Choose Your CityColumnsNewsPress

Meet The Woman They Call ‘San Francisco’s Cruelest Landlord’

Sign up for the best newsletter EVER!

We sat down for an interview with Anne Kihagi, who has been dubbed “San Francisco’s Cruelest Landlord” in the local media. Kihagi has been in the headlines for being slapped with a $3.5 million wrongful eviction fine reported as the “largest [ever] in a single-unit landlord-tenant case not involving personal injury claims in the nation,” a separate $2.4 million harassment and unlawful eviction fine in May 2017, and being sentenced to five days in jail in yet another completely separate West Hollywood Ellis Act violation case.

But these are not even the most shocking headlines among Anne Kihagi’s legal cases. San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera has accused her of “waging a ruthless war to illegally force tenants from their rent-controlled homes so she could charge more money,” with charges of interrupting tenants’ gas, electricity and water service, and evicting seniors and people with disabilities. There have even been media reports of her accusing a 70-year-old grandmother of buying drugs for her neighbors.

“The truth is, it’s not a lie,” Kihagi tells “[That tenant] smokes more weed than any 21-year-old.”

But Kihagi feels she’s the target of a City Hall campaign of harassment against her. “The City Attorney’s office has a corrupt mechanism they call a ‘task force’,” she says. “They’re using that to screw a lot of landlords. Everyone asks me, ‘Why you?’ The problem is, I don’t like being screwed around with.”


After remaining relatively silent amid three years of highly unflattering media reports, she’s beginning to speak out. Kihagi’s team provided with the video above, which shows Anne Kihagi doing not-cruel things like strolling through the Mission, showing off her properties’ well-maintained PG&E meters, and pointing out windows she claims were busted by anti-eviction activists. The video also contains a bombshell allegation the City Attorney is spending the majority of its resources just to prosecute her.

Kihagi’s attorney Karen Uchiyama says in the video, “According to the City Attorney’s office, the code enforcement department is spending 73 percent of their resources to take down Anne Kihagi, a woman who is a single manager, who owns ten buildings in San Francisco, which is kind of small-time compared to the big property management companies.”

But when she says “resources,” that’s not money. As we see in the City Attorney’s annual budget above, code enforcement cases such as those brought against Kihagi only account for a tiny 2 percent of that department’s budget. This “73 percent” claim is based on Uchiyama’s account of previous sworn testimony of deputy city attorney Michael Weiss, whom they say once testified that he was spending 73 percent of his time specifically prosecuting Kihagi’s cases.

“The city attorney Michael Weiss testified that he’s spending 73 percent of his time on me. Don’t you think something’s wrong?,” Kihagi says. “The building department should be able to operate as a separate division of the city, not influenced by a city attorney whose agenda is different.”

That said, the city attorney’s code enforcement team has about a dozen attorneys, not just Michael Weiss. And lately they’ve successfully seized her rent payments for wrongful evictions and code violations, and got a $125,000 payment out of her to avoid a 10-day jail sentence, in addition the the West Hollywood jail sentence.


Anne Kihagi is ubiquitously described in local media using the phrase “San Francisco’s cruelest landlord.” This specific “cruelest landlord” moniker has been seen on SFGate, in the SF Weekly, and on Mission Local.

The first appearance of the “cruelest landlord” phrase appears to be in Joe Eskenazi’s October 2017 San Francisco magazine article Home Invader: The Life and Crimes of San Francisco’s Cruelest Landlord. (Though it may have its origins in a May 2017 press release from the city attorney that says “Her cruelty is stunning” and “She forced one tenant out of his longtime home as he battled terminal cancer.  That breathtaking cruelty was matched only by her contempt for the law.”)

Eskenazi himself is not sure whether he himself coined the phrase. “I don’t recall. It was me, or someone at San Francisco magazine. I can’t claim credit,” he tells, though he adds, “It was an impeccably fact-checked story. Everything checked out.”

But the phrase has caught on, and now follows Kihagi in pretty much all media coverage. “What hurts me the most is the effects on my mother. I feel so bad, it absolutely harms her.”

“It’s abusive it’s insulting, it’s disingenuous,” she says. “It’s been offensive to my mother, it’s been offensive to my family, it’s been offensive to my friends. It’s offensive to anyone who would go by my buildings and see how I maintain them.”

Kihagi feels the litany of charges against her all in retaliation for a civil suit she filed in 2015 against the City and County of San Francisco. (The judge rules against her.) And judges have been ruling against her pretty much nonstop for the last three years, both in in West Hollywood and here in San Francisco, finding her guilty of cutting off tenants’ utilities and committing wrongful evictions.

But Kihagi insists she’s just clearing out bad tenants, and she’s going to keep appealing the rulings against her. “I don’t like what’s going on in San Francisco,” she says. “It’s had an expensive and emotional toll on me to say something’s wrong. But I do believe now that now that I’ve been given the platform, I can speak out and say what’s wrong.”

Like this article? Make sure to sign up for our mailing list so you never miss a goddamn thing!
Previous post

SF Artist & Lyricist Collaborate on New 'Part of Me' Music Vid

Next post

How to Consume Edibles Wisely...Well, Kinda

Joe Kukura- Millionaire in Training

Joe Kukura- Millionaire in Training

Joe Kukura is a two-bit marketing writer who excels at the homoerotic double-entendre. He is training to run a full marathon completely drunk and high, and his work has appeared in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal on days when their editors made particularly curious decisions.