Some in Bayview fear the 'r' word

As I've been posting about for a couple of weeks, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is about to have its way with the Bayview/Hunters Point. Today's Chronicle highlights one woman's perspective.

Patricia Wright's girlhood home in San Francisco's Western Addition and most of the houses on her block were bulldozed in the 1960s by the Redevelopment Agency. In the name of urban renewal, longtime residents -- mostly poor and African American -- were sent packing, and many never came back.

For Wright, who is now 52 and lives in the Bayview home to which she relocated as a child, the resentment still runs deep. "I have no trust in them whatsoever," she said. "When I hear the words 'redevelopment' and 'urban renewal,' I think it really means urban removal."

Those painful memories have Wright and some others who live in the Bayview-Hunters Point area, a predominantly black community situated on the city's southeastern edge, fearful that history could repeat itself.

They've come out in force against a Redevelopment Agency proposal to place about 1,300 acres -- more than half of the Bayview -- under its jurisdiction. The plan would create the largest redevelopment district in San Francisco history, and the agency promises to clean up blight, build affordable housing and stimulate business with the help of property tax dollars.

"Commissioners from the Redevelopment Agency and the city's Planning Department will hold a joint hearing Thursday on an environmental impact report for the proposal, and on March 7 the Redevelopment Agency commission is scheduled to vote on the plan itself. The Board of Supervisors has the final say."

But to those backing the plan, the fears are based on misinformation.

Eminent domain, the powerful tool used by the Redevelopment Agency in the 1960s to seize people's homes, is strictly forbidden in residentially zoned areas under the plan for the Bayview. The agency would be allowed to seize commercial land, but only after a neighborhood advisory group for the agency weighs in with a recommendation, agency officials said.

Also, mowing down neighborhoods and rebuilding them is a practice that redevelopment officials say was traded in long ago for projects that have community support.

Whichever side of the debate you're on, you'll want to make your voice heard now...

SPUR meeting today to present Treasure Island plan

If you're looking for something to do during lunch today and you're in or near the financial district, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association is having a lunchtime presentation of the plan for Treasure Island.

A noontime forum, held at SPUR, 312 Sutter St. (at Grant), Fifth Floor, from 12:30 to 1:30 pm. We are located close to the Powell St. BART station and several Muni lines. Feel free to bring a lunch. SPUR Forums are open to the public, free for members and $5 for non-members.

Come see the proposal everyone is talking about—a plan that is probably the most complete expression of ecological urbanism to ever be proposed at the neighborhood scale in the Bay Area: 5,500 new homes; 235,000 square feet of retail space; 320 acres of open space, including parks, plazas, community gardens, and demonstration urban gardens; and 10-minute ferry trips to downtown. Make up your own mind: will it work? Come see the presentation by the development team, Treasure Island Community Development, LLC.

New Eviction Disclosure Legislation Headed to the Board

BeyondChron gets it wrong (gasp!) again! Today's little confusion stems from Bevan Dufty's amendment to Daly's eviction disclosure legislation which was smartly vetoed by the mayor then the veto was upheld by four Supervisor votes.

The original legislation would have basically required that we as real estate agents beat you over the head with a vacancy disclosure before you even walk in the door of an open house. That's akin to beating you over the head with a termite report or a 3R (building permit history) report. It's not what open houses are for. They are for you to see if you are interested in a property. If you like the property, you would request additional information, such as inspection and other pertinent disclosures.

Now Supervisor Dufty is looking for an amendment that would just clarify the job that we already do as agents.

I'm a full-time Realtor®. I do my job and follow the law. The law currently states that I must disclose how a property (or individual unit) became vacant, if it is vacant, during the sale of the property.

Just like everything else that we as agents must disclose, vacancy is an important disclosure. For those who haven't been through the purchase process, a buyer is likely to get all of the disclosures for their transaction BEFORE they write their offer to purchase a property. Any disclosures that they DO NOT receive before writing their offer create a new contingency. If you are a buyer and you have a contingency, that means you have a way to get out of contract.

For this purpose, we as agents disclose as much information as we can get from the seller prior to offers being written. If we provide new information to a buyer after they are in contract (including, as the author of this article writes, when you are signing your loan documents), that buyer typically has a NEW contingency and an opportunity to cancel the contract.

Do agents or sellers withhold disclosures till the last minute in hopes that a buyer won't back out? Perhaps. Is this a common occurrence? Definitely not. If we lose a deal at the last minute because the buyer is sensitive to a previous eviction, we don't get paid. If the seller loses a buyer because they get the disclosure at the last minute, the property is likely to become damaged goods. There has NEVER been a benefit in this town to withholding disclosures, and there's not likely to be any reason for that to happen in this more balanced market.

This is nothing more than a not-so-covert ploy to circumvent a state-mandated law (the ellis act) that the Supervisors have not found any other way to circumvent. This is not about disclosure. This is not about helping tenants. It's about burdening an already difficult process and hurting everyone in an effort to teach a couple of people a lesson.

In the article, Casey Mills writes, "As anyone familiar with the housing market knows, waiting until this point [when your offer is accepted] to pull out of a sale when merely getting an offer accepted by a realtor is difficult would be a tough thing to do."

First of all, some copy editing is in order. Second, Realtors® don't accept offers, SELLERS accept offers. And third, this is how real estate works all over the world. You like a house, you write an offer, you review any disclosures, you do your diligence, if you like what you see at that point, you proceed and close escrow.

Only because we as professional agents in San Francisco, looking out for both the buyer's and seller's best interests, started putting immense disclosure packages together for people to review PRIOR to writing offers, do people think this is the way it has always been. For example, one of my current listings has a 183 page disclosure package and one of my last listings had a 216 page disclosure package.

As a buyer, you have a right to the information, and if you don't like what you see, you have a right to get out of the transaction. That's real estate. Here in San Francisco and all over the country. Why pretend this is any different or make it any harder than it already is?

Could it be that Chris Daly needs to find a way to look good in the eyes of his flagging consituency?

Don't Mess With Bernal...

Well, construction has begun on Bernal Park. And the neighborhood (as promised) is not one bit too happy about it.

