Michael Campesino pursued the 25th Street eviction in his usual fashion.
In November 2019, he tapped his company to buy the six-unit, aging Mission District apartment building. The building at 2920-30 25th St. was perfect for an Ellis Act eviction of all the tenants: Relatively cheap, rent-controlled, and a strong candidate to be flipped into lucrative, for-sale, tenancy-in-common units. Campesino had already threatened this at two other properties in the past five years.
Once he purchased the building, tenants said he met with them over cafecitos and galletas in January 2020 to break the news: He’d like to buy them out. These residents — most of whom have lived in the building since the 1980s, and three of whom are seniors — refused. Fine. That’s happened before.
Campesino would do it the hard way.
Using his role as manager, Campesino attempted to force the tenants out by operating the building in a manner akin to “retaliation” and “elder abuse,” tenants alleged in a lawsuit. Evictions couldn’t happen immediately. Campesino said Covid-19 affected the timeline, and San Francisco law requires Ellis Act evictions affecting seniors to be delayed a year. In the interim, tenants alleged, they endured mold and rodents. When January 2021 rolled around, Campesino went to the Rent Board and filed Ellis Act evictions against all of them.
The tenants, however, responded with their own lawsuit in April 2022. For years, the 25th Street tenants have watched each others’ families grow up, so banding together to sue Campesino came naturally.
That lawsuit accused the so-called “serial evictor” Campesino for negligence, harassment, and inhabitable conditions. He denied all, but settled the lawsuit in June.
“These are complex issues that get painted in black and white to stoke vitriol for use as leverage,” Campesino said in a statement to Mission Local.
At present, the tenants are fighting their evictions in court, though a trial date has yet to be set, according to their lawyers. Moreover, they say that despite being settled, the maintenance issues continue.
“This whole situation is extremely stressful,” said 55-year-old Daniela Estrada in Spanish, who has lived in the building for 34 years.
Three Ellised buildings
Campesino said in his statement that he has been transparent about his intentions to use the Ellis Act and turn buildings into tenancies in common.
Nonprofits had first dibs at buying 25th Street, thanks to a 2019 city law, but that didn’t happen. So he snagged it.
He offered the tenants a buyout, one he found fair; while each unit’s offer varied, most priced within the six-figure range, he said. (Fox and residents said it was $40,000 a unit.) Alternatives included letting tenants buy back their unit at a discount or to buy part of it and co-own it with Campesino, splitting the profits if the property resold.
He denies poor management, and said doing so would interfere with his conversion plans. “We know from day one, we are going to get sued by tenant attorneys; as such, we conduct ourselves professionally,” Campesino said.
While lawsuits over Ellis Act evictions are typically difficult to win, Raquel Fox, the attorney for the Tenderloin Housing Clinic representing the 25th Street tenants, is optimistic.
Because Campesino has a documented history of executing or threatening Ellis Act evictions, Fox believes tenants can prove Campesino is invoking the state law without “bona fide intent,” which she says is a requirement. The Ellis Act was intended for owners who wanted to get out of the rental market, and not as a way to flip buildings.
The pattern of purchasing a building and then using the Ellis Act to evict tenants exists, and many tenants have been forced out. The building on 25th Street is at least the second Mission property Campesino has bought, for which he then used the Ellis Act to evict tenants.
One was at 1151-1161 Alabama St., where the tenants were successfully removed after Campesino filed an Ellis Act eviction in 2019. At 927-35 Alabama St., tenants rejected buyouts and fought Campesino’s threats of an Ellis Act eviction in 2020. Ultimately, all the tenants, save one, moved out. It is unclear if all got settlements. One woman remained. Fox represented her.
Campesino also used evicted tenants for nonpayment of rent at one Natoma Street property he bought in 2018; the tenants contested this and brought rent receipts as evidence, per a lawsuit. The case was later settled.
“We think this is a shakedown,” Fox said. “There is a pattern here. …The reality is, it’s a way to make money.”
Campesino feels otherwise. “Congratulations to the tenant attorneys, because no matter what happens, there is no longer any profit. Instead it’s gone to the banks and the attorneys.”
If successful, the tenants would keep their homes.
“At first, when he bought the building, he was nice. He said he’d take care of us,” Mario Linares said in Spanish, sitting with his neighbors one morning. “Then, later, the problems arrived.”
The problems continue
And, maintenance issues addressed in the lawsuit tenants settled in June continue and the tight-knit group of tenants remains vigilant.
On a recent July morning, sunshine streamed through the window of Daniela Estrada’s apartment, illuminating the semi-circle of 25th Street tenants and lawyers squeezed into her living-room couches and chairs.
After living together for decades, the Latinx residents grew close. They finish each other’s sentences and stories, pitch in to care for or check in on the elders of the group, have familiarized themselves with all the guests and relatives coming in and out of neighbors’ homes. That has come in handy lately, as they frequently notify each other of Campesino’s alleged mismanagement. No problems existed with the prior landlord, they unanimously agreed.
