Section 37
- Citation
- Section 37
- Parent Document
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-08-02
Other Sections in This Document (49)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999)
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
- Section 37
Full Text
668 charsa housing service, not decreasing one, because these services are among those included in the ordinance’s definition of housing services. Furthermore, contends appellant, by applying the ordinance as it did the Board acted inconsistently with other ordinance provisions and with the essential purpose of the rent control ordinance itself. Respondent disagrees, claiming that the ordinance and rules are clear on their face, thereby requiring no construction from us. It contends section 37.2(g) and rule 10.10(a) are clear in providing that rent may be reduced to offset a substantial decrease in housing services which, as GGC has conceded, includes use of the decks.