At least five real estate related measures are now six supervisor votes away from making onto the November ballot. Yesterday’s introductions from supervisors Peskin, McGoldrick, and Daly:
1. Increase property transfer tax on sales of $2+ million from 0.75 to 1.5 percent (Peskin)
2. Establish staged tax increase on property sales starting at $1 million (McGoldrick)
3. Prohibit harassment by a landlord/provide rent reduction fines (Daly)
4. Prohibit OMI evictions of units with children <18/amend definition of disability (Daly)
5. Place two-unit buildings into the condo-conversion lottery (Daly)
Any plugged-in bookmakers care to provide odds?
∙ Measures for November ballot put forward [Examiner]
I think these all should go on the ballot. I would vote no on 3-5 and yes on 1 and 2. The city needs the money, and in that price range it shouldn’t be too big a burden.
By the way, what is Daly’s obsession with stopping condo conversion (and TICs)? Its totally insane.
Daly must be the single most bitter and mean-spirited politician in the country. While he sleeps comfortably in his own condo he goes out of his way to make it as difficult as possible for any one else to do the same. I don’t think he will be happy until SF is devoid of its middle class.
Daly needs to be put out of his misery, I can’t even believe half the stuff he gets up to.
The city needs to just get rid of the condo lottery full stop, not put more restrictions on it.
As someone that calls himself a “progressive” on national political issues it really bothers me that “progressive” in San Francisco means holding counterproductive and failed planning positions. When did opposition to all development and advocacy of state run price controls become progressive? Only the Mission hipster urban activist, Guardian-reading crowd goes for the Daly central planning policies. Many other progressives see the folly in Daly’s planning policies.
You have to give Daly credit though. He is not afraid to fight for his beliefs (unlike most other liberal politicians). Even when his positions are at an all-time low, he fights on. He is laying down the gauntlet after his recent ballot defeats and I don’t know if any of his opponents have the courage to take him on.
But the tide is turning against Daly’s radical and bone-headed policies. I am not the only progressive to see his approach doesn’t work. Chris Daly will not be able to grandstand on these issues as he would have been during the height of anti-gentrification sentiment almost a decade ago.
I just wish we had a good liberal politician to counter this baloney. Gavin has other things on his mind (Sacramento and beyond) and the others seem scared of Daly. I guess it falls to the silent liberal majority out there (like people that read Socketsite) that will quietly oppose the Dalyfication of our neighborhoods.
When can we vote Daly out?
so, with measures 1 and 2, it would make it even more prohibitively expensive for new buyers in the city. anybody covered by prop 13 would be shielded from tax increases, while any new buyers would bear an even larger tax burden. that’s just stupid. is the board of supes trying to drive people out of the city?
To Stephen: While, on the one hand, it’s not a big burden to bear, you do realize that these people already pay more property tax *every year*, don’t you?
Soon enough, this will apply to a good chunk of the homes in SF, which I’m sure Daly is well aware of.
As it is currently written, I suspect it wouldn’t rake in more than an extra 15 million a year, which is a pretty paltry sum compared to the annual property tax revenues.
If you want to get rid of Daly, put up a better candidate to face him in the next election cycle. Last time, the guy running against Daly ran such an exaggerated and negative campaign that, while I didn’t really support Daly, couldn’t vote for the other guy on principal.
The other candidate refusing to stop calling my cell phone 6 times a day didn’t win any points either.
As many have said, we’re at the point with all of these rules regarding rent and property that any relaxation of the rules would dramatically lurch the market, so we just keep adding one more rule at a time, creating an even more artificial market. It’s sort of like habitual lying– after a while you are so caught up in them, you have to keep creating more lies just to keep it together.
Is this the government we deserve? We need more Tom McClintocks in Sacramento (and Washington).
Wouldn’t #1 and #2 require a 2/3 vote?
Ryan,
Daly is termed out this fall, so his shenanigans (at least as a Supe) will stop soon.
All ballot propositions are stupid, period. Representative governments should not try to be direct democracies – it can only lead to bad results.
