Pardon the Rant
Election season is upon us. This morning I returned home after doing some errands and found a bunch of postcards stuffed under our gate. The headline on the postcard, which appeared next to a photograph of an elderly woman with a distressed expression, read "YES ON PROP H PROTECTS OUR MOST VULNERABLE RENTERS." The copy went on to proclaim "Thousands are evicted in San Francisco for no-fault evictions each year."
This is a lie. According to the statistics posted by the San Francisco Rent Board, there were 1,621 eviction notices filed with the City between March 2005 and February 2006. Out of that total, those that could be considered "no fault" include:
259 owner or relative move-in
51 demolish or remove from housing use
97 capital improvement work
276 Ellis (withdrawal of unit)
That equals 683. That is not thousands.
(As a sidebar, one must note 259 of those people were forced to serve leaseholders with an eviction notice in order to regain possession of homes that belonged to them.)
The same type of people who would march down Market Street bearing banners proclaiming that Bush lied are pushing these postcards under my door. I realize that political advertising needs to be compelling and persuasive. Why must it be utterly dishonest?
This is a lie. According to the statistics posted by the San Francisco Rent Board, there were 1,621 eviction notices filed with the City between March 2005 and February 2006. Out of that total, those that could be considered "no fault" include:
259 owner or relative move-in
51 demolish or remove from housing use
97 capital improvement work
276 Ellis (withdrawal of unit)
That equals 683. That is not thousands.
(As a sidebar, one must note 259 of those people were forced to serve leaseholders with an eviction notice in order to regain possession of homes that belonged to them.)
The same type of people who would march down Market Street bearing banners proclaiming that Bush lied are pushing these postcards under my door. I realize that political advertising needs to be compelling and persuasive. Why must it be utterly dishonest?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home