The Chron gets the condo deal wrong

|
(23)

It's kind of a surprise that the Chron actually likes the (possible) condo conversion deal. That paper typically opposes anything that is good for tenants and supports anything that the landlords like. But it's annoying that the editorial writers made it sound as if Sups. Scott Wiener and Mark Farrell engineered this whole thing. You need to get beyond the silly paywall to read the full editorial, so I'll reproduce the key part here:

This week a deal may be struck to end the stalemate. A plan by Supervisors Mark Farrell and Scott Wiener will give owners of tenancies in common the chance to convert under a one-time deal. The yearly lottery will be suspended, the apartment owners will pay from $4,000 to $20,000 each into a subsidized housing fund, and those in the conversion pipeline can go forward. It's essentially a one-time offer with the lottery system swinging back in place in 10 years.

Actually, Farrell and Wiener weren't the ones who came up with the proposal that might make this legislation possible. That work was done by tenant and housing advocates -- Sarah Shortt of the Housing Rights Committee, Ted Gullkicksen of the Tenants Union, Peter Cohen from the Council of Community Housing Organizations, Gen Fujioka of CCDC -- and Sups. Norman Yee, Jane Kim, and David Chiu. The landlord group Plan C didn't make any effort to negotiate anything in good faith, so the tenant and housing people went and put this together on their own.

It was never included in the Wiener/Farrell bill; if anything, it was prepared as a hostile amendment. Realizing that, with Yee on the side of the tenants, there wouldn't be six votes for their original plan, Wiener and Farrell had no choice but to accept the tenant alternative.

A lot of hard work, and a lot of give-and-take was involved -- but the credit for that goes first and foremost to the activists who fought the original Wiener-Farrell proposal. Let's be fair here.

Comments

The main idea here was from Farrell and Weiner - to bypass the lottery for everyone waiting on it.

Sure the tenant "activists" secured a ten year moratorium. But then it would have taken 10 years for many of these TIC units to go condo anyway.

A better idea, however, would have been to abandon the lottery and simply have a waiting list. Credit should go to those who were first on line, rather than the random element of a lottery.

And allowing another 2,000 condo's once the demand has built up again is totally in keeping with this agreement.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 1:00 pm

The "subsidized housing fund" which basically funds a lot of Non Profit Inc worker salaries and very little subsidized housing.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 2:07 pm

This is kind of an end run around a real estate transfer tax for affordable housing.

With this compromise, money that would have come from a transfer tax now comes from the conversion fee.

That was a part of it, avoiding the transfer tax.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

Transfer tax applies upon a sale. It is not imposed for a conversion to condo.

There are application fees and DBI fees, but no tax is payable and there is no uprating of property tax basis.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 3:40 pm

I agree with David Campos on this. He says:

“My own personal view is that we need to kill this proposal and we need to keep things as they are. In the Mission we have a situation where every day people are being displaced. The challenge is not to the owners of these kinds of units. The challenge is for the renters who are finding it very hard to stay in San Francisco.”

Posted by Guest on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 2:44 pm

be able to afford to live in an expensive place like San Francisco, Aspen or St. Moritz.

Most of the folks I know who have been "displaced" in the Mission simply moved to Oakland. NBD.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

Most of the folks I know who have been "displaced" in the Mission simply moved to Oakland. NBD.

------------

You made the whole thing up as usual.

With your snotty, elitist, septic classist attitude, no one en el Distrito de la Misión would want anything to do with you, so you couldn't possibly know anyone there. You spew the same classist shit all the time. Work on some new material that doesn't include hate and classism, idiot. You're like a fucking broken record.

In fact, you couldn't possibly know anyone anywhere because you're gazing at your navel playing with your pajama cord on this site every hour you're awake writing your tiresome, smug, hateful classist sickness.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 4:18 pm

Mission. And several of the tenants who moved out relocated to Oakland. The building next to me was Ellis'ed, and some of them went to Oakland as well. Building sold as TIC's for 2 million.

Oakland is a few minutes away, and half the rent. Why wouldn't they move there anyway?

So this "problem" is a myth.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 4:26 pm

Why does this website attract the lowest form of internet commenter, like this Guest or anon or whatever he calls himself?

