League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	San Francisco County, CA June 8, 2010 Election
	Proposition F Renters' Financial Hardship Applications San Francisco County Ordinance - Majority Approval Required Fail: 62239 / 42.25% Yes votes ...... 85071 / 57.75% No votes See Also: Index of all Propositions

Arguments For Proposition F

Arguments Against Proposition F

Proposition F is a modest change to our current rent laws that allows tenants to temporarily postpone new rent increases during tough economic times. San Francisco rents, already the highest in the country, soared during the speculative frenzy of the real estate bubble. Apartment buildings were bought and sold at record rates by real estate investors funded with Wall Street money. With each sale, the new landlord would significantly increase rents on vacant units and then try to force out tenants in rent-controlled units. From 2005 to 2010, rents on 2 bedroom apartments soared by over 50%, from just under $2,000 to nearly $3,000. When the real estate bubble burst, rents did not come down but incomes did. When the excesses of real estate speculation forced the economy into a tailspin, San Francisco found itself with an unemployment rate of over 10% and tens of thousands more renters were forced into part-time work. And, many senior renters living on Social Security found out they would not get a cost of living increase on their already-meager benefits. Thus, renters were left trying to pay extraordinarily high rents while seeing their income disappear or get slashed. Much attention has been focused on keeping homeowners in their homes. We need to pay the same attention to the plight of renters who can barely pay their rents and who would lose their homes if their rents increase further. Proposition F will let renters who have lost their job or had their pay cut significantly to temporarily postpone any new rent increases. Vote YES on Prop F. Board of Supervisors President David Chiu Sup. John Avalos Sup. David Campos Sup. Chris Daly Sup. Eric Mar Sup. Ross Mirkarimi Rebuttal to Arguments For No Rebuttal to Proponent's Argument in Favor of Proposition F was Submitted

Prop F is a bad policy that is poorly drafted. It poses risks to those it seeks to protect while providing benefits to those who do not need them. The unintended, but very real, consequences of Prop F outweigh the good intentions of the proposal. Prop F will prove to be a burden for renters and landlords alike. Prop F Poses Risks for Low Income Renters Prop F will undermine existing hardship policies and will hurt those who most need financial relief. Prop F will increase the requirements for those applying for hardship relief, and will put some tenants at higher risk for eviction Prop F Will Result in Higher Rents Prop F will lead landlords to increase rents on vacant units in order to recoup losses on other units protected from rent increases. Prop F will lead landlords to pass on these increased costs to new tenants. The risk is greatest for unemployed workers who will need to find lower cost housing because of their lost income. Prop F imposes new restrictions on landlords at the same time the City is instituting costly environmental programs, including energy efficiency requirements and mandatory recycling. Prop F Will Protect Higher Income Renters Prop F is a poorly written proposal that creates loopholes in the existing law. Prop F will protect renters whose income has dropped twenty percent, including those whose income has declined from $200,000 to $150,000. Voters should be aware of the unintended consequences of this proposal. Please join us and vote NO on Prop F Supervisor Sean R. Elsbernd Supervisor Carmen Chu Rebuttal to Arguments Against Prop F is a measured response to a real crisis caused by the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Tenants who have lost their jobs or seen their wages cut simply cannot afford to pay an increase in their already high rent. Prop F does what any decent landlord would do anyway: give a tenant who's struggling financially a break. Any good landlord would --on their own --hold off on giving a rent increase to someone who's just lost their job. Rent Control currently has some provisions to let tenants postpone some --but not all --rent increases due to financial hardship. But these are inadequate to deal with the crisis we face today. Prop F adds a new provision for hardship --on top of the others --specifically designed for renters who have been hardest hit by the recession. It applies to all rent increases and ensures that tenants facing financial hardship due to the recession will get rent increases postponed. Sups. Chu and Elsbernd --who always vote against rent control --would have you believe that this measure will hurt tenants. But why are they and the landlords so vehemently fighting it? Do not believe their false and misleading claims. Prop F is fair and simple: If you lost your job, had wages cut or did not see government benefits increase and are paying more than 33% of your income to rent, you can get rent increases postponed. See http://www.sftu.org for more on Prop F YES on F. San Francisco Tenants Union