Jake McGoldrick: Budget Priorities, False HOPE

Last month's Richmond Town Hall Meeting on the budget provided me with the views of community members as to funding priorities for the Richmond. I heard you loud and clear and, in response to your priorities, I will fight to fund Richmond programs that emphasize services for our families, from children to teens to seniors.

Any cuts in the SF Recreation and Park Department budget should not be at the expense of crucial after-school programs for children and teens. Likewise, any cuts in the Health Department's budget should not come at the expense of crucial senior programs, such as those at the Richmond Senior Center.

Please plan to attend the next Town Hall Meeting, where we will be discussing the mayor's final budget that he will submit on June 1. The meeting will take place on Thursday, June 6, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Richmond Recreation Center, located at 251 18th Ave.

False HOPE
Last week, the Transportation and Commerce Committee held hearings on legislation known by the acronym HOPE. With a name like HOPE, it promises a great deal. Proponents of the legislation promise that it will provide tenants an opportunity to buy their own units from their landlords at prices well below market rates. They also promise that tenants who do not purchase will get "lifetime leases" offering better protections than rent control. It sounds very promising and I was eager to learn more about how this legislation might achieve its promised goals.

Unfortunately, after my staff and I spent many hours studying the measure and meeting with the city attorney, I concluded that HOPE offers only false hope.

HOPE would essentially open the door for unlimited condominium conversions of rent controlled buildings without any secure protections for tenants. Proponents of HOPE claim that it provides "tenants" the opportunity to buy their own units, but a closer look calls this claim into serious question. HOPE allows a building to be converted when only a fraction of the "tenants" living there want it to become condominiums. It allows conversion of large buildings for the first time.

Most of our seniors occupy long-term, rent controlled units in large buildings. HOPE allows conversion of such large buildings if "tenants" equal to 25 percent of the units file an "intent to purchase." But even this provision is misleading.

For example, owners qualify as "tenants" under HOPE, and some buildings have several joint owners. Thus, some buildings could convert with owners filing many of the intents to purchase. In addition, the 25 percent figure does not mean at least one "tenant" from each of 25 percent of the units. Rather, it means "tenants" representing 25 percent of the number of units.

Other "tenants" may actually be corporations that hold leases of entire floors of large buildings, as is true at Fox Plaza or the Golden Gateway Apartments.

Even if 25 real tenants from 25 separate units in a 100-unit building decide they want the opportunity to buy their units, they might still be denied that opportunity under HOPE. HOPE does not require the owner/subdivider to file a list of planned improvements and their costs, as is required under the current condo conversion process.

Consequently, those tenants expecting to purchase their units after subdivision may be in for a last minute surprise. After a building has been converted to condos under HOPE, the owner/subdivider may present the purchasing tenants with bills for improvements amounting to hundreds or thousands more than the purchase price to which they agreed. Most tenants will not be able to afford such an increase, leaving the owner free to sell the unit to the highest bidder.

The bottom line here is that thousands of rent-controlled apartments would be converted to condos under HOPE, even if only a handful of real tenants wanted it. Since condo conversions remove apartments from rent control under California law, HOPE will essentially repeal rent control on those units.

I am truly disappointed that HOPE has not fulfilled its promise.

Perhaps with amendments, it may yet live up to it's billing. My office is exploring an alternative proposal that would allow conversions of apartments buildings to condo when tenants from every unit in a building wish to convert. Please let me know your thoughts on this idea and on the HOPE proposal.

Jake McGoldrick is a San Francisco supervisor representing District 1. His office can be reached at 554-7410.