On our tiny block in the Mission, there are currently four out of ten buildings undergoing conversion from rental after tenant buyouts. There were two buildings that were eviction to TIC converted a few years back. There are two historically owner occupied buildings, a flat in one of which we own. That leaves one, the largest, building as rental.

If this is representative of what's going on in the rest of the Mission, then the demographics in the Mission are going to change even more dramatically in short order than over the past decades.

Owners of TICs tend to be San Franciscans, mostly moderate to conservative, but still San Franciscans. Owners of new luxury construction do not tend to be San Franciscans. The argument that we build the latter to forestall the former just doesn't hold up.

-marc

Where did you get the idea you were entitled to live in San Francisco cheaply? Why can't you move to Vallejo or someplace where the rents are cheap? Your entitlement mentality is really quite disgusting. I hope Prop. 98 passes - it'll mean owners can finally make some money on their rental properties.

What makes you think you're entitled to live here just because you're rich, Shane? Why don't you move to some gated neighborhood in Florida where you don't have to put up with creative people trying to bring some soul to their community? I hope 98 goes down, so landlord can stop trading peoples' homes like commodities, trying to make a quick buck.

You're absolutely right, Steve. San Francisco rents are exploding, and I wrote a similar piece several months ago when (co-incidentally) I also was looking to move into a rental: http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5006

I'm APPALLED at how high the rents are right now, and going through the nerve-wracking process really brought the issue home for me in a big way. I ended up buying a place instead (I figured that if the price of having my own place was going to be that insane, I should at least become a homeowner.)

But let's be honest ... most people cannot under any reasonable circumstances buy real estate in this City. I was just insanely lucky for various reasons.

Somebody send Shane a care package. I suggest it includes a white hood, jackboots and a cattle prod, an outfit he should feel comfortable in.
Patrick Monk.RN. Noe Valley.

Shane, I never said I was entitled to live in San Francisco cheaply, but that's what I should be able to do because: a) I work here; b) I ride a bicycle and don't own a car; and c) I make around the median income for the city. San Francisco needs to ensure there is adequate housing for people like me so that I don't need to commute and burden our freeways or public transit systems. Vallejo is for people who work in Vallejo or for people like you who don't appreciate the realities of modern urban life, which among other things includes public interest restrictions on the use of private property.

Allow me to add another thesis here: High rents are bad for the local economy.

Some San Francisco landlords are small owners, who live in town, and use their income to support their families. But a significant percentage -- I would guess at least half -- are either (a) quite wealthy, and use thier rental income for long-term investments, or (b) out of towners who take the rent money somewhere else.

It's pretty well established that putting income in the hands of people who will spend it is the best way to boost a recessionary economy. Giving more money to the wealthy doesn't help much; adding to the gross stock of bond, mutual fund and offshore-investment ownership doesn't do much for San Francisco's economic growth.

And obviously, shipping money out of town keeps it from circulating here, where it will do some good.

If tenants have more money in their pockets, they'll spend it -- on clothing, on food, on restaurants and clubs, on retail shopping ... all things that create local jobs and improve the local economy. More money for tenants = better local economy. More money for landlords, over all, does not.

That's my thesis, and I'm sticking to it.

Tim, some of the strongest proponents of rent control in New York have been the largest department stores in Midtown Manhattan. For the exact reasons you cited.

Marke - those "homes" are not the property of the people who live in them, they're the property of those who bought and paid for them.

Patrick - please stop projecting your weird BDSM fantasies onto me.

Steven - you're correct, you should be able to live close to your work and biking is much more environmentally friendly than driving long distances. I recognize that. But guaranteeing massive numbers of rent-stabilized apartments for which the owners don't make a profit is also not the panacea that many see it as.

In NY, where I go to school, rent stabilized apartments end after the rent goes beyond $2200. Many say the vast numbers of rent stabilized apartments in Manhattan is the reason for the rental crisis in this city - there just aren't enough apartments coming online for the numbers of people who want to live in them. Is that fair to people, young people working their first jobs, who move to the city looking to live near their work? It's always a trade-off when the government attempts these types of social engineering measures.

Hey Mr Salomon,
When exactly does someone get to become a San Franciscan? Are you on the entrance exam board?
Better yet, how much time did it take you to be welcomed back to the San Franciscan clique after you moved back?

I think we can all agree that we dont want the "wrong kind" of people to just move here and be welcomed as San Franciscans just because they physically reside here.

Shane wrote: "I hope Prop. 98 passes - it'll mean owners can finally make some money on their rental properties." and - "those "homes" are not the property of the people who live in them, they're the property of those who bought and paid for them."

I think it should be pointed out to Shane that the property "bought and paid for" was at some point taken by force. Stolen from the people for the benefit of private interests which, by his various posts, Shane seems to be quite a cheerleader for.

I have always wanted to ask supporters/defenders of property owners that unless they own --which would explain their desire to maximize their profit-- do they think they are immune from being unable to pay the rent in the future? By supporting the free market and the right to profit --talk about entitlement-- do they believe that it will not turn against them? Do they believe that they will always be in the financial situation in there are now and are immune from the effects of Capitalism? Or will they take their advise to everyone else that they move some where else, being that they actually have the funds to relocate?

Sorry Shane, I do acknowledge that I have many wierd fantasies, some of which I've managed to realise over the last 60 years, but I'm not familiar with BDSM, could you explain and maybe share some examples from your own experiences, which are apparently far more extensive than mine.

