Radical Rebellious Lawyering: Collaborating with the OppositionBy Kelsey Quist

Most any licensed lawyer, when asked about his or her law school experience, will tell

you that while law school teaches you how to read and interpret the law, it fails to provide

students with the practical skills that one learns outside the classroom. Interacting and

communicating with clients, advocating in front of a judge, filing and serving court documents,

negotiating with opposing counsel – these are all common tasks learned by attorneys in practice,

rather than inside a classroom. Not only are these activities essential in the practice of law, they

are mandatory for a career in litigation. While it is certainly important to learn how to “think like

a lawyer” and how to read and analyze case law, it is equally important to learn how to

effectively communicate with a client, supervisor, judge, or opposing party. A typical law

student spends countless hours in the law school library, reading for courses, outlining cases, and

trying to stay above the curve. Yet, it is imperative to remember the hours that are spent outside

the classroom observing a courtroom calendar, settlement negotiation, or client interview are

integral to becoming a successful advocate.

As a result, now in my third and final year of law school, I approached the fall semester

with a different mindset – rather than burying my head in my law school books and outlines and

learning how to ace a final exam, I decided to enroll in courses that would stimulate critical

thinking and require a more active approach to the law. As I browsed through the course list, one

class in particular caught my eye – “Deportation Defense & Rebellious Lawyering.” I was

immediately intrigued. Perhaps it was the former college athlete in me that jumped at the words

“rebellious lawyering” – it sounded aggressive and exciting. Or maybe it was the fact that I had

no idea what “rebellious lawyering” meant and the possibilities seemed endless. In any case, I

was determined to sign-up and find out, even if it meant rearranging all my classes so I could

1

satisfy my curiosity. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the course did not require any

textbooks (always a major strain on a law students’ finances) but rather required enrollment in an

externship. While I had never participated in an externship before, I was thrilled at the idea that I

could spend part of my last year of law school outside of the classroom while still earning the

necessary credits to graduate. It was a welcome break from the long and tedious in-class lectures

and the pressure of final exams.

Since I had recently been offered a summer position as a legal intern with the San

Francisco Housing Authority (which I unfortunately had to turn down), I had high hopes they

would consider asking me back as a fall extern. As soon as my supervisor’s boss approved the

idea, and I officially accepted a position as a fall intern, I was overjoyed – I had never worked

for a government agency, let alone an agency as large as the housing authority. At the outset, I

hoped to at least spend a few days in court, observing hearings and settlement conferences. I

assumed the majority of my time in the office would be spent conducting legal research and

drafting memos. I was completely unaware that my 14-week externship would offer me multiple

opportunities to impact the policies and procedures of the legal department and to leave an

impression that would last well past my time in the office.

This paper explores my observations and experiences during my externship with the San

Francisco Housing Authority, as well as what I believe to be a more extreme form of rebellious

advocacy – learning how to collaborate and negotiate with the opposition. Part I of this paper

explores the various definitions of “rebellious lawyering” and my perspective on the concept in

the context of public housing and government agencies. Part II reflects on a few applicable

scholarly articles on the topic of housing and advocacy. Lastly, Part III discusses my duties,

2

responsibilities, and observations during my externship with the San Francisco Housing

Authority.

Part I: Defining Rebellious Lawyering

Rebellious lawyering was undoubtedly a foreign concept to me when I enrolled in this

course. I had never heard the term used in practice, nor had I come across it in any of my law

school textbooks. It wasn’t until I began the assigned reading for this course that I started to

understand its meaning. Even then, I did not fully grasp the idea until I was able to put it into

practice during my externship.

Rebellious lawyering requires first that we as advocates set aside our egos – the notion

that we are experts in the law and know everything there is to know about a certain legal subject.

This first step might perhaps be the most difficult, since law school inherently breeds arrogance,

self-importance, and overconfidence. Advocacy is often times a battle of the egos, rather than a

passionate exercise of social justice. But if we take out the vanity, the “high and mighty”

attitude, and boil the practice of law down to its very basic roots, lawyers are quite simply

problem solvers. It is this aspect of advocacy – problem solving - that inspired me to go to law

school.

Interestingly enough, law school does not emphasize the problem-solving responsibility

of an attorney. Rather, law school gives students a false sense of superiority, that because we can

read and interpret the law, we are endowed with the unique ability to advise our clients. We

assume that our three years in law school gives us the best (or the “right”) perspective on our

clients’ legal issues. Even the most practical courses offered in law school teach students how to

efficiently (rather than effectively) conduct a client interview in order to obtain the facts of the

case. All too often, attorneys are absorbed in the legal intricacies of a case rather than

3

discovering a client’s cultural, social, or family background. Put another way, attorneys are more

interested in the “what” and the “when” than the “how” and the “why.” As a result, our

communications to our clients are cloaked in the assumption that our client has walked through

our doors to learn from us and our sole responsibility is to impart our wisdom upon them. We

ignore the possibility that perhaps we can learn from our clients by listening to their story.

Recognizing that our clients have the ability to make decisions pertaining to their case

with the guidance and help of counsel is a crucial aspect of rebellious advocacy. Rebellious

lawyering has been defined as “working with, rather than simply on behalf of clients and allies,

from whom we have so much to learn.”1 Consequently, law school should be viewed as an

avenue that gives future attorneys the ability to provide their clients with all the information

needed in order to make a decision about their case. We are facilitators, counselors, mentors,

educators, and analysts – yet, we are also learners. We have just as much to learn from our client

as they do from us.

But rebellious advocacy isn’t limited to one side of the courtroom – this concept can be

employed in various situations. In fact, it is my belief that the most radical form of rebellious

advocacy involves collaborating with the opposition, while still zealously representing your own

client’s interests. While the majority of our course readings involved representing low-income

and subordinated individuals, many of whom come from diverse cultures and backgrounds, it

was unclear whether rebellious advocacy could be used in representing a client in a powerful

position, such as the government. Aside from the practical difficulties of comparing an

organization with an unidentifiable face to an individual in a community, there is the issue that

rebellious lawyering is most commonly discussed in reference to minority groups that lack the

1 Coolies, James Yen, and Rebellious Advocacy, Bill Ong Hing, Asian American Law Journal, May 2007 pg. 1

4

resources to legally stand their ground. The government, on the other hand, operates from a

position of authority, with unfettered access to legal representation. How would I be able to

exercise rebellious lawyering on behalf of my privileged and authoritative client when it is the

underprivileged and oppressed opposing party that needs it the most?

I thought back on my previous summer internship in a family law office and the

conversations back and forth between opposing attorneys during the process of negotiation.

Family law can be a field of high tension and hostility and all too often, attorneys get so bogged

down in the emotions of their client that they cannot distance themselves from the drama - as if

the attorneys themselves were the ones going through a divorce, fighting over property, or

waging a child custody battle. The inability of these representatives to stay calm, respectful, and

professional severely affected the way they were able to advocate in court, often interrupting or

talking over the judge, or banging their fists on the podium. Yet, in a few rare instances, I was

able to witness advocacy at its finest. Despite the vicious nature of the case, the representatives

on both sides were able to treat each other with kindness, respect, and integrity. In the end, this

allowed for a complete resolution of all items in dispute, leaving both parties fully satisfied with

the court ruling. In order to reach this agreement, both parties were forced to make small

compromises, and this required the opposing attorneys to communicate candidly in order to best

represent the interests of their clients.

While this sort of situation may not be a stereotypical portrayal of “rebellious advocacy,”

it is arguably a more advanced form of lawyering, and one that follows the same ideals that are

required to effectively collaborate with one’s own client. The better the relationship you create

with opposing counsel, the more leverage you attain in negotiation. The more leverage you attain

in negotiation, the more flexibility you have in fighting for your client. The idea of collaborating

5

with the opposition is certainly not the first thing that comes to mind when trying to best

represent your client, since more often than not the opposing counsel’s interests will likely clash

with your own. However, finding common ground between the two opposing parties and using

this as a foundation for negotiation is a great way to begin communication. Not only does it tend

to create a more pleasant process, it eliminates the tension, hostility, and animosity that only

serve to postpone resolution. Consequently, in addition to practicing the type of direct rebellious

lawyering described by Lucie White and Gerald Lopez, it is my belief that attorneys should also

employ a more radical form of rebellious advocacy that builds relationships and connections

with the opposition, who are in actual fact colleagues in the same profession.

Part II: Rebellious Lawyering & Public Housing

Two of the more influential articles that discuss the intersection of rebellious lawyering

and housing are titled “Places in the Heart” and “Lawyers and Doctors Partner for Healthy

Housing.” Gordon Chin’s article, “Places in the Heart,” discusses one of the larger public

housing developments in the city of San Francisco – Ping Yuen. The Ping Yuen projects, which

were built in the 1950’s primarily to house returning veterans and their families, are comprised

of four buildings along Pacific Avenue.2 The buildings contain 438 apartments, which

encompass a large percentage of Chinatown’s entire multi-family housing stock.3 Despite the

buildings’ historic and modern significance, the residents of this community have long felt

neglected by the San Francisco Housing Authority (“SFHA”), according to author Gordon Chin.

This is evidenced by the poor maintenance, few capital improvements, and the absence of

resident services for seniors, children and youth.4 Chin’s explanation behind this neglect is the

2 Gordon Chin, “Places in the Heart,” pg. 73 Id.4 Id.

6

housing authority’s “triaging” of the worst public housing projects in the City, which receive the

vast majority of resources for repair and services.

During our class trip to Chinatown, we were able to survey the condition of most of the

buildings in the area from a view atop the IHotel. One of the developments specifically pointed

out to us during this trip was Ping Yuen, which represents 10% of the entire land acreage in

Chinatown. I was discouraged to hear that such an integral development in Chinatown, which

housed a majority of low-income families in the area, had been largely ignored by the SFHA.

Yet, despite the housing authority’s lack of attention, the Chinatown Community Development

Center (“CCDC”) had successfully advocated for the residents of Ping Yuen on several

occasions. One of the more recent successes, referenced by Gordon Chin, was a resident

education and outreach role for the CCDC in the housing authority’s federal stimulus funded $8

million Ping Yuen Energy Weatherization Project. Additionally, the CCDC had secured

resources for a promise of new elevators in the buildings.

I was reminded while reading Chin’s article and listening to his comments during our

field trip that both the SFHA and the CCDC were working towards a common goal – revitalizing

the public housing developments to provide for a safer, cleaner, living environment for its

residents. Yet, it occurred to me that in court, these two groups were often at odds with one

another – refusing to listen, communicate, or negotiate. During that field trip, although I was

merely observing and listening, I was taking mental notes to bring back to my supervisor at the

SFHA. The few simple hours that I had spent walking the streets of Chinatown and hearing the

concerns from CCDC’s Executive Director, Gordon Chin, could be remarkably beneficial in

building a better relationship between these two programs. Furthermore, this simple activity

forced me as SFHA’s legal intern to be reminded of the bigger picture – that both the CCDC and

7

the SFHA could be collaborating with each other to fund the improvements that were desperately

needed in this development. Not only would this reduce the number of lawsuits filed by both

parties by encouraging settlement negotiations, it would likely eliminate any miscommunication

between representatives by forcing issues and concerns out into the open.

One of these major issues, recently discussed in the article “Lawyers and Doctors Partner

for Healthy Housing,” is the warranty of habitability governing the condition of public housing.

As referenced in the article, “laws and regulations protect tenants’ rights only to the extent that

landlords and public agencies uphold them…while many landlords take their legal obligations

seriously and maintain their rental housing in adequate condition, just as many do not take

necessary action until faced with the threat of liability.”5 Unfortunately, many low-income

tenants often lack the knowledge and ability to defend their rights against their landlords and

thus are immediately disadvantaged at the onset of a lawsuit. I witnessed this firsthand during my

externship at the housing authority (discussed further below). Many tenants did not raise the

affirmative defense of implied warranty of habitability until the SFHA threatened them with

eviction. Furthermore, most of the tenants that raised this defense did so on the advice of

counsel, usually a tenant advocacy representative. These advocates, as cited in the article, often

refuse to represent a client whose only concern is the unhealthy state of the client’s home.6 As

such, only when a tenant is faced with an eviction will a legal aid office step in and evoke

unsanitary conditions as a defense.

In order to remedy this ongoing problem, many advocacy groups are educating tenants on

their rights with respect to their landlord and the steps that a tenant can take in order to avoid a

lawsuit or eviction threat. Additionally, the housing authorities responsible for providing tenants

5 Monisha Cherayil, Denise Oliveira, Megan Sandel, and Ellen Tohn, Lawyers and Doctors Partner for Healthy Housing, 39 Clearinghouse Rev. Journal of Law and Policy 65 (2005-2006).6 Id. at 68.

8

with housing are increasing the number of educational “town hall” type meetings that invite

residents to voice their concerns in a community setting. This article, although focused on the

role advocates should play on behalf of tenants, highlights the importance of collaboration

between landlord and tenant and the respective representatives. In order to avoid unnecessary

confrontation, both the landlord and the tenant advocates must play a role in educating the tenant

on the procedures for dissolving a dispute and exposing substandard living conditions. More

recently, the SFHA scheduled a meeting regarding the procedures in place in order to submit a

work order whenever there is an issue within a unit. Not only did the SFHA invite their residents

to attend, but they also invited the tenant advocate groups, so all parties were aware of the

appropriate way to make a maintenance request. This type of collaborative education spreads

information in a way that benefits both the landlord and the tenant, in hopes of resolving disputes

outside the courtroom.

Part III: Externship at the San Francisco Housing Authority

The roots of public housing originated on September 1, 1937 when President Franklin D.

Roosevelt signed the Housing Act of 1937, which provided for subsidies to be paid from the U.S.

government to local public housing agencies (LHA’s) to improve living conditions for lower

income families. The San Francisco Housing Authority (“SFHA”) was founded in 1938 by the

San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The Board of Commissioners for the SFHA, appointed by

the Mayor of San Francisco, are responsible for determining and interpreting the policies that

govern the Authority, subject to the mandates and limits imposed by State and Federal law. The

San Francisco Housing Authority is the oldest operating housing authority in the state of

California and the 17th largest in the nation.7 Over the years, the SFHA has grown to currently

include over 40 developments, housing over 20,000 individuals located throughout San

7 http://www.sfha.org/Agency-Info-Ombudsman---Communication-About-Us.html

9

Francisco. In 1974, the Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly “Section 8”) was introduced

to the SFHA, which currently serves over 10,000 individuals and families. The stated mission of

the SFHA is “to deliver safe and decent housing for low income households and integrate

economic opportunity for residents.”8

The goal of the Public Housing Authority (“PHA”) is to provide decent, safe, sanitary,

drug-free housing in good repair to all SFHA residents. The PHA also strives to improve living

conditions for low-income families while charging only 30% of the families’ income for rent.

The minimum amount of rent that can be collected by the PHA is $25, but varies by property as

determined by market survey. Despite the large number of families and individuals currently

being housed by the SFHA, the current waitlist has been closed for quite some time, with over

10,000 waitlisted individuals in need of housing. As a result, those individuals without access to

public housing are often forced to live on the streets. In order to accommodate those on the

waitlist, the SFHA keeps a close watch on its tenants through its property managers, in order to

ensure that leases are not being violated and drugs and prostitution are eliminated from the

developments.

The biggest problem facing the SFHA is nonpayment of rent, which often stems from

habitability concerns. Although I was not able to visit all of the SFHA developments, the few

that I encountered left much to be desired. Aside from the fact that most of the SFHA

developments are located in more crime-ridden neighborhoods, the units themselves are small,

run-down, and poorly insulated. Many of the buildings now owned by the SFHA used to house

military personnel during World War II, or in the case of Ping Yuen and Chinatown

developments, local farmers that resided in single occupancy housing. As such, many of the

8 http://www.sfha.org/Agency-Info-Ombudsman---Communication-About-Us.html

10

buildings have not been renovated or restructured since their establishment in the early 1900’s.

One of the remedies available to tenants in extreme cases of substandard housing is withholding

rent. This is what set the stage for my externship project.

During the first week of my externship at the San Francisco Housing Authority, I spent

most of my hours in court observing unlawful detainer actions with my supervisor, Elizabeth

Hurwitz, who was literally the heart and soul of the legal department. Despite the fact that the

SFHA is one of the largest public housing authorities in the country, the legal department is

severely understaffed. Elizabeth had only been with the SFHA since March of 2014 and she was

the only staffed attorney available to represent the housing authority on all legal actions.

Elizabeth’s supervisor, Linda Martin, while also a licensed attorney, is the Director of the

Department of Government Affairs and Policy and is primarily responsible for organizing and

hosting many of the community partner meetings, as well as communicating directly with the

Acting Executive Director and Administrator of Housing Development and Modernization,

Barbara Smith. Prior to Elizabeth’s arrival at the SFHA, most of the unlawful detainer actions

and ex parte motions were contracted out to a third party attorney, leaving a massive backlog of

nonpayment of rent cases. It was Elizabeth’s responsibility to tackle the backlog and pursue the

unlawful detainer actions, some of which spanned several years of nonpayment amounting to

several thousands of dollars in backrent.

My first few days in court were eye opening. I became very familiar with Department

501 at 400 McAllister, which is where all our unlawful detainer actions and ex parte motions

were held. After several months of attending court hearings, I became familiar with the

courtroom law clerks, who began calling me by name. One of the first things that stuck out to me

during those first few days in court was the advocates that roamed the halls outside the

11

courtrooms. Elizabeth informed me that they were likely representatives from the Eviction

Defense Collaborative (“EDC”) or Homeless Advocacy Project (“HAP”), both of which were

tenant advocacy groups with a strong dislike of the SFHA (and that’s putting it very mildly). I

was intrigued at how the process worked – these tenant groups paced the hallways waiting for an

unrepresented tenant to pass by in need of counsel and would then subsequently attach

themselves to the individual as their legal representative. Yet, the representation being offered by

the EDC and HAP was limited – I overhead many of the advocates tell their new clients that they

would not be available to represent them should their case go to trial. This baffled me. Wouldn’t

a client need representation most desperately if the case went to trial? My confusion was

subsequently answered through a few of the readings assigned to us for this course, which

discussed the role of unbundled legal services and piecemeal counseling. Still, I wondered if

these clients felt abandoned by their advocates or discouraged since their scope of representation

could only reach so far.

I noticed as the advocates began to pick up clients outside the courtroom that they refused

to make eye contact with Elizabeth or myself. Many of these advocates Elizabeth had met

previously, or had communicated with via email or telephone. Yet, none of them even took the

time to glance up and smile at her as they walked by. This was very disconcerting. Was there no

camaraderie amongst legal professionals? Wouldn’t it make for a much more pleasant courtroom

environment if attorneys at least took the time to acknowledge one another as colleagues in the

same profession? Elizabeth aptly reminded me that the SFHA had been painted time and again as

an “evil entity out to evict people from their homes and increase the homeless population.” I

wondered…had all these individuals harboring bitterness and resentment towards the SFHA

forgotten that we are all working towards a common goal – to provide affordable housing for

12

low-income families? It is then that I realized that perhaps rebellious advocacy was not just

about collaborating with one’s own client, but with establishing a professional and respectful

relationship with the opposition in order to further a common goal. I decided at that moment that

before my externship came to an end, I wanted to help the SFHA and the advocacy groups

develop a working relationship with one another that would endure in the future.

I realized this would be a difficult and challenging project – to effectuate a peaceful and

cooperative affiliation with the advocacy groups, especially since such things take time.

Furthermore, the SFHA did not have the greatest reputation among tenant residents and

communities. In order to establish a better relationship with our residents, we would need an

image makeover. I began asking around to find out what procedures were currently in place to

increase the communication between the housing authority and the tenants – especially in cases

involving nonpayment of rent. One of the more recent additions to the legal policies of the SFHA

was the introduction of on-site settlement conferences. Rather than immediately resorting to an

eviction through court action, the SFHA gave tenants an opportunity to settle the case out of

court (with representation, if exercised). Most of the settlement agreements allowed for

flexibility in the repayment plans – only asking tenants for what could reasonably be paid in

addition to their monthly rent. Tenants were given the opportunity to present proof of payment if

there was any dispute over the amount they owed. Elizabeth was insistent on taking all the time

that was necessary to explain the terms of the agreement to the tenants (who were often

unrepresented and not well-versed in legalese).

