San Francisco Examiner - March 29, 2005
Hotel conversion battle hits Supreme Court
By Jo Stanley

City attorneys and opponents of San Francisco's hotel conversion ordinance will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court today over whether the federal courts should step in to decide whether the affordable-housing protection measure is constitutional — even though California's high court ruled that it was.

"Our system of justice says you're entitled to a full and fair hearing under the law — but not two," commented attorney Andrew Schwartz, who argued The City's case before the state Supreme Court and is helping out with the federal case even though he's now in private practice.

The ordinance, first enacted in 1981, requires residential hotel owners to either replace their low-income units when they convert to higher-priced tourist rooms or to pay a fee. The idea was to preserve rapidly disappearing rooms used primarily by seniors and disabled people.

But attorneys for San Remo Hotel owners Tom and Robert Field have argued that the law is tantamount to taking their prime North Beach property. Although they made their $567,000 payment to The City as required, they filed both state and federal lawsuits in 1993 charging the fee was unfair.

Since then the case has bounced among many different courts, the federal case being postponed while the state battle ensued. Three years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that the replace-or-pay plan was not unreasonable since a residential hotel owner was free to carry on with his or her existing business without interference.

But in a strong dissent, Justice Janice Smith labeled the ordinance a kind of theft that could diminish property rights in California.

"The right to express one's individuality and essential human dignity through 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," she wrote.