Homeless in San Francisco currently HOUSED soon to be BACK OUT on STREETS!

15 comments
Recommend
Share
Sort by Best
Avatar
Join the discussion…
Avatar
auweia • 4 days ago
you do know that Randy Shaw took over 1,500 units off of rent control, right. Every one of his master leased SRO units used to have rent control and now no longer doesn’t. Because Randy Shaw retrieves government subsidies, every one of his master leased rooms have lost their rent control, and he doesn’t even own the buildings. If you don’t believe it, just look at the recent evictions from THC. Every one of them says it in the court documents. How come you’re not saying anything about that?. That’s 5 times as many rooms as this one
All of these master leased units are standardized city controlled rent units, no longer under the rent control ordinance. What happens when or if the master lease runs out and is no longer renewed by the owner?. Randy Shaw has even filed court documents stating that master leased rooms have been remodeled using city contract money and are therfore considered to be built after 1979, when the building was built in 1911
Once a unit loses rent control, it can’t go back after the master lease runs out, can it? So that means a private contractor can temporarily master rent a building, collect city funds, demolish rent control, and then hand it back to the owner 20 years later, with essentially a brand new building not under rent control, even though the building is not new
This cycle hasn’t been tested yet because all of the master leases are still ongoing, but every one of those contracts have a time limit

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
Brad • 7 months ago
The ordinance does say replacement units have to be in a comparable neighborhood. Years ago, the San Remo Hotel in North Beach tried to swap it residential units with an SRO at 6th and Mission. The city ruled that was NOT a comparable and refused to approve it. Clearly these hotels at Union Square are a gold mine while the land in the TL is worth less. One solution, make the owner voluntarily put ALL units under rent control like the owner of Trinity Towers did for one of the his new buildings. Better idea: condo the new project and turn one of the two towers, the larger one in the back, over to a nonprofit housing corporation as permanently affordable housing. That would compensate for the inferior location and prevent the units from being turned into an AirBnB hotel.

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
Sam Brad • 7 months ago
I have news for you, Brad. Rooms at the San Remo go for $150 a night. I doubt there are any long-term rent-controlled residents there. It markets itself like any other hotel, except with a few less frills.
Therefore it’s already like an Airbnb hotel except that it has its own on-line reservations system. So what good did the city’s refusal ultimately do?
All the San Remo had to do, and all any SRO hotel has to do, is wait for the controlled guests to die, go to prison, go to hospital, go into a mental or rehab institute, or just vanish. Which happens a lot, apparently.
That said, there were a mysteriously large number of SRO buildings destroyed by fire after the new tighter rules were passed. Just a coincidence, right?

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
PPod • 7 months ago
Landlords and building management companies work around income constraints from rent-controlled units is pretty simple, and in fact, as been adopted by the owners of the building I live in. As soon as a unit becomes vacant, give it a “face lift” and advertise it as a short-term rental. This does not mean advertising as a vacation home. It’s probably common for owners of multiple building to apply for construction permits to expand the number of bedrooms for vacant units. My current residence includes over 30 individual apartments; since early 2013, three studio apartments have been converted to 1-bedrooms and four 1-bedrooms are now 2-bedroom apartments. The turnover for all of the newly converted 2-bedroom units has averaged every 3-4 months. Vacant units are rent controlled; but are advertised at market rates–every time a new tenant moves out. I don’t know of any ordinance prohibiting leases in rent-controlled buildings for less than a year. City ordinances prohibit combining existing rent-controlled units because that would reduce the available housing stock. In this case, the building owners are actually adding units which cost more to rent with each vacancy.
SRO’s are supposed to be closely regulated by the City but I doubt anyone is keeping track of every SRO rent increase.

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
Sam PPod • 7 months ago
There is a art to finding tenants who won’t stay too long. I like to think I have honed my skills at detecting them over the years. The Airbnb model is best suited to very short stays but they are a hassle for an owner. You can find medium-term tenants through Airbnb, but then you have to pay them the fee on an ongoing basis.
Rather than 3-4 months, I think the sweet spot for a rental is 6-12 months. You don’t have the hassle of finding another tenant any time soon, but 6, 9 or 12 months allows for rents to increase enough to justify the switch.
The most reliable source for shorter-term lets right now are tech employers, who are constantly importing workers from other cities and countries, and need to house them until they can find their own place. I’ve signed leases directly with some tech companies and it’s near perfect – rent always paid on time and turnover is ensured. In fact the real tenant is the employer and not the resident, so rent control really doesn’t apply.
Visiting academics, short-term corporate lets, longer-term tourists and in fact any foreigner can also work well.
Tenants to avoid? Lawyers, any kind of artist, activist or advocate, public sector and non-profit workers, and anyone with poor prospects or with a “lifer” attitude who won’t move on. Kids, animals illegals, on the other hand, I am perfectly fine with having as tenants.

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
Bryan Costales • 7 months ago
Good story. For those that need it, some historical background is available here: http://www.ccsro.org/pages/his…

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
zRants • 7 months ago
Keep reminding people that “all new residences constructed since 1979 – will be exempt from the city’s rent-control law.” The only way to keep affordable housing is to change that rule or leave in place the housing that exists now. If people want more affordable housing the only way to get it is by building it where no housing exists now. This is called ADDING, not REPLACING housing units.

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
Mat • 7 months ago
The article says clearly that the SRO units are rent controlled.

