|
By Garry Abrams Andrew Zacks is a leading candidate for the most vilified lawyer in San Francisco. For instance, a roster of real estate baddies prepared by Bay Area tenants rights activists lists Zacks as the sole entry under the heading "Evil Landlord Attorneys." A couple of years ago, I wrote a magazine article about Zacks which noted that "some people say that Andrew Zacks is the devil incarnate, a cruel, heartless scourge of the poor, the ill and the helpless - a man who would rather feast on human suffering than filet mignon." Zacks put the article on his Web site. Zacks, an eviction specialist, has acquired his reputation in some quarters by zealously representing landlords and other property owners in a gentrifying town where low-cost and affordable housing are as scarce as trees in Afghanistan. Moreover, San Francisco is host to a large and highly visible population of homeless people that underscores the city's housing shortcomings - and probably adds to the notoriety of property rights advocates such as Zacks. So I wasn't surprised when I saw that Zacks represented the owners of a hotel involved in a dispute with the city and county of San Francisco that went all the way to the California Supreme Court. The dispute centered around an ordinance that requires owners of residential hotels to provide replacement housing, or pay large fees into a low-income housing construction fund, before they may convert their buildings into tourist hotels. Zacks and his clients, the owners of the 62-room San Remo Hotel in San Francisco's North Beach neighborhood, lost the case. In a 4-3 decision released Monday, the state Supreme Court held that cities and counties can require businesses to ameliorate the impact of changes in their property. Specifically, the decision upheld the 1996 payment, under protest, of a $567,000 "conversion fee" to the city by the San Remo's owners in order to convert the facility from a low-cost, long-term residential hotel into a short-term tourist shelter. On behalf of the owners, Zacks had argued that the hotel owners should be refunded their money, plus interest, because the regulatory scheme amounted to a taking in violation of the state constitution. When I phoned Zacks, I wasn't surprised to find that he was disappointed by the decision - but as combative as ever. "We've got a Supreme Court in California that is not willing to protect property owners to the extent they're probably due under the constitution," Zacks said. "This is about the Supreme Court saying that property rights don't matter." Zacks seemed even less fazed by the fact that much of the governmental structure of California was arrayed against him in the case. Besides the city of San Francisco, 67 other cities, the County Counsels' Association of California, Attorney General Bill Lockyer on behalf of the people of California and the International Municipal Lawyers Association lined up behind an amicus brief against Zacks. The San Remo hotel forces drew moral support from realtors, builders and conservative legal foundations in their closely watched case. Zacks said he found encouragement and hope from the fact that the state Supreme Court was badly divided over the case, which prompted the three dissenting justices to write lengthy dissents. Most notably, Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote a heated dissent that almost put blisters on my hands as I turned the hot, hot pages. A lot of newspaper accounts quoted Brown's comment that "private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco." Personally, I found Brown's remarks about San Francisco local government being "a neo-feudal regime" even more thrilling. Brown's thundering conclusion also was pretty good: "Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government. ... The free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion." Brown wished the San Remo Hotel good luck in federal court, which is where Zacks plans to take his case next, having carefully reserved federal issues involving the San Remo for a separate case. With luck, Zacks thinks he may take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court. "I'm not giving up," Zacks said. "Why would I do that? It's kind of fun, actually." |
