Justice for Trinity Plaza Tenants: History of Our Struggle

Introduction to Our Struggle

For those of you unfamiliar with our struggle, Angelo Sangiacomo, known as the "Father of Rent Control" in San Francisco because of his unscrupulous actions aimed at tenants which include doubling, tripling, and even quadrupling rents (among other notorious actions), forwarded letters in April 2003 to the tenants of Trinity Plaza Apartments that he intended to demolish the building in the summer of 2004. Trinity Plaza consists of 366 affordable, rent-controlled units (mainly studios but some 1-bedroom units) as well as several units not under rent control, the Moonstar Restaurant serving Chinese cuisine buffet style, a nonprofit organization, and until recently a law office and a convenience store for the tenants (a future update is planned on this subject).

The First Months

Our struggle almost collapsed when on May 7, 2003 we met with the first two "activists" (who will remain unnamed) who told us we could delay the demolition of our homes for several years with hard work and countless meetings: all we had to do was pay the two people $300,000 to represent our interests. We were told that some of us would have to learn how to become leaders, media spokespeople, and devote time off from our jobs to attend impromptu meetings with civic leaders and others. (Note: We have already stalled Sangiacomo's plans for at least two years without the expense.)

That first meeting disheartened many tenants who have never attended another meeting. However, those who remained steadfast and determined to save Trinity Plaza from the wrecking ball persevered. I distinctly remember our second meeting where several tenants attempted to organize those who attended; we introduced ourselves with our personal labels of how long we have been tenants, how we earned our living (for those who aren't retired), and how we were feeling about the prospect of losing our homes. We discussed other ways to approach potential activists to aid us in our quest.

Fortunately, one tenant possessed the foresight to invite the man who has been our guide, mentor, leader, and friend throughout our struggle: Sam Dodge of the Central City SRO Collaborative.

Our Early and Later Strategies

More than a year ago, our original concept was that we would get legislation passed ensuring that any San Francisco tenant evicted for demolition would receive $4,500 in moving expenses instead of the current, paltry $1,000. Our early strategy was akin to just giving up and accepting the inevitable. And so we approached our district Supervisor, Chris Daly, and asked him to coordinate with the City Attorney to draft a revision of the Rent Ordinance section pertinent to demolitions.

Several months passed with the main topic of our weekly Wednesday night meetings consisting of questions concerning the progress of the legislation.

Then we decided that we needed to do more, and -- with the guidance and training of our first supporters and organizers including Sam Dodge and members of the South of Market Community Action Network (SOMCAN) Chris Durazo and Jeanne Batallones as well as members of the San Francisco Senior Action Network including Mel Beetle and Barbara Blong -- that we were capable of doing more, that our hearts were not those of defeatists. We decided that we had to fight the proposed demolition of Trinity Plaza. (Note: Chris and Jeanne later recruited Angelica Cabande and Kuusela Hilo to join in the struggle.)

A few more meetings later and our self-confidence growing exponentially, we came to the conclusion that, indeed, we had to learn how to become leaders, that the proposed demolition of Trinity Plaza was just a symptom of a larger disease -- gentrification -- and that we thought we were just the first potential victims. At the time, none of us tenants knew about the International Hotel/Manilatown.

We had decided that not only were we going to save our own homes, but we had an obligation and an opportunity to save the homes of our fellow San Franciscans. We had decided that we were capable of leaving a legacy for tenants in The City.

And so we embarked on a campaign, the end result of which we knew we wanted to achieve and that we were going to learn how to achieve that result as we went from meeting to meeting and speech to speech.

And so was born our child, the Anti-Demolition Ordinance, now known as the Housing Preservation Initiative which will appear on the November 2004 ballot. The Initiative -- as with the Ordinance -- will protect about 22% of our affordable, rent-controlled housing stock: about 80,000 units. It will prohibit greedy landlords like Angelo Sangiacomo from devastating communities and trashing rent control. The Initiative will prohibit the demolition of buildings containing 20 or more units unless those buildings are declared uninhabitable by a building inspector.

Sangiacomo's "Offers"

Two offers are currently still open to the tenants of Trinity Plaza. Offer 1 consists of a "promise" of subsidized rent with base rent as of the issuance of the proposed demolition notice. Offer 2 is the "promise" of a lifetime lease in the first of five new towers.

Granted, if you don't know who Sangiacomo is, these offers most likely would be very appealing to you. However, Sangiacomo is not known as the "Father of Rent Control" for performance of good deeds toward tenants. And his litigation history -- 94 San Francisco Superior Court cases that I'm aware of, almost one-third of which are for breach of contract -- is just a frightening example of what would happen to any tenant who would trust Sangiacomo with either offer.

Imagine yourself accepting Offer 1 if your rent at the issuance of the proposed demolition notice was $600 a month, moving into one of the three units Sangiacomo would offer you where the existing rent would be maybe double, triple, or quadruple. First, Sangiacomo would choose the units and buildings, not the tenant. You would have to choose one of the three units or the offer would be invalidated by Sangiacomo. And there's another catch to this offer. The subsidy would not be the same for every tenant! If your length of tenancy is 3 years, then you would receive 3 years of subsidized rent. Granted, if your length of tenancy is 10 years or longer, you would receive subsized rent for 10 years or longer. If by some fluke you actually liked one of the units, how long do you think Sangiacomo would subsidize your rent? My guess would be one month! And then he would stop paying the subsidy leaving you with no option but to move (or come up with the considerably higher rent) and then spend the next one to two years or more in a court battle after suing Sangiacomo for breach of contract.