Craigslist? Waste of time. Search for SF rentals on HotPads.com http://hotpads.com show a lot cheaper stuff and no SCAMS

Shane, in a more serious vein. For the sake of discussion I suggest that folks can be broken down into four general categories. Homeowners; Those who purchase a property essentially to provide a home for themselves and their family. Property Owners/Landlords; Those who purchase property for the purpose of making profit. Renters; Those who for whatever reason choose not to, or can not afford to, purchase property. Homeless; Those who for whatever reason can not even access even the bottom of the rental market.
Over thirty years ago when I lived in the San Juan's, on Orcas Island, many of us were concerned about the influx of 'off-islanders', the saying was "They keep making more people but we cant make more land'. Due to its geography San Francisco is, to some extent, an Island. Land is a finite and precious resource. Decades ago a few far-sighted folks anticipated the crisis we now face and fought for Rent Control. They have been fighting ever since in an attempt to preserve affordability and maintain the diversity that makes this such a wonderful city.
Unfortunately, as successive administrations have become increasingly beholden to the corporations, speculators and developers, those whose primary motivation is profit, our affordable housing stock has been cannibalised and no serious attempt has been made to replace it. A few non-profit affordable housing developers have done some great work, but it's just a drop in the bucket. The increasing number of homeless is testament to that, and no, most of them are not freeloaders and addicts, and even those few who are deserve decent care, shelter and respect as fellow human beings, "Inasmuch as you do it unto one of these....".
Our current administration is controlled by and promoting the interests of the corporate speculators and developers, despite the illusion they are trying to create with slick, glossy mailers and a multi-million dollar PR campaign. Does anyone really believe they are doing this on our behalf. We can not expect these profiteers to resolve the housing crisis we are in, why should they, their prime directive is the bottom line and that is profit.
One only has to look at the actions of Lennar if one has any doubt.
There are no easy solutions, we have allowed the situation to deteriorate to this state by not demanding accountability from our elected representatives and insisting that they serve the public's needs, not private greed.
In Bayview Hunters Point for example, there are many builders and community based developers who are fully capable of, and have been trying for years to get financing and city support for projects that would provide decent housing and revitalise the economy of the neighborhood. However this was contrary to the agenda of 'big money' and plans they have been pursuing for years to reclaim the area, especially the waterfront property, and institute a massive redevelopment project that would inevitably 'whitewash', gentrify and re-people the neighborhoods, resulting, yet again, in the obliteration of a predominantly Black and minority community and displacement of the residents. In furtherance of these goals the city has continued it's policies of neglect and marginalisation, and major financial institutions have continued their policy of redlining.
This shit has to stop if we are to have any hope of saving the heart and soul of our city. An approach has to formulated that is open to input from all stakeholders, not just the well connected PooBahs and community sell-outs with a vested financial interest.
So that's just another of my wierd flights of fancy and fantasy.
Patrick Monk.RN.
YES ON F. NO ON G.
YES ON 99. NO ON 98.
CINDY FOR CONGRESS.
TOM FOR ANYTHING.

If supply does not meet demand then prices will rise. SF rents are high because there are not enough rental units. There are not enough rental units because a large number of people who could actually afford to buy have done the math and have very very selfishly decided to continue to rent.

If they won't step up to the plate and voluntarily relinquish their rental by buying something else then I say, throw the bums out! So what if it doesn't make economic sense. So what if they end up with a smaller place in a less desirable neighborhood. They are spoiling it for everyone else. I propose that the current SF rent control ordinance be amended so that if your income is over 100K single, 150K couple, you are just not allowed to rent.

This simple change is long overdue and would bring rents down in a hurry.

Well that's certainly a novel interpretation of the situation, Salarywoman, and an intriguing idea. But I'd say the facts that nobody is building new rental housing (and the city is doing nothing to encourage it) and existing rental units are being converted into condos are probably bigger factors in stagnant supplies than the desire of rich people to remain renters. Generally, if someone can afford to buy (and your income cutoffs are wobblers in this housing market), they generally will because the tax codes encourage it and nobody likes to give their money to a landlord if they don't have to. Census data also shows that renters tend to be lower income than owners.
But I'm definitely with you on your desire to increase the rental supply. Any good ideas out there about how to do that?

Huh?

That was a joke.

Unfortunately what are not jokes are:
1) the political reality that open community input often means no affordable housing at all,
2) the economic reality that open community input, strict zoning and other tight planning controls mean high project costs.

Just a few.
Yes on F. No on G.
Stop redlining in BVHP.
Support smaller projects by local builders and developers.
Demand open community input on all projects.
City support for such projects including financing on reasonable terms
More support for non-profit affordable housing developers.
Public-Private affordable housing operation with transparency and accountability.
Require appropriate authorities to address decades of deferred maintenance in Public Housing.
Retrofit or replace existing as needed on a one to one basis, preferably create more units on same footprint.
Find a house in Blackhawk so Shane and Salarywoman can move out and move in together and quit their bitching.

You have a strange sense of humor, Salarywoman. I also don't really get your points that aren't jokes. How does "open community input" kill affordable housing and other projects? It seems to me that "tight planning controls" is the only way we're getting any affordable housing these days. Without city regulations and community input, developers would only build what is most profitable for them: million-dollar condos with few parks or other public amenities.