From the San Francisco Association of Realtors:

The proposed ordinance introduced by Supervisor Avalos last year to extend just cause eviction protections to newly constructed units has been modified and, in modified form, approved by the Board of Supervisors and signed into law by the mayor. The new ordinance goes into effect on April 24.

The new law adds a new section, 37.9D, to the city’s “Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance.” The new section extends just cause eviction requirements and protections to tenants in units that are not now subject to eviction controls (e.g., most residential rental units with a certificate of occupancy issued after June 13, 1979) when those units are subject to foreclosure. The section also provides for particular notice of rights to tenants in possession of a rental unit at the time of foreclosure, and that failure to provide the notice can be an affirmative defense in unlawful detainer proceedings.

To view a copy of the new ordinance, click on the following link: http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/materials/bag030210_100039.pdf

Supervisors advocating the expansion of San Francisco’s rent control ordinance were unable to muster the required eight votes to override the mayor’s veto of an ordinance proposed by Supervisor John Avalos that would have extended just cause eviction protections to tenants residing in units for which a certificate of occupancy was issued after the effective date of the city’s Rent Ordinance, June 13, 1979.

REALTORS® (and voters) are urged to send a short note to Mayor Gavin Newsom and the four supervisors who prevented the Board of Supervisors from overriding the mayor’s veto—Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Carmen Chu, Bevan Dufty, Sean Elsbernd. As a suggestion, you might say:

Thank you to for opposing the passage of Supervisor Avalos’ legislation to extend eviction protections to post-1979 construction from becoming law. If such legislation were to become law, it would have a chilling effect on the availability of financing for new housing development in the city.

The mailing and e-mail addresses for the mayor and the supervisors appear below.

Name of Office Holder
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Mayor Gavin Newsom
Gavin.Newsom@sfgov.org

Michela Alioto-Pier
Michela.Alioto-Pier@sfgov.org

Carmen Chu
Carmen.Chu@sfgov.org

Bevan Dufty
Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org

Sean Elsbernd
Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org

Although the proposed ordinance will not become law this time around, the Board of Supervisors could decide to put the proposed ordinance on the ballot and let the voters decide the issue either in June or November of this year. But Supervisor Avalos has offered to scale-down his proposed ordinance so that it would only offer eviction protection to tenants due to foreclosures. Mayor Newsom has proposed similar legislation.

While Avalos’ legislation is dead, at least for the time being, another tenants’ rights ordinance proposed by Supervisor Eric Mar has been passed by the Board of Supervisors with unanimous support. The ordinance, which Mayor Newsom is expected to sign into law, will prohibit, with limited exceptions, owner move-in evictions of families with a child younger than 18 years old when school is in session.
- SFAR

[Note: Laws like this are aimed at pandering to renters versus the property owners who pay the taxes and keep the City running!]

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Friday that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be eliminated as they stand now.

“This committee will be recommending abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form and coming up with a whole new system of housing finance, that’s the approach rather than the piecemeal one,” Frank said. 

Frank made his comments during the committee’s hearings on executive compensation.

Read full story at CNBC click link below:

Click Here

QUESTION: The board special assessed the membership 5% to contribute to a political action committee, which is currently suing the city to block construction of a nearby city park. What are our options for stopping the board?

ANSWER: Your options are limited. California Courts have held that boards have broad authority under the CC&Rs to act in the best interest of their associations. In Finley v. Superior Court, the court found that political contributions were not illegal and that boards could take actions they felt were in the best interest of the association, even if members disagreed. As a result, unless your governing documents provide otherwise, your board can impose a 5% special assessment to raise funds for a political action committee. If the membership is unhappy with the board’s actions, they have recourse–they can recall the board and elect directors who agree with their position.

Sincerely yours,

Adrian Adams, Esq.
Adams Kessler PLC

During his State of the State address, Governor Schwarzenegger today announced his 2010 proposals for California.  Included in the proposals is a recommendation to set aside $200 million for a new round of $10,000 state tax credits for first-time home buyers.  The proposal expands upon the initial $10,000 state tax credit by including both new and existing homes.  Last year’s tax credit applied only to new homes.

The tax credit could be combined with the recently extended and expanded federal tax credit for home buyers.

More info

SFAR - Mayor Gavin Newsom has announced that he will veto amendments to San Francisco’s Rent Ordinance proposed by Supervisor John Avalos. Since eight votes are needed on the Board of Supervisors to override a mayoral veto and the proponents of the amendments have only seven, the mayoral veto is expected to hold.

If the veto override attempt fails, it is likely, however, that Supervisor Avalos will attempt to put the amendments before the voters at the election in either June or November.

The amendments were intended to extend “just cause” eviction protections to tenants in units that are not now subject to eviction controls (i.e., most residential rental units with a certificate of occupancy issued after the effective date of the Rent Ordinance, June 13, 1979.

Honorable Mayor Newsom,

Please do not support the Avalos Amendment.  It is another issue that will in the long run hurt San Francisco.  Property owners pay property taxes and the taxes (on newly sold properties) are based on their value.  This amendment will not only hurt the owners and eventually new tenants but also the City. It will reduce the value of these properties and therefore bring in less revenue to the City.  Free market systems can adjust for changing times.  A regulated market cannot make those adjustments and will therefore, over time, put undue pressure on the tenants who must pay higher rents to subsidize the rent controlled units.  We must encourage new housing in SF— not impede it.

