Slumlords would have everyone believe that San Francisco is a “renters’ paradise.” A place where hard-working landlords are routinely taken advantage of by rent-avoiding bums who want to be constantly pampered.
On the contrary: It’s not renters who hold “untouchable” status, but slumlords themselves.
In fact, San Francisco is long overdue for serious reforms in protecting tenants.
Part One of this series outlined three overdue reforms needed at the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), San Francisco’s primary tenant-protecting agency. Here are an additional 17:
- If the landlord fails to comply with the actions ordered within 30 days, the entire fine should go into the City’s coffers–to be divided among DBI and other agencies charged with protecting San Francisco residents.
- In addition, he shuld be hit again with a fine that’s at least twice the amount of the first one.
- Inspectors for DBI should be allowed to cite landlords for violations that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Health (DPH). They can then pass the information on to DPH for its own investigation.
- If the DBI Inspector later discovers that the landlord has not corrected the violation within a designated time-period, DBI should be allowed to levy its own fine for his failure to do so.
- If DPH objects to this, DBI should propose that DPH’s own Inspectors be armed with similar cross-jurisdictional authority. Each agency would thus have increased motivation for spotting and correcting health/safety violations that threaten the lives of San Francisco residents.
- This would instantly turn DBI and DPH into allies, not competitors. And it would mean that whether a citizen called DBI or DPH, s/he could be assured of getting necessary assistance. As matters now stand, many residents are confused by the conflicting jurisdictions of both agencies.
- DBI should insist that its Inspectors Division be greatly expanded. DBI can attain this by arguing that reducing the number of Inspectors cuts (1) protection for San Francisco renters–and (2) monies that could go to the general City welfare.
- The Inspection Division should operate independently of DBI. Currently, too many high-ranking DBI officials tilt toward landlords because they are landlords themselves.
- DBI should create a Special Research Unit that would compile records on the worst slumlord offenders. Thus, a slumlord with a repeat history of defying DBI NOVs could be treated more harshly than a landlord who was a first-time offender.
- Turning DBI into a revenue-producing one would enable the City to raise desperately-needed revenues—in a highly popular way. Fining delinquent slumlords would be as unpopular as raising taxes on tobacco companies. Only slumlords and their hired lackey allies would object.
- Slumlords, unlike drug-dealers, can’t move their operations from one street or city to another. Landlords aren’t going to demolish their buildings and move them somewhere else.
- DBI should order landlords to post their Notices of Violation in public areas of their buildings–on pain of serious financial penalties for failing to do so. When DBI orders a slumlord to take corrective action, s/he is the only person who is notified. Thus, if that slumlord refuses to comply with those directives, s/he is the only one who realizes it. Tenants have a right to know if their landlord is complying with the law.
- DBI should launch and maintain a city-wide advertising campaign to alert residents to its services. Everyone knows the FBI pursues bank robbers, but too many San Franciscans do not even know that DBI exists, let alone what laws it enforces.
- This should be an in-your-face campaign: “Do you have bedbugs in your apartment? Has your stove stopped working? Are you afraid to ride in your building elevator because it keeps malfunctioning? Have you complained to your landlord and gotten nowhere? Then call DBI at —–. Or drop us an email at ——.”
- Landlords should be legally required to give each tenant a list of the major city agencies (such as DBI, Department of Public Health and the Rent Board) that exist to help tenants resolve problems with their housing.
- Landlords should be legally required to rehabilitate a unit every time a new tenant moves in, or at least have it examined by a DBI inspector every two years. A tenant can occupy a unit for ten or more years, then die or move out, and the landlord immediately rents the unit to the first person who comes along, without making any repairs or upgrades whatsoever.
- Landlords should be required to bring all the units in a building up to existing building codes, and not just those in need of immediate repair.
- Landlords should be legally required to hire a certified-expert contractor to perform building repairs. Many landlords insist on making such repairs despite their not being trained or experienced in doing so, thereby risking the lives of their tenants.
ABC NEWS, BEDBUGS, BUILDING INSPECTION, BUSINESS, CBS NEWS, CNN, ELLIS ACT, FACEBOOK, FEDERAL ASSET FORFEITURE STATUTES, LANDLORDS, MAFIA, NBC NEWS, ORGANIZED CRIME, RENT CONTROL, RENTERS, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SLUMLORDS, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, URBAN GREEN INVESTMENTS
SLUMLORDS–THE REAL UNTOUCHABLES: PART THREE (END)
In Bureaucracy, Law, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on July 18, 2014 at 6:23 amSan Francisco tenants need not be put at the mercy of greedy, arrogant slumlords. And the agencies that are supposed to protect them need not be reduced to impotent farces.
The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI)–which is charged with guaranteeing the habitability of apartment buildings–should immediately adopt a series of long-overdue refirms.
Presently, there is no bureaucratic incentive for DBI to rigorously control the criminality of slumlords. But this can be instilled–by making DBI merely a law-enforcing agency but a revenue-creating one.
Parts One and Two of this series outlined a series of long overdue reforms at DBI. Here are the remaining four:
By doing so, DBI could vastly:
And such reforms are equally overdue at the San Francisco District Attorney’s office. Among these:
By doing so, it can:
But slumlord atrocities are by no means confined to San Francisco. This is a crisis that needs to be confronted at State and Federal levels.
Many cities lack adequate funding to effectively investigate and prosecute slumlord abuses. And even when the money exists for such efforts, the will to redress such abuses is often lacking.
Thus, legislation is essential at State and Federal levels to ensure that law-abiding tenants are protected against law-breaking slumlords.
At the core of this effort must be a revised view of slumlords. They should be seen, investigated and prosecuted in the same way as Mafia predators.
Their crimes are not “victimless.” And their victims are usually those who are too poor to effectively fight back.
And, like the Mafia, they easily buy public officials–including law enforcement agents–and/or hide their crimes behind teams of expensive attorneys.
At the Federal level, the Justice Department should designate a special section within the FBI to investigate and prosecute slumlord abuses.
Or this could be set up within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
At the State level, similar tenant-protection units should be created within the Department of Justice.
The power of slumlords calls to mind the scene in 1987′s The Untouchables, where Sean Connery’s veteran cop tells Eliot Ness: “Everybody knows where the liquor is. It’s just a question of: Who wants to cross Capone?”
It’s long past time for local, state and Federal governments to forcefully speak up on behalf of American tenants who cannot defend themselves against predatory slumlords.
As Robert F. Kennedy wrote: “Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on.”
Share this: