Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Texas are holding elections next week. Find out what's on your ballot in our latest report.

Difference between revisions of "San Francisco Rent Increase Hardship Appeals, Proposition F (June 2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - '<references/>' to '{{reflist}}')
Line 38: Line 38:
{{california counties}}
{{california counties}}
[[Category:Rent control, California, 2010]]
[[Category:Rent control, California, 2010]]

Revision as of 08:20, 9 June 2011

A San Francisco Rent Increase Hardship Appeals, Proposition F ballot measure was on the June 8, 2010 ballot in San Francisco, where it was defeated.[1]
  • Yes: 44,450 (42.93%)
  • No: 59,085 (57.07%) Defeatedd

Proposition F, if it had been approved, would have allowed renters who lose their jobs or have their wages cut to apply for a financial hardship deferral so that any rent increases they might otherwise face would be deferred.[2]

Specifically, tenants could have applied to postpone scheduled rent increases if:

  • They are unemployed.
  • Their income declines by 20% or more.[3]
  • They are on a fixed income (as with the case of Social Security recipients)
  • More than a third of their income goes to pay for rent.


Proposition F was supported by the San Francisco Tenants Union, the San Francisco Democratic Party and the Harvey Milk Club.[1]

Ted Gullickson of the San Francisco Tenants Union said, "We're seeing a big increase of people struggling to deal with rent increases who face eviction for nonpayment of rent. This can help keep people in their home."[3]


Mayor Gavin Newsom opposed Proposition F, and so did San Francisco Supervisors Elsbernd and Chu, the San Francisco Association of Realtors, the San Francisco Republican Party and Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods.[3]

Newsom said that Proposition F was drafted in such a way that it allows renters to defer rent increases regardless of their total income. For example, if a tenant's income dropped from $200,000 to $150,000, that tenant would be able to defer rent increases under Proposition F's financial hardship provisions.[2]

Newsom also argued that Prop F would encourage landlords to increase rents on vacant units to recoup lost money. A Newsom spokesperson said, "It’s reckless and it will hurt people it most seeks to help, which is low-income renters."[2]

Newsom also maintained, through a spokesperson, that "It's another example of a measure that the board has slapped on the ballot without consulting the experts or the stakeholders, including the rent board."[4]

The San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board urged a "no" vote on Proposition F, saying: "The city's expensive housing market won't be improved by this tangled mess."[5]

External links