Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)

Citation: Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Parent Document: Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2006-08-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2255746/small-property-owners-v-city-co... ↗

Full Text

1,252 chars

The trial court noted “the following adjustments to economic life” meted out by the Ordinance within the context of the broader statutory and regulatory arrangement for security deposits: “the tenant gives his or her money to the landlord as a deposit to secure tenancy obligations. The landlord gets to use this money as he or she sees fit. The landlord pays a reasonable cost of funds for that privilege, which costs do not impact the value of the rental business. The tenant gets a reasonable rate of return on this deposit [as suggested by the average return on money market funds between January 1985 to July 2002 being in excess of 5 percent], which eases the burden of giving the money to the landlord and effectively lowers rent in San Francisco by giving tenants some return on their security deposits which if not deposited with the landlord, might be available to earn income. This scheme must be seen as a regulatory adjustment of the benefits and burdens of the economic life of landlords and tenants that rationally promotes the common good of both.” We add that the common good of landlords and tenants in San Francisco also provides a benefit for the public, enjoyed by appellants as members of the public as well. (See San Remo, supra,

Other Sections in This Document (187)

Full Text