East Palo Alto Tenant Activists Go Online: New Website Exposes Predatory Landlord

Tenant activists in East Palo Alto have put together an extraordinarily comprehensive website that provides essential details of their ongoing struggle against the infamous Page Mill Properties to preserve affordable housing and rent control in their city.

Check out www.epa-tenants.org and learn how you can help the tenants of EPA keep their homes.

Tenants Together has been working with tenants and advocates in East Palo Alto since last spring. Learn more about the situation in EPA in early posts about our testimony at a CalPERS board meeting in December, about Page Mill hiring reviled landlord lawyer Andrew Zacks, about a very successful tenant petition drive, and about Page Mill's transparent attack on EPA's rent control ordinance.

Infamous SF Landlord Takes A Hit: Gives Bank 51 of Its Buildings to Avoid Foreclosure

For all of those who have stood up to the abusive tactics of one notorious San Francisco landlord, there is a measure of satisfaction in the news that the CitiApartments/Skyline conglomerate has been forced to give up 51 of its buildings.

The San Francisco Business Times reports that San Francisco's second biggest landlord has deeded 51 buildings back to its lender (UBS bank) rather than face foreclosure, giving up ownership of an estimated 1500 apartments in San Francisco. From what we hear, this may be just the tip of the iceberg.

Tenant advocates have warned for years that CitiApartments and its related entities are engaged in a nasty type of predatory equity -- overpaying for apartment buildings with the plan to force out low-rent tenants and replace them with high-rent tenants. Lembi's entities have faced numerous lawsuits for harassment and other abusive tactics, including a lawsuit brought by San Francisco's city attorney who commented that "the facts revealed by my office's investigation demonstrate very clearly that the owners of Skyline Realty and CitiApartments made a calculated business decision to operate in violation of the law -- and to do so consistently."

Apparently the business model of overpaying for apartment buildings on the assumption that you can bully rent-controlled tenants out of their homes and get higher rents isn't such a winning strategy after all.

Unfortunately for tenants of these buildings, CitiApartments will continue managing the buildings. It remains to be seen whether the tenants' situation will improve or get worse under CitiApartments' management when the company no longer owns the buildings. Bank owners are not know for being good landlords, as tenants in foreclosed properties across the state know. So tenants in these buildings may find themselves going out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Appellate Court Criticizes Trial Judge for Unfair Treatment of Tenants in Eviction Case

The California Court of Appeal recently published a decision in favor of tenants in an eviction case, Espinoza v. Calva. The Court ruled that because the premises was "untenantable" under state law, the trial judge was incorrect in entering judgment for the landlord in the eviction case. California law clearly called for this result and the Court of Appeal was correct in its ruling.

Ordinarily, the fact that a tenant prevailed in the Court of Appeal would be the big news, but in this case the Court went a step further -- rebuking the trial judge for dismissive and unfair treatment of tenants in the underlying eviction case. This aspect of the ruling should be raised forcefully by tenant advocates defending evictions.

At trial in the Espinoza case, the judge had forced the tenants to present their defense to the eviction in 20 minutes "because the court had a jury trial the next day." The court had the tenants present an "offer of proof" rather than witnesses or evidence. The court also refused to render a statement of decision, required by statute, because the judge claimed the court did not have a secretary, even though statements of decision can be delivered orally.

Unfortunately, the trial judge's attitude was typical of what tenants experience in unlawful detainer cases across California. Many trial judges view eviction cases as a nuisance and make every effort to make sure cases either never go to trial or, if they do, that trial is as short as possible, even if that means curtailing the tenants' legal rights. Too many judges seem to view these cases as insignificant because they do not involve a lot of money.

That's why the Court of Appeal decision is so important. In overturning the trial judge's ruling, the court noted: "Although the amount in dispute in this action may have been relatively small, the issues were of great importance to the litigants. It is therefore distressing to note the summary nature of the proceedings. The trial judge did not have time to hear the tenants' evidence. He felt that his lack of a secretary excused his duty to issue a statement of decision. There is an appearance of unfairness which pervades the record."

The Court of Appeal is correct to remind trial judges that adherence to the law is not reserved for cases involving large sums of money, and that the right to stay in one's home is of great importance to tenants fighting eviction. Let's hope some of California's trial judges pay attention to this appellate decision.