IS THE CITY WAITING FOR THE SALE OF THE FOUR PROPERTIES OF TNDC TO ANNOUNCE THEY WILL BE DECOMMISSIONED AS SINGLE RESIDENCY OCCUPANCY (SRO), AND WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
By Rebecca Dawn Wu
If an SRO like the four that are being sold by the Tenderloin TNDC are run by a non-profit and decommissioned, then they must provide future placement of its tenants and absorb the costs. But in that narrow window where the new owner has the time to decide if it will continue to have the property run by a non-profit, or be converting it to for profit, and the city declares it will be decommissioned as an SRO, then the new owner has options they would not otherwise have, like giving the tenants money to go.
When a property is decommissioned by the city, they will no longer be providing support services like case managers or 24 desk clerks nor subsidies for the tenants. Now that I started working, I do intend to get off the subsidy, and just recently moved into an SRO from the shelter.
I think that might be what’s about to happen to the four prime perfectly located properties next to one of the world's greatest transportation hubs like the civic center or steps away from Powell BART and Muni Station. The one at the civic center is next door to UC LAW SF on McAllister St.
If this has been intentional, then tenants should have the same rights under the law as if it’s owned by a non-profit. But if sold and now not run by a non-profit, the new owner can continue with the subsidies program with the city, or not. If they decide to continue as it is now, and tenants get to stay, then they have to hire a non-profit management company like THC to manage it. It would not be allowed to make money.
They could choose to keep vacant properties rooms open and not place anyone in there until everyone moves out eventually. That would mean great losses and maybe get into the red. It would not be a high vacancy because no tenants are applying and it's an Intentional Vacancy Freeze. Vacancy issue is not a reason for a sale by TNDC. The non-profit TNDC was funded by private donors with the covenant that the money be used to buy properties to be run by it for low income or homeless people. They could sue. I do think the McAllister property would be better as student housing if the city took care of the current tenants and provided alternative placement, not some lump sum cash.
I think there is a clear intentional freeze now as seen on the seller's real estate website that shows under the property details that nobody has moved in since April 1st, which is also the month that the city announced it will be decommissioning four SRO. They will announce later which ones.
No person has been approved since March to move in —except me —just now six months later, but before the sale, which led me to investigate a little bit. I was informed by my SRO that the city (HSH) was offering me a reasonable accommodation of a unit with a toilet at an SRO with a different non-profit called TNDC, and that was four hours after my fresh ink signed as tenant organizer which is like a union but you're a volunteer rep for the Hotel or Apartment. A stipend covers only certain activities like meetings so any time with individual tenants outside those set hours is pure volunteer which is amazing some of the non-profits have this. Although I suddenly became top of the list to get an SRO accommodation through HSH, I was informed I had to apply as well, but for sure I got the offer. I didn’t want to sign the contract until I saw it, but did do the application which is what AI said to do.
I toured the 141 Eddy St. SRO, and it was really nice inside compared to where I am at now in an older building. It was amazing, but not the tenant organizer. Anyone who hasn’t lived there 32 days is not considered a permanent tenant, and I think they may not have to provide alternative housing if the city decommissioned it. I’m not sure what I’m going to do, but I have a few more days to decide.
I think it’s possible the seller, the city, and any potential buyer knows the city will decommission it if that’s what the new owners want, which will give them an edge because the seller claims they can choose which path to take - either stay as a city subsidy for SRO or go private.
So what about this window between the time the new buyer finalizes in escrow, and the city decommissioning right after? Under the Ellis Act, they can convert and end all the supportive permanent housing and evict, but instead of guaranteeing alternative housing by HSH, they can give them ten grand or six more if a family, disabled, or elderly. They have to give 120 days notice with money, or if elderly and/or disabled, then one year. It's not clear what the new seller will do and there are other options. See below.
WHY IS TNDC SELLING, AND IS THEIR CLAIM ACCURATE?
The claim by TNDC is that they are selling four SRO due to high vacancy, costly repairs for maintenance of the building, and to be more financially stable. To be really transparent, the non-profit should post their finances online in my opinion. If they are dollar to dollar transparent then it would make sense.
Investors and people donated millions for the purpose of housing homeless people or other low income people. It’s possible their hands are tied knowing, in the down low or back alley, that it’s going to be decommissioned and want to sell first making it easier. TNDC owns their own buildings, so if it’s going to be decommissioned then they really can’t keep it. I don’t think the city would decommission without TNDC approval, and if they want to sell it, it’s beneficial to be sold first then decommissioned as they won’t be responsible for moving people. So they know the unwritten plan, or maybe written confidential MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), if there is immediate decommissioning right after buying.
