当时能源危机导致13.3%的通货膨胀
，房租上涨得太快，大量的租客（也是选民）迫使市政府制定了『住房租金稳定和仲裁
条例』（下称『租务条例』），规定1979年或以前起的民房（基本上是所有市内的民房
），都必须统一遵守由租管局定下的租金年度涨幅。这涨幅每年按整个大湾区的通涨指
数的6成调整（即远远追不上三藩市的通涨），最高不可以超出7%。（2010年三藩市的
租金涨幅是0.1%，$1000的租金涨1快，等于没涨，但该年三藩市通胀是1.8%)。并规定
，租房的订金必须按指定的利率计算利息，每年归还。(2009年的订金利率是5.2%，银
行定期利率是0.5%）。1993年以来，年度平均租金涨幅是2%，年度按金利率是4%。
另外，租客还有以下福利：
- 租客可以让其他人进来分租房子。房东有权在租约里订明禁止，否则，分租客可以“
既成事实”地合法进住。
- 房东不可以额外加收取既成事实的分租客的房租。
- 既成事实的分租客，可以合法接手租约，即使原租客搬走，租金维持不变。
这些条例极不合理地偏帮租客。哑巴吃黄连的房东想出了以自住的借口，逼迁的租客。
于是，选民又通过了新的规定：
- 租客只须提前一个月通知房东，就可以无条件搬走。
- 但房东只有在以下情况才可以收房：
- 租客欠租，或尺交房租三个月
- 房东提出自住。但必须向租客每人赔偿$4,500的搬迁费，小孩、长者和残疾租客每
人另加$3,000（一家就得赔$2万!），并且从此以后，不可以再出租这单位。
- 但如果该单位由残疾人或60岁以上的老人长期租住，房东在任何情况下都不可以收
回自住（赔偿都不可以）。
另外相关的条例是：
- 旧租客自愿搬走后(或去世），房东可以按市价重新出租该单位。
- 1979年以后的房子不受租务条例约束，可以任意随时起租和收楼。
- 每栋楼只许有一个自住单位，一旦声明该单位为自住，不可以再改到另外一个单位。
（三）影响
租金管制对三藩市的居住习惯产生了畸形的影响。
首先，租客成了出租房的囚犯。举例，有个汉子10年前以当时市价$300租下某单位。按
平均每年2%的规定涨幅，现在租金是$366。但现在的市价已经涨到$850，他打死都不会
搬走，宁可每天通勤四小时，都要占着这个窝。
其次，可按市价出租的单位租金飙升几倍。房东不可能做亏本生意，好不容易等到单位
空置，总要把以前亏的补回来，还要预期以后亏的，把租金调到天价才出租。举例，那
个十年前以$300租下单位的汉子搬走了，房东虽然只须要$488就开支平衡（按5%的通涨
和经营费用算），但他要补这十年亏的本，下一手一租，恐怕又一个十年。如果以$500
出租，十年后才涨到$600, 到时要$814才可以收支平衡。那么现在就先收$850吧。
这个后果，就是新的房客就做了旧房客的替死鬼。可怜新进城的半工读学生，五、六个
人挤进一个单位，连饭厅、客厅都住满了，还得交上做侍应的一半人工。而旧的住客，
省下来的钱不但舒舒服服地过日子，还可以在市外买个房子出租做起房东了。
第三，中老年租客受到无声的歧视。由于老人、残疾人被列为不可驱赶的保护阶层，房
东看到四、五十岁的人来租房，就不成文地找个理由拒绝。
第四，有租客的房子售价很低。如果一个房子所有单位都出租了住着人，那个房子是卖
不出去的，因为没人愿意接手亏本生意。相反，如果房子全部空置，可以高出市价很多
成交。有一次，一座三层楼的房子出售，条件不错，也有一个空置的大单位，本应以市
价出售，但挂的价钱却是市价的7成。原来，另外一个大单位住了个65岁赶不走的老人
家。那个房子卖了很久才不知以何低价卖出。
第五，新租客为了逃避高昂的租金，各出奇招。如果住在一楼的非法单位，住了两年后
，就去房管局举报该单位非法。其实所有能住人的一楼单位都非法（只要有厨房，就是
非法），房管局也知道，一直只眼开只眼闭。但一旦有人举报，他们必须处理，勒令业
主拆掉厨房和管道。房东不但要向租客赔偿一、两万的搬迁费（比收到的租金还多），
还要重新申报“改建”，另外付上两、三万的申报费、画图费和改建费。房东爆血管！
租客以各种各样的借口起诉房东获利，但往往他们到了买房置业的时候，就后悔当初的
行为和选举抉择，望房兴叹，自吃苦果。
第六，房东怨恨很深。租金管制给房东带来极大的损失、伤害、精神压力，甚至剥夺了
业主对房子的权利，并官非缠身。有次，与来维修的师傅聊起，他80岁的妈妈，年事已
高，不能再住在二楼的单位上下楼梯。她去请走楼下的租客，收楼自住。租客起诉老太
太。老太太不但打败官司，付堂费、律师费，还要赔偿$20，000搬迁费，并且，以后一
楼单位再也不可以出租，二楼单位再也不可自住。气得老太太心脏病发，从此一蹶不振。
第七，业主为免逼迫，大规模地离开租务市场。一旦单位空置后，分拆成康斗或TIC售
予其他业主，再也不用出租。或者，拆掉整个房子重建，把房子改成1979年后起的新房
子，不受租金条约管制，可以任意起租收楼。还有些业主，租客搬走后干脆就不再出租
了，宁可空置，但求清静。极端受气的业主，会把整栋房子“执笠”，彻底撤离租务市
场，才得以赶走租客。这些做法，业主都必须花耗大量资金，完成冗长繁复的手续。但
越来越多的业主义无反顾地走上关门之路，更严重地加剧了出租房的短缺问题。
第八，改变了业主的人口构造。适婚的年轻人，买不起房子，更承担不起当房东的风险
，纷纷搬离三藩市。而替补他们的，是中国移民。中国移民都非常省俭，不惜三代同堂
，甚至两三家人挤进一个单位。五、六个大人每人千多元的收入，80%都投放进房子贷
款里。这种艰苦的生活，哪有其他人做得到？因此，市内11个区，有6个区的主要人口
已逐渐变成华人。可悲的是，虽然华人在房东中占了多数，但由于忙于生计，不懂租务
条例，不参与选举，成了最大的牺牲品。
（四）发展
三藩市的房屋和租务市场变成了人为经济，不可预期。同样的单位，租金相差好几倍。
