Tenant Rights Groups & Supes Propose Amending Wiener TIC Conversion Plan

Ted Gullicksen of the San Francisco Tenants Union joined supervisors in unveiling an alternative to controversial legislation. Photo: Rebecca Bowe for the SFBG

Ted Gullicksen of the San Francisco Tenants Union joined supervisors in unveiling an alternative to controversial TIC/Condo convdrsion legislation. Photo: Rebecca Bowe for the SFBG

Yesterday on the steps of City Hall a coalition of Tenants Rights Groups and Supervisors Jane Kim, Norman Yee and Board of Supervisor President, David Chiu announced they’d come up with an amended plan for converting Tenant-in-Common(TIC) property to condos that’ll work better than the current, hotly contested and polarizing Wiener/Farrell proposal.

As the Biscuit has been posting the original proposal set out by the Castro’s Sup. Scott Wiener and his fellow BOS member Dist. 2′s Mark Farrell stated that TIC’s could now skip the City lottery conversion program, pay a one time fee of $20,000, and convert the property to Condo status immediately.

Dist 2 Sup. Mark Farrell and Dist. 8 Sup. Scott Wiener (Photo: BeyondChron)

Dist 2 Sup. Mark Farrell and Dist. 8 Sup. Scott Wiener (Photo: BeyondChron)

Tenant groups opposed this idea as Condo’s aren’t covered by current City rent control parmaters, will reduce the number of affordable houses available on the already beyond tight housing market, allow real estate speculators to continue to abuse City loop holes and policies currently in place and increase Ellis Act led evictions.

The new amendment to the Wiener/Farrell bill comes from a coalition of Tenant Unions and Supervisors. It allows the 2000 TIC units wishing to convert currently enrolled in the City’s lottery to do so after paying the proposed fee to become condos-BUT-after that a ten-year moratorium will be put in place stopping any new conversions from occurring.

The idea behind the 10-year suspension on condo conversions is it would allow time for permanent, affordable units to be built-in place of the rental units that would be lost to the one-time conversion.

The 10-year suspension is based on current regulations that TIC owners hate that hold condo conversions at 200 per year. It would last a decade because there are 2,000 units waiting to be converted, but the suspension could last longer than that. If more TIC’s get added to the list the moratorium would increase as well: 2,200 TIC units wanting to convert equals 11 year wait. 2,400 equals a 12 year hold and so on.

SF Tenants UnionThe 2000 TIC’s currently on the City’s lotto wait list for condo conversion would have their change in status staggered over the course of three years so a giant sucking sound in the housing market wouldn’t be created by all of them to go condo at the same time.

In future lotteries, only buildings with four units or less would be eligible, unlike the five and six-unit buildings that currently qualify. The amendments would also change occupancy requirements for conversion from one owner occupant to two in three-unit buildings, and three owner occupants for four-unit buildings. This will help keep speculators from buying up buildings and evicting tenants out of hand.

“Condo conversions are the number one reason why people are being evicted from the city,” San Francisco Tenants Union executive director Ted Gullicksen said at Monday’s tax day rally.

SF Mayor Ed Lee had said earlier last month he wanted to see a compromise put forth as negotiations between tenants advocates and the Wiener/Farrell camp had broken down and gone no where.

The new proposal is a move toward finding more common ground though many are still dissatisfied and skeptical of how this will all work out in the end. It now moves before the Land Use Committee for discussion and then the full Board.

UPDATE: Renaming SFO for Harvey Milk Hitting Serious Turbulence

San Francisco Int'l Airport

Dist. 9 Supervisor David Campos initiative to rename San Francisco International Airport for the Castro’s slain, LGBT, political icon, Harvey Milk, has hit some serious resistance on its attempted take off.

As we posted mid month in January, David Campos announced he was going to introduce an initiative to honor Harvey Milk by recasting our City’s well used international airport in his name.

Under great fanfare Campos raised the issue with the Board of Supervisors knowing he had the support of five Supervisors John Avalos-Dist. 11, Jane Kim-Dist. 4, Eric Mar-Dist. 1 and Scott Wiener-Dist. 8 who currently occupies Harvey’s historic seat on the Board.

The all important sixth vote from a Supervisor to make the issue move forward on to a Citywide ballot measure hasn’t been secured leaving the whole proposal on shaky ground.

Resistance has come from several directions. One of the most surprising coming from the Bay Area Reporter (B.A.R.), SF’s largest and oldest LGBT newspaper, who called the proposed name change, ‘a bad idea’.

SF Mayor Ed Lee

SF Mayor Ed Lee

According to SF Gate’s, City Insider blog, Mayor Ed Lee told the Chronicle editorial board that he found Campos’ process of announcing the legislation before building consensus to be disrespectful.

“Naming rights of areas also have to be respectful of other people who also have equally huge contributions to the City’s legacy and history,” the City Insider reported Mayor Ed Lee saying. “I just don’t believe that level of respect was reflected in the announcement of renaming the airport.”

Its obvious this suggestion to rename SFO for Harvey Milk by Supervisor Camps is akin to stirring a political hornets nest and many worry how this will reflect on the memory of the slain civil rights leader if it’s put up for popular vote as it most likely will turn ugly.

Larry Mazzola, Sr-Pres. of Airport Com.

Larry Mazzola, Sr-Pres. of Airport Com.

SFO Airport Commissioner president, Larry Mazzola Sr, appointed to the Airport Commission by Mayor Frank Jordan on February 14, 1994, believes the airport shouldn’t be named after anyone.

Castro resident, Cleve Jones, former legislative aide to Harvey Milk, Names Project Quilt founder, currently working as union organizer for UNITE HERE! was quoted in the B.A.R. saying, “I am supportive of the idea, but people need to understand this isn’t necessarily a slam dunk-powerful forces, I suspect, will attempt to derail this.”

Campos remains undeterred.

He believes Harvey was all about sending people a message of hope and equality as he historically stated in many campaign stumps and in his infamous ‘Gotta Give ‘Em Hope’ speech.

Campos concludes the City has a rare opportunity to broadcast these core beliefs as its own to 40 million visitors who cross through SFO every year simply by being the first major international airport ever to honor the pride and worth of one it’s LGBT citizens with this renaming distinction.

 

Board of Supervisors narrowly approve city-wide ban on nudity in preliminary 6-5 vote

Supervisor Scott Wiener talks to the media about nudity ban via SFist

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors narrowly approved Supervisor Scott Wiener’s city-wide ban on nudity in a 6-5 preliminary vote today.

Supervisors in opposition to Wieners city-wide nudity ban said that the ban would draw on limited police resources and eat away at the city’s reputation for tolerance. Supervisor John Avalos of District 11 said that he was voting against the measure because he was, “concerned about civil liberties, about free speech, about changing San Francisco’s style and how we are as a city.”

The ban amends the San Francisco Police Code by adding Section 154 to prohibit nudity on public streets, sidewalks, street medians, parklets, and plazas, and on public transit vehicles, stations, platforms, and stops, except as part of permitted parades, fairs, and festivals. Violations of the ban would risk a $100 fine, repeat violations could lead to a $500 fine and a year in jail.

While the ban makes exceptions for events like Folsom Street Fair and Pride, it does not allow for your average, run-of-the-mill, kinky community fundraisers or parties.

Last week, nudists retained attorney Christina DiEdoardo to file a class-action lawsuit against the city in the case the nudity ban passed citing that a ban would “infringe on the nudists’ right to free speech.”

A final vote on the ban is expected to come next week.