Dear Editor:

I am both a real estate appraiser and a property owner in Noe Valley in San Francisco. i purchased a duplex with a tenant-in-common partner. She made it impossible for me to live in my own unit. Now  I find that if she and I settle, I still cannot live in my own unit because rather than leave it empty and be able to make the payments I had to rent it.

It is dangerous to the real estate market and to the economy of San Francisco for property buyers/owners to be unable to live in their own properties. With the high cost of housing in the City, tenants-in-common has become a viable ownership issue. If property owners are unable to occupy their units, they do not buy. When there are no buyers for real estate, there is no value for real estate. This creates a lower tax base as Proposition 13 also limited the real estate taxes that could be collected. When the tax base is low, other services suffer as well. This is a down-spiraling process in which the City by the Bay can only lose.

There is an active rent board under which tenants may voice their problems with landlords and this continues to strengthen the tenants' rights. This is the way the process should work, not by enforcing artificial controls.

Mr. Willie Brown is already choosing routes in which Section 8 and low income renters are being forced to leave the City and now he is forcing entry-level and small property owners out as well. This is unfair to tenants as well. This creates a similar atmosphere as the old Berkeley where there was no incentive to renovate properties because there was little, if any, value to the buildings on the open market.
Please help us to educate both tenants and property buyers of all sides of this dangerous issue so that an informed decision can be made.

Thank you,
Joselle L. Merritt-Dennis