OMI Evictions Plummet Proposition G Results In Immediate Drop 

---

 After having doubled for each of the past three years, "owner move in" (OMI) evictions are now half what they were a year ago. In the first six months of 1999, there were 355 OMI evictions; in the first six months of 1998 there were 767. Proposition G, which severely limited OMI evictions, passed last November took effect at the end of December. In the first six months of Prop G, OMI evictions average 59 per month—the lowest since 1996.
    Prop G limited OMI evictions to just one per building (eliminating the use of OMI evictions to convert apartments into "tenancy in common" (TIC) condos). Prop G also permanently banned OMI evictions of long-term senior, disabled and terminally ill tenants. Prop G added restrictions on top of Sup. Sue Bierman's OMI legislation which had already added a number of restrictions including relocation benefits and an increase in the ownership percentage required to evict.
 However, the San Francisco Board of Realtors and the San Francisco Apartment Owners Association have filed a lawsuit against Proposition G, claiming it violates their right to "life, liberty and happiness," presumably because they get so much fun out of evicting senior, disabled and terminally ill tenants. (See article on lawsuit below).
 The ending of TIC conversions via OMI evictions was the most dramatic impact of Proposition G. Real estate investors have been heavily marketing TICs over the last few years and the conversion of apartments into TICs has been a main contributor to the increased gentrification of the city. Speculators were finding TIC conversions to be a money making machine as they could typically net over $250,000 in profit just by converting one building. The buyers of TIC units—typically Silicon Valley workers looking for housing—have been forcing low and moderate income renters from the city in droves, utilizing OMI evictions.
 Despite a lot of saber rattling by landlords threatening to replace OMI evictions with Ellis Act evictions, the inherent difficulties involved with Ellis evictions has kept this minimal. Ellis evictions in 1999 have averaged 18 a month (while OMI evictions have dropped by over 100 a month). Nonetheless, Ellis evictions remain a concern as real estate investors are forced to use Ellis evictions to setup TICs (see article in this issue). While so far the Ellis created TIC is problematic, legislative efforts are underway to make sure this budding loophole is closed.
 Other eviction just causes are also being monitored, anticipating that landlords will be seeking other loopholes besides Ellis to replace the OMI loophole, especially for the lucrative TIC market. The one other increase seen has been in evictions for subletting—caused mainly by landlords evicting tenants who replace roommates; legislation has been drafted and introduced by Sup. Mark Leno to deal with these evictions (see article in this issue). One interesting trend identified, though, is an increase in advertisements for the sale of totally vacant buildings—buildings which the Rent Board is identifying as having had no evictions. Anecdotally, the Tenants Union has seen an increase in landlords offering tenants "buyouts" (separate from any eviction action) and this may be one way buildings are being "delivered vacant." Further research is underway, however, to determine if the cause is via more nefarious ways.
 Never has a tenant ballot measure achieved such immediate and dramatic results as Proposition G. Earlier measures, while as important, slowly showed their success. Proposition H in 1992, for example, greatly reduced the annual rent increase but its full impact wasn't seen for a year. 50,000 tenants in 2-4 unit, landlord-occupied, apartment buildings were brought under rent control by Proposition I in 1994, but were generally brought into rent control with tenants paying market rents—they did not fully feel the protection of rent control for years.
 Proposition G, though, immediately shut the door on hundreds of pending evictions and closed off TIC conversions. Simultaneously, landlord threats to replace OMI evictions with Ellis evictions proved generally unfounded. The impact will continue to grow, as a good portion of the January OMI notices were by landlords obviously unaware of the new changes in the law and were seeking to evict when clearly the eviction was not allowed under Bierman or G.
 For the time being, the Tenants Union is continuing to monitor OMI evictions (as well as Ellis evictions) to determine if landlords are prying at new loopholes.