S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)

Citation: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Parent Document: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2024-09-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10114513/sf-apartment-assn-v-city-county-of-sf/ ↗

Full Text

1,876 chars

14
fourth day.” He stated that the “additional 10 days would really be a game
changer.”
      Supervisor Preston continued: “The fact is that as a society we don’t
resolve any other disputes like this. Home foreclosures, consumer debts, car
repossessions, you name it. In no other situation does someone have just
three days before losing their home or property. But for some reason, and the
reasons are probably beyond our discussion today, but for some reason our
system accepts three days as sufficient for resolving landlord-tenant disputes
that lead to people losing their homes. So, if a warning period can keep
people in their homes and resolve a pending dispute without litigation, I
think we have a moral obligation to make that happen. And that’s the
purpose of this Ordinance.” The Land Use and Transportation Committee
voted unanimously to recommend the ordinance to the Board.
      At the January 25, 2022 Board meeting, Supervisor Preston largely
repeated his statements from the committee hearing. He again argued that
evictions should be a “tool of last resort.” He explained the timing under
section 1161 in more detail: “As it stands right now, a landlord can demand
rent, for example, on day one, and if a tenant can’t come up with the rent
within three days the tenant is subject to eviction. And that landlord can
even evict if the tenant comes up with the full rent on the fourth or fifth day.
And the same is true for many other types of eviction. This happens too often
and it’s just wrong.” Supervisor Preston again stated that “for some reason
our system accepts three days as sufficient for resolving landlord-tenant
disputes,” and that “ten days warning before eviction would be a game
changer.”
      These statements evidence the procedural purpose of Ordinance No. 18-
22. They criticize the “system” under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text