From a post today on BernalSF.org (the reprint of a letter sent to the Parks and Rec Commission), "If you think this is the end, it is not. The moment the road gets blocked, pandemonium is going to set in. We don’t have to do anything, in fact I will be out of town. You will be setting the trap yourself. We have warned you. We have told you over and over this is a terrible idea and an unbelievable waste of tax payers money. You have stubbornly refused to listen and keep clinging to your flawed process as if this is the life raft that will save you when the project goes down. Which it will."

"As a neighborhood, we have no idea who the people are who want this. Seriously, who is it? Because we do not know them. It’s like boxing with a ghost. Who has this much power to over-ride the concerns of so many people?"

"What I have to fight with is an amazing community of people who know right from wrong. You have done more to bring us together than any single act that has happened on Bernal Heights in decades. If we had come at this with lawyers it would cost $50k, $60k. Instead, we decided to spend our time and money to educate the court of public opinion. We are enrolling the public in taking ownership of our public space. It is not yours. What you are doing is a travesty and is more like the Balkans than the great and enlightened city of San Francisco. We will not forget. We are sick of being pushed around."

Note to self: don't ever piss off Bernal Heights...

Podcast Episode #2 now available

So, I didn't quite make episode #2 'weekly' this first time around, but as I get more comfortable with the technology and as we have good news items to report, I'll do my best to stay on a weekly schedule (hopefully releasing a new episode on the same day each week).

Download the latest podcast in MP3 format here.

The links below correspond to the stories on this week’s podcast.

Lead news stories
- Bayview/Hunters Point redevelopment
- Neighborhood association involvement
- Local housing statistics
- Mortgage report from Monica DiPerna @ Guarantee Mortgage

Current/upcoming legislation
- Ellis Act Relocation Assistance Law upheld
- SFVoteWatch.com

Upcoming events
- March 2 – Special SFRA meeting on BVHP Environmental Report
- March 7 – Bayview/Hunters Point redevelopment commission hearing

Summary
- new construction condos selling at record pace
- interest rates flat
- inventory levels holding steady or dropping

Click on this icon to subscribe to this podcast via iTunes.

Or you can click on this icon to subscribe to this podcast via XML.

Cost of housing among area's top woes

Both the Chron and Examiner have coverage of a small study by the the Bay Area Council on why people are leaving the Bay Area.

From the Chronicle, "Two out of five residents of the nine-county region have given serious thought to moving away -- mostly because of high housing costs, according to a survey released today by a business and public policy group."

"There's a ripple effect as people leapfrog from the Bay Area to the interior parts (of California)," said Rob Wiener, executive director of the California Coalition for Rural Housing. "As housing becomes less affordable, people who earn wages in those communities have to move farther out as well."

"Everyone is working so hard [in Rhode Island] to pay the heating bill and the taxes," [a former resident who now lives in Rhode Island] said. "In the Bay Area, people work hard, but they also play hard. We miss that."

"Nearly three-quarters of those questioned in the Bay Area Council poll said increasing the supply of affordable housing was "very important." Fifty-eight percent supported building new homes on underutilized space within urban areas; one-quarter favored building new homes on land outside of existing Bay Area communities."

And from the Examiner, "Many residents surveyed blamed their own elected officials for a lack of affordable housing, with just 26 percent saying their city is doing a “good” or “excellent” job encouraging appropriate development."

"“While the market is producing plenty of market-rate housing, it’s just not producing the range of choices that the Bay Area requires,” said Tina Doung, spokeswoman for Non-Profit Housing Association in San Francisco."

"But in what might prove to be a positive shift, people who have opposed development in their neighborhoods in the past appeared to be rethinking that position, the survey shows. About 58 percent indicated they’d support higher-density housing development in urban neighborhoods, including vacant lots, as opposed to 25 percent who preferred rural area."

Students pushed to redesign Bayview Opera House

From today's Examiner, "Mayor Gavin Newsom today will challenge local architecture and design students to come up with a modern and “green” redesign of the historic Bayview Opera House, built in 1888."

"Newsom is looking for designs that are as innovative and cutting-edge as possible, according to spokesman Peter Ragone. The competition’s winner will become a contender for the redesign of the opera house, competing against professional architectural firms."

"Newsom’s announcement takes place at noon at San Francisco City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place."

Costs soar, market cools -- but lenders are still hot for S.F. condo construction

From today's San Francisco Business Times, "Bay Area condo construction is still the darling of lenders, although the romance has soured in other parts of the country, notably Miami, Chicago and San Diego. There, hundreds of units have sat unsold on the market for three months or more, prompting lenders to back away from fresh projects. But the Bay Area, and San Francisco in particular, is still a sweet spot for more highrise development."

"The passion for condo construction lending is unusual, given national trends pointing toward a cooling housing market and increasing difficulties for condo developers. Construction materials, including dry wall, glass and concrete, have increased roughly 30 percent over the past year, while skilled labor is increasingly tough to find and costly to procure."

"If eager condo lenders are unusual, so, too, is the market in San Francisco."

"Unlike Miami, where an estimated 60,000 units are in the development pipeline, San Francisco is constrained geographically. Less than 8,000 units are slated for completion within the next few years, and additional development sites are limited. The Palms, the Watermark and the Beacon, the only three projects where new condos are for sale, all report record activity in January and February, traditionally the slowest time for homebuyers. Since Jan. 1, the Beacon has averaged nearly one condo sale a day."

Doesn't sound anything like a market that's crashing, to me...

As you might imagine, there are banks all over the country where the markets are much more volatile and where prices have dropped who are still looking to San Francisco as a strong housing market and are willing to invest here. I would think that they would conservatively pull out of this market long before it actually dropped, just on the economic data that so many media outlets are quoting... But the banks are still here. Perhaps there's something to be said for watching the lenders...

More highrise housing slated for Rincon Hill

From today's San Francisco Business Times, "Yet another condo tower may soon sprout from Rincon Hill's fertile ground. Developer Ezra Mersey has submitted plans for a slender 206-unit, 25-story highrise at 1 Hawthorne St., a narrow alley that runs between Howard and Folsom streets in Rincon Hill. The site is home to a single-story parking garage and a vacant four-story office building, both of which would be razed under the proposal."

