1

Jelena Hoffart

15 May 2015

HC 233H

Local Government Supports International Hotel Tenants

Tenants and supporters gathered in front of the International Hotel entrance on Kearny Street. Tenants resided on the second and third stories of the building with stores such as the Asian Community Center and East Art Gallery on the

bottom floor. 1

On August 4, 1977, sixty elderly Filipino and Chinese tenants of the International Hotel

were evicted from their residence in Chinatown. A thriving cultural hub of San Francisco,

California, the building owned by the Four Seas Investment Corporation (Four Seas) of Thailand

was to be demolished to expand the neighboring financial district. The residential Hotel entrance

on 848 Kearny Street was nestled between the Asian Community Center and the East Art

Gallery.2 It served as a gathering place for community meetings and as an urban landmark for the

Asian and Filipino communities.3 Most importantly, the Hotel provided low-income tenants’

1 Nikki Arai, Image, 1969-1971.2 Ibid.3 Ibid.

2

affordable housing from $50 to $55 a month while land values approached $200 a square foot in

the area.4 Not only was the International Hotel important to tenants and the local community, the

San Francisco Board of Supervisors recognized the “historical value and specialized purpose” of

the Hotel in the 1963 Downtown San Francisco General Plan Proposals document.5 They

classified it as a “defining element that should not be sacrificed for the future expansion of the

financial district.”6 The Board of Supervisors called for protection of the International Hotel

which was echoed later by San Francisco Mayor George Moscone who proclaimed he was

“unalterably opposed to the eviction of tenants.”7 Regardless of the fervent support for the

preservation of the historic Hotel, on September 24, 1974, the Four Seas Investment Corporation

ordered an eviction calling for immediate removal of the tenants.8

A prominent activist, Chester Hartman, summarized that displacement “at heart is a

political process” determined by “power in the society” and it occurs “when one group of

potential users of a piece of property has the motivation and power to force others out of that

property, usually because the former desires to put the property to…‘a higher and better use.’” 9

However, Hartman blamed the entire political process for displacement assuming that economic

and commercial interests dominated the agenda at each level of government.10 My research

challenges the existing narration of the San Francisco government’s and agencies’ actions in the

4 Chester W Hartman, Between Eminence and Notoriety: Four Decades of Radical Urban Planning (New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, 2002), 137. ; Older Americans in the Nation's Neighborhoods: Hearing before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate, 95th Congress, Second Session, 1978, 121-123.5 San Francisco, California Department of City Planning, Downtown San Francisco General Plan Proposals (1963), 21.6 Ibid.7 Estella Habal, San Francisco's International Hotel Mobilizing the Filipino American Community in the Anti-eviction Movement (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2007), 89.8 Ibid., xv.9 Chester W. Hartman, Between Eminence and Notoriety: Four Decades of Radical Urban Planning (New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, 2002), 109.10 Ibid., 113.

3

International Hotel eviction as documented by Chester Hartman’s City for Sale: The

Transformation of San Francisco, Between Eminence and Notoriety: Four Decades of Radical

Urban Planning, and Estella Habal’s memoir, San Francisco's International Hotel Mobilizing

the Filipino American Community in the Anti-eviction Movement. These secondary sources

depicted the International Hotel tenants as facing political obstacles from the local government

who opposed their attempt to stop the eviction. Thus my research question asks: did the local

government and agencies aid the federal and state governments in the International Hotel

eviction? I argue that federal regulations and California’s legal decisions created insurmountable

barriers against the tenants which lead to the displacement. Yet, the local government and

agencies directly supported the tenants by opposing these political forces so they were not

culpable for the eviction.

To illuminate the competing political forces, I will analyze direct interactions the local

government had with each the state government and the federal government from 1970 to 1980. I

will first focus on California’s legal decisions by analyzing court opinions, San Francisco

Chronicle articles, and audio news documentary for statements from judges and local actors. The

rulings for Four Seas rejected local agencies’ jurisdiction to issue permits, opposed the local

government’s protection strategy of eminent domain, and charged sheriffs for not enacting

judicial rulings. Following, I will analyze dialogue between local actors and Congressional

members using Senate Committee Hearings centered on the United States Department of

Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) interaction with the International Hotel. Housing

standards and the belated implementation of resource programs undermined the local

government’s possession and rehabilitation of the International Hotel under a local ballot

initiative, Proposition U.

