Live near the Panhandle? Wanna park in the DMV lot?

Looks like yet another push is being made to find a way to open the DMV lot on Broderick between Oak and Fell to parking again during non-business hours.

The lot was open in the late-1990s, but due (as always) to too many people not getting their cars out in the morning, they just shut it down. And with that, dozens of nearby residents were forced back onto the streets to find overnight parking.

The NOPNA blog has info on a potential re-opening as well as a link to a survey that you should fill out to give the powers-that-be your $0.02 about how important it is for you or your friends to have more parking near the Divisadero corridor...

Public Parking in the DMV lot [NOPNA blog]

Most S.F. kids get first choice for public school

Having many clients who are over-anxiously awaiting news of whether their child got into ANY of their chosen schools, it's good to hear that nearly 70% of kids this year got into their first choice!

I know more than one person that said they'd start planning their move out of the city if they didn't get into an acceptable school (notices are in the mail now and should arrive today or tomorrow).

Here's hoping everyone got what they wished for...

From SFGate this afternoon,

Nearly 70 percent of those San Francisco families that applied got their first choice of the city's public schools after the initial round of student assignments for the upcoming school year, district officials announced Friday morning.

Students are expected to receive a letter this weekend indicating to which school they were admitted.
District officials said a vast majority of students will be happy with the news.

Overall, 67 percent of incoming kindergarten, sixth grade and ninth grade students got their first choice, up from 62 percent last year.

And 87 percent of students got one of the up to seven choices they could list on the enrollment application, up from 84 percent last year. [more...]

Most S.F. kids get first choice for public school [SFGate]

Time to rethink housing policy: an editorial

Mike Sullivan from Plan C penned an editorial that ran in Thursday's Examiner, and is re-run on their own site. In it, he questions the need for the condominium lottery, given the dramatically lower incidence of no-fault evictions (see the graph at the left), and the many current laws that make post-eviction condo conversion very difficult, if not impossible.

From the Examiner,

TICs have been criticized by some who claim that they create incentives for evictions. However, while TIC sales surged over the last year, San Francisco’s rent board reported that evictions decreased in 2006. So-called “no-fault” evictions, such as evictions under California’s Ellis Act, decreased by more than 10 percent in 2006. Out of more than 200,000 rental units in San Francisco, there were just over 500 no-fault evictions in 2006 — a reduction of almost 60 percent from five years ago.

San Francisco passed legislation in 2006 to disqualify condo conversions for most buildings with Ellis Act and other no-fault evictions. This was intended to discourage building owners from evicting tenants to clear buildings for TIC formations (the thinking being that if owners knew that their units could never qualify for condo conversion, they would be less likely to evict tenants in the first place). However, the reduction in evictions reported above happened before this legislation was passed — meaning that evictions were headed downward even before the punitive legislation was passed.

What these numbers together tell us is that San Franciscans are finding ways to create homeownership opportunities through TICs without evictions. That’s a very good thing for San Francisco. [more...]

With more than 1700 TIC units sitting in the lottery queue right now (nearly all of them OWNER OCCUPIED), and only 200 conversions allowed per year, it will still NINE YEARS to clear that backlog, and that's only if nobody else enters the lottery.

And we all know that won't be the case.

So if those units are already off of the rental market and will never be rentals again (at least not for any less money than they'd be if they were condo-converted), why punish those who live there? Remember, these are struggling San Francisco families, many of whom have been LONG TIME San Francisco tenants.

I know it's nothing but pure comedy to think that our current crop of 'Supes would even so much as read this editorial, let alone consider it (why let reality get in the way of political agenda?). But since people love graphs and statistic, Mr. Sullivan puts them down and argues fairly against condo conversion restrictions.

If only those 1700+ TIC owners (plus probably 2000 more that haven't met their residency requirement yet, but will be entering the lottery in the next couple of years) had half the time that the tenant activists do to swirl up a storm of publicity. Then we might actually see some changes. But for whatever reason, homeowners in this town just don't see the importance of the grassroots efforts. They just aren't willing to take the time.

And until they do, we'll continue to watch the tenant majority have its way at the polls each and every election.

Time to rethink The City’s housing policy [Examiner]
Plan C SF [official site]

(image courtesy of Plan C)

Don't be late for Sunday Open Houses... Daylight Savings Time is this weekend!