Chris Daly is a schmuck. I’ve lived here for 5 years in SoMA and hold him personally responsible for the crappy condition of the neighborhood.
Instead of taking a stand on Tibet, he should focus on the job he’s paid for, representing our neighborhood.
He’s the best argument against district elections ever seen. We have to return to city wide elections!
Wow – Dare I say I agree with everyone on Socketsite – holy smokes – Realtors and the SS’ers on the same page — must be a sign we’re set for a big earthquake.
Help me out – how can Daly remain in office? He doesn’t represent our city nor his own constituents. He is only concerned with his personal political agenda – which is the furthest thing from what we’re supposed to get from a city supervisor.
Cracks me up that our progressive blue collar supervisor was schooled in the white collar halls of Duke University and is a property owner. If Supervisor Daly wants to earn an ounce of respect – how bout he sell that fancy pants condo and purchase a TIC unit — see how that works out – sharing a mortgage payment with 7 other parties.
This guy is a clown – a publicity whore who needs a message sent to him. Am certain there’s a better choice for his supervisor position – let’s hope someone steps up and ends his egomaniacal era.
Daly is NOT termed out this fall.. Peskin is. Daly was re-elected in 06. Peskin and Daly are trying to appoint David Chiu as district 3 supervisor. If you live in district three, please do write down Chiu as any of your three choices this fall. Remember, it’s rank choice voting. There are several moderates running including Joe Alioto and Claudine Cheng among others. There are several viable candidates.
^^^Oops, yes you’re right, Daly isn’t termed out until 2010. But, at least he can’t be elected again (the only good thing that I’ve seen regarding term limits)
Why hasn’t someone gotten the requisite signatures to put the condo conversion issue on the ballot? There might be enough votes in SF to end the entire lottery process, and easing the way for condo conversions. I wonder if anyone will ever step up and give it a shot?
Does anyone know much about the recall process? Does it apply to municipal elected officials as well as state officials like former Gov. Davis? Recalling Daly might be the only way to protect the middle class from his wreckless, Robin Hood policies.
RecallDaly,
Recalling Daly would be difficult because it would have to be done by the same people that elected him. If you think you can gather the needed signatures, etc in Dist 6, go for it.
A McGoldrick Recall was attempted last year in district 1.
I’m sure the lawyers on San Francisco are thrilled to see yet more laws passed … the “progressive” folks on the Board right now seem to think they’re paid by the quantity of laws and ballot propositions, not the quality of those laws and propositions.
Hats off to Supervisor Sandoval for recusing himself from the Community Justice Center funding vote. He cited his runoff for the Superior Court Judge job as the reason – that’s politician code for “I don’t have the spine and gumption to vote on this issue for fear of the effects on my own political career” Way to be progressive, dude! I won’t be voting for Sandoval … enough spineless folks are clogging our governing systems as it is.
Anything proposed by Daly and/or Peskin I would categorically vote NO, without exception.
On a recall … I think folks would better be served by preventing his proteges from being elected in other Districts this November.
What hurts this City the most is the fact that we have a weak Mayor and a weak Board of Supervisors. One of the two needs to be able to take the ball and run with it … the current setup just means more of the same.
^^^Agreed, mostly. I don’t think that the BOS is that weak, unfortunately it’s controlled by just a slight majority (the Peskin group) and has a crazy nutjob thrown in that makes a lot of noise (Daly). However, Newsom is the weakest mayor that we’ve had in years.
I don’t agree with a lot of what Peskin says, but I remember a quote of his from a few years ago referring to Newsom – went something like, “I like Newsom ok and everything, but damn, if I had an 80% approval rating I’d knock that sucker down to 55% and actually get some shit done.”
On that, I can wholeheartedly agree with Peskin.
why do people think newsom is weak?
He hasn’t done anything. Almost all of his proposals have failed to gain traction and he can’t find a way to gain a majority of supporters on the BOS. He’s great at coming up with a good sound bite or taking an easy stand on something that will look good for him politically (gay marriage part one – he gets applauded for doing what he did, but it was a no-lose situation for him – did anyone really think that SF voters would not approve of his actions?)
