The 'cost' of Peskin's eviction legislation

Just continuing to think about what this completely ass-backwards legislation proposed by Supervisor Peskin means to the average TIC owner or prospective buyer...

And after responding to some comments on my last post on the topic, I started thinking about what the real change in value might be for resales.

What the temporary inability to condo-convert means (because this one WILL lose in the courts if it's passed and be overturned eventually) for owners of a unit in a building with multiple evictions or an eviction of a senior or disabled person, is likely going to be a function of the financing.

Let's look at this with an example TIC unit currently worth $650,000.

Right now, a group of buyers might potentially get a loan resulting in the following scenario for a buyer:

20% down payment

6.5% Interest Rate

$3286 monthly payment

If we have to account for never being able to condo convert, but owners still want to be able to sell their units with relative ease, we must look to individual TIC financing as the solution. The problem with individual financing is that the interest rate is much higher.

So with the exact same unit, same $130,000 down payment, we work the calculation backwards to keep the monthly payment the same (which would be the goal of a buyer who would have otherwise paid $650k for this unit):

7.5% Interest Rate (for individual financing)

$3286 monthly payment

Purchase price of $600,000

So that's really the bottom line. In this hypothetical scenario, we're looking at a decision by the Board of Supervisors which might cost perhaps 1000 unit owners approximately $50,000 in purchase price upon resale (if they were to sell in today's market).

For some who have owned their units for a while, this may not be the end of the world, but for others it will take away any equity they had built up over their time of ownership.

Either way, the words I'm hearing from some attorneys around town is the infamous 'illegal taking of property' argument. The retroactivity of this legislation may end up being just that, an illegal taking of (for example) $50,000 away from every affected TIC owner.

Will this kill the TIC market? No. Will it stop evictions? It will only slow some of the Ellis Act filings until the individual TIC loans hit their stride... Then we'll be right back to where we are today. Only we'll have some new crappy legislation in place which will have made staying in San Francisco that much more difficult.

Don't mess with a free market, Peskin. You can't win.

As I said before, this isn't about helping tenants. This is about making the Mayor look bad. This legislation was written intentionally to be bad enough for a mayoral veto. If it passes and he doesn't veto it, the effects will be wide-ranging and brutal on thousands of San Francisco TIC owners and FAMILIES. If he vetoes it, he looks yet again like an anti-tenant mayor (which I would disagree with).

So once again, call your supervisors and tell them to vote no on this silliness.

If nothing else, help them to understand that the free market will take care of itself, and ultimately people will find ways to afford to live here. The solution to the problem? Get off of your asses and approve some additional new housing, already! Get rid of the crazy Mission/Central Waterfront housing moratorium. Get something going at the Armory. Anything, for heaven's sake!!

NOTE: before those of you who love to rip into me for posts where I use any numbers or figures whatsoever, the ideas above are broad and general, and are merely my opinion based on my professional experience.

Peskin's "Eviction-year" Politics [SF TIC Coalition]

TIC eviction legislation moves on to full board

The Land Use and Economic Development Committee (made up of Supervisors Maxwell, McGoldrick, and Sandoval) voted unanimously yesterday to send the latest TIC legislation to the full board.

From today's SFGate,

Legislation meant to slow the pace of evictions by landlords looking to cash in on the lucrative real estate market cleared a hurdle Wednesday -- and Mayor Gavin Newsom's office signaled he might not stand in the way of it becoming law.

The proposed ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Aaron Peskin, passed a Board of Supervisors committee and moves on to the full board, where the first of two votes for passage has yet to be scheduled

The legislation would ban condominium conversions in buildings where evictions have occurred. It comes on the heels of two tenant-friendly ordinances that Newsom vetoed earlier this year.

The mayor's office would not say whether Newsom -- whose allies in the business and real estate communities are staunchly opposed to the legislation -- would sign the ordinance if it reaches his desk. But Matt Franklin, director of the mayor's office of housing, hinted Newsom is open to working with Peskin.

"The mayor is very concerned about the rise in evictions," Franklin said. "He supports the intent of the legislation, but he wants to be sure it is implemented in a fair and equitable way. It will still require some additional tweaks."

If approved by the full board, the ordinance would apply to buildings where multiple tenants were evicted or where individual senior citizens, disabled or catastrophically ill people were kicked out. It is meant to curb an increasing number of evictions in which landlords clear their buildings of tenants in order to sell to tenancy-in-common buyers who get together to acquire property, sharing a mortgage and agreeing to inhabit different units.Frequently, the goal of tenancy-in-common, or TIC, owners is to convert their apartments to individually-owned condominiums. Currently, city law limits the number of condo conversions to 200 a year; in 2005, 1,500 people applied. The right to covert to a condominium is approved by the city via a lottery system.

Peskin's legislation would mean that TIC buyers of buildings emptied of tenants through evictions would never qualify for a condo conversion thus, backers of the measure say, eliminating part of the economic incentives driving the transactions.

It also would be retroactive, covering buildings where tenants were ousted since 1999.

How can they possibly punish the families and homeowners who bought units as many as seven years ago? They didn't (in most cases) Ellis Act their buildings. They didn't provide the eviction notices. They just wanted a home. And for this they are more or less criminalized?

If you think housing is expensive now, wait to see what happens if you (the citizens of San Francisco) let this one pass. Take away the hundreds of TIC units that are currently on the market (because they will plummet in value), and you'll have a whole new disaster of a problem.

This is just plain awful.

Call your supervisor. NOW. Don't think this doesn't affect you, because it will affect EVERYONE in San Francisco, while only helping a few (albeit important) tenants.

Board Committee Votes 3-0 to Protect Tenants [BeyondChron]
Major Eviction Defense Legislation Hits Board Tomorrow [SFHomeBlog]

The Cost of Selling without a REALTOR®: $31,800

Saw this first on the Freakonomics blog, and not sure I agree with NAR's math, but it's food for thought nonetheless...