Just a reminder that we get to 'spring forward' at 2am on Sunday morning this weekend, March 11th.

You've probably been deluged with reminders that you may have a near-Y2K situation on their your hands technology-wise, but I thought I'd throw yet another reminder out as well.

I'm just looking forward to possibly having enough time to walk the dog while there's still some daylight left after work on Sundays again...

Get Ready For The Big Time Switch [CBS News]

Planning commission meets about Armory on March 8th

Thanks to Socketsite for catching this one...

Looks like the Planning Commission is giving both the NIMBYs and the NITBYs a chance to voice their opinions on the past, present, and future use of the Armory at 14th & Mission.

The meeting is on Thursday, March 8th @ 10AM, and the agenda is nothing more than "1800 MISSION STREET - southwest corner of Mission and 14th Street - Informational hearing on the occupancy of the Mission Armory by a film production studio (d.b.a. kink.com)".

Informational hearing? I think this is just a chance for those far and wide to try to stop a legal and allowable use of a building that was fought over for too damn long.

I think what Peter Ackworth (owner of kink.com) did was brilliant. But despite his following all available rules and laws, as well as going above and beyond to be a good neighbor, people just won't acknowledge that they blew it.

Fight about something for long enough, and you lose that opportunity forever.

Let this be a lesson learned.

Or on the other hand, perhaps this will be yet another lesson learned for those that dare challenge the progressive activist community...

And if you can't be there in person, watch it live on SFGTV...

Notice of Special Meeting [SFGov]
The pornographer's purchase of the Armory faces more roadblocks [SFBG]
NITBY: a new category of obstructionist? [SFHomeBlog]
Porn wins, housing loses [SFHomeBlog]

Free Muni ride? It's possible, says Newsom

No kidding?

Check out the piece on SFGate today...

It's not affordable housing, but it's a start!

Free Muni ride? It's possible, says Newsom [SFGate]

More shortsightedness from the 'Supes

Nothing that comes out of the Board of Supervisors surprises me anymore. Especially when it comes to housing or real estate.

But this one makes very little sense to me. And it obviously made very little sense to at least one 'normally progressive' supervisor, as their usual 8-4 vote ended up 6-5, with one supervisor (not sure who it was) skipping the vote. And the odd man out this time (voting against the legislation)? Sandoval. The same guy who laments the construction of high rises as he drives into town from his district (Excelsior, Ingleside, Crocker Amazon, Outer Mission)...

From today's SFGate,

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors narrowly approved legislation today that would require property owners to obtain special approval before demolishing any residential structure in the city.

In a close 6-5 vote, the board adopted the measure proposed by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who argued it is needed to save affordable housing from being knocked and redeveloped for sale at prices out of reach of most San Franciscans.

"The majority of market-rate homes for sale in San Francisco are priced out of the reach of low and moderate-income households," Maxwell said.

The measure was opposed by property owners and developers, including the Residential Builders Association.
Voting against the ordinance were Supervisors Bevan Dufty, Sean Elsbernd, Ed Jew, Gerardo Sandoval and Michela Alioto-Pier.

The legislation is a six-month interim measure to require Planning Commission approval in the form of a conditional use permit for demolition of any residential dwelling -- but both foes and supporters said it could be extended or made permanent.

Decisions by the Planning Commission to issue a conditional use permit for a residential demolition could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

So now the 'supes want to be planners. Note that last sentence. If the Planning Commission lets a demolition permit go through, the 'supes can still hear the case (at the request of ANYONE OR THEIR UNCLE) and shoot it down.

I see nothing but gridlock out of this one.

And once again, who loses? It's less-often that a low-income family occupies one of these buildings. Usually what gets torn down are places that have been abandoned, or owner-occupied places where the owners are moving out of town, etc. And when a small single family home comes down, what replaces it? MULTIPLE UNITS. That's right, Wilbur, more housing units than existed before. Who's losing now? Those same folks that the legislation pretends to protect.

So again, I'm not in the least bit surprised, but this is yet another example of the law of unintended consequences. Supervisor Maxwell probably wanted to help out a couple of her constituents without truly understanding what this means for the city as a whole.

You can already hear the buzz of another dozen pickup trucks heading out of town as those contractors and developers go in search of friendlier climates to build housing...

