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

If the link is tenuous why not stop and see what happens...

"The S&P 500 futures experienced the biggest intraday drop in May on Thursday, May 9th when rumors that a WSJ article authored by John Hilsenrath was about to be published detailing the Fed's sooner rather than later exit strategy from its $85 billion a month QE program. Treasury prices collapsed and stocks took an abrupt nose dive."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1426361-rumored-wsj-piece-fed-maps-exit-...

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 7:52 am

I guess you were wrong about that too.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 9:00 am

The Fed made a political decision to subsidize (prop up) the FIRE industries and inflate the equities markets and slowly the (still resistant) housing market, hoping to paper over the insolvencies of the banks.

They could have just as easily (and at less cost) canceled the debt owed to them by the Federal Government. But why spoil the false narrative of a fiscal problem in order to allow their clientele (ie, the plutocrats) to enforce austerity and shift more of the productive parts of the economy from public to private hands.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 11:18 am

government assuming the liabilities of Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Citi etc.

QE was designed more to reflate the markets, improve liquidity and give confidence to lender. It has succeeded on every level.

None of that has anything to do with helping a few thousand SF homeowners who have been pushed into a sub-optimal form of ownership only by our crazy rental laws.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 11:34 am

"Quantitative easing can be used to help ensure that inflation does not fall below target." ... ie your real estate doesn't deflate.

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

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 12:43 pm

The markets are telling us that.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 2:32 pm

"I do not like the limits placed on future condo conversions."

At least we exposed the devil....

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 1:22 pm

restriction in the future, as the pressure builds from more frustrated former tenants who now own TIC's, just like with this.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 2:31 pm

existing tenants oppose the change in rules to change the condo conversion lottery. Thanks for your disingenuity, although I'm sure that you will keep repeating the same nonsense about how subverting the condo conversion lottery only affects poor suffering TIC owners.

Rent control allows more than "overeducated, underachieving white people" stay in San Francisco. Many working class Latino families remain in the Mission District because of rent control. Thanks for you concern, commenter who doesn't play the race card.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:04 pm

almost 100% wrong. As noted, rent control already signed it's own death sentence by pushing up rents and sabotaging the LL-TT relationship. This measure is about helping homeowners.

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

converted to condo, was a rent controlled apartment previously.

Just because you repeat the same phrases endlessly doesn't make them true. In other words, you are speaking out of you ass.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:30 pm

It isn't now and it never will be again, regardless of exactly when it becomes a condo - now or in a few years time.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

Ha ha ha ha ha I guess TICs must be the best looking horse in the glue factory.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:42 pm

bitch ass little white male capitalist guest(s)

Posted by anti-AmericanConservative on May. 08, 2013 @ 11:24 am

Here is your "critical mass".....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-...

1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 11:43 am

" So it is reasonable to assume that, at some future point, there will no longer be a critical mass of subsidized tenants..."

I don't know what your real plan is except it seems to involve lots and lots of armor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNbo54V8SXA

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 12:02 pm

We are losing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/enron-ceo-released_n_3238948.html

Ex-Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling In Deal To Cut Prison Sentence By 10 Years

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 12:21 pm

Speculative economic activities are a zero-sum game. When it gets out of control, it produces nothing and only transfers wealth -- usually to the party that already has more wealth. In the end, everyone else has to pay.

Will people and politicians learn from society's historical mistakes?

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2013 @ 3:12 pm

You're wrong about that.

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2013 @ 3:55 pm

If you cant tell whether an instrument is an asset or a liability that's certainly not speculation. Too bad only the federal government is intelligent enough to see this...

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

"Toxic security is the name applied during the aftermath of the subprime meltdown to financial instruments which cannot be readily identified as an asset or a liability."

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2013 @ 11:24 pm

The majorit buy a property to live in it

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 5:57 am

That is what you tell mayor and supervisors, not real people.

