Patrick--it looks like someone is spamming the SF Craigslist with this alleged warning and it keeps being removed. I took a look at the rental control ordinance and did not find anything--not dispositive because it's so complex. BTW I know you know SF pretty well, but if you want to check on a location, post it and I'll let you know.

It probably has something to do with the fact that the owners of all these illegal rentals aren't collecting - or paying to the city - the appropriate taxes.

(That's what finally got that WOOGOO guy - and Al Capone. Governments don't fool around when it comes to collecting taxes.)

Out of curiosity I looked at craigslist and there are still rentals of less than a month.

If they're not collecting TOT they're probably not "legal" so I'd be careful with deposits.

I remember a scandal with a high rise condo complex near the wharf. There were people going in and out of condos every few days. I believe SF has the same law as the Monterey Peninsula, the minimum stay is 30 days. Here's an old article I just dug up from the Chron:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&sn=003&sc=574
(02-18) 04:00 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A divided Board of Supervisors has placed new caps on landlords who rent out residential property to tourists and corporations on a short-term basis, a practice called
"hotelization."
The board Tuesday banned the leasing of residential property in San Francisco on a day-to-day basis, setting the minimum rental at one month. It also set up a new administrative system through the Department of Building Inspection that will investigate alleged violations of the policy, which is intended to preserve rental stock for San Francisco residents.
"For the first time ever, San Francisco will have the ability to stop hotelizations," said Supervisor Mabel Teng, chief sponsor of the legislation.
While property owner interests backed the measure, some tenants rights groups criticized it, saying they wanted tenants and their advocates to be able to go directly to court to sue landlords who allegedly convert their apartments to illegal tourist or transient use, rather than having to first wade through an administrative process. Supervisor Sue Bierman initially proposed legislation that would have allowed just that, but it never moved forward for lack of board support.
Both she and Supervisor Tom Ammiano voted against Teng's measure. Everyone else on the board supported it.
The apartments under question cater primarily to the business set. Sometimes, people rent out the apartments on their own; more often, they're rented by a corporation that allows clients to use them while they're in town as an alternative to a hotel.<

I've lived here almost 30 yars, and was a tenant activist in the 80's and 90's and I have NEVER heard of this as an issue vis a vis residential property. The big issue was for residential hotels that cater to low income people wanting to cater to nightly rentals - fixing them up and becoming tourist hotels. I live in a pretty nice neighborhood where MANY people rent out their in-law apartments or extra bedrooms "on the QT" and there has bever been a big deal about it.

There WOULD be if you evicted someone who was coveered by rent control to try and make it a short term rental. Then you WOULD come to the attention of the authorities. But a spare rtoom in your home, or an apartment in a building that was not covered by rent control - not many people care.

And Patrick if you still need somewhere to stay, try one of the listings on

http://www.bbsf.com/

Patrick,
Hope you're able to spend some time in San Francisco after the funeral. Always enjoy your trip reports.