The Fight Over Prop M May Not Be Over Yet
In May, the court issued its ruling on the controversial changes to San Francisco's Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance -- a decision that was not a clear-cut victory for either side.


July 01, 2009 /24-7PressRelease/ -- The Fight Over Prop M May Not Be Over Yet

Article provided by Bradshaw & Associates, P.C.
Visit us at www.bradshawassociates.com

Proposition M: Prohibiting Landlord Harassment

On May 19, 2009, the Superior Court issued its ruling on the controversial changes to San Francisco's Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance. These changes, known as Proposition M, define which acts committed by landlords against tenants are considered punishable forms of harassment. Prop M was approved by voters in November 2008.

Landlords found in violation of the anti-harassment regulations could face criminal misdemeanor charges and/or civil charges. Tenants also may be able to receive a reduction in the amount of their rent for certain violations.

As originally drafted, Prop M sought to hold landlords responsible for harassment if they committed certain acts in "bad faith or with ulterior motive or without honest intent." Some of these acts included:
-Interrupting, terminating or failing to provide housing services required by the lease or law
-Failing to perform repairs and maintenance required by the lease or law
-Abusing rights of access to a rental property
-Influencing or attempting to influence a tenant to vacate a rental property through fraud, intimidation or coercion
-Attempting to coerce a tenant with threats or intimidation into vacating a rental property and offering payment to leave
-Continuing to offer payment to leave after tenant has notified the landlord in writing that they no longer wish to receive further offers
-Threatening the tenant with physical harm with words or gestures

Prop M also provided that tenants who successfully challenged an eviction against their landlord were entitled to collect attorney's fees in addition to any other damages.

The Superior Court's Ruling

Before the anti-harassment provisions could come into effect, several landlord rights groups and other property associations, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop M. After hearing arguments in April, the court issued its opinion in May, upholding certain parts of Prop M while finding others in violation of California law.

In particular, the Superior Court found that holding landlords responsible for any actions committed "with ulterior motive or without honest intent" was too vague. The court reasoned that there was no way for landlords to know what type of behavior this prohibited, particularly since Prop M did not define what it meant by ulterior motive or honest intent. However, the court upheld the provision that defined landlord acts committed in "bad faith" as punishable forms of harassment.

Two other important points: The court also found that the provision awarding attorney fees to successful tenants fighting eviction actions violated the Equal Protection Clause because landlords were not granted the same award of fees if they won an eviction lawsuit. Also, the court ruled that Proposition M's remedial provisions for rent reductions do not violate the California Constitution, since the provisions are not vague, facially defective, or constitutionally infirm. The court held that rent reductions are within the powers of the Rent Board.

Arguments For Prop M

Proponents of Prop M have been trying to pass a similar measure in San Francisco since 2000. They argue these changes are necessary to protect tenants from harassment by landlords who want to buy-out tenants living in rent-controlled properties, which would then allow landlords to charge higher rents. Proponents cite statistics showing an increase in the number of harassment claims by tenants against their landlords in recent years in San Francisco.

Proponents also argue that the changes to the ordinance do not violate the free speech rights of landlords. Rather, they contend that landlords are using the First Amendment to shield their unlawful behavior.

Arguments Against Prop M

Opponents of Prop M argue that the previous law prohibited harassment and provided adequate protection to tenants who were being harassed by landlords and the changes in Prop M largely are redundant.

Opponents also argue that proponents have made landlord harassment out to be a bigger issue than it truly is and that San Francisco does not suffer from a harassment epidemic requiring a change in the law.

Additionally, opponents argue that Prop M is lopsided because it only provides protections for tenants, but does not provide similar protections for landlords who may be harassed by tenants. Opponents also claim Prop M violates the free speech rights of landlords.

A Future Appeal?

The Superior Court's decision on Prop M was not a clear-cut victory for either side. Even though the court invalidated some of the anti-harassment portions of Proposition M and the award of attorney's fees, many believe it is likely landlord rights groups still will appeal the decision. There is even a possibility of an eventual federal appeal on the issue of whether Prop M violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Even if opponents of Prop M are successful on a state or federal appeal, it is unlikely this will be last anti-harassment initiative against landlords seen in San Francisco.

Further Related Resources:


Press Release Contact Information:

Findlaw PR