Condo bypass legislation now before the full board

|
(196)

Controversial condominium lottery bypass legislation -- sponsored by Sups. Mark Farrell and Scott Wiener but substantially modified by tenant group that strongly opposed the original legislation, with the help of Sup. David Chiu, Jane Kim, and Norman Yee -- is finally coming to the full Board of Supervisors today (Tues/7, starting at 2pm).

Those involved in the negotiations say the legislation will likely to be returned to the Land Use Committee because of amendments being introduced today that the City Attorney’s Office has deemed substantial enough to require another public hearing. [UPDATE: The board voted unanimously to send this back to committee, which will consider it on Monday the 13th].They include a provision pushed by tenant groups that would scuttle the lottery bypass if the 10-year lottery moratorium is challenged in court. 

That moratorium was pushed by tenants and their supporters as a tradeoff for letting a backlog of around 2,000 tenancy-in-common owners buy their way out of the city’s lottery for the annual allowed conversion of 200 TICs into condominiums, which are more valuable and easier to sell and finance than TICs.

Farrell told the Guardian late last week that he was still negotiating with both sides and hopeful that he might be able to support the legislation, despite the hostile amendments that Chiu made which were opposed by Farrell and Wiener in committee.

San Francisco Tenants Union head Ted Gullicksen told us that the tenants’ side was willing to accept a couple of the technical amendments that Farrell proposed during negotiations with them, including exempting from the bypass fee the 19 building that have awaited conversion the longest and allowing some owner-occupier changes as the bypass is phased in over six years.

He said Farrell also proposed that if less than 2,000 condos opt for the bypass, then the difference in numbers would be added to the allowable number of condos in the first year that the lottery is restored, which the tenants’ groups haven’t yet agreed to.

Farrell and Wiener are also expected to offer other amendments, but the tenant groups have said they’ve gone as far as they’re willing to in allowing any increase in condo conversions, and they seem to have six solid votes lined up on the board.

Yet it’s still an open question how new amendments might affect those political dynamics, how the real estate industry (which simply wants as many condo conversions as possible) will respond, whether Mayor Ed Lee (who has avoided taking a position on the legislation) will sign or veto whatever emerges, and whether whoever is left unsatisfied by this deal will try to go to the ballot.

In other words, there may be some tricky political maneuvering ahead, so stay tuned. 

Comments

Nightmare that never ends....ha ha there simply are not enough jails for you people. To quote a phrase for the recent media "it takes some big testicles" to go to renters to bail you out of your mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_foreclosure_crisis

"The terms "robo-signing" and "robo-signers" then gained wider exposure by mortgage fraud activists Michael Redman and Lisa Epstein via their blogs.[13] "Robo-signing" is a term used by consumer advocates to describe the robotic process of the mass production of false and forged execution of mortgage assignments, satisfactions, affidavits, and other legal documents related to mortgage foreclosures and legal matters being created by persons without knowledge of the facts being attested to. It also includes accusations of notary fraud wherein the notaries pre- and/or post-notarize the affidavits and signatures of so-called robo-signers."

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 6:58 am

Home prices have largely recovered.

You exaggerate the problem, which was mostly about borrowers not thinking and not reading their contracts.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 7:10 am
Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 12:52 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:05 pm

with the subsidy? Goodbye QE, hello 2008, 1929 or worse.

Late stage finance capitalism is terminally ill. The symptoms are like whackamole. USA, EU, Cypress, PIGS. Push the mole down somewhere, he pops up somewhere else. The only consistency is massive unemployment and underemployment in these economies. The die is cast. We live in historic times.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:12 pm

It aims at increasing lending and investment in productive capacity, thereby boosting profits and hiring.

You can persist in your doomsday scenario if you want, but frankly, I'm too busy living the American dream to take any notice of misery merchants.

Hey, move to Cuba.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

Where is the productive capacity in deriviatves and other exotic financial instruments that constitute much of the profit centers of this moribund economy?

Without subsidy from the Fed at the expense of the vast majority, the Ponzi scheme falls apart.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:55 pm

murfippigough xaikalitag choisdise http://usillumaror.com - iziananatt weicPrayece http://gussannghor.com acashecdode

Posted by Demaemiainbwjgu on May. 07, 2013 @ 2:01 pm

murfippigough xaikalitag choisdise http://usillumaror.com - iziananatt weicPrayece http://gussannghor.com acashecdode

Posted by Demaemiainbwjgu on May. 07, 2013 @ 2:01 pm

Not sure what you all mean by "secure future."