"The $35 million project is slated to go before the San Francisco Planning Commission on March 23, according to city planner Adam Light, and would also require a zoning variance from the Board of Supervisors. While Mersey has filed two sets of plans -- one for the 206-unit project and one for a 15-story, 135-unit structure -- Light said the city has pushed the developer toward the taller alternative "so that more housing could be created on this site.""

"The development will aim to provide primary housing for San Franciscans, rather than pieds-à-terre for out-of-towners, Light said. To this end, the development proposes 27 moderately sized studios, 68 one-bedroom apartments, and 62 two-bedroom units, with less than a one-to-one parking to unit ratio. He compared the model to 199 New Montgomery St., a 16-story development, 90 percent of which is being used as a primary residence."

"Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, said the more Rincon Hill housing, the better. "The best thing that we could hope for is that the developers overbuild and add enough supply to start driving down housing costs," said Metcalf. "Is that going to happen? I'll believe it when I see it.""

Bernal Heights residents lose bid to stop park renovations

As I reported in an earlier post, a group of Bernal Heights residents have been rallying against the Parks and Rec departments desire to remove a parking lot near the top of Bernal Park.

On their neighborhood blog, Bernal SF, residents are organizing weekly meetings and phone/letter campaigns to attempt to halt the process which has already been approved by the Recreation and Park Commission.

Not being a resident of Bernal Heights, I am not aware of when the residents actually got involved in this process, but as one of the commissioners wrote in a letter to the residents, there was a chance for public input, but it appears that neighbors might not have been involved soon enough.

This is not meant to point out anything specific to Bernal Heights, but rather to highlight the fact that changes do happen in this city (and every city, for that matter), and if you feel strongly about something that should either remain the same or be changed for the better of the neighborhood or city, it's never too soon to make your voice heard.

This is not about being NIMBY, it's about being a member of a community and being a concerned citizen, and hopefully logic and reason will win in the end.

Industry Standards?

From San Francisco CITYSCAPE, "Rezoning of the inner Bay Area's industrial districts for the 21st Century not only cannot possibly please everyone; it may not please anyone."

"Where developers and housing advocates see abandoned wastelands, anti-gentrification activists demand a blue-collar reserve and buffers against displacement."

"Housing over light industry, we suspect, could work in most cases; so why is there so much less "urban mixed-use" zoning, requiring one square foot of industry for every five square feet of housing, than "employment and business development" — requiring five square feet of industry for every square foot of housing? Since housing can occupy higher floors, but industry can't, the latter zoning effectively bans residences on all but the largest sites."

"Here's an idea: Let's make reasonable allowances for both industry and housing in your more accessible locations. Housing over industry should be reasonably affordable, and that could go some way toward alleviating anti-gentrification activists' fears."

Special Redevelopment Meeting Scheduled March 2nd for Bayview/Hunters Point

Looks like the word is getting out on the upcoming redevelopment of Bayview/Hunters Point, with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency scheduling a special meeting on March 2nd to discuss the Environmental Impact Report.

"Pursuant to Section 32 of the bylaws of the Redevelopment Agency, Notice is hereby given that a Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Legislative Chambers, Room 250, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, California at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 2, 2006, for the purpose of holding a Joint Public Hearing with the City Planning Commission to certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project and Zoning as final."

Francsico Da Costa of Environmental Justice Advocacy wants folks to know about it and has strong opinions on where the process was (and may still be) headed.

For those that can't make the meeting, but would like to listen, it will be broadcast live on KPOO 89.5 FM.

Mirkarimi: National landlord may have pulled wool over Planning Commission eyes

From the San Francisco Sentinel, "A national landlord firm may have acted in "bad faith" through a misleading permit application harmful to tenants granted by the San Francisco Planning Commission, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi concluded today."

"District 5 tenants of the 13-unit Victorian apartment building approved for major structural change complain the permit was a ploy to increase number of units and drive current residents out. On Thursday several residents spoke before the Planning Commission, which no long has jurisdiction, to keep commissioners abreast of their appeal to the San Francisco Board of Appeals."

"Mirkarimi visited the site located at 800 Lyon Street Thursday at the request of tenant Marianne Beck."

"Beck cited tenant evictions and approved plans for fire escape restructuring she claims is life-threatening. "Since Prana 8 Properties took over the building they have systematically evicted many of the old tenants from our building," Beck wrote to Mirkarimi."

"Tenants are represented by Raquel Fox of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and by Joe O'Donoghue, president of the Residential Builder's Association."

The many faces of protected tenant status

This week, Carol Lloyd's Surreal Estate column focuses on protected tenants, "Eloise, a grandmother who has lived in her home for over 20 years, is quiet and conscientious and always pays her rent on time. Even so, from the moment her new landlords bought the building some five years ago, they have made it abundantly clear that she's not wanted."

"In a different market, in a different city, Eloise might be considered an ideal tenant. She takes care of her home, she knows her neighbors, she dearly loves her neighborhood. But this isn't anywhere. This is San Francisco, and Eloise lives in such fear of her landlords' wrath that she asked that I not use her real name. Her crime is that she pays less than one-third of market rent -- based on rent control -- and she cannot be evicted. She is a protected tenant."

"In San Francisco, Oakland and a handful of other municipalities around the country, it is a phrase that strikes dread in many a landlord's heart. It also a phrase that invokes an invaluable right for many poor, elderly or disabled tenants who would otherwise be cast onto the rough seas of the rental market. For these vulnerable tenants, it offers the most basic refuge in a housing market that has virtually no affordable housing left."

"Essentially, it's a transfer of wealth," says Joe Bravo, a San Francisco attorney who represents both landlords and tenants. "The basic question is, Can the city impose on property owners to give up part of their wealth in order to accommodate seniors and disabled people? And my answer is, How else are you going to keep people who are old and disabled in the city?"