Real estate professionals do more for sellers than make the transaction easier. They make them money. In fact, the average seller who uses a real estate professional makes 16 percent more on the sale of their home than do sellers who go it alone. That’s an average of $31,800 per home.

Personally, I'd argue that in San Francisco the value of using a Realtor® is more like $100k on an average $800k home (unless you have a truly savvy seller who really plays the game properly, then it might be more like $50k). That's a gross sales price figure, BTW. But that's just my opinion, so don't ask for supporting evidence. It's obviously impossible to sell the same house twice in the same market to prove or disprove this opinion.

Seminar on Credit and Financing

Monica DiPerna, a mortgage broker and MBA, is teaching a class at the LGBT Center on Market Street on home financing and personal credit.

This class will help homebuyers understand what banks require when analyzing their creditworthiness. We will perform an in depth review of what a credit score is and how to improve it. We will review lender requirements and rules regarding assets and savings, and we will review the loan application in its entirety.  Everyone who takes the class will receive a $500 coupon towards their home purchase.

Instructor Monica DiPerna, MBA, will discuss:
I. Your Credit Report and How to Improve It
II. What Documentation You Need To Provide Regarding Your Income
III. What Assets You Need or How Much You Will Have to Save to Purchase Property
IV. What Loan Applications Look Like
V. What Information Lenders Will Need and Why

When:
Wednesday, May 10, 2006 from 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.

Admission:
There is a $20 recommended donation to benefit of The Center; however no one will be turned away for lack of funds. 

The Center’s Economic Development Department is dedicated to encouraging LGBT individuals to become more self-sufficient by accumulating savings to make long-term investments in housing, higher education, business, and retirement.

RSVP:
E-mail Ken Stram, at kens@sfcenter.org, or call him at 415-865-5515. Act quickly to reserve your place.  Space is limited

First Green Condo Project Breaks Ground in San Francisco

No, this isn't that Matt Gonzalez kind of green, or that medicinal kind of green... This is that environmentally-friendly kind of green! From Green Key Real Estate,

We've been hearing whispers about San Francisco's first green condo highrise for several months now, and last week they broke ground on this new development called the Arterra Project. The building will house 268 residential units and will be LEED certified by the US Green Building Council. The building is at 300 Berry Street at the corner of 4th St. near SBC Park.

Condo project painted 'green' [SF Business Times]

Major Eviction Defense Legislation Hits Board Tomorrow

From today's BeyondChron,

The next front in the battle against evictions will open up tomorrow, as Supervisor Aaron Peskin’s legislation to limit the use of the Ellis Act and other no-fault evictions comes before the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee. Currently, all buildings where a no-fault eviction occurred remain eligible for conversion into condominiums. Peskin’s legislation aims to change that by prohibiting any sites where multiple evictions or the eviction of a senior, disabled or catastrophically ill person occurred from ever entering the city’s lottery for condo conversion. With victory a strong likelihood at the Board, the real question remains whether or not Mayor Gavin Newsom will veto it - and, if he does, how its probable appearance on this November’s ballot would affect his public image.

Uhhhh.... Of course he'll veto it! This is ass-backwards legislation at its FINEST!

What Mr. Mills from BeyondChron decides not to mention is that this legislation will be retroactive to 1999. Yes, that's right. All of the TIC owners who bought their units when all of this was above-board and fair will now be retroactively slapped with this little bit of news.

Never mind that Peskin just MIGHT have gotten this one through if it was effective, for example, on the day prior to the vote (to prevent a huge spate of Ellis filings). Never mind that this one won't possibly make it through the courts (just like every other piece of crap that Daly and Peskin have come up with during their terms in the funhouse).

This one is just plain nonsense.

The goal is clear, but the method is flawed and without legal grounds. We're talking about THOUSANDS of units that were bought and occupied legally and following all applicable laws, including many laws passed by these very supervisors that are now going to be dramatically affected.

Create viable legislation to stop future evictions? Perhaps. Screw homeowners when there's nothing they can do about it? Not a chance in hell.

YOU'RE PUNISHING THE WRONG PEOPLE, MR. PESKIN!

For anyone who owns a TIC, who might potentially buy a home in San Francisco in the future, or anyone who just plain cares about common sense, there's a rally tomorrow (Wednesday) at City Hall prior to this vote at 1pm. As ridiculous as this legislation might appear, there's no guarantee that it won't pass with the court jesters/supervisors, and that will require Mayor Newsom to veto yet another tenant/homeowner bill.

That's just not right. Is this really looking out for tenants, or just another attempt to discredit the mayor?

Rally for Homeownership - Wednesday, April 26th [SFSOS]
Land Use Committee meeting, Wednesday, Apr. 26, at City Hall, 1:00 pm [SPOSF]

San Francisco To Offer Podcasts Of Supes Meeting

From NBC11.com,

As part of its ongoing initiative to make San Francisco's government more accessible, SFGTV is now offering podcasts and MP3 audio downloads of specific city meetings and conferences.

The station will offer podcasts and MP3 audio downloads of all mayoral press conferences, San Francisco Board of Supervisors meetings and city commission meetings, city officials reported.

"San Francisco is a model for other cities in using key emerging technologies like podcasts," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said in a statement. "Podcasting will provide our city government with an innovative way to keep constituents informed -- allowing for a vital democratic exchange of ideas between city government and the community."

SFGTV, which is managed by the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, is on cable channel 26.

More information regarding SFGTV can be found on the Web site, http://www.sfgov.org/sfgtv.

Now you can listen to Chris Daly's outbursts while you're stuck waiting for MUNI!

Developers eye Van Ness auto showroom for condo tower

From today's SF Business Times,

Developers will be flocking to the San Francisco Honda at 10 South Van Ness Ave. in the coming weeks, but they won't be car shopping.

The property is about to go on the block and is expected to fetch north of $50 million, according to brokers. Colliers International's Tony Crossley has the listing.

