OT: the housing crisis in the Bay Area (and beyond...)

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by pdonk

Here is an interesting option for lower income housing that has recently occurred in my neighbourhood. The city, in partnership with a local not for profit has purchased a rooming house in order to preserve it.

http://www.pnlt.ca/

While this option only preserves a few of the at risk units in the area, it is an interesting option. I see that there is a similar organization in SF, that appears to have about 15 buildings under its management.

https://sfclt.org/

One other example of alternative thinking about affordable housing is a company called options for homes. It offers alternative financing options in order to get people in and typically only sells to end users not "inspeculators". https://www.optionsforhomes.ca/#about_us The feds up here are thinking of a similar approach through CMHC (similar to fannie mae or freddie mae - not sure whose who) in terms of equity mortgages and insurance.

In terms of making housing affordable, creativity is the key and thinking of ways to navigate the regulatory and financial systems in a different manner are the solutions.

I tend to think of housing in the following terms - is it fair to tell me I can't have or want what you have in terms of the location, type or cost of housing?

These are great links. Thanks for sharing.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

(and why I left property management...)

My recent exchange with JT (it would be great to hear more from you, since you're still intimately involved with the process) prompted me to reflect on my long-ago career in property management, and why I left the field. I think it's germane to the discussion.

Most rent ordinances in CA are local. San Francisco's was instituted (reluctantly) in 1979 by Mayor Feinstein when a North Beach landlord went bonkers and started jacking up rents. This creates an arbitrary red line: buildings built before June of 1979 are under rent control, and buildings built after that date are not. You can, therefore, have a situation where one person is paying $750 per month for a studio, and their neighbor is paying $3,000.

Arbitrary? Yes, for sure. Unfair? Well, it depends. The individual who has been paying $750 per month has probably been paying that rent for YEARS, so the owner has certainly received a good ROI. On the flip side, if you're a recent immigrant to SF, you had better have a six figure income to make it.

Rent control differs from "vacancy control" (AKA Costa-Hawkins) which is a state statute, and mandates that after a rent controlled tenant leaves, the rent can go back to "market rate." Costa-Hawkins was on the November ballot in CA last year. The attempt to repeal it failed. Which I think is a good thing. There are many small landlords who have all their savings and investments in a building. They (largely) play by the rules, and deserve a decent ROI.

Conversely, I think rent control is a good thing. I think it should be universally applied to all residential buildings in SF. In California, you do, after all, have rent control for owners. It's called Prop 13. You can't favor one class (owners) over another class (renters). That's unfair and discriminatory. Prop 13 has starved local coffers of revenue for years. Unfortunately, repealing it would have the same effect of repealing rent control … tossing many long-term residents out of their homes. So, I'm not sure what the solution is there.

Anyone unaware with how brutal the rent and affordability wars are in SF should familiarize themselves with the cautionary tale of Citi Apartments. Their reign of terror ended about a decade ago, but left a lot of carnage in its wake.

Helmed by a savvy, charismatic, and avaricious local son named Frank Lembi, Citi Apartments snapped up large residential buildings at an unprecedented rate in the late nineties and early aughts. In the wake of the first dot-com bust, many new building owners found themselves overleveraged and underwater. Citi Apartments swooped in and made them an offer they couldn't refuse: paying twice as much (or more) what their building was worth. At one point, Citi Apartments locked down almost all the new multi-unit (rent-controlled) buildings for sale.

But it was a Ponzi scheme. The only way to make their money back was to coerce and intimidate long-term (often elderly) tenants out of their rent controlled units. Their tactics were brutal and obscene.

Repeated and harassing phone calls offering a paltry sum to the tenants if they left. Shutting down elevators which would disadvantage elderly and infirm tenants who couldn't use the stairs. "Maintenance" on units at all hours which created a noise disturbance. Bundling checks for months and then depositing them all at once. When the checks consequently bounced, they would give the tenants a "Three Day Notice to Pay or Quit." Big, burly "security guards" who would hang out in the lobby, checking tenant IDs for "illegal" tenants. The list goes on...

When Citi Apartments bought the buildings I managed (the previous landlords were honest and decent people) I had a choice: leave the profession or work for the Devil. I choose to leave property management entirely. I couldn't countenance making my income from coercing little old ladies out of rent controlled units. Sadly, judging from the number of new hires I saw at Citi Apartments, many people were fine with that moral calculation. Before I left, I went door to door and told tenants who was coming, and to know their rights. Many tenants refused to believe that Armageddon was coming. Within a few weeks, they began frantically calling me for help.

Citi Apartments eventually dissolved under a flurry of class action lawsuits, including lawsuit against them from the City of San Francisco. But I think their story remains a cautionary tale of what happens when you have a severely impacted city with a dearth of affordable housing combined with an influx of astonishing wealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CitiApartments

A link on Costa-Hawkins: https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/12/1688...kins-explained

[Totalinsanity]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Disclaimer: I own a single family home in Contra Costa County. I also have a strong preference for more rural living.

Density restrictions aren't making places better. Contra Costa County kind of sucks. From a biking perspective, I like that I have easy access to Mount Diablo, but I go out of my way to avoid the majority of roads in the county, because they're too narrow, with high traffic, and with either no shoulder or cars parked all along the street. I don't know what vision they think they're going for, but it's not a smart one. The new developments going in around San Ramon and Livermore are downright dystopian to me (for those of you not in the area, picture identical 3,500 sq ft homes on 5,000 sq ft lots, packed 2-3 deep in housing developments).

The quote you highlighted from the story about people moving to California in the 19th century really highlights how ridiculous is. First, that somehow California should still be trying to emulate the vision of people who have been dead for over 100 years, and second, because that vision is already gone. There are still decent open spaces (protected state/regional land), but the vast majority of single family homes are packed in tightly with other single family homes--they're not coming with a lot of land. The single family homes near downtown Walnut Creek / BART are garbage--very expensive garbage, but they tend to be very small, run down, and rented out to commuters who want easy access to public transit. It's hard to imagine a worse design than that.

Density isn't really the problem in the area. What could actually improve quality of life is to have more density, more mixed zoning, and better public transit. You want to put people near where they want to be. These aren't farming towns anymore, and they're not going to be in the future.

I grew up in Walnut Creek and have rode in most places in Contra Costa County.
1. Roads in most suburbs including Contra Costa County are incredible to ride.
2. Most/many houses in Walnut Creek Pleasant Hill and Concord are within a short bike/trail ride to a Bart Station.
3. Love your dystopian comment about San Ramon housing
4. I think that using bicycles as a primary mode of within city transport in areas like Concord and Walnut Creek could literally save the areas from themselves. There is a Bike Concord Bike advocacy group you might check out. For of road group if you do not do Encina Wednesday night rides they are a fun group