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

Calling people "psychopaths" and "sick" for disagreeing with you is inimical to the friendly spirit of respect which should be encouraged on this site. Let's be respectful of our differences - celebrate diversity!

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 13, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

Hi, here is the prospect of a policy that will open the door to even more evictions, and would like you like a kick in the nuts with that?

Posted by marcos on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:06 am

All it does is help some SF residents while not affecting the rest.

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

It screws over middle class owners because it forces them out or reasonable rentals, which are removed from the market forever.

Then it screws over middle class buyers buy conning them into a problematic TIC fractional ownership.

Then it screws over middle class buyers again when the TIC is converted to a market rate condo, out of their price range once again.

So you have a lot of homeless former renters who were to smart to fall for the con.

You have a lot of upset dumb TIC buyers who are experiencing significant buyers remorse.

And you have a lot of formerly rent controlled units magically transformed to market rate by a corrupt condo conversion.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:29 am

bill which will help those middle class TIC-owners that you claim to care for.

It won't affect rentals since very few TIC's are rented out anyway.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:48 am

Doesn't matter if I like TICs or not.

The TIC owners themselves are screaming to be let out of them.

If they knew what a TIC was going in they would have never bought.

Your problem is the dumb money has been all cleaned out.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

bought TIC's and find themselves stuck because they are not wealthy people, but often renters taking their first step into the RE market. This measure won't help millionaires - it will help renters achieve home ownership rather than clinging lifelong to their grubby rent controlled hovel.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 12:18 pm

Dumb and money don't mix. Of course TIC owners are stuck. If you feel sorry for them give them their money back.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

city residents even if you'd rather crow at them for not being renters any more.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

Lets clear up else here. Anyone who made it a choice of profession to develop convoluted ways to evict and destroy normal people is NOT MY FRIEND.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 10:52 am

I've never met anyone who has lived their whole life in the same place. Change and move is inevitable. While locking everything into stasis leads to a sclerotic society and economy.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 11:00 am

Sounds like someone out there in D2 is sitting on unsellable TIC inventory.

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

The single greatest threat to tenants is our city's refusal to build more housing supply. We should protect rent control but repeal laws that make it hard to build. More housing = lower rents. Simple.

Everyone understands supply and demand, until we start talking about parking spaces and apartments, and everyone goes crazy. But it's generally understood that if no one let you make more bags of Doritos (for example), people who wanted Doritios would have no choice but to stand in line and bid against each other. (Assuming there was no substitute for Doritos. Which is true for housing.)

Our nostalgia for the idyllic postcard San Francisco of the 70s is very sweet, but it's hurting people and wrecking our city's diversity. And I don't just mean racial or ethnic diversity, but the kind of the diversity where a tech professional, a teacher, a shop owner, an EMT, a builder, an illustrator, and a car mechanic can all afford to live in the same neighborhood. Where do those people live now? If we don't get serious about building places for people to live, we're going to be a city of no one but UX designers and bartenders.

Posted by Steve Simitzis on Jun. 18, 2012 @ 11:46 pm