I find it very ironic that most of the real work
done on these webpages was done on Labor Day
Weekend 2001.

Quoted from the San Jose Mercury
News; Friday, August 31, 2001.
by Elise Banducci

Rent fight reflects trend in area's
housing market

Tenants feel sting of hefty increases
despite slowing economy

At a time when local rents are edging downward, some
tenants are still facing boom-time rental increases.

In one modest Santa Clara complex, for example, residents
have been asked to pay increases of up to 50 percent.

The 38-unit property on Homestead Road was recently
sold, and representatives for the new owner say the increase
is necessary to cover the new mortgage. But several renters,
some of whom have lived there for years, say they can't
afford the higher rent — and they've decided to fight back.

They've held a candlelight vigil outside the property
manager's Los Altos home, they've enlisted the help
of a local union, and they've appeared before the
Santa Clara City Council.

"I'm a security officer for Kaiser hospital," Bao Luong, 69,
a Vietnamese refugee, told the city council Tuesday night.
"I make $600 every two weeks…If I have to pay $1,200
for rental, I have nothing to eat. Please intervene for the
poor people."

The situation, housing experts say mirrors others throughout
the valley, where residents are feeling the ripple effect of a
once-booming economy. In some cases, new owners who
bought property at peak prices raise rents to cover their
costs. In other cases, longtime owners want to reap benefits
from still sky-high land costs by redeveloping or raising the
rents of long-term residents.

Compounding the situation, experts say, is the sluggish
job market, which makes residents less able to absorb
increases in their housing costs.

"You have a lot more tenants than a year ago who are losing
their jobs," said Sharleen Kilgore, a case manager with
Project Sentinel, a non-profit agency that provides
dispute-resolution services for tenants and landlords.

Property owners say they have the right to charge
market rates.

At the Homestead Road complex, rents are set to be raised
on Saturday. Current rents vary depending on how long
tenants have lived in the apartment. Rent for at least one
apartment with two bedrooms will go from $1,025 to
$1,500. That, along with $1,200 one-bedroom units, is
below the most recent available averages in the county.

The average rent for a one-bedroom in Santa Clara County
as of June was $1,643, according to RealFacts, which
surveys apartment complexes with 50 units or more.
The average for a two-bedroom was $1,748.

The owners refused to comment for this article, but the
property manager, Ken Orvick, said he has found new
tenants willing to pay $1,350 for a one-bedroom and
$1,750 for two-bedrooms.

"We understand that some of the rent increases are
large increases," Orvick said. "But they're justifiable,
and they're fair, and they're certainly not as much we
could be getting on the open market."

On Thursday, residents and owners met at City Hall,
where owners said they would respond by Tuesday to
a request to freeze rents for September as discussions
continue.

But advocates for the tenants say that puts residents in
a precarious position.

"Rent is officially late on the 5th," said John Eller, head
organizer of San Jose ACORN, also known as the
Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now. "If the owners don't agree with the demand, they
could serve everyone with a three-day notice to pay the
rent or be evicted."

But Orvick, the property manager, said that wasn't his
plan. "If we made a proposal to them," Orvick said,
"we would give them a resonable amount of time to
respond to that, I'm assuming."

State setback for tenants' free
speech

Justices rule landlord can prohibit
leafletting

A deeply divided California Supreme Court
yesterday dealt a setback to tenants' free-speech
rights, ruling that landlords can prohibit residents
from distributing newsletters in apartment complexes.

The decision is the first by a state high court to deal
with the issue, and it split the courts into three bitter
factions. The court could not reach a majority opinion
on how broadly the state should protect the free speech
rights of Californians. In the end, four of seven justices
decided only the tenants issue.

Balancing property rights against free speech protections,
the court ruled that the owner of the Golden Gateway
Center in San Francisco could prohibit the tenants
association from leafletting in the building.

But the court was divided over the reasoning. Three
justices voted to limit all free-speech rights, one justice
said it was unecessary to consider that fundamental
issue, and three others said tenants have broad
constitutional rights.

"The decision means that the apartment owner can protect
the privacy rights of its tenants and ensure that they're
left alone in their homes," said Glenn Zwang, San
Francisco attorney for Golden Gateway Center.

But the tenants' attorney, Robert De Vries, expressed
concern that under the ruling his clients "can be thrown
in jail for leafletting their neighbors. That isn't something
that someone would expect in California."

Alan Schlosser, a lawyer with the American Civil
Liberties Union, said California still provided greater
free-speech protections than the federal constitution,
but the court will have to set guidelines in future cases.

With 1,254 residential units, the center is one of the
largest apartment complexes in San Francisco. In 1982,
a group of tenants formed the Golden Gateway
Tenants Association. They would periodically distribute
a newsletter. Management didn't object until 1993, but
backed off when the tenants threatened legal action.

In 1996, the management revised the rules, banning all
leafletting and notices on bulletin boards, except in
laundryrooms.

When the tenants continued to leaflet, the landlord sued.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge John Dearman
ruled that the tenants had a contractual right to leaflet.
A state appeals court reversed that decision.

Three of the State Supreme Court justices agreed with
the state appeals court.

Prior to yesterday's decision, the court's leading case
was a 1979 landmark ruling — Robins v. Pruneyard
Shopping Center — allowing leafletting at a privately
owned shopping complex.

But in yesterday's opinion, Justice Janice Rodgers
Brown, the court's most outspoken conservative, said
the 1979 decision was limited. In an unusual analysis,
she relied heavily on New York's limited free speech
rights because, she said, many of the framers of the
California constitution came from New York.

Californians can rely on free speech rights only
against a government agency, she said. "Here, the
complex is privately owned, the Golden Gateway,
the owner, restricts the public's access to the complex."
Justices Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin joined in the
decision.

Chief Justice Ronald George said he agreed with the
final result, saying the leafletting should be limited to
areas that are open to the public. But he criticized Brown
for trying to limit free speech rights, saying her reasoning
might allow a landlord to prevent tenants from displaying
campaign posters in their apartment windows.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar dissented, saying the
tenants have a right to distribute their newsletter. The
State constitution "grants a right to free speech running
against private parties as well as state actors," she said.
Joining her opinion were Justice Joyce Kennard and
state appeals court Justice Joan Dempsey Klien.