The Boas family has hired Brand + Allen architects to study the parcel, which has an interesting place in San Francisco history. It was the site of the old Fillmore West where The Band's last concert was played and captured by director Martin Scorcese in the classic film "The Last Waltz."

The site could accommodate a 400-foot tower and up to 600 housing units, according to architect Koonshing Wong.

Now if we can only get a project like this past the Guardian and other developers, there could be 60 affordable units built, and likely even more on this site.

This location is just down the street from the 140 South Van Ness project which is a mostly-market-rate tower made up of 212 units, completed in 2003. This project has completely sold but units are regularly available as resales.

Developer drops plans for condo tower

From today's SF Business Times,

Citing an "overheated" residential construction environment, developer Monahan Pacific has scrapped plans to build a condominium tower at 535 Mission St. and has unloaded the prime south financial district land to Beacon Capital Partners for $30 million.

While the property is approved for a residential complex, a spokesman for Beacon Capital confirmed the company plans to build an office tower on the site, the latest example of what is shaping up to be a revival of new Class A office construction in San Francisco. In addition to the 535 Mission St. site, Tishman Speyer is expected to break ground this year on an office building at 555 Mission St., and Shorenstein Properties is actively seeking tenants for a 350 Bush St. highrise.

Jeff Hutchinson, Monahan Pacific's director of acquisition and finance, said the company had hoped to develop the land as a 34-story housing complex but a "super-heated environment" put construction costs 40 percent above what they were in 2004 when the company finished its 166-unit building at 199 New Montgomery St. Monahan Pacific bought 535 Mission two years ago for $19.2 million.

"It seems like the labor and construction issues were going to get worse before they get better," he said. "The cost environment gave us some pause along the way."

Hutchinson said the project would have been competing for labor and materials with a spate of skyscrapers under construction, including 301 Spear St., One Rincon Hill and Millennium Partners' towers at 301 and 333 Mission St.

The rise in construction costs over the past few years has been staggering. A study by Webcor showed the price of roofing, glass, aluminum, drywall and metal stud jumped by more than 25 percent in 2005. Glenn Gabel, senior vice president of Webcor, said crane towers are "at a premium right now in the Bay Area and continue to get more expensive, but they are available."

Could these new costs also include the developer price hikes pushed through the Board of Supervisors by Daly last year?

What happens when the office market really picks up and developers turn back to building office space? First a moratorium, now a shift to building Class A office space.

The attack on housing continues... And none of this is going to create more affordable opportunities...

Rally for Homeownership - Wednesday, April 26th

From an SFSOS email today,

Next Wednesday, April 26th, at 1 p.m., the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee will hear legislation from Supervisor Aaron Peskin that will prevent any building removed from the market via the Ellis Act or owner move-in from ever being eligible for the condo conversion lottery if even a single senior or "disabled" person was previously in the building. 

This is another in a long line of attacks on one of the few attainable means of owning a home in San Francisco. Only the very rich can afford the more than $760,000 median home price in our City. Without the availability of condominium conversions providing homeownership options below that rate, middle class families will continue their flight out of San Francisco, leaving a vacuum of teachers, nurses, police and firefighters, creative professionals and countless other mainstream citizens who are neither the subsidized poor nor the fortunate rich. 

Can you attend Wednesday’s meeting and a rally beforehand? RSVP to our Field Director Ryan Chamberlain at ryan@sfsos.org if you can attend to show the Supervisors and the press that there is significant opposition to this bill. We will meet at City Hall prior to the 1pm meeting. We expect he matter to be heard in committee around 2:00 pm. We will give all participants specific details upon your reply.

Dogs make their mark on home design

From Inman News...

If 70 percent of Americans would choose their dog over their spouse, it's not surprising that many dog owners want nothing but the best for Fido when they are choosing finishes and features for a new house.

But Fido could care less, said Dr. Nicholas Dodman, a veterinarian and the founder of the renowned Animal Behavior Clinic at Tufts Cummings Veterinary School in North Grafton, Mass. "A house is not intrinsically interesting for a dog. Dogs have been domesticated for 12,000 to 14,000 years, and they cling to humans because we're both social animals. But dogs still have a dog agenda."

"Dogs are just not on the same wavelength of enjoying a house. A dog couldn't care less about granite countertops. They're not interested in furniture types or drapes. They're not interested in aesthetics," Dodman said. They will notice the difference between their old house and their new one, but it's not a distinction that is meaningful to them. Fido's owners may be thrilled with all the great things in their brand-new house and be more careful with them, but "he'll come in out of the weather, scratch, and roll around on the carpet" just like he always did.

But, Dodman went on to say, although Fido may have no interest in the particulars of a house, he will prefer a house to an apartment because he cares a lot about having a yard to play in.

How big a yard would Fido want? An acre may seem huge to you, especially if you're the person maintaining it, but it's not that big to a dog -- his natural roaming territory can be many miles, Dodman said. But he added, dogs are amazingly adaptive. Though Fido "would say that 'bigger is better,'" he will happily run around and play whatever size yard you have, even if it's only a small side yard. [more]

Moratoriums, Loopholes, and Housing Fees

The SF Bay Guardian is jumping up and down patting themselves on the back over the indirect housing moratorium that was recently imposed on the southeastern neighborhoods (Mission, Central Waterfront, Mission Bay, etc).

EDITORIAL The San Francisco Chronicle has finally noticed what we reported a month ago: The Board of Supervisors has effectively put in place a moratorium on new market-rate housing on the east side of the city. We hear that city planners are looking for loopholes to undermine the temporary ban, but the intent of what the supervisors did is clear: Until there's a detailed and valid review of how new high-end condos and lofts impact blue-collar jobs and low-income housing, the developers will have to let their demolition and excavation equipment idle.

Meanwhile, Sup. Chris Daly is moving to increase significantly the amount of low-cost housing that private developers have to build to win permission for future projects. Daly's legislation is a good start and sets the right tone for the debate, but the board should go even further.