If a buyer purchases the property from TNDC and the building is decommissioned right away, the new owner is heavily restricted by San Francisco’s Hotel Conversion Ordinance (HCO). They cannot simply clear the building or convert it into a different use, but they can change things so the tenants have to move. How or what path they take when they buy is the unknown. The for-profit buyer may sue TNDC or the city for fraud or failure to disclose imminent defunding. I think the city is letting them know through the MOU posted on the seller's website.
The real estate company will not provide it, but they may not know it is public record in HSH (Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing). HSH would be in violation of not providing it to the public in a public records request. They might try to claim attorney confidentiality, but it’s a sale MOU and a judge in a writ of mandate for that public record requests usually side with public transparency and it’s not legal communication. Someone or a non-profit could just easily file a writ for public records request after being denied the information.
THE BIG QUESTION
The big question is what is the difference in tenant rights between decommissioning SRO subsidies by HSH in SF from a non-profit like TNDC versus a new owner and getting a decommission notice from the city?
TNDC
TNDC would be contractually obligated to engage in an orderly re-housing or relocation plan to transfer tenants into alternative Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) sites if the city gives a notice of the decommissioning while they own and operate it.
IF A NEW BUYER BUYS
If a new owner buys, and it is then determined by the city to decommission, various paths can be taken, but the law has leeways and unknowns. I am not sure. This will be very harmful to me to move in the long run.
The moment escrow closes, the new owner—for-profit or non-profit—becomes the legal landlord. Even if the city pulls the funding contract two days later, the individual tenants do not lose their right to occupy the building under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. But they have different paths they can take, and they could possibly have tenants move out without providing a new place. I am not clear, but it's possible under the Ellis Act or maybe other ways. The city should clarify this in the sale, and make the real estate agency explain it clearly for the tenants.
The savings on the flexible paths they speak of is, I think, where they no longer have supportive housing. Thus savings on all those costs, in maybe millions, for the supportive staff and more that is required in SRO subsidized housing that is paid for by the city and contracts with a non-profit. They must have a non-profit run it if they own it, but they do not have to be a non-profit to own. Under the Ellis Act they could turn the units into individual units to sell, but that might not be possible because they do not have kitchens or full bathrooms unless they do construction. I don't know.
But if it ends up a coordinated displacement by the city, new owner, and past owner, then it might be wrongful displacement. Tenants in SF, all of them, can get free legal attorney help to see what qualifies as wrongful displacement. Go to Eviction Defense Collaborative (EDC).
If it was a scheme, then intentionally reducing essential housing services to make a unit unlivable or to force low-income tenants into a position where they cannot comply with their lease is considered a Constructive Eviction. The important thing, I think, is that tenants learn what options they have. Look at everything transparently. They might not have the same options if TNDC is the owner when/if they get notice of a decommission. I don't know.
If they stay with HSH and the city does not decommission, then they would have to find a non-profit to run it because the HSH master lease agreement would only be done with a non-profit running it. They would have to hire one. Yet, they can take another path. https://www.sf.gov/departments--homelessness-and-supportive-housing
The Hotel Conversion Ordinance (HCO). If the city successfully relocates all tenants out of the building as part of the decommissioning process, a for-profit buyer cannot simply remodel the building into luxury student housing or a boutique hotel. The building remains flagged as a "Residential Hotel" under SF Administrative Code Chapter 41. To change that use, the owner must still navigate the planning department and pay millions in replacement fees. It’s not clear how decommissioning would take that off the Chapter 41. I don't know that.
Federal (HUD) Rules for Non-Renewal do not apply to our SF SRO sales. Under 24 CFR § 983.206, the owner must notify the Public Housing Authority (PHA) and all assisted tenants at least one full year (12 months) before the contract terminates or expires. HOWEVER, many local SROs used for supportive housing operate via city grants, local contracts, or master leases between the city/non-profits and private landlords, rather than federal PBV HAP contracts. Their funding renewals and operational agreements are governed by local city contracting rules and state law rather than 24 CFR § 983.206.
The COPA Purchase Process (Pre-Sale to 60 Days Post-Close): Before the sale even finalizes, San Francisco’s Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) (SF Admin. Code Chapter 41B) fundamentally dictates the non-profit timeline.