租务市场供求关系崩弦般的紧张，是因为条例令租客自禁于自己的单位，减低了出租房
的流通。房东租客关系空前恶劣，两个阶级不可逾越地对立，严重地伤害了房东的利益
和打击房东的积极性，这是导致短缺的另一原因。同时，出租业成了极高风险的行业。
如果业主不好运气，碰上长租客、坏租客，亏得一塌糊涂、官非缠身。如果业主碰巧遇
上短租客年年转手，回报就很高。风险高得像垃圾股、炒孖展一般。
而地产的价值，随时会大跌。选民随时会通过新的法案，更加收紧租务条例，导致房价
贬值。
例如，一直有人提议，限制空置率，不许业主空置单位；康斗改换必须通过更严格审批
，进一步减少每年200户的改建限额；并废除TIC。又例如，有人提出，除了老人、残疾
人，还要把十八岁以下的青少年划为不可驱赶的保护阶层。更甚，有人要求把1979年以
后兴建的房子都纳入租务管制。
所有对房东有利的法律空间不断被收紧，但对租客有利的则被扩大。例如，房东可以拒
绝租客饲养宠物，但不可以拒绝“服务性动物” （这个本来可以接受），但现在，“
服务性动物”的定义从盲人狗，扩展为所有帮助和安慰人的动物，包括陪伴情绪病人的
蛇，帮关节炎人士拿东西的猴子，等等等等。
2010年六月，有个提案上了全市的选票，“房东不可以收取超过租客收入33%的租金”
。 这提案不但把租客的经济负担推到业主身上，还可能会开始一个恐怖的先例：如果
租客无收入，是否可以不交房租，因为$0收入的33%是$0？这个提案如果通过，三藩市
房价一夜之内肚泻一半，业主会纷纷破产。
（五）六月提案
2010年六月的F提案，之前的一年就在蕴育草稿了。这个提案让我意识到：天真的会掉
下来，而没人白马勇士会为我们档。它一举粉碎了我听天由命、中庸无为之道！2009年
，参与了小业主协会组织的抗议活动，第一次到市政厅参加听证会，在市参事面前，与
租客协会面对面地辩论。
本来，市参事，是中立的仲裁者。他们聆听双方的理据，裁判这个提案草稿过不过。很
快发现，11个市参事中，有6个立定心意支持租客协会。这时，才惊讶地看到，这个提
案草稿的起草人落款，竟然就是这6位极左的民主党市参事！自己判自己写的提案，哪
有不过之理？为了讨好选民，他们把业主慷慨出去，无本万利地增加自己的政治本钱，
公平何在？！
如果全数11个市参事通过那草稿，就成法律了。否则，半数以上市参事通过，并提交市
长也获通过，就成法律了。好在市长否决了。那6个市参事继而把提案放到六月的选举
里，让租客占多数的选民决定是否成为法律。
听证会上，一个租客说的话，特别难忘。他说:“住房是每人的权利，理应分配给每个
人。我已经穷困潦倒，但贪心的房东，把我多年未升的月租，从$275，一次过上涨到$
300！我现在再没有能力去旅游了。我很痛苦!” 一个人，如果穷困潦倒，有何资格去
旅游？难道，房东还要支付你的五星级酒店？多少华人业主因为做了房奴，年复一年地
放弃了回乡探亲的奢侈？！
我决定付出全力，与小业主协会一起阻止这个提案，积极奔走，逢人就讲。经过一年的
努力，法案以少票数不通过，在这“租客必胜”的城市选举史，简直是奇迹。我们的努
力，竟然实现了渺茫的希望，扭转了痛苦的命运。
（六）结论
这次的成功，让我们晓幸地躲过了一场灾难。同时也意识到，不可坐以待毙。业主们要
向每一个人说出这些不公平的现象，让大家都知道这有血有泪的内幕。房东、业主表面
风光，内里惊惶，如惊弓之鸟，四面受敌，快要走投无路。最不齿的，是那6个不顾我
们死活、以权谋私利的极左市参事。房東、業主和所有要置業的人，都必須聯合起來，
通過選舉，保為自己的家園，維護團體的權益。
三藩市的房东，才是被泪水浸透的真正受害人！
Top
The Tragic History of SF Landlords
Background | Rent Ordinance | Effects | Outlook | June Ballot | Conclusion
| Published 9/22/2011 on Singtao Daily Forum
1. Background
Singtao Newspaper recently reported that a Chinese immigrant property owner
was forced into foreclosure due to months of non-payment from renter in his
property. During the foreclosure proceeding, the property owner found the
tenants can still live in the property without being evicted while he had to
return the property to the bank. He was enraged and got into a physical
fight with the tenants. The tenants called to the police and sent the
property owner to jail. The property owner, not only lost everything he had,
but also stripped off his dignity, just because he didn’t know the
stringent San Francisco Rent Ordinance.
Stories like this happens in the city’s Chinese American community everyday
