Letters

Lawsuits over unlivable conditions and to preserve residential hotel stock are time-consuming, costly, and fraught with difficulty. McGarrahan quotes a hotel owners attorney, implying that they are at an economic disadvantage in defending such suits. This statement would come as surprise to anyone who has ever litigated one. For example, the landlords in the Frye case, described in the article, fought that action all the way through a lengthy trial without apparent strain. They are now challenging the verdict in the Court of Appeals. Apparently they are not completely strapped yet. This type of vigorous defense of an indefensible position is typical of such hotel owners. The landlord hopes to wear out the resources of the suing tenants.

These cases are an important weapon against slumlords in an era of decreasing public resources for housing law enforcement. They provide a remedy for tenants who otherwise would have none. Contingency fees and fee awards make these cases possible.

Randy Shaw is far from perfect. Probably every tenant advocate in the city could have provided McGarrahan with a list of perceived shortcomings and suggested areas of improvement had she bothered to consult that community. However, few involved with tenants rights would have disputed Calvin Welch's assessment that "this city is a better place for the vast majority of its residents because of Randy Shaw."

McGarrahan finds the THC's philosophy of approaching housing rights from a variety of directions suspect. She sees the success of this approach as an attempt to build some sort of undefined evil empire. She would apparently prefer that the clinic remain small, underfunded, ineffective, and pure. Too bad for the tenants.

Leah Hess
Oakland