San Francisco is second city to enact right to counsel in housing cases
While a state may have many statutes, court decisions, or court rules governing appointment of counsel for a particular subject area, a "Key Development" is a statute/decision/rule that prevails over the others (example: a state high court decision finding a categorical right to counsel in guardianships cases takes precedence over a statute saying appointment in guardianship cases is discretionary).
06/05/2018, Legislation, Housing - Evictions
On June 5, 2018, voters in San Francisco approved Prop F by a vote of 56% to 44%! The San Francisco Chronicle, SF Weekly, Curbed San Francisco, Next City, and the Stranger (Seattle) have more, and you can also check out the press release from the SF Right to Counsel Committee. San Francisco thus joins New York City in guaranteeing counsel for tenants in evictions, with the difference being that the San Francisco law has no income limit.
A coalition of tenant groups and advocates called the SF Right to Counsel Committee filed a ballot initiative (known as "Prop F") to guarantee a right to counsel for all tenants (not just low-income tenants) facing eviction. The proposal referred to the recent establishment of an eviction right to counsel in New York City. 48hills has more, and proponents set up a website for the ballot initiative. Also, an ordinance co-sponsored by the President of the Board of Supervisors was introduced that would guarantee counsel in housing cases.
The introduction of the ballot initiative and ordinance were covered by the San Francisco Chronicle, CBS, SF Weekly, Curbed San Francisco,the Bay City Beacon, KALW (audio), and the San Francisco Public Press.
Both of these initiatives come in the wake of the City's 2012 ordinance declaring its intention to become the nation's first "right to civil counsel city", as well as a pilot project that expanded representation in certain types of housing cases via increased pro bono participation (read the report of the pilot project's final results).
If "yes", the established right to counsel or discretionary appointment of counsel is limited in some way, including any of: the only authority is a lower/intermediate court decision or a city council, not a high court or state legislature; there has been a subsequent case that has cast doubt; a statute is ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment is not for all types of individuals or proceedings within that category.
Appointment of Counsel: categorical Qualified: yes
The NCCRC authored and filed a ballot statement in support of the initiative.