All the controls and planning will lead to only one thing. Period. That’s SHORTAGE.
Hold on, I think there is plenty of rent money to go around. I want high rise construction in my current neighborhood of the Sunset but know realistically it isn’t going to happen today, tomorrow or a year down the road. The cost of construction is high and frankly not everyone can do it (even if given the green light, by everyone!) or wants to do it.
Now, when I move back to Chinatown we will do some extensive remodeling (or wifey isn’t coming along for the ride) which hopefully includes adding a few floors of units by the way of sacrificing say two units to affordable housing if that is the rule of the land at that time. The numbers make sense to do that as long as we get additional market rate modern units with city views. I would love to see Chinatown or outskirts with high rises. Why? That would mean a lot more people walking the streets at night and we would have a thriving business district/neighborhood no different from what is seen back in Asia. The location is just too prime that it could easily absorb a lot more housing without impacting rent levels that are frankly quite high historically anyway.
There goes my assumption that SF to become a new city, needs to revamp itself. That means the old Chinatown needs to be developed to meet the standards of the new way of living, “high rises”.
Please try to generalize when it comes to population. Avoid the divisive “blacks and Chinese” comments. Not all “Chinese” looking are Chinese, I’ve learned that on my own. We are all Americans and we are all San Franciscans or San whatever.
Have a nice weekend.
Just go away, Chiu…
Why did Chiu endorse breed instead of Kim?
Maybe he saw the writing on the wall, that Kim was not going to win and London is gaining steam. Come on, Snoop Dog is endorsing London…
So Chiu is just a fair weather friend?
Kim has become poisonous. Even Chiu does not want to be associated with her. If Chiu endorses Kim, his chance for re-election will become even worse. If he really want to have a chance, Chiu needs to drop out of any effort against Costa Hawkins. I feel that Chiu is a fake “progessive” and he thinks that being “progressive” helps his political career. He does not understand the west side voters.
Chinatown guys need to reach out to Chiu and show him the new landscape of Asian voters. He still lives in the old days of Rose Pak. Kim is failing due to her failure to perceive the change of Chinatown since Rose Pak passed away.
I guess sometimes it is much easier to replace the person rather than change him or her. People are slow to perceive the external changes and even slower to reinvent themselves.
Ok. London Breed becomes mayor and wants ADUs built. She pushes into law that ADUs do not make SFH fall under rent control. Now will you do it?
Actually, if Costa-Hawkins is repealed, SFHs will fall under rent control anyway, so might as well build ADUs then.
Maybe. There would then be the question if the ADU is under RC or not. Currently, ADUs carved out of SFHs can fall into two categories-
a) those that require the planning dept to waive one requirement — like a setback or something. these ADUs are under RC
b) those that do not require any planning dept waivers — these ADUs are NOT under RC.
I would want to see further loosening of the program to allow for even those ADUs that require waivers to be exempt from RC. I have no interest in exposing myself to the headaches of rent control just for an additional $2000 - $2500 gross income per month. Not worth it.
This one is easy. If Costa-Hawkins is repealed, I would likely convert my properties (which are all located in touristy areas of SF) to vacation rentals. I would have vacationers all sign a one year lease with no penalty for leaving early.
Vacation rental for over 1 month is a really intersting idea. But is it plausible? Where to advertise and how to make tourists understand that they need to sign a 1 month lease but they can just stay for 5 days and leave without any penalty?
Someone needs to get the word out to the tourists that this is just a way to get around rent control and there is no catch. Is this a good business idea?
Good way to end up in court.
The approach might not work and might end up in litigation, but my point was to highlight that if Costa Hawkins is repealed in order to solve the “housing crisis,” there are many many folks like me who would simply find another way. You would see the workarounds to the new AirBnB laws multiply like rabbits.
Or … folks like me would just sell our complement of properties and do something else with the capital. Basically — repealing Costa Hawkins would likely have the inverse effect of increasing housing supply.
Personally I think the “housing crisis” will work itself out once the economy turns and we are in a recession again…
Housing “crisis” is manufactured by over regulation. Regulation produces shortage all the time.
If they get rid of causta hawkins, there’ll be no vacancy in SF. New tenant would need to rent in Stockton and commute to SF
If Costa-Hawkins is repealed, SF (and Oakland, Berkeley, etc) is going to rush to expand rent control to cover all properties, and at the same time set up vacancy control (no adjustment to market rate between tenants). I doubt your vacation rental idea is going to work. If it were that easy everyone will be doing it, then it will become a non-solution. Most landlords need stable income to sustain the rental business, so in the end it will only work for a small bunch of landlords. Plus it doesn’t sound so hard for city to plug that hole either.
My main point in my question earlier was that if the city says let’s not let ADU bring SFHs to rent control will you believe it. Of course a law is a law so you should be able to believe it at that time, but the law can change under your feet just like this Costa-Hawkins repeal. In fact even if you think you are wise not to do ADU in order to avoid rent control, it can still come to you via the Costa-Hawkins repeal. When the government wants to punish you, it will find a way to.
I understand. If the city were to legislate that ADUs would not put the sfh under rent control, I would not believe the city … not unless the city declared that fhe ADUs themselves were exempt from RC. Even if Costa Hawkins were repealed, one could always just sell off their property, get out of the landlord biz, and do something else with the capital (this is why I make it a point to avoid multi family buildings in the bay area … easier to liquidate at “fair market value.”). With rising inflation and interest rates, even muni bonds could be attractive again, to some degree. Or one could just continue to flip.
Sure about that? I went into contract on my Oakland place in a matter of days that I feel like I overpaid on my RE agent…
Good to hear - happy to see you doing well!
The point that I was (perhaps clumsily) trying to make is that since the worth of multi-family buildings is more directly correlated to the cap rate / cash flow, any legislation that affects the income being thrown off by the building will very quickly be reflected in the building’s worth. In the bay area, where legislation is historically tenant friendly, this likely has a deleterious affect on market price of multi-family buildings.
I like to utilize SFH and condos for rentals because the buyers of these properties are not just accountants, but also folks wanting to buy a home. Since emotion is at play, the market price of the property is not nearly as impacted by legislation affecting cash flows if the property were to be used as an income property.
Well, I am off soon to meet up at the target exchange home to do another inspection. Hopefully, it is not major. Wow, I will also hand over the keys to all of the areas of the Oakland building. Geez, 25 years of my life. Can’t complain, made some money, got some tax breaks over the years and I had used the equity from the apartment building to buy the Sunset home. One step closer to Chinatown…