As an aside, let's look at the straight economics of this legislation. If you have a 1000sqft single family home on a 2500 sqft lot, it's entirely possible that a demolition of that house will result in 4 units being built, EACH with nearly the same living area as the original house. At the same time, the cost of building new construction is DRAMATICALLY lower than the cost of remodeling, so you're actually keeping costs LOWER by demolishing that little house. And don't even get me started on the heating or other inefficiencies of these otherwise tear-downs...

Where you previously housed one family of two or three, you can now house FOUR families of two or three. But as usual, that's just crazy talk!

So while it seems possible to the uneducated bystander (or a Supervisor) that restricting demolition permits will somehow 'save' housing, you're actually keeping badly needed housing units from being built at lower costs, thereby screwing your neediest constituents even more!

One option is for the city to start building more some any affordable housing. But we all know the likelihood of that happening in our lifetimes.

C'mon 'Supes! What about all of that surplus property?!?

SF OKs law on demolition of residential structures [SFGate]
Surplus property ordinance may soon bear fruit [SFHomeBlog]
NITBY: a new category of obstructionist? [SFHomeBlog]

If you do fall behind...

Personally, I don't see a wave of foreclosures hitting San Francisco anytime soon. I know that there are those who keep reminding us of the gazillions of adjustable rate mortgages that will eventually start adjusting, etc, but that's a discussion for another post, perhaps.

Meanwhile, life does happen, and there are many reasons why a homeowner might miss a payment or two, or just find that they can no longer afford to make timely payments.

There's another article today on SFGate that has some nice information on what to do if you start to fall behind in your payments, for whatever reason. I have often posted about this, including here, here, and here.

This information is very important, as it turns out that people tend to curl up in the fetal position rather than deal with the problem. And that's what will lead to a foreclosure. Usually there's plenty of time to solve any problems with your lender, make arrangements for a payment plan, or just get the house on the market and sell to salvage your equity.

From today's SFGate,

If you fall behind in your mortgage payments, it's important to take action. Talk to your lender and seek a good nonprofit credit counselor or bankruptcy attorney.

Your best course of action will depend on whether your financial difficulties are likely to be temporary or long term, and whether you have any equity in your house.

Equity is how much you would have left after you sold your house and paid all closing costs and mortgage balances.

If your financial difficulties are likely to be long term and you have equity in your home, consider selling the house and preserving your stake, says Jack Guttentag, a former finance professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. If you have equity and think your financial difficulties will be short term, consider taking out a home equity loan and using it to pay your mortgage until you are back on your feet. [more...]

The important thing to remember is not to run from the issue. Work out solutions as soon as possible. And if you've owned your home for more than a few months (and didn't overpay by getting sucked into a completely crazy multiple-offer scenario when you bought), you might be able to get your entire investment/downpayment back, if not with a little profit as well.

The longer you wait and/or deny the problem, the worse it gets...

Act fast if behind on mortgage [SFGate]
Survey Asks Why More Delinquent Borrowers Don't Call Lenders For Help [SFHomeBlog]
California Foreclosure Activity Up, But Still Near Historic Lows [SFHomeBlog]
How to Avoid Foreclosure [SFHomeBlog]

NITBY: a new category of obstructionist?

You've heard of NIMBY's, right? a.k.a. Not In My Back Yard...

Today's world seems to have spawned a new type of activist, the NITBY: Not In THEIR Back Yard.

Used to be that the only people who knew or cared about developments, neighborhood issues, zoning changes, etc., were the people who lived close enough to be directly impacted.

But now it's enough that someone who drives into San Francisco and sees the skyline feels that they are impacted enough to raise a stink over the construction of current and future high rises.

Including our very own Supervisor Sandoval. I'd even venture to say that our 'supes are the ultimate NITBYs.

There's a quote from Supervisor Aaron Peskin in today's San Francisco Business Times, "These are provocative changes to the San Francisco skyline," said Peskin. "(Supervisor) Gerardo Sandoval said it best when he said that as he drives to work from the south side of the city, he can't help but wonder if we made the right decision. I think every San Franciscan is asking those questions."

What happened to just focusing on things that directly affected you (and/or your direct constituents)?

Could it be the result of the prevalence of blogs (like this one)? :-)

Or just that folks have WAY too much free time on their hands...

Skyscraper foes raise objections to highrises [SF Business Times]