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

inhibiting opportunities for affordable home ownership in SF.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

The only problem with them is the city reg's and restrictions, not the principle.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 2:41 pm

"But owning a TIC is still better than renting. Almost anything is."

Laughing now.

http://www.trulia.com/blog/syed_atiq/2012/05/mortgage_guidelines_resume_...

(Mortgage Guidelines Resume Tightening Nationwide)

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:00 pm

doesn't feel like he's a 21 year old broke loser.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

Nobody "owns" TICs. They own shares in a corporation that owns a building. Thus, their "landlord" is the corporation and unless it is a 2 unit building, their landlord can be a majority of other shareholders in the TIC structure.

TIC owners thus feel like 31 year old suckers, having been desperate enough to buy into an ownership structure where they have no control over their unit and no legal right of occupancy for that unit as one who owns a home does.

That is why the TIC shareholders are so eager to convert to condo, so all they have to answer to is the HOA for purely common matters and have a legally binding right to occupancy.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

partnership. Moreover the owners write their own TIC agreement; no outsider does as in a rental lease.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

The original incorporators of the TIC write the rules, subsequent purchasers, if they can finance such a sham, are subject to the existing structure.

I can't see how TICs are more affordable if the uncertainty of having strangers control your housing requires a larger down payment than many mortgages do.

TICs are much more profitable for the speculators and RE boosters to be sure.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 2:14 pm

free to negotiate new terms as long as they are in agreement.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

No, there is no corporation involved in a TIC. You are describing a co-op, not a TIC. TIC partners jointly own the building, with the right to occupy one of the units and one vote per unit.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 8:20 am

corporation. And a TIC agreement can be changed as long as 51% or more of the ownership agrees.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 9:08 am

Which is why they are praying for a condo lottery bail out?

Most real estate agents I know are far better liars that you.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:34 pm

and in fact the city will make money on the deal

There is no downside, and nobody is disadvantaged by allowing a condo fastrack to these people who are infortunate accidental victims of government over-regulation.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

Its a bail out if you need the gubbment to change the laws to keep you from losing your a$$ in a bad real estate deal.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 1:06 pm

freeing many SF voters from the consequences of SF policies.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

"the consequences of SF policies."

talking like that is how you sell TICs to morons, huh?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 1:40 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

The cost is that, according to your very own selling points, TICs were designed for buyers who otherwise could not afford to buy in SF and if you turn them into condos then they will jump to a higher market rate and become unaffordable to future middle income buyers.

Are we really so stupid we don't see through your sick claims to be concerned for middle income buyers, you filthy real estate scumbag?

Does a comet have to crash into the earth before these crazy real estate psychopaths stop their insane depredations?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 4:45 pm

being condemned to a lifetime of tenant serfdom.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

I guess they're "serfs" because they won't buy your crappy TICs?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 10:48 am

shows you that your opinion isn't widely held.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:01 am

You said yourself people who speculate in real estate are free to lose their life savings, because there is ridiculous inventory of TICs right now.

Speaking of real estate speculation, guess what is on the market again?

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/06/third_time_up_at_1581_masonic_y...

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:23 am

Most TIC's aren't on the market and, for people who simply want to live in them, it's not a problem. It would still be better to give them condo status, as that will make them less dependent on their co-owners.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:46 am

Smarter people know TICs are an absurd way to hold property and the only way they make sense is as a necessary middle step to market rate.

Your problem is that the dumb money has been scooped up and someone in D2 is bagholding unbooked TIC losses somewhere.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:20 pm

priced in. You get what you pay for.

But if you dislike TIC's that much, then email Farrell with your support for this change.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:28 pm

Smart people avoid TICs but con artists flock to them hoping to score with a condo conversion.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

Plan C hacks feelin' the heat...

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

trying to frustrate home ownership in America, then my advice is not to seek public office.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

If you want to seek public office why not keep insulting and attacking the 2/3 of SF voters who are renters?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

Many of which would gladly become owners if we would move policies into a direction that encourages ownership.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 1:58 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 2:41 pm

Most of whom are way to smart to fall for a TIC scam.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 4:22 pm

It's helping them achieve home ownership.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

It is helpful because we need more market rate housing?

TIC to condo scams are hardly helpful.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 1:41 pm

Look it up then and good luck weaseling out of your TIC.

http://www.plancsf.org/

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

But I do feel for those SF residents for whom that's the only form of home ownership they can achieve, and I'm not clear on why you are down on that.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

I'm down on it because it is an inane form of financing that only works if you can figure out some way to weasel out of it.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 1:42 pm

I've converted two TIC buildings to condo's. It's fine, just takes too long, This new law will address that remedy.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 2:40 pm

TICs work if you can convert to condos. Is that how you sold them? I bet you didn't put that in writing.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

Have you heard of a book called "The Psychopath Test?"

I ask because according to the book, if you cannot see the inherent fraud of selling a TIC based on the false promise of an unlikely condo conversion, that makes you a psychopath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Psychopath_Test

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

Your argument is so flawed it might be psychopathic.

Because there is a shortage of SF housing for middle income earners, you will evict them and force a certain percent into shaky TICs based on the false promise of a condo conversion, which if it did happen would drive up the cost of housing all over again for middle earners...

...most of whom were already driven to cities such as Los Vegas, where they lost their life savings.

Gosh. You are such a competent housing policy advisor. Just what we need now.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 4:57 pm

then there is no issue with TIC's. It's only city regs that make them undesirable.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 5:46 pm

The purpose of TICs is to increase ownership opportunities for middle income buyers.

If they all get converted to condos, are we not back to square one?

This business model is so breathtakingly flawed it had to have come from the same damaged vultures who invented option ARMs.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 10:32 am

But as a bubble model, it is tried and true. Hype up a product, buy in thousands of desperate people, marshall them when they realize that they've been had to make good on the broken promises by changing the rules and screw everyone but the RE professionals in the process.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 10:38 am

it's a form of ownership. If you people buy a single family home and don't own it as joint tenants, then it's a TIC. In fact, any asset can be owned TIC - it just means shared ownership.

So it's ridiculous to talk about getting rid of TIC's as that is a legal concept and not a property type. There's only a problem here because the city inteferes with the natural progression of multi-units from rentals to condo's. That also wouldn't matter if we were building new rentals, but of course we aren't because of rent control.

So it all comes back to unfair, punitive city regulations, and rolling back at least some of them is a start. But nobody will be forced to convert and some buildings may go back to being rentals if a TIC doesn't work out.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 10:58 am

If the path from TIC to condo conversion is eased, then more rent controlled tenants will suffer evictions in order to create more TICs as the precedent will be set which will open the floodgates.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:03 am

if you vacate a building thru Ellis or multiple OMI's, then you can never condo convert.

While it's perfectly legal to Ellis and TIC anyway; this measure won't change that. You can't force owners to be a landlrod if they dont want to.

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

"People misunderstand what a TIC is."

Because if their agents explained it to them they would never buy them.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

understand there is a path to condo conversion. This measure accelerates that path but it's there anyway, but just currently takes 5 to 10 years, without any good reason. So get rid of the delay.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how converting affordable TICs to market rate condos is helpful to middle income families.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 1:44 pm

I somehow doubt that claim is included in the disclosure.

"...understand there is a path to condo conversion."

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 1:50 pm