Lily's Diary

PG&E Service Not as Advertised

by Lily

June 12
Saturday morning Bruce in apartment #2 called saying he smelled gas in his kitchen. After muttering something to the effect of, “Why me, Lord?” I went to find the phone number of my plumber. While pawing though the mound of papers on my desk, trying to locate the list of emergency contacts, which, I, as an organized property owner, have at my fingertips, I recalled a radio commercial I had recently heard. There was a young mother who, having smelled gas escaping from her stove, called PG&E. A friendly man came right out and fixed the problem at no cost. She was so grateful. He was so caring. I called PG&E. Just like the commercial, a serviceman came right out. But that’s where the story line changed. In the space of 30 minutes he had capped the gas line to the stove and, still detecting minuscule leakage (he didn’t know where), turned off all the gas, gave me a hazard notice and told me to get a plumber to find the leak. The unit would be without gas all weekend. Where was the caring? Couldn’t he tell from the Frontoio olive oil how much Bruce liked to cook? (Not to mention shower with hot water.) When I told my plumber, he was furious. “You called PG&E before you called me?” he asked with an incredulity that threw my IQ into question. “Never, never do that again.” I had to assume he hadn’t heard the commercial.

June 19
My Aussie friend Grant says not to get my knickers in a knot, but extortion, even for the proclaimed benefit of the people, is a crime—especially when it’s the city government that’s doing it. I refer to the press release Grant forwarded to me, issued by the office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera, proudly stating that they had prevailed over an appeal to stop legislation removing means-testing from the relocation fee to those evicted in an Ellis action. Regardless of income, each person must now receive $4,500 in “relocation assistance,” with a cap of $13,500 per household. In the past, this hefty stipend was for low-income tenants. If you saw it in a headline, you wouldn’t believe it: “City Charges Gate Toll to Private Citizens for Privilege of Going Out of Business.” Says Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who spearheaded the legislation, “Our law is a reasonable step that provides a basic level of protection for tenants who are subject to the increasing epidemic of Ellis Act evictions. The City Attorney’s Office should be commended for its work on behalf of San Francisco tenants.” Tenants? What about the building owners who pay the taxes and fees that provide both Peskin and Herrera with their salaries?

June 24
Rhonda, my bowling pal, has just repainted the front of her Waller Street flats. Instead of going to the cheapo company we’d both used before, she hired a contractor who had just painted a neighbor’s house and demonstrated a passion for relentless surface preparation. Having gotten a good severance package from her last job, she decided to fulfill her lifelong dream of owning one of San Francisco’s “Painted Ladies.” Or, at least, that was her intention. The initial three-color scheme, carefully matched from a house she had found on Broderick Street, didn’t seem to have the same effect on the face of her building. The painter gamely tried different combinations of tints and shades trying to please her. Over a period of days, Rhonda morphed from a stair-scrubbing landlady into, well, a kind of princess. “A little more gold leaf over there, Brian,” I heard her say. Finally the respectable good-taste color scheme had become a distant memory and in its place was less a painted lady than a painted hooker. Knowing Rhonda, I’m certain she wouldn’t really have been satisfied with anything less.

June 29
Speaking of Rhonda, on her behalf I looked over the San Francisco Rent Board’s new form for capital passthroughs. I can report that it’s much simpler than the old one, thank God. But you still have to get three competitive bids before you do anything. Of course, Rhonda had forgotten that fine point before hiring her painter. So now she’ll have to make her case based on past expenditures, workmanship and comparables. She may have to swallow the cost of the gold leaf. Learn from her mistake. You can make an appointment to have a counselor help you, but be sure to come with all the required information. Under Supervisor Tom Ammiano’s “compromise” of 1998, small property owners (1-5 units) still get to pass on 100% of the cost of a paint job, but the amortization period is 20 years. The idea here is not that a paint job will last 20 years, but that a vacancy over that period of time will allow you to boost rents and pay it off. Don’t forget that tenants must have been in residency for six months before they can receive a passthrough.

July 6
Maggie and I were at the SFAA meeting when news broke that the Board of Supervisors had passed legislation requiring an owner to provide a “just cause” for taking back a tenant’s garage or other nonlivable space. Oh, I know, there’s always been a requirement of advance notice and a decrease in rent, but never did you have to cite the just cause eviction criteria to make this simple adjustment in what parts of your own property you wish to rent. One cause of concern is the implementation—exactly which of the “just causes” apply to the particular space? Looking down the Rent Board’s list of 14 possibilities, “Owner Move-In” would seem to be the most readily applicable. But then, the owner is not actually moving into a garage or a storage space, so go figure. Then there’s the problem of how to evaluate the price of the withdrawn space. While the value of a garage can be verified by comparables from Craigslist, how do you put a sticker price on amorphous amenities such as the use of a garden, laundry facilities, bike parking or storage? It’s just one more example of red tape and needless pressure to justify compliance with senseless rules in order to survive as a landlord.

July 16
Yes, sex will always catch my eye, especially in a trade journal. In an article titled “Sluts Not a Protected Class,” the National Apartment Association’s monthly magazine reported that San Francisco-based Craigslist has been sued by a Chicago civil rights organization for (gasp) 124 violations of the Fair Housing Act due to rental listings using “discriminatory language.” The more blatant ones—such as limiting tenancy to people of a certain age, sex, ethnic or religious background—are obvious, but also among the suit’s citations were items like “near St. Gregory’s Church.” Is it now a crime to name a neighborhood religious institution as one of the amenities of your location? Fortunately, Craigslist, as a server, may be protected by, of all things, the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which says that a provider of an interactive computer service cannot be treated as the “publisher or speaker” of any information provided by someone else. I hope this holds up in court and wish good luck to my affable neighbor, Craig Newmark.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the SFAA or the San Francisco Apartment Magazine. “Lily’s Diary” is written by a longtime rental property owner who reserves the right to remain anonymous on the grounds that her tenants might gang up on her. Comments, corrections or ideas are welcome at lilysdiary@aol.com. Copyright � 2006 by the San Francisco Apartment Magazine. All rights reserved.