Couldn't cut it where he was born. Relocated here to economically rape our city as a bottom feeding real estate speculator. There's a special place for him after his demise.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 11:00 pm

There's no "special place". Speculation happens everywhere: real estate, gold, art, etc etc. There's nothing you can do to stop it without changing the fundamental economic structure of the world - and that's not likely to happen in our lifetime.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 11:05 am

Of course you can. European nations have all sorts of controls on housing so that it resembles a regulated a utility instead of a speculative commodity.

What you're saying is that libertarian capitalism cannot coexist with regulations which is true.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 11:09 am

Didn't you promise us that you were moving to that European Shangri La?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 12:04 pm

You said "Speculation happens everywhere" as pertains to housing.

It does not happen the European north countries that have sound economies.

You lie. Again.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 1:12 pm

you are still an evictor, practicing economic terrorism in pursuit of money.

Capitalism breeds speculation, but no one is obligated to participate. You choose to and are are a bane to our city.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 8:19 pm

Hilarious. I don't believe any of that bull shit. Based on the ignorance and lack of intelligence you (a.k.a. the site dunce) have repeatedly demonstrated on this site, you wouldn't have the ability to fill out the reams of paperwork required for the ownership of anything in real estate, so no, I don't believe any of that bull shit.

And this problem is not a myth. It is a real problem. It's only a "myth" for those lobotomized Lee-bots such as yourself who have a complete and total disregard for anyone's life and/or quality of life, as you have coldly repeatedly demonstrated with your septic and classist self. Useless.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 11:05 pm

liberal: "el Distrito de la Misión." Hahahahaha - I bet this is a person who says "burrito" with a Mexican accent when placing his order at Farolito and then congratulates himself on how "diverse" he is for doing so!

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 6:30 pm

Hola. No, I don't have a Méxicano accent (acento Méxicano). When I speak, I'm told I have a rather neutral accent more like Ariel Rodríguez on Telemundo, if you're familiar with him. I've been compared to him on occasion.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 9:12 pm

He's just worried his voters are being replaced by non-spanish speakers who work for a living. The white population is growing bigtime and we all know Campos doesn't like white people.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 9:16 am

TIC's are stupid and so is Plan C and the fucking Realtors. They are a pack of liars.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 9:12 am

They're about to get all of what they want with no iron clad guarantees that tenants will get what they expect in return. Who's stupid again?

Posted by marcos on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 9:33 am

Terrible investment. Better to buy a condo and deal with reality or buy a house or move the fuck out of SF so we have one less deadbeat hippie on our welfare rolls.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 11:59 am

Hello? Hello? Are you Bigfoot Bjornson?

Posted by Dave on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 12:36 am

A 4-unit building subject to rent price controls (pre-1979 construction) might be worth $1.2 million as a rental building. But if a speculator/investor evicts the tenants via the Ellis Act and sells the units as TICs, the building might be worth as much as $2.4 million. That's a pretty easy way to make $1 million by not doing much work other than evicting a few tenants,doing a bit of rehab, and selling the units to thousands of desparate people who are looking to buy a place in SF.

For the TIC buyer who puchases a unit in the TIC building for $600,000, the equivalent condo might cost as much as $800,000 to $1 million, for a savings of $200-$400,000 per unit. Even with higher TIC financing, and dealing with joint liability issues with the other TIC buyers (nothing extra insurance can't mitigate), the TIC buyer can afford a much nicer unit than if they bought an equivalent condo.

So TICs can be smart, not "stupid." Yes, Plan C has an anti-tenant agenda, and yes, realtors are generally economic bottom feeders protected by a quasi-legalized monopoly (MLS and state law monopoly protections), but realtors are no different from any other economic player - worker, employer, and investor alike - all trying to extract as much income/wealth from the system as the next person.

You and your friends can demonize various economic players all day long, but when it comes to economic security and acheiving a predictable housing cost without dealing with the whims of a landlord, 90% of people willl care less about the motives of rapacious TIC flippers or predatory realtors. They just want a stable roof over their heads and want to avoid dealing with equally predatory landlords.

Demonizing Plan C, realtors, TIC flippers and the "political machine" has worked so well as a strategy preventing evicitons and displacement over the past 20 years, I understand why you'd want to continue with the same empty rhetoric.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 3:35 pm

Post new comment

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