"In San Francisco, there are three basic kinds of protected tenants: elderly people or disabled people who have lived in a unit for at least 10 years, and disabled and catastrophically ill people who have resided in their homes for at least five years. (The definition of elderly varies depending on circumstance -- it's usually set at 60 or 62 -- as does the definition of disabled.) Whatever the case, even if a landlord wants to move into a unit himself, this is not a valid cause for evicting a protected tenant."

$16 million grant for homeless buildings

From today's Chronicle, "Community Housing Partnership, one of the city's largest developers of residences for the homeless, has received $16 million in state, federal and city money to build 167 housing units during the next two years."

"One project, an 83-unit building, will be built where a parking lot now sits at 650 Eddy St. The other, an 84-unit complex, will involve renovating a building at 684 Ellis St."

"The bulk of the funding, $14 million, is from the California Department of Housing and Community Development."

Urban housing success story faces budget ax

A national article with a local impact... From today's SF Gate, "Hasinah Rahim ... knows the stigma of life in the projects, having lived in the Hayes Valley public housing development, near San Francisco's Civic Center, since 1980. She recalled gang activity so blatant that thugs would methodically follow the maintenance workers when they replaced outdoor lights and smash the bulbs one by one so they could sell drugs unimpeded."

"But the Hayes Valley project has, like Aliso Village, been torn down and rebuilt, and Rahim, now the general manager, describes the transformation through the eyes of her daughter. The young woman, now a college student in Atlanta, recently said she wants to return and get her own apartment in Hayes Valley."

"Are you kidding?" Rahim said. "She would have never said that before. She would have been gone for good."

"[There is] an aptly named program to thank for the transformation -- Hope VI, an innovative federal housing program that has financed, over the past 13 years, the demolition and reconstruction of some of the most distressed public housing projects in the country. Its supporters, including housing officials, policy analysts and Democratic and Republican lawmakers, describe it as the most powerful engine of inner-city renewal ever undertaken."

"But now, with the Bush administration looking to cut many domestic programs, the future of Hope VI appears dire. In his $2.77 trillion dollar federal budget, President Bush seeks not only to eliminate Hope VI funding altogether but to rescind the $100 million given to the program last year."

"The White House argues that local housing authorities can do the job as well as, if not better than, Hope VI by tapping other kinds of public and private financing."

"Olivia Robinson, a longtime Hayes Valley resident, said that, as part of the redevelopment, the city had refurbished a park across the street that was once littered with used needles. The complex also has a computer training center, a child care center and after-school programs."

"Yet, for three years running, the Bush administration has sought to eliminate Hope VI funding. Each year Congress has fought off the White House and has provided money, but at a severely reduced level. From $575 million in 2001, the funding declined to $100 million last year."

"There's no way to replace that federal money. It's just absurd," said Richard Baron, chief executive of McCormack Baron and Salazar, a St. Louis firm that has been involved in 33 Hope VI projects around the country.

"Gregg Fortner, executive director of the San Francisco Housing Authority, said that, without additional Hope VI funding, he will not be able to demolish and replace an additional 275 public housing units in the city that are falling apart."

"Public housing has evolved to what it is over the past 60 years, and it's going to take some time to fix it," he said. "But it has to be done, and the federal government has to be the catalyst."

Thanks, Brett, for the tip on this story!

Mayors look for housing money - S.F., San Jose and L.A. top officials visit the Capitol

From today's Chronicle, "As lawmakers and the governor try to forge agreement on a multibillion-dollar infrastructure bond to put before voters, the mayors of San Francisco, San Jose and Los Angeles joined forces Wednesday to ask that the plan include money for affordable housing."

"We have an affordable housing crisis in the state of California. It's particularly acute in the San Francisco Bay Area," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said in Sacramento. "We have a responsibility, moral and otherwise, to do something about it.''

"California voters approved a $2.1 billion affordable-housing bond in 2002, but that money is quickly running out."

"Newsom and Villaraigosa met separately with Schwarzenegger at the statehouse to push for the inclusion of housing money. Newsom said Schwarzenegger was receptive to the request but made no commitment."

Plan to redevelop theater latest for Van Ness corridor

From today's Examiner, "The United Artists Galaxy Theater on Van Ness Avenue will be demolished to build a 13-story condo tower, another step in the march of residential projects along the transit-rich boulevard."

"Stuart Gruendl, CEO of BayRock Residential LLC, said the company intends to replace the movie house, which closed in December, with 120 condos and 15,000 square feet of ground-floor retail near Sutter Street."

"The retail space will be food-related, though Gruendl declined to identify the tenant since negotiations are ongoing. He added that neighborhood retail is needed in the area, where car showrooms still dominate."

"Auto-centered businesses moved into the Van Ness corridor following World War II, but the avenue was once a residential neighborhood. In the late 19th century, it was home to Queen Anne mansions shaded by eucalyptus trees. To bring Van Ness back to life, The City adopted a neighborhood plan for the corridor in 1989. Thousands of new units of housing have been built since then, according to Kate White of the Urban Land Institute."

"In 2004, The Avenue Senior Housing, 122 studios for the elderly, was completed at 1015 Van Ness Ave. near O’Farrell Street. Construction of Symphony Towers, 130 condos at 724 Van Ness Ave. at Turk Street, is expected to wrap up in early 2007. Plans are under review for 62 senior units at 1800 Van Ness Ave. at Clay Street, 35 units at 1868 Van Ness Ave. at Washington Street, and 36 units at 1988 Van Ness Ave. at Jackson Street."

Ellis Act Relocation Assistance Law is Upheld

From today's Chronicle, "A state appeals court on Tuesday upheld a San Francisco law requiring landlords who plan to get out of the rental business to pay relocation assistance to the tenants they evict. The ordinance was enacted in 2005 and was designed to help renters who are evicted under the Ellis Act, a 1984 state law allowing owners to remove property from the rental market without city approval."

"The measure requires all San Francisco tenants evicted under the Ellis Act -- regardless of their income -- to receive $4,500 in relocation assistance, with a cap of $13,500 per household."

"A previous city law required landlords to pay that amount only to evicted low-income tenants and $3,000 to disabled tenants or those 62 and older."