The Daly plan would apply to almost all new market-rate housing built anywhere in the city and would take effect whenever the moratorium ends. It would require most developers to offer 15 percent of the units of any project for less than market rates, and that number would jump to 25 percent if the affordable housing was built on another site. In other words, a builder who wants to put up 500 luxury condos in SoMa would have to build 125 affordable units somewhere else in the city.

That's nice, but it's not enough. [more...]

Not enough? Will it ever be enough for Daly? Until all homeowners are run out of town and San Francisco is a town of homeless shanties, he won't be satisfied.

I find it comforting to know that there are a large chunk of new voters in District 6 (1,800 according to SFSOS). Voters that have never had a chance to shoot down Daly's crappy rhetoric. We need new housing. Lots of new housing. All types of new housing. And prohibiting the construction of market rate housing is NOT the solution.

Rethinking the Guardian's suggested homebuilding moratorium [SFHomeBlog]
Battles are brewing for Mission rezoning plan [SFHomeBlog]
ABC Vol. 1 - Anybody But Chris [SFHomeBlog]

Telegraph Hill Dwellers try to take territory from neighboring political groups

From this week's SF Bay Guardian,

On the evening of April 11, there's a bottleneck at the door of the Tel-Hi Community Center as members of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers try to get in out of the rain. President Brad Willmore has a dozen rebel Russian Hill Neighbors cordoned off in the back of the vestibule with the wet umbrellas.

The Dwellers will be discussing "expanding boundaries" tonight, a plan that someone leaked to a faction from the neighboring hill. After an impromptu huddle of the board for a quick lesson in open democracy, the Neighbors are invited into a room that is filled with more than 50 members of the oldest, most powerful neighborhood organization in the city. The proposed boundaries expand the The Dwellers' territory into three other neighborhood organizations, nearly doubling its domain, coasting across the "flatlands" of the North Beach Neighbors, annexing some Barbary Coast Association territory, and climbing almost to the top of Russian Hill.

Board members in creased slacks and polished shoes -- representing the more youthful, working class contingent of the neighborhood – take over the front of the room beside a large map. Local lawyer Joe Alioto Jr, who's about to become an uncle and rushed here from the delivery room where his sister, Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier, is in labor, explains that as the bylaws stand, this would allow the 50 members who currently live outside the boundaries a chance to vote and serve on the board.

Alioto says the new line was chosen to more accurately reflect the natural valley of the area, and he mentions this has been discussed at the board level for at least 10 years. "No, it hasn't," pipes up another local lawyer, reclined back in his folding chair like a comfortable defendant. It breaks the spell of dutiful attention, and 30-year member Janet Crane asks other veteran members in their khakis and sneakers, "Who is for this? Who actually thinks this is a really good idea?" No hands go up. [more...]

High drama, indeed...

CalHFA updates income limits on affordable housing

The California Housing Finance Agency has released a notice today about new income limits for purchases of moderate and low income affordable housing...

Under the provisions of IRS Revenue Procedure #2006-20, CalHFA has updated
calculations for high housing cost areas. These new calculations result in increases to the nontargeted
area income limits for the following three counties: Marin, San Francisco, and San
Mateo.

Attachment A shows the new applicable CalHFA low and moderate income limits for both new
construction and existing resale housing in the non-targeted areas of each county. These limits
should now be used to determine eligibility for CalHFA’s first mortgage loan and the CHAP
second mortgage programs.

Attachment B shows the applicable income limits for CalHFA first and CHAP second mortgages
in Federally-designated targeted areas (See CalHFA’s web site.). The targeted area limits are
for moderate-income borrowers only. These limits are also used for calculating the Federal
recapture provision and are followed by loan servicers for assumptions of CalHFA loans.

See the full PDF file here with income limits for all of California.

In San Francisco, the income limits for resale homes (for one or two people) is $135,720 for moderate units, and $81,432 for low income units, and for new construction (read: South Beach High Rises) $135,720 is the moderate limit and $95,004 is the low income limit.

How crazy is that? You're low income in San Francisco if you make less than $95,000 per year. Looks like the lines for affordable unit lotteries are going to grow exponentially now...

California Housing Finance Agency [CalHFA]
Mayor's Office of Housing - Current Listings [SFGov]
Huge S.F. crowd vies for affordable luxury condos [SFHomeBlog]

Understanding differences among condos, co-ops, PUDs, TICs

From Bob Bruss @ Inman News,

What is the difference between a condominium, cooperative apartment, tenancy in common (TIC), and a planned-unit development (PUD)?

As we will see, there are major differences between these types of "common interest developments." Please be sure you fully understand the distinctions because your legal rights will vary depending on what type of unit you decide to buy.

• Condominiums are just airspace within the unit surfaces.

• A Planned Unit Development is a condominium variation

• Cooperative apartments are rare, except in New York, Florida, Georgia, California, Illinois and Washington, D.C

• Tenancy in common is jointly shared co-ownership.

Read the full article for descriptions of each one...

TIC and Condo Conversion resources [SFHomeBlog]

Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan moves closer to approval

From today's San Francisco Sentinel,

After over ten years, the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan moved one step closer to adoption at the Land Use and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday afternoon.

The $188 million plan will develop 1,437 acres of southeast San Francisco, said Tom Evans, lead planner from the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. The plan includes programs focused on affordable housing, local business development, and community improvement.

The committee approved the plan at its Wednesday meeting with an amendment that the tax increment that will fund the plan will not be used to fund a 49ers football stadium at Candlestick Park, Supervisor Sophie Maxwell said. The increment can only be used for affordable housing and public facilities.

The Budget and Finance Committee will hold a hearing regarding the plan next Wednesday meeting, Maxwell said.

The Chronicle is reporting that the full board will vote on the redevelopment on May 9th.

Maxwell measure would stymie bids for Bayview taxes [SFGate]
'Eviction notice' served on Bayview/Hunters Point [SFHomeBlog]
Bayview-Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan [Examiner]

GGNRA taking public input on park plan

From today's SFGate,

The Golden Gate National Recreation Area will host five public comment meetings this month to gather suggestions for a new general management plan.