4

Shortly after the eviction was placed by the Four Seas Investment Corporation, the

validity of their demolition permit was challenged. On March 10, 1975, Four Seas received a

demolition permit from the San Francisco Department of Public Works.11 However, the San

Francisco Board of Permit Appeals ruled that the permit had expired by October 1976 because it

did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.12 Four Seas filed a suit thereafter

in California’s Superior Court where Judge Byron Arnold “himself a real estate owner ruled that

the Board [of Supervisors] had no jurisdiction and that the permit was valid.”13 The decision was

appealed to the Court of Appeals of California in the 1978 case, Four Seas Investment

Corporation v. Board of Permit Appeals of the City of San Francisco, where Judge William

Newson concluded that “the Board of Permit Appeals is an administrative agency of limited

jurisdiction possessing only such powers as have been conferred on it.”14 Newson stated that the

agency’s actions were “extrajurisdictional” and consequently validated the demolition permit.15

The lack of autonomy reserved for the local government was emphasized by Mayor Moscone’s

response to a plea to enact a State of Emergency if the eviction was mandated due to a valid

permit. He said “if eleven members of the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor declared an

emergency, it has no effect upon the state action that is done through the court for eviction.”16

Therefore, the Mayor asserted that the local government had no leverage to circumvent

California’s legal decisions.

11 Four Seas Investment Corporation v. Board of Permit Appeals of the City and County of San Francisco, 85 Cal.App.3d 526 (1978).12 Estella Habal, San Francisco's International Hotel Mobilizing the Filipino American Community in the Anti-eviction Movement (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2007), xv,166. ; Four Seas Investment Corporation v. Board of Permit Appeals of the City and County of San Francisco, 85 Cal.App.3d 526 (1978).13 Laurie Garret, The International Hotel, Audio, March 1979, 2:30.14 Four Seas Investment Corporation v. Board of Permit Appeals of the City and County of San Francisco, 85 Cal.App.3d 526 (1978).15 Ibid.16 Laurie Garret, The International Hotel, Audio, March 1979, 6:35.

5

After the legal system ruled in favor of Four Seas with regard to the jurisdiction of local

agencies, the local government attempted to protect the Hotel using eminent domain. The

Housing Authority of San Francisco planned to transfer the International Hotel to a third party,

the International Hotel Tenant’s Association (IHTA), who would then act as the tenants’

landlord. On November 30, 1976, the Board of Supervisors voted to purchase the Hotel for “$1.3

million in community development funds” after the idea was proposed to combat a lifted stay of

eviction on July 29th.17 The San Francisco Chronicle noted that this plan “would have to be done

through its powers of condemnation—a legal procedure” when analyzing the feasibility of a

favorable outcome for tenants and local government.18 Judge Ira Brown then “called the

supervisors’ plan a ‘political decision downstairs’ which did not affect his authority to order the

eviction.”19 The legal inability of local agencies to influence the case followed suit on January

11, 1976 when the San Francisco Housing Authority was unable to secure a petition from the

court for the possession of the residential Hotel. 20 The Superior Court ruled that the San

Francisco Housing Authority was “not authorized to convey land to private parties.”21 The

subsequent appeal to the State Supreme Court was never heard before the court lifted all of the

barriers and judicial suspensions that previously stalled the eviction. Although eminent domain

was commonly used by state and local governments to claim ownership of private land for public

use, when the strategy was used to deny commercial interests the best use of profitable property

it was regarded as a violation of municipal jurisdiction. In other terms, transferring ownership of

17 "Judge Refuses to Stay Hotel Eviction." San Francisco Chronicle, December 15, 1976. ; “State High Court Rejects Appeal in Hotel Eviction.” San Francisco Chronicle, September 4, 1976.18 Ibid.19 Ibid.20 Estella Habal, San Francisco's International Hotel (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2007), xv.21 Hartman, Chester W., and Sarah Carnochan. City for Sale the Transformation of San Francisco. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 338.

6

the land from Four Seas to the IHTA to benefit the tenants’ needs was delineated by the courts as

an invalid action.

