This is only a partial list.
Records were retrieved from CRIIS database by downloading ‘NOTICE’ filings for each month, then examining ‘NAME’ field for text like “WITHDRAWAL RENTAL UNT FRM RNT OR LEASE”. This filing is required prior to an Ellis Act eviction where the property owner is stating that they no longer intend to be in the “landlord business”.
Since the wording varies greatly, and there is no official phrase specified for the filing, a number of records are assumed to have been missed.
These are ‘properties’ removed from the rental market, not units. The number of units involved per property can usually be found by clicking the SF Planning APN link (this page will also contain a link to CRIIS website for all documents filed pertaining to this APN).
A filing does not mean the actual eviction of tenants was eventually carried out–the filing could have been rescinded (but most likely was not; and evicted they most likely were). [added] Or… Under threat of eviction, the tenants ‘voluntarily’ moved out; under threat of eviction, the tenants accepted a buy-out and ‘voluntarily’ moved out. Just to name 2 alternate scenarios.
This is all ‘to the best of my knowledge’.
Here are a few sample records.
Each has a top row of “Document Link”, “APN Link” (both links to CRIIS), Recording Date, Document ID, Document Type, “E” for Grantee, and text from NAME field
The 2nd line, if available, has “Street Address”, “APN Link” (link to SF Planning website)
[added] Note: an APN of “9999-999″ = APN not found
The next line will have the names involved in the record (the owners) (linked to their records on CRIIS)
This sample has a complete record:
This record states “NO ADDR” for address. If you click the APN link to SF Planning website you will probably get a pop-up message which states the APN no longer exists, has been subdivided, and offers you a choice of new APNs to select. This happens when a multi-unit property has been split into single units and sold off, usually as TICs (all with new, unique, APNs).
This record shown no address, no APN link. If you click on other links (documents, names) you might be able to figure out the property address (sometimes not; in that case you need to examine the paper document).
The sample below is an LLC owner record. If you click the “CLAY INVESTMENTS LLC” link you will be on a CRIIS page with 1 record showing (the WITHDRAWAL OF RNTL UNTS record). But search CRIIS for “CLAY INVESTMENT LLC” (not InvestmentS), and you will find many more records for this company (but not the “WITHDRAWAL OF RNTL UNTS” record). This happens so often in these records that I have come to believe these ‘typos’ are intentional, in order to make it harder for anyone to follow the convoluted machinations of some of these speculators.
[added] Note: When clicking on an APN and the SF Planning website shows a pop-up box saying “APN not found”, and then offers a list of APNs to choose, if the record here shows an actual address you can replace the APN with the address on the SF Planning website and usually it will now return the results you are looking for.
The complete file can be found here. (500k+)
Each person/company named in these records has stated that they no longer intend to be in the ‘landlord’ business. And for doing so they have been allowed to evict all tenants from a property with no ‘just cause’. For many of these, if you examine all related records, you will see that they did indeed, over the years, sell off all of the properties that they own, and have purchased no more ‘tenant/rental’ properties since.
For some others, when you examine the records, you will see that they purchased more properties since the ‘WITHDRAWAL’ filing, and if you follow up on those properties you will see that some of them were multi-unit buildings which most likely were apartments rented to tenants. More follow up will show that many of these properties were later sold as individual units (again, this is how it appears from reading just these records; there is no way to know for sure by just examining these online records). So, in a sense, it is true that these landlords got out of the landlord business–they switched to the property flipping business, buying ‘landlord-owned, tenant-occupied’ properties, getting the tenants to leave, one way or another (many times through ‘Owner Move-in’ evictions, the “NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY” filings), then subdividing and selling the individual units. I’m not sure this is a behavior that the Ellis Act intended (then again, maybe they planned on this from the very beginning–the built-in loopholes).
It’s easy enough to find property owners in this list that match the scenario above, and under closer examination would be found to be breaking the spirit, if not the letter of the law. More likely candidates for a higher success rate (of weaselly speculator antics) would be to examine the LLCs involved, and who is behind them (a good place to start is corporationwikiand bizapedia), and you are likely to find many more individuals who have claimed to be leaving the landlord business, yet continue to buy tenant occupied properties over and over again, under different corporate names (a common practice for speculators is to create a new LLC for each property acquired; after the property is purchased, Ellis Acted, evicted, remodeled, then subdivided and sold, the LLC is dissolved).
No-one has the time to run down all these names and transactions thoroughly. But for now, just browsing the list and clicking on some of the links gives you a rough idea of how the Ellis Act is working out for San Francisco speculators. You can find out more about evictions in general and some of these ‘repeat no longer landlords’ at the Anti Eviction Mapping website (and links to more resources on that website).
Again, here’s a link to the complete document.
*Note: Similar names will show up in some CRIIS records. They are not necessarily the same person. Identical names, for that matter, can actually be a different person (but most likely are not). These links are just pointers to public records available to all. They need to be examined in more detail to provide proof of what they appear to be saying.