San Francisco Tenant’s Union 1978-1982
"I was there..."
by David Brigode
Originally written for my MPA at SF State in 1983, this is part one (of three) of my personal recollection of SF Tenant History from 1974-1983, and my role as a co-founder of the San Francisco Tenant’s Union and advocate for Tenant’s Rights and Rent Control.
Proposition 13 and Rent Control
In June of 1978, a watershed event occurred in California Housing (and in national politics in general)—the passage of the Jarvis–Gann initiative, Proposition 13. With the inflation in housing costs and the rise in home values, the associated property tax bills, which were reassessed annually based on estimated value, also climbed, imposing a burden on the average homeowner. The Industry took advantage of this.
Proposition 13 gave large tax breaks to landlords and big business. During the campaign, supporters of Prop 13, led by Howard Jarvis, a lobbyist for the Southern California-based Apartment Owners Association (and back in 1932 an active supporter of Herbert Hoover against Franklin Roosevelt!), loudly promised renters that a reduction in property taxes for landlords would lead to rent decreases. Hundreds of thousands of renters statewide, hard pressed by rents and with no other solution in sight, gave Prop 13 the “extra margin” which received so much national attention.
However, after the election, many landlords, sensing another speculative boom, raised rents instead. Angered tenants, including many previously docile middle-class renters, protested vigorously.
Another factor changed things around entirely. Probably fearing imminent rent control, San Francisco’s largest landlord at the time, Angelo Sangiacomo of Trinity Properties, raised the rents for 2,000 predominantly middle-class tenants by anywhere from 25% to over 60%. Representatives of the SFTU (thru our Tenant’s Hotline) were successful in linking the disparate complexes into a single entity (the Trinity Tenants Association), in coordinating strategies, and in uniting this highly visible and respectable tenant’s group behind specific corrective legislation.
Feeble publicity gimmicks by landlord representatives and Governor Jerry Brown to promote “Voluntary Rent Reductions” failed miserably. Jerry Brown tried to hold a press conference in the California State Building on McAllister. We were tipped off ahead of time, and snuck banners and posters into the press conference and loudly raised them up right in front of the assembled media. Jerry Brown, on the spot, backtracked. Los Angeles passed a rent freeze within 3 months. It was a tenant organizer’s dream. The SFTU phones quickly verified that the increases were localized in 7-8 large complexes, some totaling hundreds of units, and the Trinity Tenants had spontaneously posted signs, called meetings, and alerted the media.
In San Francisco, members of a splinter group from the Housing Coalition which favored an immediate rent control initiative sprang into action. An ordinance was drafted of one year duration, calling for a mild form of rent stabilization, and a roll back of rents incorporating the tenant’s portion of the landlord’s tax savings under Prop 13. Titled the “Renter’s Rebate,” this proposal gathered an amazing 25,000 signatures in three weeks to get on the November 1978 ballot as Proposition U.
Unfortunately, the campaign staff was long on enthusiasm but short on money. The Yes on U side was outspent 20-1 ($350,000 to $18,000). The opposition, consisting of landlords, the Chamber of Commerce, and the three newspapers, conducted a particularly fraudulent campaign, implying that rent control was: a) communism, b) would turn San Francisco into a South Bronx slum, and c) would hurt homeowners, blacks, and gays, and in an Orwellian Newspeak tactic, d) would cause higher rents. A low point was reached in a mailer featuring conservative supervisor, real estate industry puppet, and ex-cop Dan White, who is depicted as saying that rent control would “cause more crime and disrespect for the law.” Three weeks later after the election, Dan White, under a great deal of pressure from the landlord lobby to regain the Board seat he had impulsively resigned, murdered Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in their offices in City Hall.
However, the close margin (52.7% vs 47.3%) impressed all knowledgeable observers with the depth of support for rent control citywide. Immediately following the election, plans were laid for a broad-based coalition to push for a comprehensive solution to the San Francisco housing crisis.
Rent Control in San Francisco
San Franciscans for Affordable Housing (SFAH) was constituted from the Renter Rebate campaign in conjunction with representatives from church groups, notably the Catholic Archdiocese, and elements of the labor unions (construction trades no, services yes). In particular, the Archdiocesan participation reflected their deep concern about the impact on families of high housing costs, and lent an unshakeable reputability to the tenant struggle. (The City tenant’s movement had progressed beyond a bunch of hippies in the Haight!) A seven-point ballot initiative was drafted after months of public discussion and argument.
The proposal dealt with not only rent and eviction control, but also condominium conversions, demolitions, urban renewal programs, new construction, and financing. The SFAH package, highly publicized in Spring of ’79, looked like a sure winner in November, despite serious internal weaknesses in the coalition which may have reduced its chances.
