San Francisco’s housing crisis is a hot topic for many current and former residents, but while for some it’s an inconvenience, for others the situation is far more dire. Residents of SRO hotels, in particular, run the risk of having nowhere to go if they lose their homes. This population had been fighting a hard battle long before the current tech boom hit, and with limited agency or protection of their rights, the challenges they face have the potential to get much greater as the market continues to heat up.
So it’s particularly disturbing when we hear about new projects like Hotel EPIK on Polk Street, which claims to be converting the New Pacific Hotel, a former SRO, into a luxury hotel. According to SocketSite, construction is underway for what the owners promise will be “San Francisco’s newest boutique hotel.” There are a strict set of laws protecting SRO hotels and their residents, including an ordinance passed in 1980 that prohibits SRO landlords from renting SRO rooms out to tourists in the short term. If an SRO is being used for tourist purposes, the owner either needs to pay a fine to the city or replace the room with another SRO room. The developer of the hotel told SocketSite that 55 of the 66 rooms are already approved for tourist usage. The remaining 11 rooms will be longer-term housing for professionals.
Ostensibly, these 11 rooms won’t be in the price range of the population they were initially designated to serve. The availability of SRO rooms is essential to protect, as SRO hotels are often the last barrier between SF’s poorest population and the streets. SRO residents are often “disempowered” and afraid to complain, explains Jerry Threet, deputy city attorney at the Office of the City Attorney. As a result, some landlords are doing the bare minimum to maintain their buildings, and over the years, laws have been put in place to ensure that buildings are safe and habitable.
Ostensibly, these 11 rooms won’t be in the price range of the population they were initially designated to serve. The availability of SRO rooms is essential to protect, as SRO hotels are often the last barrier between SF’s poorest population and the streets.
“It’s a tenuous existence,” says Threet of the typical SRO resident in San Francisco. “If they get displaced, it’s hard to get into another hotel.” This population is defended by groups like the Tenderloin Housing Clinic or the City Attorney’s office, which sues landlords like Bill Thakor for renting rooms reserved for low-income residents to tourists and for other violations, such as not complying with safety codes or failing to maintain habitable conditions in rooms for low-income residents.
While the government has taken steps to protect this population and also provides subsidies to support the existence of SRO hotels, ultimately, most are privately owned. Furthermore, some already (and have always) catered to a higher-income population. Randy Shaw, executive director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, points out that “SROs were here long before anyone heard of tech or Airbnb,” and they’ve been a convenient place for newcomers to live while they’re searching for an apartment. They’re also subject to the same rent-control regulations as other apartments in the city, which means that when one resident leaves, the rent gets hiked up to market rate, further pushing out the homeless population.
With that said, gentrification and a constrained housing market indicate that it’s only going to be more appealing to make SROs more upscale to cater to a different population. There have already been a few cases of young, upwardly mobile folks seeking out more communal-type living, sometimes infringing on what should be low-income housing.
Danny Haber, founder of the Negev collective, made news in January when he opened up a collective in a former SRO hotel that burned down in May 2011. Haber leased the space from building owner Nasir Patel, who got a $100,000 interest-free loan from the Mayor’s Office of Housing in exchange for a guarantee that 10 units would be reserved for low-income residents. Additionally, Patel was legally required to let former residents move back in within 30 days of repairing the fire damage. The city defaulted on that loan, and Steve Collier of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic sued Patel and Haber for wrongful eviction.
But Haber, in his own defense, pointed out that the landlord had failed to repair the damage after the fire and let the building remain unoccupied for four years. When Haber wanted to move in, he did all the renovation himself. The situation with the New Pacific Hotel may be a similar one (phone calls to Hotel EPIK went unanswered). According to Shaw, “The building has been closed for years” and was not heavily inhabited when the renovation started. Prior to that, it was a designated resource for low-income populations. The remaining residents likely received a buyout, which is in accordance with regulation around eviction.
Although some commenters on the SocketSite article welcome the presence of a cleaner, more upscale building on Polk, the remodeling of a SRO into a boutique hotel raises questions about the city’s ability to maintain sufficient housing for SF’s lowest-income population. Even when buildings are abandoned, there options other than low-income hotels. For example, another vacant SRO hotel in the Upper Haight was converted to affordable housing. Low-income housing needs to be a priority as the city plans and manages its expansion. Now it seems there’s some risk that it will be forgotten.
[h/t Socketsite, image from Google Maps ]
Got a tip for The Bold Italic? Email tips@thebolditalic.com.