"It is hard to dispute that if you own a residential property in any of the 50 states its value is being held up by the whim of politicians and central bankers."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5ac969ec-a1c3-11e2-ad0c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz...

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 2:08 pm

the mortgage, havetaken no subsidies or bailouts, and have no interest in selling so the current valuation doesn't bother me.

The demand for SF homes is real enough.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 2:30 pm

As a homeowner and you sound very nose-in-the-air about it, you have subsidies through CA Proposition 13 or have you conveniently forgotten about the subsidies (bailouts) to homeowners and to the wealthy?

Let's get rid of Proposition 13 so that homeowners can finally begin to pay their fair share.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 3:12 pm

Actually homeowners now bare a larger share of the tax burden than they did when Prop 13 was passed thanks to businesses using the ability to transfer ownership through minority-owned trusts and thus avoid reappraisal. The property tax burden has increasingly shifted to homeowners.

Your comment is nonsensical and wrong. If you buy a home now in San Francisco at the average price of $780,000 you're paying a property tax bill of over $10,000 per year to the city and county. That doesn't seem to me to be anything less than the homeowner's "fair share."

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 07, 2013 @ 3:25 pm

"... If you buy a home now in San Francisco at the average price of $780,000 you're paying a property tax bill of over $10,000 per year to the city and county."

Doesn't sound middle class to me.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 3:35 pm
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 07, 2013 @ 3:49 pm

"“We are middle-class families that want to stay in The City..."

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/development/2013/01/san-francisco-condo-...

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 4:17 pm

It's the poor that cannot.

The average 75K a year means you can afford SF. Just.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 5:14 pm

Had to look that one up to make sure it was you, not me....

" San Francisco's 32.7 percent gap separating income and housing leads the pack when it comes to unaffordability. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/most-expensive-city_n_2002532.html

Most Expensive City In America: San Francisco Most Unaffordable City For Home Ownership

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 8:05 pm

and clearly they are because the vacancy rate is low.

Affordable means "can be afforded" by enough people. It doesn't mean that everyone can afford to live here, and some people would be happier in Oakland.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 5:15 am

Now I'm TOTALLY confused because I thought the issue was a BAIL OUT for TIC owners. If SF is "affordable" why do we need to bail these things out?

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 10:52 am

bnk decides not to foreclose on a defaulter) and simply enabling homeowners to get a better deal on a mortgage.

We're not bailing anyone out here - in fact the city will make money in fees.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 11:10 am

I don't understand how allowing investors to change the terms of their loan after the fact can NOT be a bail out. Greedy pigs.

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2013 @ 10:57 pm

There would instead by a refi to a new loan. Refi's happen all the time.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 6:07 am

This isn't about refi because if you listen to the crazies no bank in this whole wide world will refinance one.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 7:17 am

Doozie of a deal too: 3.25% fixed for 30 years, fully tax-decutible.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 2:39 pm

Remember that the property tax is deductible on your federal and state returns and so, assuming a 40% marginal rate, you're looking at maybe $500 a month, capped at 2% a year forever. The average SF'er can afford that.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 4:06 pm

Even though they both work the same way?

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 4:12 pm

I would prefer that renters not subsidize homeowners, so we should eliminate prop 13. We should eliminate all tax deductions, and make EVERYONE pay the same % of income, including dividends, capital gains and estates. Everyone pays, everyone is equal.

Posted by Richmondman on May. 11, 2013 @ 5:52 am

least distortions. Everyone pays something and the rich still pay more.

I'd be willing trade Prop 13 in return for abolishing rent control, and lowering the rates of CA income, sales and capital gains tax.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 6:12 am

Most homeowners fell for a fraudulent or delusional sales pitch for a second mortgage or a TIC balloon mortgage scam.

If it were up to me I'd let them all kill themselves.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june13/suicide_05-03.html

New CDC Report Finds Stunning Suicide Increases Among Middle-Aged Americans

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 3:22 pm

In fact, even at the height of the sub-prime problem, over 90% of mortgages were paid normally, and of course one third of US homes have no mortgage at all.