. Landlord-tenant issues have brought legal and financial troubles to a lot
of Chinese immigrant homeowners and property owners. Many saw their hard
found American Dream that their extended families worked hard for evaporated
in front of their eyes. Why does the San Francisco Rent Ordinance has come
to this draconian state? This must be explained from how the law came about.
San Francisco is a tiny city, 7 miles by 7 miles, population 800,000. Its
density is about the same as Hong Kong (at 14,000 people/mile2), but only
occupies 1/10 of Hong Kong’s area. Yet unlike Hong Kong, San Francisco has
very few residential high rises. 90% of residential buildings are 2- to 3-
story houses built in the 1920s. These houses have similar floor plans: 1st
floor fronted with a single-door garage, is a 400 sqft illegal apartment.
The 2nd and/or 3rd floors are about 1500 sqft each. Each floor has a
separate entrance, and can be rented out separately. With this configuration
, each homeowner in San Francisco had the option to be a landlord. And
because of the housing pressure, most homeowners rented out a unit of their
homes and became landlords.
2. Rent Ordinance
A residential building usually has 3 to 4 owners but can house 10 people.
Therefore, San Francisco has 66% renters and 34% landlords. In 1979, due to
high housing demand, and the 13.3% ultra high inflation brought by the
energy crisis, rent in the city went up very quickly. Renters (who were also
voters) pressured the city hall into passing a rent control law, called “
THE RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION ORDINANCE”, known as the
“Rent Ordinance”. The Rent Ordinance stipulates residential units built
before 1979 (that is almost all residential houses), must follow the annual
rent increase guidelines specified by the Rent Board. This rent increase is
at 60% of CPI (which is far less than the rate of inflation), and must not
go above 7%. In 2010, when the greater San Francisco inflation rate was at 1
.8%[1], the annual rent increase was at 0.1%, rent only went up by $1 for
every $1000. The Rent Ordinance also specifies that the interest on the
security deposit must be calculated and returned to the renter annually. The
2009 interest rate on security deposit was at 5.2%, but the same time bank
savings account interest rate was at 0.5%. Since 1993, the average annual
rent increase is 2% (very low), and the annual interest rate on security
deposit is 4% (very high).