"Andrew Zacks, the San Francisco land-use attorney who represented the plaintiffs, said he will ask the appellate court to take another look at the case and then, if necessary, take it to the state Supreme Court."

"Basically, San Francisco has adopted special rules, which only apply in Ellis Act cases," Zacks said. "This isn't really about helping tenants as much as it is stopping Ellis Act evictions. It's about creating a very high price for going out of the rental business, and for that reason we don't think it can be justified under the state statute."

The Examiner covers this today as well.

Bayview/Hunters Point Residents Have Their Say at SFRA Meeting

From a post on IndyBay.org by Francisco Da Costa of Environmental Justice Advocacy, "The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) with Marcia Rosen as its evil leader were stopped in their tracks even as they wanted the SFRA Commissioners to agree to a resolution that all was NOT fine with a very faulty Final Environmental Impact Report that has not been discussed by the affected community in the Bayview. Gone are the days when the Western Addition was ruined by Racist SFRA. We will not permit the SFRA to come into our community and take over large tracts of land without meaningful dialog and full input of the community."

"February 21, 2006 in Room 416 at San Francisco City Hall - San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) were told in no uncertain terms that they cannot come into the Bayview and take over property that belongs to the residents."

"The BLIGHT that we have in our community are the two power plants, the sewage treatment plant, the Darlin plant that manufactures tallow, the 400 toxic spots that have not been abated. It is the duty of the City and County to abate and clean up the toxic areas."

"It is time that SF Redevelopment Agency is told to pack up and go some where else. We do not want them in San Francisco. They failed at Western Addition. They failed at Mission Bay. They will fail in the Bayview. "

Water Street's links to S.F. past may ultimately face the wrecking ball

From today's Chronicle, "Water Street (map) is a blocklong slice of San Francisco that fits together with deceptively ramshackle ease."

"This hodgepodge shouldn't be anything special, but it's an anomaly in this ever-more-affluent city. And an ominous sign suggests that Water Street could begin to evolve into something quite different: yet another piece of the Bay Area rendered dull, where the odd, mysterious nooks are replaced by generic real estate that fills a need but doesn't stir the imagination. The ominous sign is the one that says "for sale" on the two gray warehouses from 1929 where A. Friscia Seafoods did business from the 1940s until it closed in 2004."

"Now, the Friscia property is on the market for $2.75 million. A sale is pending. The site is zoned for 40-foot residential, which probably means we'll see another pastel stucco box like so many others on this end of North Beach that fades into Fisherman's Wharf."

"It's been looked at very seriously by developers. ... The city really needs housing," says Gloria Rogan, the agent handling the property for McGuire Real Estate. She hastens to add, "We have a real profound interest in the quality of whatever happens. ... I love Water Street, and I've always loved walking down it. It's a beautiful street."

"What's beautiful isn't the architecture, but the sense that you've stepped into a living part of the city with palpable links to the past."

"Now? Our fast-fading residential boom tipped the balance. There's a hole in the middle of the block where construction crews are excavating a garage for a 21-unit complex, and a fenced-off lot that signals that another is on the way. The last single-story structure has a demolition permit in the window."

"And yes, even if Water Street's buildings stay the same, there will be homogenization and gentrification as today's owners move on. Telegraph Hill looks much as it did 50 years ago, for instance, but that doesn't mean you'll find young would-be artists in the neighborhood -- unless they're on their way to Caffe Trieste."

"But as long as those settings exist, they remind us of what was. They're physical shadows of a sort, prodding us to look beyond the present and contemplate how our world came to be. The buildings and landscapes we inherit should not be disposed of lightly or sold to the highest bidder as a matter of routine. Because once they're gone, they're gone forever."

Massive Trinity Plaza project could play role in Mid-Market redevelopment

From today's Examiner, "The proposal for Trinity Plaza Apartments in the heart of the troubled Mid-Market neighborhood is seen as a marquee project that will bring sleek glass apartment towers — some as high as 26 stories — along with cafés, shops and open space to a gritty corner at Eighth and Market streets. The project — among The City’s largest proposed housing projects at roughly 2,200 units — took a big leap forward with the recent publication of its environmental review. In the wake of the publication, critics of a plan to create a redevelopment area in Mid-Market are pointing to Trinity Plaza as proof that private investment is pouring into the area."

"A Miami-based developer filed plans a few weeks ago to build 650 condos at 10th and Market streets. In addition, two massive projects, a 22-story condo tower and the Federal Building, are under construction around the corner from Trinity Plaza at Mission between Seventh and Eighth streets."

"The proposal would demolish 377 rent-controlled apartments and replace them with 360 rent-controlled apartments along with up to 1,800 market-rate and below-market-rate-units."

"The building boom around Trinity Plaza has fueled critics of a plan to turn Market Street between Fifth and 10th streets into a redevelopment zone. Redevelopment zones are intended to spur development in troubled areas by diverting tax money away from city coffers. Instead, the money is spent by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency on affordable housing, infrastructure and, in the case of Mid-Market, on an arts and entertainment district."

Balanced market creates new approach to home selling

From Dian Hymer and Inman News, "There are plenty of home buyers intent on buying while they can still lock in a relatively low mortgage rate. So, the 2006 housing market should present good opportunities for sellers who understand how to maximize profit in this new, more balanced, selling environment."

"The first step is to start thinking like a buyer, not a seller. Although buyers are anxious to buy before rates rise further, they know that the appreciation rate is subsiding."

"Listings are most salable when they're new on the market. To maximize your chances, your home not only needs to be priced right and properly prepared for sale, you also need a comprehensive marketing plan. You want to make sure that information about your listing reaches as many potential buyers as possible. So, pick your listing agent carefully. A prospective listing agent should provide you with a marketing plan. Ask to see samples of the marketing materials that will be used to promote your home. Make sure that your home will receive Internet exposure. Over 70 percent of today's home buyers start their home searches on the Internet."

"In most cases, it's not wise to work with an agent who is from outside of the local market area. Few agents can give good service if they are spreading themselves too thin. A bad marketing effort can result in a lower sale price. Recently, an agent from out of area listed a property in Oakland, Calif. It was never adequately exposed to the local Oakland market. It finally sold after several price reductions. The buyers got a good deal, not the sellers."

