• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

San Francisco rent/TIC/Condo situation

The time and money involved in doing an Ellis Act or owner move in is freaking substantial. Tenants are getting paid to move and god forbid something goes wrong and the owner makes any kind of mistake in the process. Instant jackpot for the savy and most often scumbag tenants.

You've basically have to be some kind of nut/glutton for punishment to purchase and try to convert or rent to anyone in SF.
 
Yeah, now I realize that's my understanding as well. Those sentences were more clear
 
Sharky said:
The time and money involved in doing an Ellis Act or owner move in is freaking substantial. Tenants are getting paid to move and god forbid something goes wrong and the owner makes any kind of mistake in the process. Instant jackpot for the savy and most often scumbag tenants.

You've basically have to be some kind of nut/glutton for punishment to purchase and try to convert or rent to anyone in SF.
Click to expand...

It would seem to be worth it if the profits involved are millions of dollars.
 
Sharky said:
The time and money involved in doing an Ellis Act or owner move in is freaking substantial. Tenants are getting paid to move and god forbid something goes wrong and the owner makes any kind of mistake in the process. Instant jackpot for the savy and most often scumbag tenants.

You've basically have to be some kind of nut/glutton for punishment to purchase and try to convert or rent to anyone in SF.
Click to expand...

THIS. To evict someone with the Ellis Act is a blight on the property for about a decade or so and is usually a last ditch effort to remove a longtime renter. Once you've enacted the EA you are essentially locked into the current status of the property (TIC/Single home/etc) and isn't a great option for those looking to make a quick buck or not actually live in the home as a primary residence. Our neighbors had to pay a long-time protected renter about $40k CASH to get her out before closing on the home. She had the gall to ask for $60k. :wtf

As far as the renting situation is concerned, it is that bad. Rents in our neighborhood have risen ~60% in the last year. There was a (generous) 600 sqft garden junior one bedroom (read: dark hell hole) down the street that went for $2200. My apartment would easily snag an extra $1k/month in this current market. Overall, renting in SF is relatively the same price as living in CT with heating bills, car payments, expensive (and seasonal) food. I can still get dinner for two around $15 including two beers.
 
storm said:
you with your hyper-inflated salaries and faux urban-living aspirations will never collectively add even a fraction of the value and substance that one of these evicted SF natives did no matter how many of them you displace.
Click to expand...

Value and substance? Who gets to decide that?

The problem with fuzzy-headed do-gooderism like that is that it invariably fails to account for or even recognize that it shits on the rights of property owners.

But why should they be able to do with their property what they want, right?
 
just chiming in with the prices. A $2500 studio in the heart of Castro is probably correct. I'm not saying that's good, I'm saying that's the probable asking price of some landlord.

So yes the situation is bad.
A quick search turned up a 1-br for $3100.. .. *not in the heart of the castro* but in an otherwise nice location. Therefore you can believe the other prices.

That tidbit about a 2-br in Diamond Heights by "santa" ? That info is probably not correct any more, the place can cost from $2500 to $2800 or $3000 by now. (since it was signed for a year ago). And the same place was certainly $1900 about 2.5 years ago.

---
About the Ellis act--might be a blight, but how about people who just want to make it a 1-family-living space and re-sell it? Therefore, they would both make a bang for the buck and decrease available housing in SF at the same time!!
Such a scenario has been covered in the papers recently.
 
jt2 said:
Value and substance? Who gets to decide that?

The problem with fuzzy-headed do-gooderism like that is that it invariably fails to account for or even recognize that it shits on the rights of property owners.

But why should they be able to do with their property what they want, right?
Click to expand...


:thumbup
 
Entoptic said:
Article is BS. The guy is fine and falls under disabled which means in SF they can't just toss you.
Click to expand...

Process:
Ellis evictions require a one year notice for senior and disabled tenants, 120 days for all others.
Click to expand...

Says here he's out after 1 year.
 
This is why Rent control is bullshit.

Sorry, but rent would be CHEAPER, if there were no rent controls? WHY? the old, pensioners, economically screwed people would find a way to pony up, in the short term, and then rents would start to decrease and normalize.
 
17 years?!?! Property values in the Castro have gone insane in 17 years. It used to be run down, sort of an extension of the Mission. Now, it's a top-tier neighborhood. I grew up in the Castro. My parents bought the house in 1985 for $265K. Zillow has it at $1.3M now.
 
waitaminnit. from the TFA, he "spent a fair amount of his life savings fixing up his place"

then it goes on about "nice art"

spending his own money to "fix up" an apartment that he KNOWS he does not own and lives there solely at the whim of the laws of the city and the property not changing owners' hands?

Methinks he got a sweet deal for a very long time, spent everything else on "nice art" and being in a band and whatnot, and now the ride's over, left himself nothing to stand on.