Additionally, the Rent Ordinance gives renters the following advantages:
- Renter can invite new roommates to share the units, if the landlord wasn’
t careful in prohibiting subletting in the lease.
- Landlord can not charge additional rent for these new roommates.
- These new roommates can take over the lease even when the original renters
depart.
The ordinances tilted toward the renters. The landlords in minority having
the law forced down on them, starting to use the “Owner Move-in” as a way
to evict tenants. Tenants then pass another set of ordinance targeting
landlords:
- Renters only needs to notify the landlords in writings 30 days in advance
to vacate the unit.
- But landlords can only claim the rental unit with one of the few realistic
“Just Clauses”:
– No payment, or late payments of 3 months or more
– Owner move-in must compensate renters a relocation cost of $4,500 per
person, plus $3,000 extra per minor, senior or disabled. (That is $20,000
for a family!) And from that point on, this unit can not be rented for a
long time.
– If a unit is occupied by a long-term tenant who is disabled or is over
60 years old, then owner can not move-in to evict the renter, not even
paying the relocation fee.
Related Rules:
- When the original renters vacated the unit, the landlord can rent the unit
at market price.
- Most houses built after 1979 are not covered under rent control. Landlords
can raise rent or evict tenants at any time without cause.
- Every house can only have 1 unit declared as owner-occupied. Once declared
, it’ll be extremely difficult to change to another unit.
3. Effects
The Rent Ordinance has created abnormal affects on San Francisco housing
market.
First, renters have become prisoners of their own homes. For example, Joe
rented a unit for $300/month 10 years ago. The law enforced rent increase
averages to 2% a year during this time, and now his rent is at $366/month.
But a similar unit’s market rent is at $850. Joe will never give up his
unit. He’d rather spend 4 hours a day on commute.
Second, a vacant unit would have to be charged a few times more. A landlord
is not in a charity business and doesn’t want to lose money forever renting
out part of her home. With the new vacancy, the landlord has a chance to
make up what she had lost before, plus figure in what she may lose in the
future, add a bit of buffer, and make up a good price. For example, Joe
above moved out after 10 years, landlord Jane would have been OK with a rent
of $488 (adjusted for 5% inflation & operation costs), but she needs to
make up the lost from the previous 10 years, and what if the next tenant may
stay for another 10 years? At that time, the approved rent would only be at
$600, but the break even rent would need to be at $814. To be safe, Jane
will charge $850 now.
The result of the market rent leads to new tenants paying high rents for the
old tenants. 5 or 6 young college kids have to squeeze into a 3-bedroom
unit sleeping in the dining room and living room, each pays half of their
incomes from table-waiting jobs, barely scrapping by. Yet long-term tenants
enjoying substantial low rents can save up lots of money, some even use the
savings to buy a rental property outside of the city and become a landlord.
Ironic!
Third, middle-aged renters are passed off silently. Because long-term
tenants 60 years or older, or disabled, are a protected class that can not
be evicted. Many landlords would not dare to accept applicants in their 50s
or even late 40s.
Fourth, houses with renters are sold way below market price. If all units in
a house are rented, the house will not sell at all, because no investor
would want to take over a money losing business. On the contrary, if all
units are vacated, the house will sell well above market price. Once, there
was a 3-story building on sale with 1 vacant unit. Everything looked good,
but it was listed at 70% of market price instead of the full price. Turned
out there was an old lady living on the top floor. The house sat on the hot
market for months even with a heavily discounted offer price.
Fifth, new renters find ways to evade high rents. There have been many
incidents of renters living in illegal units reported the code violation to
the DBI, and forced landlords to demolish the unit. The landlords not only
have to pay for the demolition, DBI fees and other expenses to bring the
unit to code, but also have to pay the renters the huge relocation fees, on
top of refund of up to 3 years of back rent.
Renters liberally take advantage of the Rent Ordinances and squeeze money
out of the landlords. However, when it is time for them to buy a house but
not able to, they realize how hard it is to be a homeowner landlord, and
most often regret what they have done.