Before the tenants signed the agreement, Elizabeth always asked if there were any

problems in the unit that needed to be fixed. Usually, tenants had a list of items that needed

repair – these were always incorporated into the settlement agreement as an obligation on the

13

part of the SFHA to complete in a timely fashion. Most of these conferences went very smoothly

and gave tenants an opportunity to meet Elizabeth in person and discuss their expectations of the

housing authority. While this sort of collaboration was not the sort of “straightforward”

rebellious lawyering mentioned in our course readings, the ability on both sides to communicate

and compromise advanced both parties’ goals. The tenants were able to remain in their unit, so

long as they continued to pay rent, and the landlord (the government) promised to maintain the

unit in a habitable condition, vowing to fix all repairs mentioned by the tenant or discovered

upon subsequent inspection.

While these settlement conferences were certainly a step in the right direction towards

building peaceful, trusting relationships between the landlord and tenant, it was only the tip of

the iceberg. Distilling the animosity and tension between the SFHA and the tenant advocacy

groups would take a lot more than a few successful settlement conferences. After witnessing the

interaction between the EDC and SFHA in court, I noticed the biggest point of contention during

negotiations was habitability and rent abatement. As soon as we returned from court on the first

day of my externship, my supervisor asked me to write a memo on habitability – including both

tenants’ rights and landlords’ rights with respect to payment of rent.

This memo would eventually become a turning point in negotiations with the tenant

advocacy groups. At the time, my knowledge was pretty limited on the topic – while there were a

few cases I remembered from Property Law that mentioned habitability, most took place in the

private sphere, which is a whole different ballgame. Publicly subsidized housing is regulated by

a different set of federal rules and regulations – HUD (Department of Housing and Urban

Development). In addition to HUD, the SFHA must follow state and local ordinances relating to

building and health and safety codes. Most of the confusion amongst the SFHA and tenant

14

advocacy groups stemmed from miscommunication and misinterpretation of the law. After

completing several drafts of the memo, the final draft was emailed to Linda Martin, who then

forwarded it to the Executive Director, Barbara Smith. Linda then asked me to create two flow

charts detailing the tenant requirements for rent abatement and habitability under Section 1942.4

of the California Civil Code and Section 966.4(h) of the Code of Federal Regulations. The

purpose of the flow charts was to create simple, easily understandable documents that could be

used by both the SFHA and the advocacy groups when negotiating habitability issues.9 Linda

later informed me that both of these flow charts were presented to the tenant advocacy groups

during a community partners meeting and provided a basis to begin future negotiations in cases

with habitability concerns.

Another crucial advance towards a better relationship with the advocacy groups involved

the incorporation of monthly meetings with representatives from the EDC and HAP. These

meetings gave tenant advocacy leaders the ability to voice their concerns to the SFHA face to

face, while also providing the opportunity to discuss legal procedures moving forward. When I

started my externship with the SFHA, these meetings were already in place, but unfortunately,

were not serving their purpose. Elizabeth told me various stories about how heated and tense

these meetings were and how they often ended in shouting matches. By the time my externship

came to a close, I was able to attend a community partner meeting10 – but was pleasantly

surprised by the tone of the communication and the willingness of each individual to cooperate

and compromise. Perhaps my research on habitability had helped pave the way to progress – or

at least set the stage for a more respectful and professional system of communication. As each

9 *The flow charts are attached to the end of this paper for reference. These documents were an integral part in improving communications with the tenant advocacy groups as they ensured that all parties were on the same page as far as the law was concerned. 10 The agenda of this meeting is attached at the end of this paper for reference.

15

item on the agenda was addressed, each representative was given an opportunity to comment or

ask questions.