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
Sam Mat • 7 months ago
Nobody said otherwise. SRO buildings are not listed as exceptions in the rent ordinance unless they fall into one of the other categories of exception, such as new-build or government-owned..
However, because they are also hotels with many short-term and transient tenants, the effect of rent control is greatly mitigated. The SRO owner can re-set the rent every time there is a vacancy, which is almost daily in many of them. The lifestyles of typical SRO residents are not conducive to long-term commitments, meaning frequent departures, both voluntary and involuntary..
And as noted before, many SRO’s practice a “29 day rule”.
So the burden on the owners is much reduced, and the “problem” caused by replacing them with new units is less than is being claimed here.

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
lgsplace • 7 months ago
In addition to requiring affordable units, one of the conditions of building should be that the new units will be subject to the rent control ordinance (despite being built after 1979). Someone ought to be researching the legality of such a condition.

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
Sam lgsplace • 7 months ago
The reason new units are exempt from rent control is fairly easy to understand. If they were, nobody would build any! The framers of the original rent ordinance were very careful to exempt anything built after the date it became law in order not to deter construction of rental units.
I’m fairly sure state law doesn’t allow SF to move the goal posts as well.
The Trinity Plaza deal that was struck allowed for some new controlled tenancies so in theory there might be a work-around if everyone plays nice.
But as I explained earlier, rent control is ineffective anyway for SRO’s because of the rapid turnover of people there. I’d be interested to see what percentage of SRO tenants are long-term compared to itinerant stays – I imagine it’s low.
And they’re not cheap either. I saw one the other day posting vacancies at $60 a night. That’s nearly two grand a month for a flea-bitten room and sketchy neighbors. No bargain.

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
Brandon • 7 months ago
Its unfortunate that the replacement ordinance requires doing so in the same locale. I think we all would benefit if affordable housing w as more equally spread across the city, and not concentrated in one place.
Also, though Randy Shaw may be an expert on the ordinance he created, I’m pretty sure there’s no requirement to equal the value of the properties involved… That sounds like wishful thinking.
And we’d probably all benefit with a change to rent control to a more reasonable rent stabilization strategy, but good luck getting any changes made there.

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
Sam • 7 months ago
SRO rooms rent for a market rent now. There is no mandate to rent out existing SRO rooms cheaply or affordably. The SRO owner/manager can charge whatever the market will bear. There is no vacancy control.
Existing SRO tenants enjoy control of their existing rents, of course. But SRO’s have a high turnover for a variety of reasons. While some SRO’s have a policy of not letting people stay more than 30 days at a time, so that rent control never applies to them. If the resident moves out for just 24 hours, a new 30-day rental can then happen without rent control kicking in.
So I’m not sure what the problem is. The main difference is that the units will have a greater variety of tenants (and we all love diversity, right?)
Finally, it makes little sense to have traditional SRO hotels in prime areas like Union Square. And it is well known that such places harbor a lot of crime, drugs and health hazards. The project looks reasonable to me.

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
begforchange Sam • 7 months ago
“Finally, it makes little sense to have traditional SRO hotels in prime areas like UnIon Square.”
Working with individuals with severely limited income, I have spent many hours trying to find low-cost rooms for people who want (or need) to get away from the open drug dealing and use in the Tenderloin. Not all people who are poor or disabled want to live in that environment. Who benefits when we take away that choice?

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
Bernays begforchange • in a few seconds
The money is going into UNITED NATIONS “Future Earth” developers A Global Green Village is being built near Bakersville, CA. now! The High Speed Rail (Jerry Brown’s Baby) has been Designed to Serve it!
Global Villages, Hillary’s Dream, Her Book, “It Takes A Village,” go read it, (or sparks notes!) This was not Her Writing! Gerald O. Barney wrote it! (See Below)
By following the $$$ & High Speed Train Future COMMUNITIES for Green Villages…we understand, Hillary Clinton shall be our next White House Little Orphan Annie!
The new model is “Future Earth” http://www.icsu.org/future-ear…
Future Earth
Future Earth is a new 10-year international research initiative that will develop the knowledge for responding effectively to the risks and opportunities of global environmental change and for supporting transformation towards global sustainability in the coming decades. Future Earth will mobilize thousands of scientists while strengthening partnerships with policy-makers and other stakeholders to provide sustainability options and solutions in the wake of Rio+20.
Here is the Person who Designed & Wrote the Global2000 Report, to President Carter. William J. Clinton Enacted it, & Million of Millions are Funnelled into it as it is United Nations Treaty.
Under the Treaty Clause in the Constitution, a Treaty, Signed by a President, takes Precedent and Nullifies Any Federal, State or Other laws, notwithstanding the Constitution.
http://geraldbarney.com/
Quay Valley Green Community
This is one place where People will be Resettled, due to Drought.
Quay Valley Green Community
Quay Valley, California — Quay Valley is a completely self-sustaining green town of 150,000 residents located in California’s Great Central Valley. While preserving the environment around Quay Valley, the town combines the benefits of new urbanism with the best qualities of the charming nearby rural towns.

Edit

Reply

Share ›
Powered by Disqus
Subscribe
Add Disqus to your site
Privacy

Advertisements

About homelessholocaust

Tijuana Hobo , Hebrew Hobo Railroad Rabbi, The Truth Teller Tell True Truth Truthfully. If the Truth is Repugnant to you, You are a Reagan Cultist. Ronald Reagan was Taught by L. Ron Hubbard, Reagan & Hubbard FOUNDED THE SCIENCE FICTION MIND FUCKING GAME- SCIENTOLOGY- then REAGAN USED NERO LINGUIST PROGRAMMING as PRESIDENT to MURDER THE MINDS of AMERICANS!
This entry was posted in CRIMINALIZATION of POOR, POLICE KILL HOMELESS and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Homeless in San Francisco currently HOUSED soon to be BACK OUT on STREETS!

  1. It’s dire need goverment to help them

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s