Sixth, landlord resentments run deep. The Rent Ordinances bring landlords
hassles, financial losses, legal troubles, grieve, anger and aggravation. It
even stripped landlords’ right to their own homes. A handyman told me his
80-year old mother living on the 2nd floor couldn’t get up and down the
stairs any more, and asked her 1st floor tenants to vacate the unit. The
tenants sued the old lady and won. The old lady not only had to pay the
legal fees to the court and lawyers, but also the $20,000 relocation fee to
the family. And from that point on till possibly her lifetime, her 1st floor
unit can no longer be rented out, and her 2nd floor unit can no longer be
owner occupied. Devastated, the old lady had a heart attack, and never
recover from the grieve and ailment.
Seventh, homeowner landlords get out of the rental business altogether to
avoid the constrains of renters and Rent Ordinance. Once all units are
vacated, the homeowner could convert the building to condos or TICs, and
sell them piecemeal to other home buyers. Or they could take down the
building and rebuild it as a post-1979 house, which will not be subject to
rent control. Some other homeowner landlords would just let the units sit
vacant, simply to end the unjust and grieve brought to them by the tenants.
The most frustrated landlords would remove the whole building from the
rental market, in order to evict all tenants. All of these methods require
homeowners to put up with huge financial commitments and mounts of paperwork
, yet more and more property owners are going for the exits because they are
so fed up that they close their rental businesses once and for all. This
further strains the shortage of rental housing.
Last, the Rent Ordinances change the demographics of the homeowner
population. Young couples wanting to settle down can not afford a home nor
bear the burden to be a landlord, they flee the city in droves. The
demographics to replace them, are recent first generation Chinese immigrants
. Chinese immigrants are very frugal, it is common to see 3 generations or 2
to 3 families live together in the main unit of a single family home, and
still rent out the illegal unit to help out the mortgage. 80% of the income
from each of the 5 to 6 adult earners would be put into paying down the
house. No one else is able to endure this hard life to make home-ownership
work. Therefore, Chinese Americans have slowly dominated the homeowner
population in 6 out of the 11 districts in the city. Chinese immigrant
homeowners are relatively new to the city and are ignorant about the history
and extents of the Rent Ordinances. They are also preoccupied with work to
keep their homes afloat and do not participate in city politics or city-wide
elections. Sadly, even though they are the majority, the Chinese immigrant
property owners have become the biggest victim of the harsh landlord-tenant
relationship.
Outlook
San Francisco housing market has become a man-made economy, the days of a
predictable free market economy are long forgotten. The effect is that the
demand and supply tension is sky-high. Long-term tenants benefiting from low
rents are confined in their own units and thus reduce the circulations of
rental stock.
The Rent Ordinances also divide the landlords and tenants into two
insurmountable opposite classes, landlord-tenant relationship is
unprecedentedly bad. The Rent Ordinances aggressively harm the interests and
initiatives of the homeowners and landlords, further diminishing the rental
stock.
Rental business has become a high risk industry. If the homeowner landlord
is unlucky and run into a string of long-term or bad tenants, he would lose
money to no end. Worse, he may even be sued, lose his home, and be jailed.
But if he is lucky, the unit turns over every year, then his return would be
high. The risk of rental business is worse than junk bonds and penny stocks.
Meanwhile, the property values could fall without notice. Voters could pass
new propositions to further tighten the Rent Ordinances, and cause the
rental houses to de-valuate rapidly.
For example, it has long been suggested to control the vacancy rate,
outlawing homeowners who let their units sit vacant. There are also
suggestions to further reduce the 200-unit a year quota on condo conversions
, as well as eliminate TICs. Other proposals had been, to add youth under 18
into the protected class of non-eviction. Worst, some even proposed to
regulate post-1979 buildings.
Remaining rules in the Rent Ordinance that used to favor landlords are
continuously tweaked to favor tenants. For example, landlords can reject
applicants with pets, but must accept service animals. This would have been
reasonable, and most landlords have no problem making the accommodations for
the disabled in need of service animals. But now, the definition of “
service animals” has been expanded from specially trained guide dogs, to
any animals that could potentially help or comfort any patient, such as
snakes that might help relax people with mental disorders, or monkeys that
could fetch things for arthritis patients, et cetera, et cetera.