He needs to take a stand on something that may not be politically popular once in awhile, simply because that’s what great leaders do – they lead. Daley (of Chicago) is seen as a great mayor in many ways, but is also hated by a good portion of his populace and has done many “risky” things. Bloomberg has put his name behind many politically unpopular things. Newsom has always seemed to be running for governor, rather than taking risks and getting shit done.
oops!!
I meant to say, do NOT vote for David Chiu in November..
Don’t blame me. I voted against Daly. 2010 won’t come quick enough.
People act like Peskin and Daly are allies all the time. They’re not. Daly is 100% pie in the sky. Peskin is a NIMBY unless he’s getting something out of it. Big difference.
Ask Chris Daly why he is bringing these measures, most notably the 2 unit condo conversion one to the table. I’ve had a VERY enjoyable conversation with him today via e-mail. To his credit, he responds to your questions and comments — albeit in the pedantic tone you’d expect to get from him. I took him to task and would love to share our e-mail chain – but it’s quite long and I fear the Editor would yank it anyway.
Ping him directly – he should know that most of the people in this city – and I suspect we have a mix of renters and owners on the forum — disagree with him and think this sets us back. Trust me – you’ll enjoy being “yelled” at via e-mail.
Chris.Daly@sfgov.org — tell em Coach A sent ya- trust me – he LOVES ME!
[Editor’s Note: Bring it on. Or better yet, forward it along: tips@socketsite.com.]
When the progs gained their supermajority at the BOS in 2000 I viewed it as an aberration – a reaction to perceived excesses of the dot com era and Willie Brown – and a situation that wouldn’t last. But as time has gone on, I’ve started to feel this Board may not be too far off from what’s considered mainstream in SF, or at most incrementally so. After all, virtually everything they put on the ballot ends up passing handily and they’ve all been re-elected. So the adage holds true: you do get the government you deserve.
SFHawkGuy wrote:
“I guess it falls to the silent liberal majority out there (like people that read Socketsite) ”
ha! socketsite readership hardly represents the “silent majority.” If the majority was real estate agents and those obssessed with the value of the condos they are selling, I suppose. If the “silent majority” is so anti-Daly, why does he keep getting elected, and not by slim margins? The whole notion that there are “silent majorities” out there, whether it be local or national, is pure flibber-flabber. The election results are the pudding. The fact that Daly got elected — twice! – is empirical evidence that there is not such a “silent majority” that hates him — at least not in his district. One man does not control an entire legislative body of which he is 1/11th. And to the extent that he gets legislation passed, there must be a majority of the other members of the board who agree with him. And to the extent that they also were elected by majority votes in their district, therefore the empirical evidence is that there is a majority of voting San Franciscans that support those policies.
[Editor’s Note: Let’s not confuse readers with those who tend to comment; less than one-quarter of our readers are “in the industry” (brokers, agents, developers, etc.).]
coach A
Do share!!!!
Proof,
I would love more empirical evidence. Bring it on! But the most recent data indicates that Daly’s policies aren’t popular with San Franciscans. The recent vote against Daly’s proposition attempting to stop development in Bayview failed badly. Daly has also recently lost more battles than he has won (the old Kelly Moore paint store on Chavez St., for e.g.).
But I guess I am also relying on my anecdotal experience when I say the “silent majority” is against Daly. I know a lot of progressives that are not ideologues on planning issues like Daly is. And I think the empirical data will back me up. Daly is not a popular politician city-wide. He eeked out a victory in his very small district last time. Under city-wide elections Daly doesn’t stand a chance.
And I would be interested to see if San Franciscans want 50% affordable housing rules and policies that prohibit almost all development in the city. And I would be interested to see if San Franciscans are down with a political patronage system where Chris Daly gets to shakedown developers and steer the money to his housing activist buddies. I don’t San Francisco is behind that.
The reason those of us are “silent” is because there doesn’t seem to be any other San Francisco politicians that will stand up to this nonsense.