It's a hell of a lot better deal he's been getting for years than my MIL could ever get and she's gotta split a place with a roommate over in Fremont to even keep a roof over her head with disability payments.

He knew it was coming, for quite a while, and the article sure doesn't make it sound like he tried to take responsibility for his own future.

Sounds like a situation that belongs in the "help or enablement" thread.

Oceansides said:
This is why Rent control is bullshit.

Sorry, but rent would be CHEAPER, if there were no rent controls? WHY? the old, pensioners, economically screwed people would find a way to pony up, in the short term, and then rents would start to decrease and normalize.
Click to expand...

it won't normalize as long as there are also rent subsidies provided by government assistance. Raise rents so working people have to leave, funding somehow manages to increase for the housing assistance programs to put people from the waiting lists in. It's keeping rents artificially high here in San Jose for everything from apartments to 4 bedroom houses.
 
Last edited:
cat_in_sf said:
17 years?!?! Property values in the Castro have gone insane in 17 years. It used to be run down, sort of an extension of the Mission. Now, it's a top-tier neighborhood. I grew up in the Castro. My parents bought the house in 1985 for $265K. Zillow has it at $1.3M now.
Click to expand...

IIRC, there was a recession early 80s, which would account for a then depressed price. It also was a bit of a double dip because land values took a big hit in the late 80s. SF stayed pretty stagnant into the early 90s.

Prices are still looney toons.
 
jt2 said:
Value and substance? Who gets to decide that?

The problem with fuzzy-headed do-gooderism like that is that it invariably fails to account for or even recognize that it shits on the rights of property owners.

But why should they be able to do with their property what they want, right?
Click to expand...

So as far as I can see , everything is happening according to the law and the property owner can do whatever he wants ''' e.g. use the law available , which is the Ellis act. So what would be your problem in this situation exactly?

But what is neglected here is that the owner is simply a corporation owning houses and they could care less for the Castro.

Therefore it could be argued that exactly that's why some preservation laws exist-exactly so that some property owner from far away does not go jerking people around
 
Oceansides said:
IIRC, there was a recession early 80s, which would account for a then depressed price. It also was a bit of a double dip because land values took a big hit in the late 80s. SF stayed pretty stagnant into the early 90s.

Prices are still looney toons.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Castro changed greatly in those years. When we first moved there, everyone had bars on the windows, there was a lot of crime (car thefts, break-ins, etc.), and the neighborhood wasn't nearly as nice. Seriously, it was similar to the "lower" Mission is now (think Mission/Valencia & 14-16th Streets). Now, it's all million-plus restored Victorians with chef kitchens. It's not just the enonomy there.
 
jt2 said:
Value and substance? Who gets to decide that?

The problem with fuzzy-headed do-gooderism like that is that it invariably fails to account for or even recognize that it shits on the rights of property owners.

But why should they be able to do with their property what they want, right?
Click to expand...

1. Actual persons of substance who've lived in the city for multiple decades as in, me.

2. "do-gooderism" [really? that the best you had, definition-wise?] isn't synonymous with shitting on people's rights

3. Clearly you missed what I said about private property rights, my tenure in the industry and opinion therein.

TIC's are not "conversions" but a fractured form of property ownership and have not typically the impetus for the corpus of Ellis evictions [in SF]. It's also not easy to find lenders for partial ownership loans, TIC's usually involve small properties [duplex, 2-4 units] and owners with the genuine intent to make property primary residence. Speculators/transient Investors Ellis with business plans to flip, demolish or merge etc.

Local laws regarding both TIC's, condo conversions, and tenant's rights under them and Ellis are still evolving and, obviously, confusing for the layperson/armchair experts. [I'm thinking, you]

less chitty-chat, more time learning about subjects for which your knowedge is marginal and/or incorrect. :thumbup
 
How tough is it to get permits to build / expand in SF. With the rental prices where they are I've got to image that there is a supply / demand issue: and if there is little to no flexibility in the supply side, then even small changes in demand are going to result in big price climbs.

If the people living in SF really want lower housing prices they should push the city to make the process of building new units faster / easier.
 
fromeast2west said:
How tough is it to get permits to build / expand in SF.
Click to expand...

VERY TOUGH. I think you need to do some newspaper reading on the permit stories, e.g. SFWeekly, at least . Also questions are posed with a question mark. :)

fromeast2west said:
With the rental prices where they are I've got to image that there is a supply / demand issue: and if there is little to no flexibility in the supply side, then even small changes in demand are going to result in big price climbs.
Click to expand...

This is of course correct.

But I'd like to concentrate on the wonderful discussion between storm, dragon, santa, Happy and jttoo. :cool
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top