Another prominent attempt from the local authority to support the tenants resulted in San

Francisco Sheriff Richard Hongisto and Undersheriff James Denman on trial for contempt of

court.22 According to the San Francisco Chronicle article entitled “Hotel Eviction Case:

Felix Ayson, a prominent activist, was portrayed in front of a mural by Jim Dong that depicts an elderly man fighting

for the International Hotel. He faces a man in a black robe, a judge, and another unknown man with

sunglasses.23

Hongisto on Trial for Contempt,” the pair were “accused of refusing to carry out a judicial order

to evict the tenants” on December 20, 1976.24 Hongisto and Denman faced “fines up to $500 and

a five-day jail sentence” pending the decision of the trial despite ongoing efforts at the time to

implement eminent domain.25 The Four Seas Investment Corporation, who initiated the contempt

22 Harry Jupiter, “Hotel Eviction Case: Hongisto on Trial for Contempt,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 21, 1976.23 Chris Huie, Image.24 Harry Jupiter, “Hotel Eviction Case: Hongisto on Trial for Contempt,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 21, 1976.25 Ibid.

7

of court charges, claimed that “the two top executives of the sheriff’s department ‘willfully’

failed to carry out the court-ordered eviction” after Judge Brown ruled that the sheriff had “60

days to clear the Hotel and turn it over to its owners.”26 On December 29, 1976, following

appeals by the sheriffs for a mistrial due to procedural errors, Superior Judge John E. Benson

denied the motion.27 Hongisto and Denman were convicted of contempt of court on January 10,

1977 and posted the final eviction notice for the tenants under supervision from the courts.28

However, Sheriff Hongisto prominently said,

Unconstrained capitalism, which is driven above all by the profit motive, encourages people at times to take advantage of other people for the sake of making money. [In] this particular case we find a multimillionaire from Thailand [Four Seas Investment Corporation] coming into the confines of the United States and investing large amounts of capital in pursuit of an effort to make even greater amounts of money. [We need to] ask ourselves if we believe it is wise social policy to allow foreign capital to come into the U.S. and do such things as evict poor people from the only available low income housing they have and disrupt the cultural integrity of the Asian and Filipino community in order to make money off of us.29

Hongisto voiced support for the tenants and community which emphasized his sympathetic

motivation for refusing to enact the court decisions. Altogether, the local authorities’ interaction

with the legal system led to many barriers in implementing protection of the Hotel.

Federal regulations also posed obstacles threatening the local government’s support of

the International Hotel. In the Older Americans in the Nation’s Neighborhoods Senate Hearing,

Senator Dennis DeConcini summarized the response of federal housing officials as “woefully

inadequate” because “federal programs and policies have contributed to the decline of sound

neighborhoods.”30 Furthermore, the examination spurred specifically by the Hotel eviction

26 “Judge to Rule on Hongisto Mistrial,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 28, 1976. ; Harry Jupiter, “Hotel Eviction Case: Hongisto on Trial for Contempt,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 21, 1976.27 “Judge to Rule on Hongisto Mistrial,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 28, 1976. ; Harry Jupiter, “Hongisto Is Denied a Mistrial,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 29, 1976.28 Estella Habal, San Francisco's International Hotel (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2007), xv.29 Laurie Garret, The International Hotel, Audio, March 1979, 20:01.30 Older Americans in the Nation's Neighborhoods: Hearing before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate, 95th Congress, Second Session, 1978, 93-94.

8

acknowledged that federal aid lacked appropriation “consistent with changing urban

dynamics.”31 The main issues the local government faced in securing and preserving low-income

housing stock, as stated by the Chinatown Neighborhood Improvement Center, were “strict

[federal] standards for subsidized housing and time delays leading to inflation or loss of available

sites.”32 Marie-Louise Ansak, Executive Director of On Lok Senior Health Services of San

Francisco, agreed that federal housing efforts were untimely or neglected altogether. She

documented efforts by HUD to survey housing conditions in Chinatown that began in 1972. 33

The project acknowledged “a dire need” for elderly housing options, yet “since that time not a

single unit [had] been built by HUD.”34 The federal government acknowledged the need for

housing resources in Chinatown well before the eviction occurred.

