Letters: Landlords need more rights 

➤ “Agenda seeks action on housing front,” The City, Wednesday

Landlords need more rights

As a renter of various apartments through the past 40 years, there is little about which to complain, except the governmental restraints placed upon landlords as to whom they may reject as tenants.

The yearly 4 percent rental increase is barely keeping the landlords in a fair market. With the sloppy conduct, total disregard for other’s property and mere ignorance of the less-than-desirable apartment occupants, it is nearly impossible to turn a profit when repairing and correcting man-made trashing.

Landlords need the opportunity to exercise an amount of discretion when accepting new tenants.

Otherwise, all the building’s tenants and the property owner suffer the misdeeds of those thrust upon them.

William J. Coburn

San Francisco

➤ “S.F. housing lawsuits is just the beginning,” Opinion, Friday

S.F. can fund rent control

When a building comes up for sale that has a renter profile indicating that this building is likely to have an Ellis Act eviction, The City or one of the many nonprofit housing organizations in S.F. should buy the property and continue to rent those units at the rent-controlled rates. The renter profile will be obvious — long-term renters paying a fraction of the market rent. Problem solved.

If The City and these organizations believe in rent control, they should buy rent-controlled buildings. The Mayor’s Office of Housing and these nonprofit housing providers have huge city-funded budgets.

The voters in San Francisco just passed a $1.5 billion bond measure for housing; use some of the money to preserve low-income housing.

It is cheaper to preserve these affordable units than to build new ones.

No Ellis evictions involved and the long-term small-property owners get their sale price. War over. Low-income housing preserved.

David Fix

San Francisco

➤ High-speed rail

State can’t afford project

California won’t be fiscally solvent until Gov. Jerry Brown kills his high-speed rail money pit.

Local and state media recently have reported that California currently owes $400 billion for state pensions, bonds and federal government payments. But Brown’s budget proposes only $1 billion to pay down this debt. California can’t afford hundreds of billions in new debt for a “train to nowhere.”

Politicians promised a $38 billion HSR train in 2008, then the estimate to build it ballooned to $118 billion, and after public criticism the High Speed Rail Authority “magically” lowered it to $68 billion.

But California originally estimated the Bay Bridge construction to cost only $1.2 billion, then completed it at $7 billion.

California “mega projects” usually cost six times over original estimate (due to union costs) so high-speed rail’s $118 billion estimate will really cost more than $700 billion if ever completed.

Mike Brown


About The Author

Examiner Readers

Pin It

More by Examiner Readers

Latest in Letters to the Editor

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation