Why I hope Sup. Farrell is wrong about condos

|
(213)

So Sup. Mark Farrell thinks the Board of Supervisors is ready to turn its back on the tenants movement and vote for legislation that would increase evictions, eliminate rental housing and undermine one of the most important pieces of tenant legislation to come out of City Hall in decades?

Gawd, I hope he's wrong.

From the Examiner:

Similar proposals have gone nowhere at City Hall. Farrell acknowledged it has been a “third rail,” but he suggested the political climate has shifted. “This is a different Board of Supervisors and this is a different time,” Farrell said.

Yeah, it's a different Board of Supervisors. Five years ago, the 8 Washington project would never have been approved in its current form. Five years ago, Ed Lee wouldn't have been elected mayor.

But I don't think this board is ready to abandon the tenant vote.

Making condo conversions easier is a huge deal. When San Francisco put a limit on condo conversions more than 20 years ago, it was a landmark law that put the preservation of affordable, rent-controlled housing over the needs of speculators. Over the past decade, the single greatest threat to tenants in this city is Ellis-Act evictions done to create tenancies in common. And the only check on more of that happening is the disincentive posed by the limits on condo conversions.

If Farrell gets his way, and TIC owners can bypass the conversion lottery, tenant organizations will be furious. There are, at best, five reliable pro-landlord votes on the board, so It's not going to happen without either David Chiu, Christina Olague or Jane Kim siding with Farrell. A lot of things suprise me in local politics, but that would be a shocker.

 

Comments

Did someone say "markets?"

Every time a landlord uses that word I laugh.

The American real estate market is the most heavily subsidized, manipulated in the whole world.

End the mortgage tax deduction and see what happens to your "markets."

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 10:26 am

not tax deductible and yet the market for multi-million homes is actually healthier than those for whom a smaller mortgage is needed.

Plus, the UK got rid of tax deductions for mortgages years ago, and they had a home price booj just the same as we did.

But, hey, good luck persuading any politican to adopt that idea when 70% of Americans are owner occupiers.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 10:58 am

Which is why I laugh when landlords use the word "market."

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:39 am

and you wouldn't expect it to be. But if and when you ever buy a house, you'll discover it is a highly competitive market nonetheless. There are distortions, such as transfer tax and, insome cases, CGT. But overall it's a free market. If you don't like markets, that's your right but there isn't much in the way of government housing in the US. The "projects" are way out of fashion.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:52 am

Most would agree with me that 96.8% would qualify as a nationalized market....

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/problem-is/28420/us-government-now-96-5-...

(US Government Now 96.5% of the Mortgage Market Q1, 2010)

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:59 pm

Hey Tim, why is this a different Board of Supervisors? Who had our back on that and why have I felt cold steel sinking in between my shoulder blades for the past few years?

Posted by marcos on Jun. 12, 2012 @ 9:25 am

I know the past boards weren't perfect, Marc, but I think even the likes of McGoldrick, Sandoval and Maxwell would have been slow to take a direct move against the tenants likes this.

 

Posted by tim on Jun. 12, 2012 @ 11:03 am

Why do you make everything a class struggle?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2012 @ 11:14 am

class struggle

Posted by Greg on Jun. 12, 2012 @ 11:40 am
Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2012 @ 11:52 am

I'm so tired of real estate conmen getting into my face about marxism while their ponzi real estate market is financed 90% by GSEs and the Federal Government.

Can't wait for mortgage standards to finally tighten. Then the TIC criminals will really SCREAM. You can't delay it forever...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230482130457743873154672917...

(Regulators Delay Mortgage Rules)

"Currently, around nine in 10 new mortgages are issued with some form of federal guarantee."

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 10:42 am
Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 10:59 am

Didn't say I wanted to dismantle GNMA. I said you are a Marxist welfare queen.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:09 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:13 pm

I think you miss MY point. You ARE a welfare queen if are taking mortgage assistance from the government, like 90% of all mortgages since 2008.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:27 pm

certain behaviors that make society more stable like, er, homeownership?

Shocking, I know.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:36 pm

I don't see how inventory of millions of vacant unsellable empty neighborhoods is creating a more stable society.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 10:57 am

If it's not selling, it's priced wrong.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:08 am

Which is why you need the condo conversion because TICs are "priced wrong."

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:41 am

Not the same thing. Maybe I should have said "affordable" Liberals like that word better.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:55 am

TICs are priced according to the difficulty of obtaining financing and the risks of that form of ownership.

I am so glad that our two unit condo building HOA has to operate on consensus as there are only two equal votes and that the HOA ends where our inside walls begin.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

structure are reflected in their price, which is why they are affordable to many.

Obviously your condo situation is preferable which is precisely why Farrell wants to help others achieve what you already have. Problem?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:25 pm

The market always prices everything correctly, that's why we never have asset bubbles.

To even suggest that this is not the case is to spit in the Face of God Himself.

Just ask the megabanks who are holding trillions in toxic mortgage swill, marked to fantasy model (Mr. Roarke, Tattoo?) and are demanding that taxpayers keep those prices inflated, just as the market would want them to.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:31 pm

Which is why prices can and do move even in the most efficient, liquid and transparent markets.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

Well you said "wrongly."

If people really knew what they would be getting into TICs would be even cheaper.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

I see no evidence of that, and in fact the disclosure requirements for a home purchase are formidable.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:26 pm

The fact that you are screaming for condo conversions is evidence of that.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 1:08 pm

" in fact the disclosure requirements for a home purchase are formidable."

"Formidable." Talking like that is how you sell TICs to unsophisticated buyers?

I dare you to put in writing your sales talk about condo conversions.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2012 @ 11:42 am

The question was how did we, as progressives, get from a board that you reference above which would not move against tenants to one where this measure might very well pass?

Posted by marcos on Jun. 12, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

saw last November, are over 60% moderate, not left-wing. Those few years when lefties controlled the board were a historical aberaation

Posted by Guest on Jun. 12, 2012 @ 6:37 pm

If by "leftie" you mean "honest" and by "the board" you mean the board of supervisors, not the board of realtors.

The only thing that will stop real estate criminals from tearing this entire world apart with their truely stupid housing schemes is to club them like baby seals.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 10:45 am

have to say that I've never met one. That said, they usually lie to themselves as much as to anyone else.

Good luck winning elections on a platform that home ownership is a bad thing.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 11:00 am

Since housing prices always go up and never go down, yes, I agree, nobody will ever vote against home ownership.

http://hotpads.com/search#lat=37.770443352285376&lon=-122.44760513305664...

Posted by marcos on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 11:15 am

Speaking of real estate prices: How much has your mission district condo appreciated since you purchased it Marcos?

Posted by Greg on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 11:21 am

opportunistically appropriate it.

It's in a crap neighborhood.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 11:33 am

Of course, my personal homeownership status determines how everyone else votes.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 11:39 am
Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

might go up in value. They buy homes because they don't want to rent.

But in the long run, home prices will track incomes, since mortgages are based on ability to borrow.

Does that help?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 11:24 am

Is that some NAR talking point?

"Don't buy a home because you think it will go up in value."

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 11:32 am

I buy a home because renting is for losers.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 11:44 am

Losing your life savings to a fraudulent pick a pay is hardly most people's definition of winning.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

deserve to. Our society doesn't reward stupidity - maybe you should move to France.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

You have changed your tune.

"Bail me out by changing the condo conversion laws."

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 10:17 am

That's not how I see it. It's simply a way of making life better for a segment of our residents that really doesn't have any downside. Nobody will be worse off as a result, and the city will get more fees and property taxes. Everyone wins.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 10:29 am

It is a TOTAL BAILOUT from a fatally flawed, retarded financial structure and I fully agree with you that people who speculate in real estate deserve to lose their life savings.

Condo conversions have LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of downside. TICs are for people who can't afford condos, and when you convert TICs to condos YOU DON"T HAVE ANYMORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

Your filthy TIC slimeball attorney is playing you for a FOOL.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:04 am

have bought TIC's being allowed to condo converts removes any middle-class housing.

Until you can demonstrate that connection, your objection to this measure is unconvincing.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:07 am

TICs are deemed "affordable" when compared to more expensive condos, at least that is what the TIC boosters say.

When TIC's are converted from less expensive to more expensive forms of ownership, then that makes them less affordable to the next buyer and reduces the supply of more affordable housing options.

But the TIC converter and their attorneys and real estate agents get their cut, so there's that.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:19 am

Condo's are pricier, homes more so again. So it helps those who want to buy but don't have so much capital or income, like you.

A flat that is rented out is only cheaper than the same rent that is owned as a TIC because of the tenants in there or, more accurately, because of the laws that give a tenant effectively a lifetime lease after 30 days.

Odd and undesirable forms of ownership only happen in response to odd and undesirable laws.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:43 am

Are you serious?

By definition when you convert a cheaper TIC to a market rate condo you remove that TIC from the market.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 1:15 pm