The previous fall, Supervisor Bob Gonsales, a normally pro-landlord member of the Board who was worried about reelection (he had won his seat by only 17 votes the prior election) proposed a rent control law before the Board as an alternative to the Renter Rebate/Prop U. It died ignobly at that time; but a hurriedly arranged 6am meeting in July at an Army Street coffee shop put his resurrected bill back on the front pages. The previously hostile media suddenly started running stories on the “new mood” for rent control in San Francisco, and less reactionary elements of the real estate community saw the writing on the wall. They reasoned that it was better to control the drafting of the inevitable legislation rather than suffer the consequences of a harsher citizen’s initiative. An immediate 60-day rent freeze saved the Trinity Tenants, and a five-member special committee of the Board of Supervisors was appointed to draft a permanent bill.
In a city that is 65% renters, the committee consisted of five property owners. The Chair was Supervisor Ron Pelosi, whose leaning was clear in a quote in California Living in April 1978: “What’s a tenant’s right, anyway? They have the right to decent, safe structures. Beyond that, they have no rights.” The Pelosi-led committee consisted of Pacific Height's homeowner Louise Renne; landlord attorney Gordon Lau; Don Horanzy (soon to resign to become a landlord lobbyist) and Gonsales.
While the ordinance did hold most rent increases to 7% a year, and required a just cause for eviction, it was a weak and seriously flawed bill designed for political expedience. The most glaring loophole was vacancy de-control, which permitted unlimited rent increases when the unit become vacant. Besides subverting the whole intention of rent stabilization, this clause gave landlords a positive incentive to evict, which they did so by the thousands over the following years. Realistic provisions for enforcement were non-existent, and many minority and undereducated renters were denied the benefits of the law. Loopholes existed which permitted sizable rent increase in excess of 7%, and many tenants lost their homes under fraudulent circumstances.
A Rent Board was set up to gather data on rents and to conduct hearing on rent increases and evictions. Mayor Feinstein’s appointees to the oversight rent board (two landlords, two tenants, one neutral) were either ignorant of housing issues and appointed for political reasons, or they were biased real estate professionals. The original President of the Rent Board, TRI Realty Russ Flynn, came out in the Spring of 1980 for the complete and permanent abolition of rent control in California, during the Proposition 10 campaign.
Yet the Mayor-landlord strategy was successful. The Board passed this Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance by an 11-0 margin, and a massive media blitz that fall sunk the Affordable Housing comprehensive package 59%-41%, as voters were persuaded to “give the new law a chance.”
In 1980, the statewide landlord lobby placed Proposition 10 on the ballot, which would preempt local ordinances and make it illegal to have rent control anywhere in California. At first, things looked bad concerning Prop 10. Anticipating that their massive financial resources could just bulldoze our opposition, their playbook was to refer to Prop 10 as “rent control we could live with,” when in truth it would permanently abolish rent control. However, it backfired. Most papers in the State (with the exception of the Chronicle) condemned what they called “garbage-can campaigning.” However, in an editorial meeting with long time reactionary SF Chronicle publisher Templeton Peck in their ornate offices, I pointed out that their whole campaign was a complete lie in an Orwellian “Newspeak” manner. He turned his lizard gaze on me and said, “if that is what it takes to defeat rent control, that is what we will do.”
As a statewide campaign, we were involved with Los Angeles-based renter groups. In an “only in the ’80s item, actress Jane Fonda was donating her workout video profits to all of us. Utilizing the Fairness Doctrine, which called for both sides to have a fair chance at access to media, we were able to run a halfway decent campaign. I remember driving down 101 to the offices of the San Jose Mercury with a $22,000 check for a full-page ad against Prop 10, and a commercial came on the car radio featuring Henry Fonda (a star of giant stature and patriotic gravity), speaking about "how pioneers came to California seeking a decent place to live, and Prop 10 would take that away.” I almost drove off the road. . . Combined with confusion statewide on what the hell Prop 10 was, even conservative areas vote it down, and it was defeated 2-1.
(NOTE: subsequently, Ronald Reagan, through his Hastings Law School sleazeball Attorney General Ed Meese, the Fairness doctrine was repealed and has never come back. They also tried to deny federal funds to cities with rent control.)
SFTU Burnout
By 1981 the SFTU was an established force in San Francisco politics. Over a thousand calls a month were being received concerning rent increases, evictions, security deposits, maintenance, leases, and harassment, and other questions. Tenant Union organization and tenant representation was on the upswing. The quality of research and information gathering was so highly regarded that newspapers and electronic media quoted the SFTU on housing issues rather than the Dept. of City Planning. Four paid Vista Volunteer positions were placed with us, and, contrary to realistic expectations even within the SFTU, a $32,000 grant for tenant education was successfully lobbied thru the Supervisors, raising the budget by 400%.
Yet the strains were showing. The original founders of the group were “burned out” after years of 15-25 hours a week of volunteer labor, long non-productive meetings, leftist histrionics, the stress of organizing on a shoestring budget, and personal retaliatory evictions. Other members of the group resented an independent “Lone Ranger” style of organization that was appropriate for the early, fast-moving days of the Tenants Union, but was inappropriate with a larger staff and a more stable organization.
