Feature

Analysis of theTenant Survey

by Matthew C. Sheridan

The San Francisco Tenant Survey was released last fall, but you may not have even noticed it. In fact, despite a concerted effort by organizers to publicize the results, the survey has received little or no attention from the media, politicians or the public. The survey serves as the second component of the Board of Supervisors-mandated Affordable Housing Study released so far (a landlord survey will be issued in the coming months).

“The survey addresses a lot of the issues that both the tenant and landlord communities were curious about,” comments Joe Grubb, Executive Director of the San Francisco Rent Board and moderator of the housing study. His hope is that the process will put the facts prominently out on the table, creating a starting point for policy makers to begin the formulation of sound housing policies based on a snapshot of the city and its citizens and housing stock. In an effort to publicize these findings, we are including the Executive Summary on page 10 of this magazine. We are also providing the following brief review of some of the more significant findings as a means of enhancing its relevance for you as property owners and managers.

Satisfaction
Tenants, by and large, are fairly satisfied with the quality, size, location and condition of the rental units in which they live. They overwhelmingly view rents, always a topic of discussion in this city, as either “very satisfactory” (45 percent) or “somewhat satisfactory” (31 percent)—a clear nod to the long-term benefits of rent control, right? Not so fast. A closer look reveals that even market-rate tenants (those living in rent-control exempted units) viewed rents as either very satisfactory (39 percent) or somewhat satisfactory (30 percent). These findings appear to mirror other surveys and political-focus groups that reflect overall tenant satisfaction. According to Tim Carrico, owner of TCO Realty, “Surveys have historically shown that most tenants are happy with their situation.” Carrico explains that only when respondents are asked whether other people are unhappy with their rents that the figure decreases. The survey also reveals that overcrowding does not appear to be a problem in the city. This may be a reflection of the high number of single-room occupancy units, studios, and one-bedroom apartments in the city (44 percent based on the 1990 U.S. Census). Joe Grubb observes that there was an upswing in complaints during the dot-com boom, but overcrowding no longer appears to be a problem today.

Tenant Trends
San Francisco has always been a transitory town, and the results of the survey illustrate this observation. Over half of the tenants surveyed have been living in their units for less than five years. A more interesting statistic is that 40 percent found their housing in only one week or less, and another 30 percent encountered success in less than a month. This rapid decision making on the part of tenants—a common behavior found in real estate—demonstrates the quick nature of apartment selection and validates obvious benefits for landlords. However, this statistic presumably reflects the remnants of the dot-com boom and the resultant mad rush in apartment hunting that occurred then.

Homeownership
Today, the dream of owning a home is still a goal for many San Francisco renters. In fact, 44 percent actually considered purchasing a home in the past three years. Surprising to some, however, 63 percent would choose a single-family home, while 32 percent would opt for apartments or condominiums.

Racial Composition
One of the more revealing statistics derived from the survey, is the racial makeup of the tenant population in San Francisco. Our city remains famous for its diversity, yet a close examination of the data reveals racial disparity between tenants in rent-controlled units and market-rate units. According to the survey, whites make up 72 percent of the tenants who benefit from rent control, whereas they only comprise 54 percent of tenants living in market-rate units. This figure is troubling, especially when compared to the white population as a whole in the city, which stands at 50 percent (see definitions of unit classifications found on page 11). The study also indicates African-Americans reside in market-rate units at double the rate of rent-control units; a lower disparity is also evident in the numbers for other minority groups. (It should be noted that “mixed-race and “other” accounted for 8 percent of the survey respondents.)

“That is impossible, I don’t know where in the world of they got those numbers,” states Randy Shaw, an attorney with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. “That is contrary to everything I’ve ever seen.” Shaw dislikes surveys, in general, noting that they are often skewed depending on how a question is framed. While San Francisco’s racial makeup is changing due to many other factors, including large shifts in its Asian and black populations, rent control appears to clearly benefit one group of residents: whites. Surveys examining the racial effects of rent control in Santa Monica and Berkeley replicate this result as well. When San Francisco’s Rent Ordinance was first adopted, its justification was based on the need to protect “senior citizens, persons on fixed incomes and low and moderate income households.” The protection of racial groups was not an original charge of the Rent Ordinance, but today, preserving racial diversity in this town should certainly be a top priority, and the Rent Ordinance does not appear to be contributing to this goal.

Success of the Rent Ordinance
In general, surveyed tenants respond that the Rent Ordinance does not succeed in maintaining affordable housing for low- and fixed-income households, minorities, disabled and elderly. They do, however, find the Ordinance has served as a successful tool in protecting tenants from illegal evictions—though 34 percent had no opinion. This lack of response by one-third of the respondents is puzzling given the amount attention and legislation the issue constantly receives.

The survey also points out that nearly one-third of all tenants are unsure of the rent-control status of their units. This response is remarkable considering the amount of attention housing receives from the media and politicians. Mr. Grubb is not surprised at all. He comments that, “People are always shocked that we [the Rent Board] exists.” He goes on to observe, “We are surprised, in such an educated and wired city, that people are almost clueless.”

In closing, much can be gleaned from from the information found in this survey. This magazine's hope is that by promoting these findings, we will assist our policymakers, activists, and tenants and owners alike, in reaching a better understanding of San Francisco's housing market and, in turn, assisting them in the creation of a balanced approach for solving our housing woes.

For a complete version of the the San Francisco Tenant Survey, please visit sfgov.org/rentboard.