And then there's Offer 2, the "promise" of a lifetime lease. Your rent would be subject to increases only as allowed by the Rent Board, according to Sangiacomo's word. However, we know what Sangiacomo's word is worth. Furthermore, the apartment would NOT be under rent control so Sangiacomo would be able to raise your rent by any amount at any time and you would have no legal recourse. Additionally, you would be subject to capital improvements passthroughs and, again, since the new unit would NOT be protected by rent control, you would pay what Sangiacomo would dictate. Again, you would have to trust Sangiacomo that he would not double, triple, or quadruple your rent on a non-rent-controlled apartment. I would rather walk blindfolded with my ears covered through a pit of rattlesnakes and trust the rattlesnakes not to strike before I would trust Sangiacomo to keep his word and not breach a contract.

However, notwithstanding these arguments, we tenants of the Trinity Plaza Tenants Association (TPTA) know exactly what these "offers" really mean. It is Sangiacomo's intent to destroy affordable, rent-controlled apartments. Indeed, I venture to say that Sangiacomo's underlying intent is to destroy rent control itself. And what's to replace the loss of rent-controlled apartments? Market-rate housing for those earning $100,000+ a year. And what's that word describing such actions? Gentrification!

Armed with a massive fortune estimated at approximately $500 Million (gained at the expense of tenants), Sangiacomo has no reservation contributing to political candidates who will attempt to enforce Sangiacomo's desire.

For example, tracking contributions to Mayor Gavin Newsom through the San Francisco Ethics Commission website (though some entries seem to have vanished in the process of moving the website from the original location under the Board of Supervisors page) reveals Sangiacomo's double $5,000 gifts (that's $10,000 total) to Newsom's Care Not Cash campaign, approximately another $10,000+ total for Newsom's bids for supervisor and mayor. (See, for example, the San Francisco Examiner for March 5, 2004 and the San Francisco Chronicle for March 8, 2004.) And then there's the wedding gift to the Newsoms, valued at about $10,000. (See also the San Francisco Bay Guardian here.)

So were the members of TPTA surprised when Newsom vetoed the Anti-Demolition Ordinance in early March? No. We had been hoping that Newsom would rediscover the word "ethics" and let the legislation sit on his desk and allow the Ordinance to become law; he could have explained to his buddy Sangiacomo that it was an oversight. However, Newsom's voting record on rent control/tenants issues is a matter of public record, and his veto of the Anti-Demolition Ordinance was no surprise and further proves his intent, backed by Sangiacomo cash, to follow and carry out the dictates of Sangiacomo. (Incidentally, it was Newsom who suggested offering lifetime leases in a letter he mailed to the tenants of Trinity Plaza indicating he was vetoing the Ordinance.)

Of interesting note is Supervisor Bevan Dufty's original support of the legislation. However, when it came time for Dufty to vote to overturn Newsom's veto, Sangiacomo cash came into play. One can only imagine the conversation that took place behind closed doors to induce Dufty to vote to sustain the veto. The conversation could have been: remember who gave you campaign contributions, and if you want more Sangiacomo cash you'll note NO and sustain my veto of the Anti-Demolition Ordinance.

Now, if you care to spend a few hours at the San Francisco Ethics Commission website, study ex-Supervisor Tony Hall's war chest next. Hall claims he both dislikes and distrusts Newsom but Hall's voting record closely matches that of Newsom's; and let's not forget the events of the past few days and the questionable ethics involved in Hall's appointment to head Treasure Island redevelopment.

Is anyone else seeing a behavior pattern here?

(Note: For those of you living outside the San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco has been under rent control since the summer of 1979. Unfortunately, there is no vacancy control which means landlords can raise the rent on units -- up to "market rate" -- when a tenant moves. The San Francisco Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board sets the "market rate". And under the State law known as Costa Hawkins, you cannot construct new buildings after June 1979 and have the units placed under rent control.)

Housing Preservation Initiative

On May 1, 2004, we commenced our quest to place the Anti-Demolition Ordinance, now known as the Housing Preservation Initiative, on the November 2004 ballot. Our original goal was to try to collect about 15,000 signatures, with 10,486 valid signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. A short two months later, after talking with tens of thousands of San Francisco residents, we submitted almost 20,000 signatures!

On Friday, August 6, 2004, the Department of Elections certified our efforts -- we are now known as Proposition M.

Although we have yet to open a campaign office, we have not halted our campaign: we continue our educational effort by talking with San Franciscans on a daily basis about the benefits of enacting the Housing Preservation Initiative.

While we await the opening of our headquarters, I invite you to meet us at the following websites:

Our campaign website -- SaveRentControl.org.

Our faces and some of our names at Lawton's website and David's website galleries by clicking here and here.

And for immediate updates on our struggle and related stories, visit Randy Shaw's valuable website BeyondChron.

Finally, return to IndyBay for Part 2 of the history of the struggle for Justice for Trinity Plaza Tenants. In Part 2, I will present more startling evidence, including the perpetration of fraud on the Board of Supervisors by one of Sangiacomo's henchmen, and I'll present more of our factual arguments in answer to the malicious misrepresentations emanating from Sangiacomo's primary henchman.

add your comments