The problem was ultimately manageable, and RE prices are now bouncing back. SF was up 12% last year and homes for sale now get multiple offers above asking within days.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 3:43 pm

"...The problem involves second mortgages, which millions of homeowners took out during the housing bubble. It’s estimated that as much as a quarter of all mortgage debt in the United States is in the form of second mortgages. Some of these loans were taken out to finance home improvements; others were part of a subprime product known as an “80/20 mortgage,” in which 80 percent of the purchase price was covered by a first, adjustable-rate mortgage, and the remainder by a second mortgage, often with a much higher interest rate."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/opinion/the-second-mortgage-shell-game...

The Second-Mortgage Shell Game

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 4:03 pm

The ones most in trouble were the ones who sequentially took cash out of their homes like it were an ATM. And they don't have my sympathy.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

"According to data from the Federal Reserve Board, the ratio of homeowners’ equity to value at the end of the first quarter was just 38.0 percent at the end of the first quarter, the lowest on record..."

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/graphic-economics/graphic-economics/owners...

Owners' Equity as Percentage of Household Real Estate, 1980-2011

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 4:26 pm

Don't see your figure being relevant here.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 5:15 pm

"The ones most in trouble were the ones who sequentially took cash out of their homes like it were an ATM. And they don't have my sympathy."

Actually, in San Francisco the ones most in trouble are the ones who took out seven year balloon mortgages for TICs.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 4:42 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 5:16 pm

I would normally ask why you have no sympathy for second mortgage holders but want to help the far more reckless balloon mortgage holders but its kind of obvious....

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

not to buy a home but to take cash out of it or increase the loan amount. Bad ideas.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 5:17 am

You are saying that an interest only loan that becomes fully due in seven years is somehow less reckless?

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 11:05 am

maturity, whether 7 years or some other, and at that point must be re-financed. Nothing unusual there, and clearly we can help TIC owners to do that by allowing them to convert more quickly.

You've provided no reason why we shouldn't.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2013 @ 6:04 am

Condo conversion is not a mortgage refinance for one thing.

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2013 @ 11:02 pm

almost always happens, since that is a major part of why you condo convert i.e. to get a better loan and one not shared with others in the building

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 6:01 am

Offering mortgage assistance at the expense of renters to balloon mortgage holders in the most unaffordable city in America is Batman - Joker style crazy.

I feel sorry for any politician who has to call those eye twitching maniacs at Plan C their "real" friends.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 7:23 am

no renters are affected by this - these are owner-occupied units.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 9:05 am

If it isn't about future renters why didn't Farrell and Wiener accept the first compromise allowing current TICs to convert but applying a future moratorium to prevent future TIC speculation?

Because it is really about destroying rent control. That's why.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 1:06 pm

Rent control will destroy itself, as do all systems of price control.

Eventually renters will understand how it does them more harm than good, and really only benefits landlords, who can buy buildings much cheaper as a result of rent control. and then vacate/flip them.

Which of course drives up rent while suppressing new supply and decreasing vacancy rates.

Rent control exists to prop up white middle-class over-educated but under-performing people, and keep in SF people who should never be here.

It harms everyone else.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 2:38 pm

"...RE prices are now bouncing back. SF was up 12% last year and homes for sale now get multiple offers above asking within days."

Not really, sucker...

"QE3 was announced on 13 September 2012. In an 11-to-1 vote, the Federal Reserve decided to launch a new $40 billion a month, open-ended, bond purchasing program of agency mortgage-backed securities and also to continue extremely low rates policy until at least mid-2015.[66] According to NASDAQ.com, this is effectively a stimulus program which allows the Federal Reserve to relieve $40 billion dollars per month of commercial housing market debt risk.[67] As a result of its open-ended nature, QE3 has earned the popular nickname of "QE-Infinity," a term first coined by Minyanville author Jason Haver.
On 12 December 2012, the FOMC announced increased the amount of open-ended purchases from $40 billion to $85 billion per month. This is sometimes referred to as "QE4"."

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

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 4:10 pm

That's the official stats.

How you want to attribute that I leave to others. But the market never lies.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 11:08 am

Spoken like a loyal wanna be....

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 12:07 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.