Another restriction was strict housing standards which minimized federal housing

subsidies and limited rehabilitation efforts available to the local government. The Bernal Journal

noted that HUD standards for federal aid “required bathrooms and kitchens and larger room sizes

than are mandated under [San Francisco] city’s codes.”35 Accordingly, Gordin Chin, Director of

Chinatown Neighborhood Improvement Center, argued that the federal government needed to

“recognize that SRO’s [Single Room Occupancy Hotels] are an important de facto source of

housing and not to deny them [monetary] assistance.36 HUD standards did not acknowledge the

Single Room Occupancy format of the International Hotel where multiple tenants shared one

individual room. However, this was a common format to decrease housing costs, and it

31 Ibid.32 People, Building Neighborhoods: Final Report to the President and the Congress of the United States. National Commission on Neighborhoods. U.S. Govt. 1979.33 Health Care for Older Americans: The "Alternatives" Issue: Hearing before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate 95th Congress, First Session (1977), 564.34 Ibid.35 Bernal Journal, Proposition U. (San Francisco and Bernal Heights, California: The University, October, 1977), 4.36 Older Americans in the Nation's Neighborhoods: Hearing before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate, 95th Congress, Second Session, 1978. Gordin Chin., 97. Ibid., 124

9

corresponded to the prevalent housing dynamic of the area. Also according to Chin,

rehabilitating the Hotel “under current standards would generally reduce the number of housing

units by more than half.”37 Chin suggested that one feasible option would be to implement

“congregate housing with communal kitchens” but it required that “HUD standards [were]

waived.”38 HUD standards hampered the options for rehabilitation of the Hotel which threatened

to eliminate housing units in the Chinatown community.

With no available alternative housing units for the evicted residents of the International

Hotel, the local government found it crucial to preserve the housing stock. Thus Proposition U

was a ballot initiative by the City and County of San Francisco which asked: “Should [the city]

purchase the International Hotel, remove its code violations, and transfer it to the Housing

Authority for low-rent public housing?”39 The Bernal Journal listed an estimate for the

renovation of the International Hotel under the ballot which reached $976,432 by following

HUD standards to remove the violations.40 The fears about the expense of rehabilitating the Hotel

strengthened Four Seas’ campaign slogan against the ballot: “Prop[osition] ‘U’ Means YOU Pay

to maintain a SLUM!”41 James Prisin-Zano, of the Federal Public Housing Administration,

echoed these fears in the ballot’s opposition column. He labeled Proposition U as an

“extravagant and wasteful scheme” because it would “only help 150 tenants” although this did

not account for tenants sharing rooms.42 He wrote, “Does it make sense to pour your tax dollars

into a rotting hulk which can house so few?”43 Proposition U was easily defeated on November

37 Civil Rights Issues of Asian and Pacific Americans: Myths and Realities. United States Commission on Civil Rights. (Washington, D.C., May 8-9, 1979), 630-632.38 Ibid.39 Bernal Journal, Proposition U. (San Francisco and Bernal Heights, California: The University, October, 1977), 4. 40 Ibid.41 Estella Habal, San Francisco's International Hotel (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2007), 163.42 San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet (San Francisco, California. November 8, 1977), 75.43 Ibid.

10

8, 1977 when 67.2% of voters chose “No” to the city action of purchasing of the Hotel.44 Federal

standards played an influential role in the defeat of the ballot because they required that the Hotel

was renovated which significantly added to the cost of the Hotel’s purchase.

The layout of Downtown San Francisco showing the International Hotel (5) in relation to the Financial District. These two areas

were stark contrasts of each other.45

Activist Estella Habal’s Memoir claimed that the IHTA and the tenants were skeptical of

the Board of Supervisors initiating Proposition U by a “City Charter Provision which allowed [5]

individual members of the Board to place [the policy] on the ballot.” 46 However, the local

44 San Francisco Public Library, San Francisco Ballot Propositions Database, Proposition U.45Chester W. Hartman and Sarah Carnochan, City for Sale the Transformation of San Francisco (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), xv.46 Estella Habal, San Francisco's International Hotel (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2007), 163-168. ; San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet (San Francisco, California. November 8, 1977), 72.

11

government’s initiative to keep 150 housing units would only benefit the elderly considering the

great loss of housing units in Chinatown as acknowledged by Gordin Chin. Chin stated that “by

default” Chinatown had lost an insurmountable amount of housing units.47 He pointed to official

city planning records that showed a “net loss of 700 housing units in the last ten years” which did

not account for the adjusted loss of units available to those with low-income budgets which

actually totaled 3,000 to 5,000.48 Based on HUD’s involvement with the Hotel as seen through

housing standards and limited resource disbursement, the federal government’s sensitivity to

neighborhood issues was weak. However, the local government was more in tune with the needs

of the tenants and community because they sought to protect housing units.

