Permanent occupancy. So that is something we would appreciate further discussion on. It is something that we dont currently do, and it lives outside of our scope of work. Thank you. 819 lombard is actually a perfect example. Part of what sparked that project and part of the benefit was the additional of three adus. So while on the one hand were trying to incentavise the building of new somewhat affordable housing, we are ending up actually losing existing affordable housing. And so part of what i think the community and the supervisor is trying to do is to create some impediments, where bad actors are disincentive vised. Disincent vised. And a some point that tenant is going to be able to come back, there is a financial disincentive for them to keep that unit open as we have taken care of that family for six months or a year or year and a half. And, yes, it is a policy choice because the pie is getting a little bit smaller. There is no question about that. And that means that some folk
Of consumer one who receives Substance Use services, and to permit a consumer who is an employee in the health or public or private agency, and who does not have any influence or authority over any financial or contractual matter. Concern the employee or the employer to be appointed to the commission. Chairwoman thank you. And we have andy mullen here from supervisor stephanies office to present. Good morning. Thank you for holding this hearing today. Im andy mullen. Im here on behalf of supervisor stefani, who holds the board of supervisors seat on the Mental Health board, and she unfortunately couldnt be here today. And many of the members are here for public comment. The legislation before you today is fairly simple. It makes three proposed changes. Im going to sort of discuss them just in order of importance. The Mental Health board is a fairly unique body in that it has been around since 1956. And it puts a majority of its seats for consumers of Mental Health services or family me
Chairwoman a quick question i know that is happening, and it is happening in the Mission District constantly, so this is a really important piece of legislation. But i just want to understand what happened. So the person gets a preference, moves into an Affordable Housing unit through that preference, and then their original unit, the Capital Improvements are done, and the landlord does the right thing and offers it back to the tenant. Right. Chairwoman does that person then have to move in or lose the unit can you walk me through how that is going to work . Sure. This will require an amendment to our leases so that it would need to provide for Affordable Housing unit when the tenant gets a preference and they move in with this temporary preference. It would need to be a condition of the lease there is a policy that you can havent more than one rental unit, if you have Affordable Housing. If you have another unit offered to you, it is a legitimate condition of theyre having a temporary
Are saying that that rentcontrolled unit is going to remain a rentcontrolled unit at its previous rent. There are legitimate reasons that people have to temporarily displace a tenant for major work. Some of the mandatory work. I get that. But there is also a group of folks who go about, many of them speculators, keeping units off the market as long as they can, knowing that that tenant is not going to return. To the extent that we a say were going to own it and have a place for them because we actually do have the capacity within our inclusionary and 100 affordable stock, and we have these Additional Findings that the a. L. J. Has to make, and ultimately were in the business of preserving existing rentcontrolled housing at its current nonvacated rates. Which is the whole reason for this. I want to thank the asian law caucus and c. D. C. , and the Tenant Rights Committee for pushing this supervisor on his legislation. I would hope that the committee would adopt the amendments and then w
819 lombard is actually a perfect example. Part of what sparked that project and part of the benefit was the additional of three adus. So while on the one hand were trying to incentavise the building of new somewhat Affordable Housing, we are ending up actually losing existing Affordable Housing. And so part of what i think the community and the supervisor is trying to do is to create some impediments, where bad actors are disincentive vised. Disincent vised. And a some point that tenant is going to be able to come back, there is a financial disincentive for them to keep that unit open as we have taken care of that family for six months or a year or year and a half. And, yes, it is a policy choice because the pie is getting a little bit smaller. There is no question about that. And that means that some folks are waiting longer in line. But it also means that we are saying that that rentcontrolled unit is going to remain a rentcontrolled unit at its previous rent. There are legitimate r