THE FALL OUT
IF they do the Ellis Act and evict everyone or raise rents that are still low but not affordable, then eventually they might get evicted, but that's not sure. I do not see any laws that require the HSH or the new owner to guarantee by law a new replacement, and the city wants to have less supportive permanent housing. What other paths exist is unknown.
If they pay them out or if I move, and they don't notify me until after the 31 or 32 days making me a permanent tenant by law, then money may not last in a hostel like I did before while on unemployment. Back to the start it seems. It can take years to get into an SRO and ten grand sounds lovely, but it’s no guarantee especially for those on GA or other very low income that won’t qualify them for regular low income rent. They would have to compete with others if they do not have the best credit.
After I contacted the company about the MOU a few days later, just this weekend I see they took off 270 Turk, one of the four properties being sold by TNDC. 44 McAllister, 141 Eddy, and 34 Turk are still for sale. The MOU or confidential contract of some sort is confidential, but tenants and others or I could file a Writ if the City HSH does not provide it. It's funded through the government so it is ours to see. Did they know everything about the potential decommission, and/or was it already set to happen?
WHAT RESOURCES ARE THERE, WHAT CAN TENANTS DO, AND WHAT ARE THEIR RIGHTS
I love SF. Tenants have legal rights to an attorney unlike most cities. I am glad I am writing this and my experience so if readers are tenants, they can find help.
If it was a scheme to not have TNDC help in the transfer of tenants for the sale of property, and/or the property did not have real fiscal issues, then tenants can potentially sue for their rights and at least find out with free legal help if they get evicted with the new owners.
They can go to several places for help and some are below:
The EDC can help get an attorney so that everyone, regardless of income, gets an eviction notice. Tenant Right to Counsel (Prop F), which I did not know about until researching this last week. Wow. They handle the court-appointed Tenant Right to Counsel program under SF Admin Code Chapter 58 or Independent Citywide Tenant Organizing:
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco (HRCSF). They are an independent, grassroots tenant union structure that does not answer to the major supportive housing providers and can help organize a campaign. Sweet.
For Seniors & Disabled Coordination: Reach out to Legal Assistance to the Elderly (LAE).
San Francisco Tenants Union (SFTU) What they do: SFTU provides hands-on counseling to help tenants Address: 558 Capp St, San Francisco, CA 94110
WHAT WILL I DO?
But I’m not sure I’m willing to take that risk. They could just pay people out and then I’m back at a hostel or where I can stretch the money I get. If I moved in under TNDC, there would be a guarantee if the decommissioning happened before the sale. I intend to pay full rent in the near future, but I have been in another place, a room paying high rent and when my job changed and life happened, I ended up in my car, and eventually at a shelter for six months. Soon after I applied for a case manager and desk clerk. I did not get them, but got offered a place where I am at. It's much older than the one offered to me, and not nearly as nice, but I like the staff, the company, and the tenants for the most part. A community is hard to leave.
I will say, one day if I own property, I would still want to will it to TNDC and/or the city for help for people in SF. I believe there is an energy flow when a move goes to good things, even if the flow is not perfect.
THE ISSUE THAT THESE SRO ARE COSTLY AND THE CITY MAYBE INTENDED TO DO THE RIGHT THING
This is real, but it would be good to see clear dollar for dollar costs and funding that is provided for TNDC by the city. However, these four appear to be in nice condition. I can see that selling these prime properties would be more beneficial to TNDC to keep things going for the fifty or so SROs they do have. This would be the first time selling in almost half a century or something like that. If they are the ones set to be decommissioned, I think it adds layers of darker clouds that need clarity. In fairness, I think the mayor, though I am not sure I agree, is doing things to bring costs down for the city, and intends to do the right thing. But transparency is warranted.
OTHER WEBSITES to look at.
What Is San Francisco’s Homeless Strategy?
by Randy Shaw on April 13, 2026
San Francisco Tenants Union
Ellis Act Convictions
The “Ellis Act” is a state law which says that landlords have the unconditional right to evict tenants to “go out of business.”
Ellis Act evictions generally are used to change the use of the building. Most Ellis evictions are used to convert rental units to condominiums, using loopholes in the condo law…Standard Tenants: Receive a 120-day notice.
Senior or Disabled Tenants: If a tenant is at least 62 years old or disabled and has lived there for at least a year, they are entitled by law to an extension, giving them a full 12-month (1-year) notice to vacate
Under special reasons a landlord can evict tenants
“A landlord may evict a tenant pursuant to Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(12) in order to perform substantial rehabilitation…”
Comments