"Don't list for less than a price you can accept if you don't receive multiple offers. But, keep in mind that overpriced listings won't sell."

Another office building bagged for condos, with more on the way

From this week's San Francisco Business Times, "In a sign that the appetite for downtown condo conversion projects is still robust, a development partnership has shelled out $23 million for a 10-story office building at Third and Mission streets."

"The 108,500-square-foot building, at 706 Mission St., is across the street from the glittering new St. Regis hotel and condo project and represents one of the last remaining redevelopable sites in the Yerba Buena area. The building, which was constructed in 1905 and upgraded in 1988, sits on the western side of a 15,000 square-foot site. The property includes a squat three-story, 2,400 square-foot annex at 86-88 Third St."

"Since 2003, San Francisco's office market has seen a flurry of condo conversions, with generally older, smaller office structures snapped up by luxury housing developers. Notable downtown conversions under way include the former Chronicle building at 690 Market St.; 333 Grant Ave.; 74 New Montgomery St.; and 201 Sansome St."

"While the conventional wisdom in real estate circles has been that the conversion market is slowing down, architect Dan Huntsman, whose firm Huntsman Architectural Group designed the nearly complete 74 New Montgomery St. building and 333 Grant Ave., said the reality is quite different."

"We are still getting contacted literally every week by people who want to do these projects," he said. "There are several new ones we are talking to right now."

Mission Bay homes are in and retail seems sure to follow

From this week's San Francisco Business Times, "Mission Bay's condo craze is sparking a retail renaissance. With more than 1,000 residential units completed and 6,000 more slated for completion within the next 36 months, plans are progressing to pack shops and restaurants into the area. Along with some 170,000 square feet of ground-floor retail planned within the Mission Bay development, a further 100,000 square feet or so could be developed at existing sites throughout the nascent neighborhood."

""I know of four to six other sites that are actively being explored for additional retail. These are existing buildings that would be reconfigured." said Sheldon Pont, a retail and shopping center consultant with GVA Whitney Cressman. Pont noted one such site was 444 De Haro St. -- an office building across the street from the new Whole Foods Market at 450 Rhode Island St. slated to open April 2007."

In case you guys didn't know this, and as I reported last October, there is a Whole Foods opening in Potrero Hill next year...

"Housing developers Bosa Development, Opus West Corp., Urban Housing Group and the San Francisco Affordable Housing Agency are planning to build 74,000 square feet to 87,000 square feet of combined ground-floor retail below their residential units lining both sides of Fourth Street."

"Only building entries and retail storefronts will be permitted on the block. No garages or other non-pedestrian-friendly uses will be permitted."

SFRA to hear public comments on multiple redevelopment areas on Tuesday

While the main Commission meeting for the Bayview/Hunters Point redevelopment is on March 7th, the agenda for Tuesday's (Feb 21st) San Francisco Redevelopment Agency meeting shows a 20-minute time slot for public comment on the following redevelopment areas (with links to details):

Bayview/Hunters point

Hunters Point Shipyard

India Basin

Western Addition

Golden Gateway

Mission Bay North & South

Rincon Point

Yerba Buena Center

The entire list of redevelopment projects can be found here.

As always, don't wait till it's too late if you have an opinion on any of these areas. The time is now to make your voice heard.

The meeting is at 4pm on Tuesday, February 21st in City Hall room 416.

Real estate and taxes, or cost basis of a home

Kathleen Pender has a great article in today's Chronicle on how to determine the cost basis on your home.

"When you sell a stock, house or other asset, your adjusted cost basis is subtracted from your sales proceeds to determine your capital gain or loss."

"Single homeowners can exclude $250,000 in capital gains on the sale of a primary residence, and married couples filing jointly can exclude up to $500,000, if they have owned and lived in the house for at least two of the previous five years ending on the date of sale. Any profit over those limits is taxed at the capital gains rate, which tops out at 15 percent."

"According to Internal Revenue Service Publication 523, you can add to basis the cost of "additions and other improvements that have a useful life of more than one year." Improvements are things that "add to the value of your home, prolong its useful life, or adapt it to new uses.""

"Improvements that are no longer part of the home cannot be added to basis. For example, if you installed carpeting, then replaced it with wood floors, the carpeting is no longer part of your basis. Or if you plant a tree and it dies, the tree exits your cost basis."

"Expenses to fix up a home for sale, such as a fresh coast of paint, cannot be deducted from the sales proceeds, nor can they be added to basis..."

Some improvements that can be added to the cost basis of a home:

• Additions: bedroom, bathroom, deck, garage, porch, patio, sunroom.

• Lawn & grounds: landscaping, driveway, walkway, fence, retaining wall, sprinkler system, swimming pool.

• Heating and cooling: heating system, central air conditioning, furnace, duct work, central humidifier, filtration system.

• Plumbing: septic system, water heater, filtration or soft water system.

• Interior: built-in appliances, kitchen modernization, flooring, carpeting.

• Insulation: attic, walls, floor, pipes, ductwork.

• Miscellaneous: storm windows or doors, new roof, central vacuum, wiring upgrades, satellite dish, security system.

Source: Internal Revenue Service Publication 523

As always, rely on your accountant or CPA for the final word.

Another Chronicle Cover Story -- only with a different tone

The Sunday Chronicle had another Kelly Zito article, this time with a headline spanning 3/4 of the cover of the paper. It usually takes the beginning of a war or the death of a president to get that much space on a cover devoted to one topic.

"HOUSING -- JUST COOL OR GOING COLD?"

Strangely enough, with the exception of a couple of the usual quotes from guys like Ed Leamer at the UCLA Anderson Forecast (who has been claiming that we were all going to the poorhouse since 1999), the article is amazingly upbeat and realistic. Knowing the lead times on articles, I will take no credit whatsoever after my posting on Friday for this change in attitude.

Click the link above and read the entire article for yourself. She put in some nice 25 year graphs showing exactly what I continue to refer to, that the market is strong and continues on an upward path, even through the roughest of markets, and has its usual downward blips in the Dec/Jan timeframe.