In June 2010, Proposition F went on the city-wide ballot: “Landlords can
not increase rent exceeding 33% of tenants’ income”. This proposition not
only unfairly pushes the tenants’ economy burden to the landlords, but may
also start a scary precedent – what if one day the tenant loses his job,
will future law be modified to allow the tenant not to pay rent, because 33%
of his income of $0 is $0? If this proposition ever passes, the housing
market in San Francisco will crash overnight, many homeowner landlords will
go into foreclosures and lose their homes.
June Ballot
The proposal of this proposition, came a year earlier before it went onto
the ballot. Seeing this bill, it made me realized the sky was falling. It
violently jolted me out of the Chinese merits of “endurance” and “none
involvement”. In 2009, I joined the protests organized by the Small
Property Owners of SF, and for the very first time, attended public hearings
at the city hall. We came face-to-face with the tenant’s organizations,
testifying in front of the city supervisors.
City supervisors, are meant to be neutral arbiters who listen to arguments
from both sides, and then decide if the legislation could pass into law (
with modifications), or should be rejected without merit. Very quickly I
observed, 6 out of the 11 supervisors had already made up their minds to
support the tenant’s organizations. Only then I noticed, on the printout of
the legislation, the names listed as sponsors of the bill, were no other
than these 6 liberal supervisors! It totally shocked me! These supervisors
were judging their own bill, how could it ever fail to pass? They were
serving the helpless homeowner landlords on a platter in exchange for
political capital. Where is the justice?
If all 11 supervisors approved the legislation, it would have become law
instantly. If 6 supervisors approve, and the mayor also approves, it would
have become law too. Luckily, Mayor Newsome didn’t approve it. The 6 pro-
tenant supervisors then submitted the legislation as a proposition to the
city-wide ballot, and let pro-tenant voters to make the final decision.
A testimonial offered by a tenant in one of the public hearings forever
engraved into my mind. He said: “Housing is an entitlement. Everyone should
be given a shelter. I am on fixed income and tight on basic needs. My rent
had been on $275 for years, but my greedy new landlord, has just suddenly
raised it to $300 ! I can no longer go on vacations! I am suffering!” If a
person’s money is tight on basic needs, can he still afford the luxury of
vacations? Should his landlord pay for his 5-star hotel? How many of us
Chinese immigrants landlords haven’t been able to afford a trip going back
home in years? More importantly, if housing is an entitlement for a tenant,
it should be paid for by the government, not an individual homeowner
landlord or property owner, barely making his/her business survive.
I decided to put in my all effort, and stood with the Small Property Owners
to prevent this proposition from becoming law. Any free time I had, I went
on the street and talked about it with everyone I met, neighbors or
strangers. After a year’s non-stop hard work by thousands of people, this
proposition was narrowly defeated in the ballot. In a city with a long
history of “tenants always win”, this defeat is a miracle unheard of!
Conclusion
Our success defeating this proposition, had spared us homeowners from a
devastating disaster that would have doomed our fate. More importantly, it
proves that homeowner landlords must tell everyone the unfairness and
suffering we endure everyday. Homeowner landlords may looked upon enviously
by others to have a house, but within, we are scared, squeezed, trapped,
surrounded, nowhere to run and no one would help. The most despicable, are
the 6 city supervisors. Not only did they not perform their duty to protect
their citizens, they abused their elected powers, sacrificed us and our
homes, for their own political advances!
San Francisco homeowner landlords, soaked in their own tears, are the real
victims in the tragic history of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. | p****i
发帖数: 83 | 2 暴民政治，民粹主义。可惜，大多选民就是短视自私的，所有民主国家都会最终favor
懒惰，敌视勤劳致富。
【在 m****a 的大作中提到】
: 三藩市房东的血泪史 The Tragic History of SF Landlords
: 作者：苦叶
: | 发表于2011年9月22日《星岛日报》
: （零）前言
: 最近『星岛日报』新闻上，有位三藩市华人房东因租霸长期欠租，而被迫银主盘。在银
: 行清盘的过程中，发现这些导致他破产的租客仍然住在他的楼房里，激愤难当！他与这
: 些租客发生骂战，并升级到肢体冲突。事后，租霸恶人先告状，报警把房东送进了牢房
: 。可怜的房东，因为不懂租务法律，白白失去了心爱的房子，一生的积蓄也化为虚有，
: 还失去了做人的尊严。
: 这样的故事天天发生，华人业主的租务纠纷，让许多人倾家荡产。甜美的美国梦，有可
|
|
