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
731 charsThe Board contends, essentially, that by allowing the landlord to recoup the costs of capital improvements by pass-through to the tenants, while simultaneously reducing the rents the landlord collects from the tenants because of the inconvenience they suffer from the capital improvement, everyone comes out even. This may be the case, but nowhere is it written that the purpose of the ordinance is to ensure that everyone will come out even. In fact, there is no logical or legal basis for placing these two provisions into the same equation. The capital improvement provision is intended to encourage landlords to maintain their properties by allowing them to recoup the cost of their capital investment; the rent reduction *1213