Some of the highlights:

• "At the end of the last two major housing booms in the early 1980s and 1990s, prices in most areas did not collapse."

• "On the coasts, you see price run-ups, and then instead of having large price declines, you have mild declines and flattening for a period -- it's what you'd call a stylized fact of the industry," said Andrew Leventis, economist at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the overseer of mortgage titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

• "On the other hand, affordability indexes don't present the full picture. For one, roughly three-quarters of all home buyers in California are trade-up buyers who can spin equity into down payments on bigger, pricier houses."

• "...even in a slackening market, sellers often resist losing money on a property or simply not making as much as the Joneses next door. Sometimes that can mean sales volumes will decline, but prices will stay resilient; it's a phenomenon that could play out as this cycle wears on."

• "San Francisco may have more of a chance to not have a severe (correction) because it's so hard to build here," said UC Berkeley's Rosen. "The difficulty in putting on new supply protects home prices from big adjustments."

• "A tight supply of available land and housing supply is one hallmark of what Columbia University real estate professor Christopher Mayer calls a "superstar city," one in which price declines are relatively rare."

And there you have it... Lots of people who admit they really don't know what is going to happen, but look at things a bit more positively than we've seen in a while. And all of this goes back to supporting my post on Friday. It's a nice, balanced market out there right now, and from where I'm watching, it doesn't look like it's going to drop any time soon.

50-year mortgages?

The Chronicle ran an AP article today on the possibility of a new 50-year mortgage. "The Treasury Department's resumption of 30-year bond sales could have an interesting impact on the home mortgage market, with lenders offering more 40-year loans and maybe even 50-year mortgages for the first time to help some consumers qualify for loans."

"The reintroduction of the 30-year bond means lenders — who had relied on the government's 10-year note for mortgage rate guidance — have a better idea of what to charge homebuyers for a 40-year mortgage. There is also some talk among lenders, who are always looking for new mortgage products, about creating a 50-year home loan."

"Forty-year mortgages have been offered by lenders over the last two decades, according to [a mortgage industry analyst], who recalled that their use last jumped in the 1980s when home prices were high and interest rates were in double digits. Rising home prices are bringing them back, he said, but noted that these loans likely won't account for more than a fraction of a percent of all loans processed by bankers. Last year, lenders underwrote $3.2 trillion worth of mortgages."

"By stretching out their mortgage payments over 40 years first-time home buyers can lower monthly borrowing costs and qualify more readily for a loan. [A mortgage broker] said bankers could also create a 50-year mortgage because of the Treasury's 30-year bond sale. This would be a product lenders could sell to first-time home buyers, or what he calls "a gateway product.""

"Of course, like all longer-term loans, the 40-year mortgage carries a rate that's higher than shorter-term loans, as lenders charge more for taking on the risk of a longer term loan. So although the payments are lower, a borrower ends up paying much more in interest."

"Last week, home buyers could get a 40-year $100,000 mortgage at a rate of 6.50 percent which meant their monthly loan payments were $585.00, according to HSH's Gumbinger. A 30-year loan, meanwhile, had a 6.25 percent rate and a home buyer with a $100,000 loan had a monthly loan payment of $616."

"Chris Low, chief economist at FTN Financial, a financial services firm, said longer-dated home loans could prevent a dramatic drop in the housing market because their lengthy payback periods would lower monthly payments at a time when interest rates for other mortgages have risen from historic lows."

San Francisco awarded state housing funds

From today's Examiner, "San Francisco has scored $45 million in state funds for affordable housing, officials announced this week. The City will use the money to help fund 530 units of affordable housing ranging from a high-rise tower for families in the Mid-Market neighborhood to senior housing on Alabama Street. The money will help support six projects, which will also rely on funding from other sources."

"The state funds come from Prop. 46, a $2.1 billion housing bond approved by voters in 2002. Matt Franklin, director of the Mayor’s Office of Housing, said San Francisco did better than in past years and received about 25 percent of the money, though The City accounts for less than three percent of the state’s population. Franklin said the money is doled out based on the quality of the proposals, which are scored on specific criteria such as the level of affordability."

"Of San Francisco’s 530 units, about 230 will be for families and 280 for supportive housing for the chronically homeless, he said."

City churches are closing because they can't afford earthquake retrofitting

From the Chronicle's Surreal Estate column, "Golden Gate Lutheran Church is only one of over 25 places of worship and an estimated 2,500 buildings around the city that have been affected by new seismic codes for unreinforced masonry buildings. In the years since the unreinforced masonry building code was written in 1992 (generally referred to as the UMB code), most of these buildings have been brought up to code or demolished."

"But an estimated 300 buildings -- including several churches and synagogues -- remain noncompliant. Feb. 15 was the deadline for bringing all buildings in San Francisco into compliance, so the city is stepping up its efforts, after granting repeated extensions to property owners."

"Like many other churches in the city, Golden Gate Lutheran operated under the UMB radar, limiting its hours of operation. But last year, it came under the inspector's spotlight when a local neighborhood group -- which had complained about the homeless people hanging around the church -- discovered the building was not up to code and reported it."

"Estimates to seismically retrofit other bigger buildings have been even more exorbitant. The figure of $8 million was the one most invoked in discussions about the retrofitting of Sacred Heart Church on Fell Street. Last year, an article about the shaky fate of Congregation Sherith Israel on California Street suggested that retrofit costs could run as high as $20 million."

"The churches that cannot be brought up to code face an uncertain future. St. Brigid's Church, which was closed for nearly a decade, was recently purchased by the Academy of Art University, adding to its sizeable for-profit real estate portfolio. The Church of Christian Science on Dolores Street has petitioned for a demolition and permit to build an 8-unit condo building."

A Balanced Market: Setting the record straight

I feel like I may be the only blogger or journalist that pays attention to what is actually happening on the streets in this real estate market. And because of this, I feel it my duty to help readers understand the things that Kelly Zito neglects to include when she writes her 'gotta sell more papers' cover stories for the Chronicle.