Chester Hartman blamed “those who create and direct urban policy at the national and

local levels for [ardently supporting] the gentrification process [and believing] that the city’s

problems are essentially due to the flight or absence of the middle class and overconcentration of

the poor [and] that urban problems can be ameliorated if the middle class replaces the poor.” 49

The International Hotel eviction case exemplified this power dynamic where the state and federal

governments’ deficiencies in protecting the low-income tenants promoted the Four Seas

Investment Corporation’s pursuit of profits. However, Hartman’s classification that all local

leaders who “create[d] and direct[ed] urban policy” supported gentrification did not

acknowledge the state and federal barriers obstructing the San Francisco City government and

agencies to be effective actors. At many intersections between local authority and the state and

federal governments, the local government championed the fight for elderly and low-income

persons’ rights which proved they were not culpable for the eviction. Yet, despite all of their

47 Ibid.48 Ibid.49 Chester W Hartman, Between Eminence and Notoriety: Four Decades of Radical Urban Planning (New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, 2002), 113.

12

supportive efforts against the eviction, a full demolition of the International Hotel building took

place in 1979 rendering the state and federal governments liable.

Bibliography

Arai, Nikki. Image. 1969-1971.http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt4199r8w8/?docId=kt4199r8w8&brand=calisphere&layout=printable.

Bernal Journal, Proposition U. San Francisco and Bernal Heights, California: The University, October, 1977.

Civil Rights Issues of Asian and Pacific Americans: Myths and Realities. United States Commission on Civil Rights. Washington, D.C., May 8-9, 1979.

Four Seas Investment Corporation v. Board of Permit Appeals of the City and County of San Francisco, 85 Cal.App.3d 526, 1978.

Four Seas Investment Corporation v. International Hotel Tenants’ Association, 81 Cal.App.3d 604, 1978.

Garret, Laurie. The International Hotel. Audio. March 1979.

https://archive.org/details/canhpra_00005.

Habal, Estella. San Francisco's International Hotel Mobilizing the Filipino American Community in the Anti-eviction Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2007.

Hartman, Chester W. Between Eminence and Notoriety: Four Decades of Radical Urban Planning. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, 2002.

Hartman, Chester W., and Sarah Carnochan. City for Sale the Transformation of San Francisco. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Health Care for Older Americans: The "Alternatives" Issue: Hearing before the Special Committee on Aging. United States Senate 95th Congress. First Session. 1977.

Huie, Chris. Image.

http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt838nf386/?docId=kt838nf386&query=international%20hotel&brand=calisphere&layout=printable.

"Judge Refuses to Stay Hotel Eviction." San Francisco Chronicle, December 15, 1976.

“Judge to Rule on Hongisto Mistrial.” San Francisco Chronicle, December 28, 1976.

Jupiter, Harry. “Hongisto Is Denied a Mistrial.” San Francisco Chronicle, December 29, 1976.

13

Jupiter, Harry. “Hotel Eviction Case: Hongisto on Trial for Contempt.” San Francisco Chronicle, December 21, 1976.

“New Order to Evict Hotel Tenants.” San Francisco Chronicle, December 4, 1976.

Older Americans in the Nation's Neighborhoods: Hearing before the Special Committee on Aging. United States Senate. 95th Congress. Second Session. 1978.

People, Building Neighborhoods: Final Report to the President and the Congress of the United States. National Commission on Neighborhoods. U.S. Govt. 1979.

San Francisco California Department of City Planning. Downtown San Francisco General Plan Proposals, 1963.

San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet. San Francisco, California. November 8, 1977.http://sfpl.org/pdf/main/gic/elections/November8_1977.pdf.

San Francisco Public Library. San Francisco Ballot Propositions Database, Proposition U.http://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000027201&propid=1133.

A Sheltered Crisis: The State of Fair Housing in the Eighties: Presentations at a Consultation Sponsored by the United States Commission of Civil Right. United States Commission on Civil Rights. Washington, D.C., September 26-27, 1983.

“State High Court Rejects Appeal in Hotel Evictions.” San Francisco Chronicle, September, 4, 1976.