The plan, which serves as a broad blueprint for the park, was last updated in 1980. Since then, the park has nearly doubled in size, said Nancy Hornor, chief of planning and compliance.

The park will hold meetings at the following times and locations:

-- 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. today, Fort Mason Building 201, first floor, San Francisco.

-- 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Thursday, Pacifica Community Center, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica.

-- 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday, Fort Mason Building 201, first floor, San Francisco.

-- 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. April 26, Bay Model Visitor Center, Sausalito.

-- 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. April 27, Peninsula Community Foundation, 1700 El Camino Real, Suite 300, San Mateo.

Golden Gate National Recreation Area [National Parks Service]

Bayview Redevelopment Hits Board of Supervisors Today

From today's BeyondChron,

A contentious proposal that would put more than half of the Bayview under the authority of the Redevelopment Agency will receive its first public hearing at the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee today. Previous hearings on the proposal at both the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency turned into knock-down, drag-out battles between supporters and opponents, with claims that the proposal would bring jobs and housing to the community clashing with fears it would irreversibly gentrify the neighborhood. Today’s hearing promises to be just as dramatic, and will set the tone for the upcoming debate at the full Board.

The Bayview Redevelopment Area would put 1,300 acres into the hands of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. The Agency would then administer future property tax revenues gained from parcels in that area, which they promise to use for ‘economic development’ and the building of affordable housing in the community.

Some Bayview residents attending previous hearings on the proposal said they believed a Redevelopment Area would spark job creation in their neighborhood, a vital need in their economically depressed community. In addition, they said many of these jobs would come from the building of businesses and housing on blighted land, which would substantially improve the Bayview.

Proponents also say that capturing property tax revenue to use specifically for the Bayview provides the best way to fund a rehabilitation of the area.

Others, however, fear the Redevelopment Agency hasn’t changed much since the 1960s and 70s, when vast swaths of the Fillmore and South of Market neighborhoods were leveled to make room for wealthier, less diverse residents. The believe a similar effort could now be coming to the Bayview.

'Eviction Notice' Served on Bayview/Hunters Point [SFHomeBlog]

Land use changes tucked in Prop. D

An interesting 'hidden' component of Proposition D is uncovered in today's SFGate,

The battle over a Laguna Honda Hospital initiative on San Francisco's June ballot has focused so far on health care issues -- what type of patients will be treated there, who will govern admissions decisions, and whether elderly people suffering from dementia will be booted out.

Now, however, opponents are also worked up over a little-noticed provision that the city attorney's office says would open up all land zoned for public use -- about 1,600 lots in all -- to the development of privately owned nursing homes.

The kicker for foes of the proposal, including city Health Director Dr. Mitch Katz: The Residential Builders Association, which represents about 700 builders, is bankrolling the campaign.

"How many opportunities do you have to rezone land without anybody noticing anything?" Katz said. "It's just plain wrong. If you're going around town saying you care deeply about patients at Laguna Honda, you shouldn't be slipping in other issues that have to do with your own financial welfare."

The measure, Proposition D, would make the hospital part of a special use district set aside for patients in need of long-term nursing care. It would ban from the hospital patients whose primary diagnosis is psychiatric or behavioral, or those who pose a threat to other patients.

It would also, according to analyses by the city attorney's office and the Planning Department, allow private builders to apply for conditional use permits to build nursing homes on publicly zoned lands and in residential areas. Public lots are zoned for public use, including for parks, schools and hospitals; they also include right-of-way spaces.

According to the Planning Department, there are nearly 1,600 publicly zoned lots in San Francisco, though 417 -- including Golden Gate Park -- are also zoned as open space and would be impossible to develop.

Others, such as the 11 schools closed or slated for closure, could easily be leased for nursing home development, Katz said.

I guess if developers can't build housing, and there's little land to build on anyhow, the opportunity to build privately-owned nursing homes (which would seem to be insurance-company-funded cash cows), would be a no-brainer...

The key here is that nursing homes are actually housing, so I can't say that I'm against this end-around component of Prop. D, but it's interesting how it found its way into the legislation in the first place, and how it's being bankrolled. On the other hand, by definition, nursing homes are senior housing, right? Isn't that what the 'supes are trying to build more of?

Department of Elections [SFGov]

Housing market headlines can be misleading

From Dian Hymer @ Inman News...

On Jan. 20, 2005, a headline in the San Francisco Chronicle stated that Bay Area home sales were down and that prices slid. If you, like many readers, scanned only the headlines, you might have thought home prices in the area had plummeted. Actually, they rose 14.3 percent between December 2004 and December 2005, according to DataQuick Information Systems.

Sensational headlines sell newspapers. Who wants to read about a real estate market that's not as robust as it was a year ago--one in which home prices aren't going up as fast as they were this time last year? Ho-hum news doesn't do much for newspaper sales.

Behind the scenes of the Bay Area home sale market, the real story is not that home prices "slid" from one month to the next. It's that the market is doing surprisingly well despite the negative press. In a nutshell, well-priced homes that are properly prepared for sale are selling for good prices and within a reasonable period of time.

I know that continued positive news doesn't sell papers, so you're not reading about what's actually happening in this market right now... But on the streets, we've seen a HUGE shift in the market in the past three weeks. Anything that is priced well, marketed properly, and not overlooking a freeway is selling in the oh-so-2005 timeframe of two weeks or less, and usually with multiple offers.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of over-zealous sellers who are shooting for the moon with their asking prices, only to find out that buyers are a bit smarter than they were last year. This means that there are deals to be had, but only with proper understanding of the market.

And if you're in the market now, just make sure to get educated about what the 'real' values are for the home or condo you're interested in. If you know you're paying a fair price (based on historical data), then it doesn't really matter where the seller priced the home or how many other people are interested in it. Likewise, just because you're the only offer on a property, doesn't mean you're getting a good deal.