Throughout the whole of the renter’s struggle at this time women had been underrepresented. A Women’s Housing Action Committee (WHAC) was established to offer support to women in the housing movement, and from that group was formed the Eviction Defense Center, which gave accurate and detailed advice to tenants wishing to represent themselves in unlawful detainer cases. But an all-woman’s caucus proved no more immune to internal disagreement than previous structures, and WHAC and the EDC soon broke up in rancor, needlessly alienating many talented women from further housing work in any guise. Internal disagreements in the SFTU were of a similar character. Sexual polarization occurred, pitting an old guard against a new guard. Women were hired for staff positions based on their commitment to feminist separation, not on experience or enthusiasm in the housing area.
The record on minority participation in the SFTU and the renter’s movement at this time was generally weak. Although more than half the renters in SF are minorities who suffer disproportionately from shelter problems, most formal tenant groups were predominantly white and college educated. However, I would hesitate to automatically ascribe this clientele/advocate disparity to any form of latent racism, but rather to an economic fact of life—that, to a large degree, volunteer advocacy and citizen lobbying based on acquired skills and specialized knowledge is often a white middle-class luxury. The average laboring person of any race, working 40 hours a week, with a family to raise and support, and no background in organizing and without legal assets, is naturally alienated from unpaid or low paid work, long evening meetings, and political argumentation.
By 1982, a paradox was evident. The SFTU had an unprecedented nine staff positions and a quadrupled budget with which to perform expanded counseling and education. While one would expect an explosion of activity, the opposite occurred. The counseling count dropped by 50%, tenant union organizing shrank, and it took a full year to revise and reprint the existing handbook. Staff members met in lengthy internal meetings to plot against each other. The SFTU bureaucracy was destroying itself. Ironically, the cutoff of both federal Community Development Block Grant funds and VISTA positions saved the organization, as the insincere elements left when the money ran out. (NOTE: I was out of the country on an extended trip around the world in 1982, and missed the worst.)
Other community-based organizations that came along later included the Old St Mary’s and St Peters faith-based counselors; site-based organizations like the Park Merced and Golden Gateway Tenants; and the Asian Law Caucus in Chinatown. By the mid-’80s I was managing a Housing Cooperative in the Western Addition (St Francis Square), and acting as a co-chair of the SF Housing and Tenant’s Council, a central coordinating entity for all the renter’s organizations that had sprung up at that time. I resigned from a San Francisco Renter leadership role in 1989 when I bought a “fixer-upper” house in Bernal Heights.
2026 Postscript
Strong rent control, minus vacancy control, led to long-term housing inflation. Knowing the average tenant in SF might move every 2-3 or 5 years incentivized institutional investors to simply outwait the rules. Every time a unit is vacated, they can jack up the rent to a new “market level.” That is the core of vacancy de-control. We have as of this writing a small cohort of renters still enjoying rents from the late ’70s increased by only the cost of living and who might be living in an identical unit next door to somebody paying 6-8 times as much.
By the mid-’80s Mitchell Omerberg and I asked Joel Rubenzahl of Community Economics to do a rough “back of the envelope” calculation of the savings that even our weak rent control had saved tenants over the previous 6-7 years. Appearing in the Bay Guardian, I was stunned—It was 5 BILLION dollars! I was way out of my league but also pleased at our impact. Of course, I was still broke. . .
Starting in the late ’70s, there was a massive expansion of neighborhood-based affordable housing developers in Chinatown, the Mission, Tenderloin, South of Market, Bernal Heights, and all over the City. Led by the Council of Community Housing Organizations and Calvin Welch and Rene Cazanave at the San Francisco Information Clearinghouse, they leveraged local sources of funds like Redevelopment Agency and Office Housing Production, bond issues, and state and federal source to build 10’s of thousands of units.
Sometimes in the early ’90s, a new guy Ted Gullickson came to the San Francisco Tenants Union and took a leadership role for the next 25 years. He kept it going, expanded it, and did a great job. I am sorry he passed in 2015. Since the ’80s the SFTU achieved a great deal, including electing pro-renter majorities on the Board of Supervisors, tightening up rent control, restricting owner-move-ins, limiting condo conversions, gaining relocation payments, establishing AirBnB restrictions and enhanced eviction protection.
In spite of these successes, in the first twenty years of the 21st century, the “techie invasion” occurred and massive displacement took place. Rent of $3-4000 for a one-bedroom unit became common. People were paying a $1000 or more a month to sleep on living room couches or to dorm in a six-bed bunkbed room.
As of 2021, the San Francisco Rent Stabilization Board has a 10 million annual budget/ conducts detailed hearings of legal-style rigor/ and is financed partially by Landlord fees. In a complete turnaround, during the 2020-21 Pandemic, California had a full rent freeze and moratorium on evictions everywhere in the State. How about that!