Isabel Zelaya sat in one of the chairs, wearing a striped shirt and a tired expression as she recounted what had happened to her. The 71-year-old widow alleged her old heater broke, and Campesino didn’t fix it, despite many calls. As a result, Zelaya said, she caught pneumonia. Campesino replaced the heater a year later, she said. Campesino said these allegations are false.
Zelaya fell down the stairs and hurt her back in 2021 after Campesino cut the lights without warning, she added. As a result of the issues, Campesino reduced her rent to $175 per month, but it hasn’t reduced her anxiety.
“I’m depressed, I’m sick,” Zelaya said, shedding tears. The thought of finding a new home she can afford causes her stress. “Where am I going to move?”
At Estrada’s apartment, each tenant went around and shared similar woes allegedly caused by Campesino’s management. Estrada said the situation has exacerbated her mental health, and she is taking medicine for depression.
Water has lately been shut off each Wednesday while Campesino’s workers renovate an empty unit for at least three weeks, and tenants complained the gas and electricity have previously been temporarily cut without warning. They said that the windows won’t properly close, there’s rat poop in the laundry room, and the heaters spit out dust.
The heater created problems for Linares’ wife, who contracted Covid-19 last year. Linares hesitated to turn on the heater, for fear the dust would exacerbate her asthma and breathing, though she was often cold. The tense situation with Campesino worked her nerves, too. Last February, she died of Covid and pneumonia at 71. “It was really, really disgusting,” Linares said.
Campesino said the tenants’ description of water shutoffs is a “gross exaggeration,” that it has been shut off for short periods, and his team aims to address issues within a week. Issues with the heater haven’t been reported to him.
The conditions have exacerbated the health problems of already ailing relatives. Rosa Huerta, 56, explained in rapid-fire Spanish how her husband was recovering after a tumor excision and liver transplant. “This situation has only stressed us out more,” she said.
‘Mentira, mentira, acoso, acoso’
The lawsuit alleged management workers attempted to change the locks in the building and demanded entry into tenants’ units without sufficient warning, a tactic Campesino has been accused of employing before. (He said workers are friendly and give notice.)
Run-ins with people who claim to be Campesino’s workers, and who come to the property without warning, have irked and intimidated the tenants. They say workers “pound” on the doors, and allegedly one of them stole belongings.
Residents’ relationship with Campesino has been rocky, to say the least. For his part, Linares refuses to talk to his manager at all. “He’s always trying to offend us, threaten us, and tell us he’s going to put us out on the street,” Linares said. “It’s always lies, lies, harassment, harassment.”
Maria Carmen Gomez, 80, is the last of the group to speak. She does so slowly, and when she loses her train of thought, her neighbors gently help her find it. She has lived at her apartment since 1988. “I’m nervous, of course,” she said in Spanish. “I heard that they got rid of all the tenants on Alabama Street.”
Ahead of the lawsuit filing on April 6, 2022, Campesino allegedly rushed to repair conditions in a “race against an April 7, 2022 deadline,” the tenants’ lawsuit states. But, “based on information and belief, all Plaintiffs allege [Campesino has] no intention of abating all the substandard conditions.”
Repairs have been done in a “shabby” manner by amateur workers, the lawsuit claims. Fox alleged workers addressed mold by nailing wood over the compromised surface. Campesino denied this, and said his work is permitted, and abides by city code.
Until the cases move along — Fox believes two may move to court — the tenants continue to live like this. Yet none want to move. Huerta’s work is here, for one. “Most of us, like Dona Maria or nina Isabel, we are people of a certain age,” Linares said. It would be difficult to find alternative housing.
“We’re definitely going to fight to stay here,” Estrada said. “This is our home.”
Thank you for the story and the detail. The only solution to this situation would be for one of the non-profit housing groups (like SF Community Land Trust) to acquire it from Campesino (what an ironic name). They would rehab it, and forever protect the tenants from eviction. Since reportedly it didn’t “pencil” because of low rents, then the City should step in and subsidize the rents in collaboration with the non-profit buyer. There are hundreds of millions of dollars funded by taxes specifically for preserving affordable housing that needs to be unblocked by the mayor.
Even if the city spent its entire discretionary budget on this, it would only be able to house maybe 10,000 people. Not to mention the sorry state of most city owned deed restricted housing projects. You’re basically condemning the residents to fighting over a small amount of miserable housing for the rest of their lives.
I have a feeling most of the people who suggest this have no idea how expensive it is to do a basic rehabilitation of a 100 year old building in San Francisco.
I don’t know how these house flippers can sleep willingly tossing old people out into the street. There is no way an 80 year old can just “get a better job” so they can afford rent. There are no places for these folks to go, the waiting lists are closed!
The fact our Mayor is not doing all she can to help keep people housed is criminal.
Guy sounds like a real piece of work and all around horrible person. Absolute best to all of the tenants having to deal with this!
There are many like him in SF. Putting wood over mold is especially popular.