Remember, as someone much smarter than me always says, knowledge is power. Work with a good, local agent who knows the neighborhoods you're interested in. Get good stats and comparable sales for the price range you can afford, then find the best thing available and make your move.

Just ask the thousands of people who have been counting on a market crash since 1996 how the waiting game has worked out for them...

And even more importantly, what does Kelly Zito have to say about all of this?

A Balanced Market: Setting the record straight [SFHomeBlog - Feb 17, 2006]
Three straight days of sensational journalism from Kelly Zito [SFHomeBlog - Jan 20, 2006]

Free Rides on Muni for Earthquake Day

Thanks to the N-Judah Chronicles for this one...

Hey San Franciscans (and visitors too) - tomorrow, April 18th, you can ride Muni for FREE! Since there will be all sorts of big events for Earthquake Day, Muni has announced that all buses and Munis are free so you don't have to drive to anything.

Communters beware that there will be some delays, and some stops will be relocated so beware. And enjoy the parade and festivities too!

Earthquake Centennial [SF MUNI]

Editorial: Anti-homeowners Peskin and Daly strike again

From today's San Francisco Business Times,

Charlie Brown had a football. Sisyphus had a rock. The San Francisco supervisors have home ownership.

Our elected leaders keep up their campaign to thwart San Franciscans who would own the roofs above their heads. Like their two fellow protagonists, this attempt is fated for futility: The demand for home ownership in San Francisco is too strong not to find an outlet.

Regrettably, that's not stopping them from trying. Most recently, it's Aaron Peskin. Under legislation he introduced last week, owners of many tenancies-in-common would be barred from entering the city's annual condo-conversion lottery, the goal of most "TIC" owners, if there had been evictions in such buildings, and one involved an elderly or disabled person.

Owners would have to have long memories, too, since Peskin's law would be retroactive: to Jan. 1, 1999.

Given that lengthy trip back into the past, it seems clear that the real goal of this ill-considered measure is simply to trip up or complicate as many San Francisco TICs as possible. Its purported goal is to stop a supposed "epidemic" of Ellis Act evictions, in which a landlord removes all his tenants and puts the building on the market, where it can be sold to a TIC group. That, and to wipe out that shadowy urban villain that tenant activists are convinced is at the root of the problem: the "real estate speculator."

It's the latest in a long line of anti-homeowner measures proposed by various board members. Those not voted down by colleagues or vetoed by the Mayor are generally given rough treatment when hauled into court.

How better it would be if Peskin -- and fellow anti-homeowner jihadis like Chris Daly -- were to ask themselves why San Franciscans are rushing into TICs, what's at the root of Ellis Act evictions (though this "epidemic" is slowing), and what makes speculation happen.

The answer to all three, at least in large part: the failed policies of the San Francisco supervisors.

TICs are plentiful because they offer one of the few opportunities for San Franciscans of modest means to get their foot on the first rung of home ownership. Years of anti-development rhetoric and general meddling by the board have exacerbated the city's structural housing shortage.

As for the Ellis Act, San Francisco has a long and inglorious tradition of regarding landlords as uniformly rapacious scoundrels, and addressing them accordingly, with periodic campaigns of regulatory harassment and frequent encouragement for the scorched-earth tactics of tenant activists. Who wouldn't want to get out of the rental business?

And speculation? It only exists when an imbalance persists between supply and demand. By attempting to close off so many entries to home ownership, supervisors have created this monster that they now decry.

Nobody likes evictions. But as we've noted before, they are a symptom of San Francisco's housing malaise, not a cause. There are simply too many people fighting over too little housing, and too few other opportunities for ownership.

Wiser heads would see a way to embrace the desires for home ownership and condo conversion in a way that addresses the eviction problem: Every TIC that's sold, every condo that converts, generates tax income for the city -- and money that could be directed into affordable rental housing.

Amen, brothers and sisters...

Proposition B Ellis Act Notification - an editorial [SFHomeBlog]

Third Street Rail Service Still Almost a Year Away

From SFist today,

We're getting pretty antsy, waiting for service to start on Muni's fabled new Third Street line. It was originally supposed to be operational when, like, 2005? And the delays just keep mounting. The lastest obstacle: getting drivers signed up and trained for the new line. Muni was dragging its feet on that, and for a while it looked like the training process would mean an additional couple months of delays -- but the SF County Transit Authority was having none of that. At the SFCTA's urging, Muni has assigned Carter Rohan, Deputy General Manager for Construction, to make sure that the training doesn't push the start of revenue service too far past the already ridiculously late schedule. The new projected start date for Third Street service: somewhere between January and March of 2007. We tremble with anticipation.


As we have been for the past five or six years.

SF MUNI Official Site
Third Street Light Rail Construction Details [SF MUNI]

Panel wants car-free Saturdays on JFK Drive for 6 months

From today's SFGate,

A decades-old movement to close a stretch of Golden Gate Park roadway to motorists on Saturdays -- a political debate that has pitted green-space advocates against those concerned with congestion, museum attendance and access for the elderly and disabled -- received an essential endorsement Friday.

The Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee unanimously approved a six-month test run of the closure, introduced by Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, at a special public hearing.

Closing 1.5 miles of John F. Kennedy Drive between Kezar Drive and Transverse Drive on Saturdays would mimic the 39-year-old Sunday closure of the same stretch of road from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The measure moved to the full board, where it is expected to pass. If approved, it would require several agencies to gather data on the temporary closure that could be studied later.

Those in favor pointed to the success of the Sunday closing of the eastern end of Kennedy Drive to create a refuge for skaters, bikers and pedestrians who want to escape the traffic. Proponent David G. Miles Jr., a popular roller skater who leads the Friday Night Skate, has advocated Saturday road closures for decades and brought several of his children to help voice support Friday. Saturday closures, he said, would give families more opportunities to have picnics, enjoy green space for free or skate, as he does every Sunday.