One of the issues that was frequently discussed involved the vacancy of several hundred

units and confusion as to why these units were not being immediately filled. The Executive

Director of the SFHA, Barbara Smith, explained that these units needed to remain vacant in

order to relocate tenants from buildings that were currently being renovated. Since the massive

renovations could not take place while families continued to reside in their units, it was

necessary to relocate them during this process, thus requiring the availability of vacant units. The

representative from the Housing Rights Committee agreed to communicate this to the frustrated

individuals on the waiting list who had visited her office under the mistaken belief that the SFHA

was deliberately preventing vacant units from being rented. As the meeting came to a close, the

directors of the SFHA in attendance announced the most positive news I had heard since

beginning my externship – the waitlist was going to reopen in January of 2015 and the SFHA

was going to begin moving in families currently on the waitlist that had been patiently awaiting

housing for years. This news immediately lit up the room – everyone began clapping, shaking

hands, and smiling. This to me was the epitome of rebellious advocacy – opposing parties

working together towards a common goal through collaboration and compromise. Any tension

that was present at the beginning of the meeting had dissolved, replaced by excited energy and

renewed vigor.

CONCLUSION

Looking forward to the future, I am more than hopeful that the SFHA and the tenant

advocacy groups will continue to work together towards a common goal - providing safe and

affordable housing for low-income families and individuals – without the animosity and hostility

16

that has plagued their past. The SFHA has recently added two new in-house attorneys to the legal

department, which will substantially increase the communication between the government and

the tenants. Each attorney will be assigned to supervise certain SFHA developments. This will

also allow for more on-site visits to the developments and increased awareness as to the

conditions of the premises.

With the reopening of the waitlist in January 2015, the SFHA plans to continue its

frequency of community partner meetings and its collaboration with the tenant advocacy groups

in order to keep families off the streets. The number of unlawful detainer suits continues to

decrease, as more tenants have successfully negotiated settlement agreements with the landlord.

While the SFHA still has a long road ahead to improve its reputation among its residents and

tenant advocacy groups, the progress so far has set a precedent moving forward. Successful

rebellious advocacy requires openness to being educated by all those with whom we come into

contact with, even the opposition.

17

HACCSF Habitability Flow ChartC.F.R. §966.4(h)

STEP 1: TENANT GIVES NOTICE

“To the extent that conditions are created which are hazardous to life, health, or safety of the occupants, the tenant shall immediately notify

project management of the damage”

STEP 2: REPAIR IN REASONABLE TIME

“The PHA shall be responsible for repair of the unit within a reasonable time: provided, that if the damage was caused by the tenant, tenant’s household or guests, the reasonable cost of repairs shall be charged to the tenant”

STEP 3: OFFER ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATIONS

“The PHA shall offer standard alternative accommodations, if available, where necessary repairs

cannot be made within a reasonable time”

STEP 4: RENT ABATEMENT

“Provisions shall be made for abatement of rent in proportion

to the seriousness of the damage and loss in value as a

dwelling IF repairs are not made in accordance with Step 2 or 3, except that no abatement shall occur if tenant rejects the alternative accommodations

OR if the damage was caused by tenant, tenant’s household or

guests”

18

Habitability Flow ChartCal. Civ. Code §1942.4

1112

11 Cal. Civ. Code §1929: The tenant must repair all deteriorations or injuries caused by his want of ordinary care.

12 Cal. Civ. Code §1941.2: If tenant’s violation substantially contributes to dilapidation, resulting from (1) failure to keep premises clean and sanitary, (2) failure to dispose of all trash and waste, (3) failure to properly use all fixtures, (4) permitting guests to damage unit, and (5) failure to occupy spaces in manner they were designed for, then landlord has no duty to act.

If a tenant can prove ALL of the following exist, a landlord is barred from demanding payment of rent, issuing a notice of rent increase, or issuing a 14-day notice to pay rent or quit

-

1. Dwelling endangers life, limb, health, property, or safety

4. Conditions were not caused by an act or omission of the tenant in violation of Section 19291 or Section 1941.22

3. Conditions have existed and not been abated for 35 days beyond the date of notice and delay is without good cause

2. Public officer after inspection has notified the landlord in writing to abate or repair

19