No one buys a TIC with an interest only loan balloon just to live in it.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 7:38 am
Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 8:59 am

Purchasing as a permanent home a group owned TIC is bad judgement, doing it with a seven year interest only balloon loan that you can't refinance is comedy.

Kill yourself.

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. 11, 2013 @ 1:32 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 2:30 pm

By suicide.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

allocating property.

Nobody will die, that is clear.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:03 pm

"Suicides for eviction in Spain refers to the suicide of Spanish citizens as a direct or indirect consequence of an eviction or foreclosure for non-payment of the mortgage or rent, which results in the eviction of the homeowner or tenant, often with family members, from the home they may have lived in for years, whether the home was purchased through a mortgage or rented."

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

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:46 pm

That explains the spanish sounding name, I guess.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 4:00 pm

There are many San Francisco's, including en España and en Argentina:

España:

San Francisco de Olivenza, localidad de la provincia de Badajoz, Extremadura;
Campo de San Francisco, parque de la ciudad de Oviedo, Asturias;
San Francisco, barrio marginal de la villa de Bilbao, País Vasco;
San Francisco, barrio de la ciudad de Málaga, Andalucía;
San Francisco, barrio de la ciudad de Ronda, Andalucía;
San Francisco de Formentera, pueblo principal de la isla de Formentera;

Argentina:

San Francisco, barrio de la ciudad de Luján, provincia de Buenos Aires;
San Francisco Solano, ciudad ubicada en el sur del Gran Buenos Aires;
San Francisco, barrio de la ciudad de Córdoba, provincia de Córdoba;
Plaza San Francisco, localidad de la Provincia de Córdoba;
San Francisco, ciudad ubicada en la provincia de Córdoba;
San Francisco del Chañar, localidad en la provincia de Córdoba;
San Francisco, localidad en la provincia de Jujuy;
San Francisco, localidad en la provincia de Mendoza.
Paso de San Francisco, paso que une a Chile y Argentina;

There are 3 en Colombia, 1 en Cuba, 1 en Costa Rica, 6 en México, etc.

"San Francisco" are español words, not inglés/English and to be spoken authentically/correctly it should be pronounced as it is en español. The same with many other words in California especially such as San José, for example.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 6:11 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 6:31 pm

Got news for ya, the parties able to purchase a mayor and enough supervisors to pass this legislation which EVERYONE except a few speculators HATES are not "homeowners."

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 7:58 am

teachers, nurses and office workers who bought their first home.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 8:59 am

If Scott Wiener is involved be assured there are campaign contributions involved. Ask anyone...

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 8:01 am

Owners before rent controled squatters!

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 8:59 am

properties rather than those who are subsidized to occupy them.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 9:06 am

Honest people before real estate criminals! End the interest only balloon mortgage once and for all!!!

Death to the sales pitch that real estate can only go up!!

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 2:45 pm

sophisticated, solvent borrowers. Why repay a 3% loan when you can make two to three times that return from the markets?

The problem here, of course, was that borrowers got greedy and ignored the terms of their contracts. Ignorance always leads to despair.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:02 pm

Why repay a 7 percent baloon loan when it's cheaper to rent?

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:21 pm

I've seen gains from RE of over a million and that's not unusual.

A million for sitting on my ass? I'll take it.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:37 pm

Not if you can make 2 or 3 times that in the stock market.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:47 pm

I've probably made similar amounts with both - diversification is always prudent.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 4:01 pm

Forgive me I thought you said you could make 2 or 3 times that in the stock market making a potential loss of 2 to 3 million for home ownership quite an opportunity cost.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:49 pm

Re investments tend to be more leveraged, come with better tax deductions, and of course there is the imputed rent factor too.

Most prudent investors would do both.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 4:02 pm

I am not clear if this is the correct area to put this, but I have a heartfelt concern.

Looking for a way of losing weight quickly that involves fat loss..

Posted by fcovoedqci on May. 24, 2013 @ 12:02 pm

What excellent phrase

Posted by SewSnully on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 11:08 am

Post new comment

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