ABC Vol. 1 - Anybody But Chris

Taking a cue from SFist's 'Everybody Hates Chris' series, I thought I'd kick off my own District 6 election coverage with some ABCs... Short for 'Anybody But Chris'.

There seems to be a strong desire to unseat the often-childish Chris Daly, along with an equally strong desire (like pulling your own toenails out with pliers) to run for the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. The last District 5 election saw 22 candidates throw their hat in the ring when Matt Gonzalez bowed out and endorsed the now-elected Ross Mirkarimi.

The first candidate for the upcoming District 6 election that is getting good media coverage is named Rob Black, and he's taking a leave of absence from being the legislative aide to District 7's Michela Alioto-Pier.

From today's SFGate,

After working across the hall from San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly for two years, Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier's top legislative aide declared Friday that he would challenge Daly's bid for re-election in November.

Rob Black, a resident of Treasure Island, said Daly is not serving a large section of his constituents on the former Navy base and in other areas of District 6, which also includes South of Market and the Tenderloin.

"District 6 is an amazing place," Black said. "It is one of the most, if not the most, diverse districts in the city. You just have such an amazing spectrum of people and interests. There needs to be representation that is broader than the representation the district currently gets."

Black, who resigned as Alioto-Pier's aide Thursday, plans to join a dozen other challengers who have already filed papers to run against Daly.

And how does Daly feel about this? Remember, Alioto-Pier is one of the few level-headed supervisors on the board, and Black is bound to follow her ideology, if not pedigree...

"I'm not overly concerned," Daly said Friday. "It seems like he most likely will be the downtown candidate. He certainly has the downtown pedigree. He was not the first person they tried to get in the race. I'm not sure he was the third or the 15th. He seems to be the default candidate."

Whoever wins, they're bound to get better than the ultra-pathetic 29% approval rating that Daly has earned in the past couple of years.

I'll undoubtedly have my own endorsement as the election draws nearer, but for now, just know that I'll be suggesting that District 6 residents vote for for ANYBODY BUT CHRIS.

Everybody Hates Chris: The District 6 Election [SFist]


And in case you want to take on District 6 yourself...

November 2006 Potential Candidate List (PDF) [SFGov]
Candidates' Guide for Board of Supervisors [SFGov]
2005 Board of Supervisor's Handbook (PDF) [SFGov]

Proposition B Ellis Act Notification - an editorial

This editorial was written by the president of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco, David Fix, and published today on BeyondChron,

On the June ballot there is a proposition regarding Ellis eviction notifications, Proposition B. This proposition would require the information regarding any Ellis eviction in the marketing material for a building. This would be unprecedented. There are currently no other disclosure requirements for an open house.

The pro Proposition B people have spun this ordinance as consumer protection legislation. Nice spin, but spin none the less. Since when did the Tenant's Union become consumer advocates? To suggest that Supervisor Daly and the Tenants Union are concerned about buyers of TICs is ludicrous. This is really about trying to stop Ellis evictions and stigmatize buildings.

The “consumer protection” argument in favor of Proposition B is based on erroneous claims by Supervisor Daly and the Tenants Union as to when disclosures are made and how real estate contracts operate. To claim that buyers cannot get out of a purchase without losing a deposit belies a total ignorance of California real estate law or local practices. Under California law, a buyer has three days to rescind a purchase agreement after the disclosure of ANY material fact NO MATTER WHEN that disclosure is made and get a full refund of any deposit. An Ellis Act Disclosure is a disclosure of a material fact. It is in the interest of the Realtors and the sellers to make disclosures early in the transaction to avoid the possibility of a buyer canceling the sale due to a late disclosure.

But so much for the spin. Again what this is really about is an attempt to stop Ellis evictions. Despite what Supervisor Daly, other Supervisors and the Tenants Union will have you believe, Ellis evictions are not epidemic. According to the SF Rent Board Annual Report for Eviction Notices to the Mayor & Supervisors, http://www.sfgov.org/site/rentboard, there were 282 Ellis eviction petitions filed with the rent board for fiscal year 2004 and 276 for the year 2005. To put that into perspective, there are 340,000 housing units in SF, of which 230,000 are rental units. That equals .1% of the rental units!! 1/10 of 1%! Does that sound like an epidemic? One really needs to look at Ellis Act evictions in conjunction with Owner Move In (OMI) evictions, since Ellis evictions are sometimes used as a means for an owner to occupy their building. If one looks at both types of evictions, these evictions are the lowest in more than nine years. The San Francisco Rent Board report shows that total OMI and Ellis Act evictions are about 1/3 of the level at the height of the “dot-com” era. Clearly the facts do not support the Daly/Tenant Union hype.

Many of the owners of these buildings are elderly themselves. 40% of SPOSF members are over 60. They have owned and lived in their buildings for many years. This was supposed to be their retirement nest egg. The City should also investigate why property sellers are selling their properties to get out of the rental business. If they were renters they would be a protected group, but because they are owners they have no protections. Does that seem fair?

So once again, some city officials want to solve a problem that does not exist. The consumer protections are already in place and legal Ellis evictions are not epidemic. Do we want more unnecessary laws on the books?

This has been my point since this issue first arose. The evictions are part of a larger problem, and the continued challenges that developers face in building new housing aren't helping, either.

The bottom line: this is misguided legislation. As I always say, if the 'supes would spend 10% of their time focusing on positive housing decisions rather than limiting options in order to 'protect' a very small percentage of the population, I think we'd see a change for the better.

Where's the uproar about the hundreds of affordable and low-income housing units that are NOT being built right now in the old Armory building (14th & Mission) and the rest of that drug-infested block? Call Chris Daly and ask him why he's holding up that project. If there are opportunities to build this type of housing that aren't being fulfilled, why do tenant advocates allow them to make the market tighter with legislation like Proposition B?

Every time one of Daly's wanna-be legislation pieces finds its way through the board, the supply of available homes gets tighter, and current homeowners and real estate agents get a little richer, while those that want to stay in the city drop another rung on the ladder. Where's the logic in that?