What a fascinating article. I hope these tenants get to stay. These non-profit agencies are fabulous in helping the low income families in our community. This is what makes San Francisco so wonderful. Our mayor needs to provide more support for low income tenants and organizations like these who protect them.
They probably will not. Mission Local publishes an article about some tenants fighting an Ellis Act eviction every few months with the same fact pattern every few months. Behind the scenes some THC lawyer is using the same templated procedural objections to drag the case out. And at the end of the day, the tenants almost always lose.
Obviously, this “landlord” didn’t go out of business the first time, so those Ellis Act evictions were fraudulent. Jackasses like that should be sued by wrongfully evicted tenants and criminally sanctioned by the state with real prison time.
Ellis act should be illegal. F*** these landlords.
Let’s deal with the real issue here – SF government refuses to enact pro-housing laws leaving the elderly population in old places that haven’t had upgrades in decades. The rent control where someone pays $900 for a 3bd apartment barely cover the taxes. You might question the process (and let’s be clear that Mission Local loves a story about an evil boogeyman) , but if you see this happening over and over it’s not just Campesino. I am curious what the building looks like internally before it gets the upgrades. I live in the Mission and the building next door has a stairwell that is about to fall off. Is it better for those tenants to live there or get a buyout from some developer?
It’s all good. The city passed a regulation that every 3+ unit multi family building has to have a letter of structural integrity of outdoor decks and staircases submitted to DBI every other year by a licensed GC, architect, or engineer. Problem solved, LOL.
That doesn’t address the core problem at all.
Rent control should be illegal. If a society wants to help a specific population with housing costs, then EVERYONE should be taxed and those funds used to help support the specific population. Rent control means random property owners have to subsidize housing costs for the specific population instead of taxing EVERYONE. Until rent control is repealed the types of acts mentioned in this article will continue.
doesn’t seem too random if he is choosing to buy this property knowing full well it is occupied by elderly tenants with rent control.
We often complain rightfully about a lack of transparency in Breed’s machine but what about CLT? Years after the first right of refusal for non-profits to buy such buildings was passed by the Board, we don’t know why it doesn’t “pencil out” for CLT to buy these buildings. What good is this ordinance if non-profits don’t buy such buildings?
How many of such buildings do they actually take into consideration per year and what is their math that precludes any action on their part?
Turns out the utopia where nonprofits decide where you live has the same problems as the dystopia where the market dictates where you live: certain people get the shaft at the expense of others.
You can see this where somehow the tenants at 3661 19th St. got their building bought out at incredible expense (the acquirer definitely overpaid!) whereas these tenants will not. Good to have friends in MEDA willing to buy you a free house. Have the residents of this building simply tried that?
We know, it costs the city many hundreds of thousands to retrofit a bldg, per unit. The rents are absurd. The notion that sf should spend up to $1m per unit, pp in need, is absurd. Oh yea, owners pay for it with property tax increases. Existing renters don’t. Easy for u to say ” the city should buyit”
As a potential new real estate investor, and future Landlord, I find this all very educational.
The guy seems like he is following the rules, and he’s right – getting tenant attorneys involved means they end up with less. Of course tenant attorneys don’t want you to know that because they want those fees. They can make up whatever they want. Better to negotiate with the landlord direct.
I see both sides.
This guy is ultimately upgrading SF’s housing stock. It’s not free. They tenants can always buy it if that’s really their dream.
Wow so these people can sue him and refuse to move?? Sorry but new building owner should be able to do what he wants
I will never understand how easy it is for many to toss 80 year old people into the street. NEVER
While I understand it’s a complex situation, it is pretty incredible that renters can get six figure payouts just to leave a place they don’t even own. If you told that to people anywhere else in the country they’d look at you crazy. It’d be interesting for ml to do a deep dive on the tenderloin housing clinic. Like a lot of the city’s non-profits, I bet there’s a darker side.
Sad for good tenants, but good for very bad tenants which I’d dealt with. The Law needs to spare all good tenants but evict all those horrible tenants put them outside.
The owner is within his rights.
The tenant would be better off dealing directly with the owner.
Of course the tenants lawyer will tell them anything want to hear, after all she’s making money out of it.
I think there’s a big piece of perspective missing from this story (and any other focused on demonizing property owners). It takes a lot to manage and multi-unit building. The inherent costs of running a well-maintained property, esp one that’s well-worn by tenants that have lived there for decades, and pay super low rent, is dumb high. It’s far from easy and requires pretty generous income to keep it up. Regardless, by no means should owners treat it like a business at the expense of the people who live there. It’s a two way street.
If it wasn’t for a landlord, you would be living on the street.
That’s debatable, but what isn’t debatable is that this guy isn’t interested in being a landlord. His business plan is to flip apartment buildings into condos, evicting tenants in the process.
Eh, his business plan begins with letting a former landlord who held on to the building at probably a low cost basis yet did no maintenance on it cash out for their troubles. I’m having trouble believing that the rats and dust really appeared overnight. It never works that way but of course Mission Local’s role here is to reprint all the tenants’ allegations without any fact checking.
Mishman, please elaborate lol