LETTERS:
Landlords weigh in on Ellis Act Protest

With great interest did I read the story relating to the demonstration in front of the home of the lawyer who represents landlords in Ellis Act evictions (“Eviction lawyer faces wrath of tenant activists,” January 4).

For the hundredth time I thanked myself for having sold my little triplex last year, despite the fact that I had outstanding tenants I sold the house because I got tired of looking over my shoulder trying to find out what new rental laws were passed by the Board of Supervisors, whether they applied to me, whether they were in court, whether a judge had or would rule in the matter, and so on.

I took the proceeds of the sale of the house and invested them in the most conservative way possible. As it is, I make more money now than I did as a landlady. In addition, I do not have to deal with roofers, plumbers, garbage collection, sweeping the sidewalk, and other such matters.

I realize that the Tenants Union would like to have the Ellis Act rescinded. The trouble is that people will find another way of circumventing laws that they feel are too restrictive. In the event that all legal avenues are closed to landlords, they will resort to illegal activities. To figure this one out is not rocket science, just Psychology 101. The trouble is that the parties involved choose not to look.
ELLEN BENJAMIN

I recently read your front-page article detailing the Ellis Act evictions protest against San Francisco attorney Andrew Zacks. Not long ago, Bob Passmore, the recently-retired zoning administrator of San Francisco and my father, referred me to Mr. Zacks for consultation regarding my own eviction. I write to inform your readership that Mr. Zacks’ counsel to me in that regard was both evenhanded and of the highest ethical order.

I can understand the protesters’ frustration. I have been subject to two owner move-in evictions in the past three months. Our city is indeed faced with a deeply frustrating and embattled housing market. Nevertheless, the protesters should focus their energy with much greater acuity. They should be lobbying the Board of Supervisors or the state Legislature for a change in the law, not attacking those whose profession it is to enforce the law as it is written. Although the protesters obviously find the subject matter of Mr. Zacks’ practice detestable, I have found Mr. Zacks’ practice of law to accord with the highest ethical standards of the state bar and I agree that the protesters’ actions were, indeed, “misguided nonsense.”
MATTHEW PASSMORE

Certainly, no one likes to be evicted. But the rule of law and the protection of private property have been found by historians to be in everyone’s best interest, the rich and the poor. For a mob to confront attorney Andrew Zacks, who is assisting a client in a legal action, is unconscionable. I am dismayed that the Tenants Union would foster such a mob action.

Owners of buildings constructed before 1979 have been told by the city that they must subsidize tenants thought the Rent Control Ordinance. Not only their low-income tenants, but all of their tenants. It is no wonder they prefer to go out of the rental-housing business by invoking the state’s Ellis Act rather than lose money on their investments.

It is important to note that, beginning this month, disabled and elderly people who are evicted thought the Ellis Act will get 12 months to find another apartment. They will also receive $8,000 cash to help them relocate. This comes not from some government program but directly from the pocket of the building owner. Ask yourselves, are other businesses required to provide this kind of subsidy to their customers just for the privilege of closing down their shops?
KAREN CROMMIE

The photos of the professional tenant activists attacking Andrew Zacks and his family at their home in Noe Valley remind me of other similar actions: the picketing by religious nuts of the funerals of men who die of AIDS, and the activities of anti-abortion nuts with their pictures of aborted fetuses in front of the homes of physicians who work at abortion clinics.

There’s a common theme with these groups of nut cases: They exercise their right of free speech in a way that’s aimed at intimidation, not at persuasion. Shades of the Red Guard! It’s hard to believe that this is happening in San Francisco.
NANCY TUCKER