These are some other reasons the amendment is not fair:

• They will impede an owner’s ability to move into a rental unit in structures for which a certificate of occupancy was issued after June 13, 1979—a problem no owner had reason to believe would ever exist when a decision was made to buy and rent.
• They will discourage owners from renting units in post-1979 structures because of problems likely to be experienced recovering possession.
• They will discourage the construction of residential structures that can be rented.

The Avalos amendments provide no verifiable evidence—only hearsay from biased tenant activists and others—that evictions without cause have become a problem in structures for which a certificate of occupancy was issued after June 13, 1979.

Thank you for your consideration.

Janis Stone
DRE00517072

C.A.R. beat three seperate legislative proposals that would have established costly point-of-sale mandates.

Next Tuesday, December 8, 2009, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote on amendments to the city’s Rent Ordinance, proposed by Supervisor John Avalos. The amendments will extend “just cause” eviction protections to tenants in units that are not now subject to eviction controls (i.e., most residential rental units with a certificate of occupancy issued after the effective date of the Rent Ordinance, June 13, 1979).

If the amendments are passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed into law by the mayor, an owner of residential real property still may, under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (California Civil Code Sections 1954.50, et seq.), establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a unit located in a structure for which a certificate of occupancy was first issued after the effective date of the Rent Ordinance.

But, according to some, there is some possibility that the mayor may veto the amendments if they are passed by the Board of Supervisors.

Currently, there are three supervisors who are likely to vote against the Avalos amendments. But four votes are needed to sustain a mayoral veto. So, a fourth supervisor must be found to vote against the amendments and to sustain the mayor’s veto if the Avalos amendments are to be defeated.

For REALTORS® and their clients who own post-1979 units, the best strategy to pursue is to focus lobbying efforts on District 8 Supervisor Bevan Dufty and Mayor Gavin Newsom. The contact numbers for the two elected officials appear below, followed by arguments that can be advanced for opposing the Avalos amendments. Since the amendments are scheduled to be voted upon by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, December 8, 2009, it is important for the two elected officials to be contacted as soon as possible.

Elected Officials to Contact

Supervisor Bevan Dufty
City Hall, Room 244
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4689

Telephone: (415) 554-6968
Fax: (415) 554-6909
E-mail: bevan.dufty@sfgov.org

Mayor Gavin Newsom
City Hall, Room 200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4689

Telephone: (415) 554-6141
Fax: (415) 554-6160
E-mail: gavin.newsom@sfgov.org

Arguments to Advance

The Avalos amendments, if passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed into law by the mayor, will reduce the availability of rental units for the following reasons:

They will impede an owner’s ability to move into a rental unit in structures for which a certificate of occupancy was issued after June 13, 1979—a problem no owner had reason to believe would ever exist when a decision was made to buy and rent.

They will discourage owners from renting units in post-1979 structures because of problems likely to be experienced recovering possession.

They will discourage the construction of residential structures that can be rented.

The Avalos amendments provide only the flimsiest justification for their passage. Two examples:

“Evictions without just cause from these post-1979 residential units are a growing concern…particularly due to the increasing number of no-fault evictions following property foreclosures.” (No specifics are provided.)

“As a matter of fairness to all residential renters, just cause eviction protections should be extended to units with a certificate of occupancy first issued after June 13, 1979.”

The Avalos amendments provide no verifiable evidence—only hearsay from biased tenant activists and others—that evictions without cause have become a problem in structures for which a certificate of occupancy was issued after June 13, 1979.

It is estimated that 15,000 residential rental units have been built after June 13, 1979, and currently are not covered by just cause eviction protections. Approximately 180,000 were built before June 13, 1979, and are covered by the rent control provisions of Chapter 37 of the city’s Administrative Code.

Note: Face it, if you own property in San Francisco but do not live here, you have no voice! – Mick Orton

Los Angeles Times - The federal government recently extended and expanded the federal tax credit for home buyers.  The tax credit now concludes June 30, 2010 instead of Nov. 30, 2009, and also includes existing homeowners who meet certain qualifications.

 MAKING SENSE OF THE STORY FOR CONSUMERS

• Current homeowners are eligible for a $6,500 federal tax credit if they have lived in their current home for a consecutive five out of the last eight years, and the adjusted household income does not exceed $125,000 for single files or $225,000 for join filers.
• The expanded tax credit went into effect Nov. 6, the day President Obama signed the bill.  Homes that close escrow between Nov. 6, 2009 and June 30, 2010 are eligible to apply for the tax credit.
• The legislation does not require homeowners to sell their current residence; however, the new home must be the primary residence and the price of the home must not exceed the limit of $800,000.  Homeowners who plan to retain their current home as a rental or second home are advised to move into the new home the day escrow closes so there is no question it was the principal residence at the time of the tax credit.
• Almost all housing types are eligible, including new and existing single-family homes, condominiums, manufactured or mobile homes, and boats that serve as the owner’s principal residence.  Second homes and investment properties are not eligible.
• Home buyers in 2009—those who close after Nov. 6, but no later than Dec. 31, can claim the $6,500 credit on their 2009 federal tax returns, or amend their 2008 returns.  Similarly, eligible buyers in 2010 will be able to file for the credit on their 2009 returns or 2010 returns.  All home buyers should talk to a tax advisor regarding timing decisions.

To read the full story, please click here.