Daly submits proposed ordinances for June ballot [SFHomeBlog]

Zillow begins offering higher-res, almost 3D images

From Zillow's blog today,

...we announced this morning the addition of 3D-like, "birds-eye" aerial photos to our beta site. These remarkably clear and detailed images, shown alongside home details and Zestimates, come from Microsoft's Virtual Earth platform.

Back in December, when we first saw bird's eye imagery on Microsoft's Live Local site, we knew it would be a great addition to what we were creating for Zillow.com. A few of us went to visit Microsoft's partner, Pictometry, in Rochester, NY. It was fascinating to learn about the process Pictometry uses to collect and process all of these 45-degree photos, including seeing one of the fleet of modified Cessna aircraft which are flying all over the country right now, taking these pictures of homes and neighborhoods from all sides. Microsoft then takes this data (50+ terabytes' worth!), does their magic, and delivers it to millions of people on the Web. When we integrate these images with the home data and Zestimates we have on Zillow.com, the resulting experience is jaw-dropping.

It's easy to imagine the clarity these images add for a home buyer curious about a property's architecture, yard or neighboring homes. Personally I like looking at my neighborhood the most. Not only is this a perspective I've never seen (even though I've lived in the same neighborhood my whole life), it allows me to do "Sunday afternoon strolls" looking at nearby houses whenever I want.

San Francisco and Los Angeles are the only two cities in California available at this point, but the detail is quite impressive. When I look at my own block, I can almost tell when the photo was taken based on which of my neighbor's cars were parked in the street, or what color their roof was... The ways this could be used to benefit home buyers and sellers are enormous...

New Home Valuation Site Launches [SFHomeBlog]

The Great Quake: 1906-2006 - Grand S.F. plans that never came to be

From today's SFGate,

San Francisco's most tantalizing "what-if" after the 1906 earthquake came when civic leaders turned their backs on one of the most ambitious plans ever crafted for an American city.

It conjured alluring images of a gracious metropolis radiating from a vast Civic Center. Reservoirs cascaded west from Twin Peaks through sculpted greenery covering nearly five times as much land as Golden Gate Park. Market Street concluded in a formal Grecian retreat, and Telegraph Hill was topped by a spacious park.

But the plan also had an elevated bayside road that foreshadowed the loathed and now-gone Embarcadero Freeway. Forests were cleared for the sake of manicured views, and San Francisco's poorhouse was banished to a site near the county jail.

The design was the work of one of America's best-known architects, Daniel Burnham. It was embraced by civic leaders, and the devastation of April 1906 seemingly cleared the way for work to start. Instead, it was never to be -- but it left a mark on San Francisco's map and spirit just the same.

Graphic: The city that (never) was [SFGate]

Make no plans [San Francisco CITYSCAPE]

Mission condo project opens a can of worms

From today's SFGate,

When the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted last month to temporarily halt a Mission District condominium project, it was unwelcome news for more than just one developer.

The decision ended up putting on hold thousands of units scheduled to be built in the city's eastern neighborhoods, while the Planning Department analyzes how the developments will affect existing housing and the job situation in the area. Developers call it a de facto moratorium on building, while affordable housing advocates say it will give the city a chance to complete a comprehensive building plan for the area.

In all, construction at as many as 52 housing projects comprising 4,600 units in SoMa, Showplace Square, Potrero Hill, the Mission and the central waterfront could be delayed by as much as a year, though planning officials insist the majority of those projects will not be affected.

"We are now living under a de facto moratorium on all housing in most of the places that would be logical to put new housing," said Gabe Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, a public policy group. "The NIMBYs have won this battle."

I'm not opposed to proper planning, but it's no wonder developers choose to go elsewhere to build...

Is new condo development being shut down? [SFHomeBlog]

Realty Blogging

I was asked to begin contributing to a national blog on the practice of blogging in real estate. Today they announced my addition to the team.

Matt's blog is a great example of how you really don't need a bunch of fancy graphics and web knowledge to have a great blog. SFHomeblog uses a stock, free template from blogger.com. Matt took the extra step of FTP to his personal website, and has added a few key links, but that's it. SFHomeblog's popularity is due only to Matt's great writing, a goal every blogger should aspire to.

Thanks, guys! Happy to contribute!

Realty Blogging

Serial Home Buyer

Just stumbled across a blog written by a local woman who is "in the midst of selling my second home and purchasing a third home." She writes about things from a non-real estate agent perspective, offers some insight for those that might be newer to the process.

Her latest post talks about the possibility of purchasing a TIC unit from a FSBO seller, and some of the things she's learned about TICs.

Thanks, Serial, for the link, too!

Serial Home Buyer

SF Skyscrapers, present and future...

Just received this link from a friend... Thanks, Nick!

Update: Turns out that my client actually saw this first on SocketSite... Here's the original post on their site... Say Hello To Your New SF Skyline [SocketSite]

Someone had some extra time on their hands (a couple of years ago now) and compiled data, images, and renderings for most, if not all, of San Francisco's most prominent recently constructed buildings dating back to about 2000, and looking forward as far as possible.

This includes commercial and residential and also includes some additional links when possible...

There's even a section on buildings that were never approved or just never built (due to lack of money in most cases).

SAN FRANCISCO Rundown: Recently Completed, Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed [SkyscraperPage Forum]

Then take it another step further with diagrams of each of San Francisco's skyscrapers (and other cities, too!), in descending order, beginning with the tallest... This search feature also includes a myriad of details on each building, such as height, architect, use, etc.

Pretty cool stuff!

Some thoughts on making our city more attractive

John King writes in today's SFGate about how our city is becoming threadbare and some possible solutions,

The problem with San Francisco's common ground -- streets and sidewalks and parks and squares -- is that too many other things clamor for our attention.

That glimpse of the bay pulls our eye past anemic street trees. We head to Point Reyes rather than some bedraggled neighborhood park. We're too busy with cell-phone chatter to notice the sorry state of s