Today's cover article is entitled, "Home Sales Falter - Hints of a Slowdown", and she goes on to cite her favorite (only?) source for real estate data, John Karevoll from Dataquick.

Now, you have to recognize that there have been 'hints' of a slowdown in every article she's written in recent memory for the Chronicle, so for those of us that are NOT 'hoping against hope' for a market crash (because we're smarter than that), or trying to sell newspapers, there's more to the story.

We do have a different market than we did in February of 2005. But we don't have very many examples of the 'faltering' that she refers to. The quotes from Karevoll are the same as they've been for years, so it's probably getting old to many readers to hear that the 'experts' still don't know if the market is going to crash or just have a 'soft landing'.

Well out on the streets, where business actually takes place, and where these numbers are generated, we see a very different picture. IMHO, her only real on-the-street data came from a fellow Zephyr agent (and blogger), Matt Fuller who quoted some sales figures from our office meeting yesterday. The reality is that we still see nearly 50% of sales going OVER the asking price, and 88% of sales going at asking or above.

Now you know I always talk about 'percentage over asking' as a function of the way that agents and sellers are pricing their properties. In my experience right now, most agents and sellers are pricing properties at a level that is much closer (if not 'at') the price they are willing to accept. This just goes to show that with nearly 50% of properties (sold by Zephyr agents) still selling over these asking prices, we have a vibrant market in San Francisco.

Does this mean the market is crazy? Not at all. But Chicken Little can take a rest, because the market is not showing any signs of crashing.

Some of the things that I took from the Dataquick press release:

"A decline from December to January is normal for the season."

"We won't know for another couple of months if this is a lull in the market or part of a longer-term downturn. It's always difficult to project from trends we see in January and February. The March numbers will tell us much more about what's going on," said Marshall Prentice, DataQuick president.

"Indicators of market distress are still largely absent. Foreclosure rates are coming up from last year's low point, but are still below normal levels. Down payment sizes are stable and there have been no significant shifts in market mix, DataQuick reported. "

So why were these items missing from Kelly's article? Because uneventful news isn't worthy of a headline, especially a BOLD cover story headline.

I do see bargains out there, however, as I always do, even in the hottest markets. From what I'm hearing, there are some lofts that aren't getting much activity right now. There are also a large number of TIC units avaialble (149 currently active units in the city of San Francisco, per SFAR MLS).

As an example of on-the-street data, let's compare CLOSED sales (which likely went into contract in early or mid-January) of single family homes between Feb 10-17, 2005 (one of the hottest weeks -- for market frenzy -- in the history of San Francisco real estate) and Feb 10-17, 2006:

2005 - 49 sales, 31 days on market, average sale price 110% of asking, median price $780,000

2006 - 27 sales, 35 days on market, average sale price 102% of asking, median price $925,000

IMHO, the difference in the number of sales is as much a function of inventory as anything else right now. The hot properties are coming on the market and selling in one or two days (this isn't always properly reflected in the MLS, either). Some of the properties that are sitting on the market are just plain overpriced, causing the numbers to skew a bit.

In looking at more data from Zephyr agents, comparing closed transactions for the weeks of Feb 8-14 between last year and this year (that likely went into contract in early to mid-January), we see that in 2005 we had 89% of sales at-or-above asking, and in 2006 we had 78%. To me, that decrease is explained when some of the funky listings that were sitting on the market finally sold and when those sellers eventually came to terms with the current market as it related to their particular piece of property (which was likely overpriced to begin with).

One more interesting piece of data: In the past 24 hours (per the SFAR MLS) there were 26 properties that went into contract, with an average days-on-market of 50. So, while some of the properties were only on the market a few days, others were on for much longer. This is another indication that some of the stagnant inventory from last fall is going away, including properties on the market for 106 days, 162 days, and 288 days.

The new inventory is selling well and the old inventory is selling, too. Yet another reminder that there's not that much out there for buyers, so they're looking to more creative locations and property types.

What do you really want to know? Should you buy now? Should you sell now?

For what it's worth, I will always find good deals in this town, especially in markets where there is some stagnant inventory (like right now). If you're a buyer that wants the perfect location and a nicely remodeled unit, you're going to pay top dollar. That's a promise. If you are willing to step outside of that realm a bit, there are bargains to be had. Especially in the TIC market.

If you're selling, you really need to make sure that you're doing everything that the market wants to see. You must price your property appropriately, which does not mean matching your neighbor's sale price from last August. It also means cleaning, painting, staging, marketing properly, and being willing to be flexible in your marketing period if other inventory hits that is just like yours.... like if your neighbor lists their identical house for $50k less than you're willing to accept.

Despite everyone's longing for more affordable housing in San Francisco (myself included), printing negative news stories that single out the worst of the market and citing the same data source every week just doesn't help anyone.

Last time I picked on Kelly, my comment list went 27 deep, so I'm sure that all of the bubble-prophets will be hot on this topic, but just realize, even if people are paying asking price for their homes, a year-over-year rise in the median price of single family homes from $780k to $925k in a down market just doesn't compute.

I can see the comments now, "Yeah, but it's coming! Just you wait! It's a bubble! You'll see..."

Yes. We will see, won't we.

In the meantime, my advice is for buyers and sellers to come out of hiding. I'm working with a number of great buyers and sellers that see this as an opportunity to do a transaction in a balanced market, a market that is good for both sides of the transaction.

What's so negative about that?

The 'real' story behind the C-3 parking legislation?

From an SFSOS email today (sorry, no web link for this, so published in its entirety here)

So now what are we supposed to think?

The Board cruised through the Peskin/Daly planned-congestion measure as expected last week, with the same "party line" 7-4 vote with all four moderates and the Mayor opposing the extreme left's keystone attack on regular people being able to stay in the City.

The Peskin-Daly 7 are taking political gamesmanship to new depths with this issue. With each passing day of debate, the "public transit only" allies are carefully muffling any voice from the average resident, especially families, who will find parking scarcer, more expensive, and compounded by increased congestion downtown. They continue to avoid any defense of their issue, nor offer any proof, any data, any case studies suggesting that their limitation of parking might lead to a decrease in traffic. T