My sense is that it isn’t so much a silent majority as it is an apathetic majority – what percentage of registered voters showed up June 3rd? The sad thing is everybody can sign up to vote by mail – for crying out loud.
It is also a numbers game. If you’re primary (only?) issue is affordable housing and the population of the City is made up of 65% renters, that’s very helpful, yah?
It’s really overly-simplistic and not really true to say that it’s primarily renters that care about affordable housing and consumer protections (like rent stabilization and renter no-fault eviction protections). The resounding landslide trouncing that Prop 98 received in the record low turnout election last week was proof of that. The issue ultimately rested on an effort to end all renter protections in California. Extreme low turnout elections such as these are very heavily weighted toward more conservative, property-owning voters. Plus the election was statewide.
Additionally, affordable housing is not just a renter issue. People want affordable for-sale housing. Our current inclusionary housing laws have probably produced more for-sale affordable housing than rental. Not everyone is looking at housing as an investment strategy to cash out on every 5 years — most people just want a place they can call their own to live.
I would love to run girly boy Daly over in my Ferrari. Rub it in his face. Reverse class warfare.
The net result of all these socialist policies is that the middle class gets squeezed out.
All these Mission hipsters and Guardian reading idiots have never lived in a real socialist country. If they whined – they would be tossed into the goolags. Now there’s an idea!
Get rid of district elections and then candidates for the board would have to do things for the benefit of the entire city…and people not in Daly’s district as residents, but who may work there, shop there, etc. would be able to vote someone responsible in.
needy_f40,
You may have a good point in there somewhere but in a town full of girly boys that could crush your ferrari with their bear hands, you loose. Too bad we can’t take on daly together, even though he makes my blood boil, i would have to take you on first.
I believe some mission hipsters are simply misinformed about economics. They don’t understand that well-planed density is better for them and everyone else.
Also i think the lot is generally downwardly mobile and sides with the “left” to be down with the working class, not understanding that often the working class,that has always been working class, values ownership.
Daly is totally missing the point. And if he does one more thing to make it harder for the middle and working class to own in this town i’m going to puke all over his condo.
Get rid of district elections and we can go back to the Willie Brown patronage system, where everyone was on someone’s payroll and the only people electable were beholden to big money.
No thanks.
Forgot to add.
Even though i could qualify for a BMR unit, i don’t want one. i have worked hard and saved my money and i want the same rights, benefits, and risks of ownership anyone else gets.
nohood,
I was being a tad provocative
Glad we agree on Daly.
Peace be on all men (except the socialists of course)
@NoeValleyJim,
Yes, district elections have proven soooo beneficial. The tyranny of the minority where the best of the worst get elected to the Board of Supervisors, one of the most powerful positions in the city. I voted for it myself – back when it was a part time board interested in the good of the city instead of petty personal agendas. God was I wrong and did I learn my lesson.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with an election at large with the candidates securing the most votes from a city wide electorate win – because simply, they have to have the entire city’s interests in mind when running, not pandering to a small vocal minority in their district. District elections only work where districts are large enough to be cities themselves. Look at LA where some districts are larger than the city of SF.
I agree with NoeValleyJim … district elections, in my opinion, are going to get a more representative Board and would give elected District members to be responsible for what happens in their District. At large Board seats only need to keep 50% + 1 of the voters happy … to heck with those parts of town that have low voter turnout or don’t contribute to their campaigns. Detroit has an at large City COuncil …. and they still have abandoned, burned out homes from the 1967 race riots standing.
Problem with Daly’s typical efforts is that most renter’s or those that don’t consider themselves ‘rich’ will vote against condo propositions only because there is an elitist tag to being a condo owner (Daly apparently withstanding). Anything related to evictions will get a lot of votes, simply because who isn’t against evictions, in theory?
Prop F didn’t pass not so much because of money Lennar threw at it, but I believe simply people realized that BV/HP needed something done, and Prop F would simply have stalled any further movement for another 5-10 years. People probably said, just do SOMETHING. Add to that, the fact that BV/HP had low turnout (again.) Can’t help those that won’t help themselves.
“… district elections, in my opinion, are going to get a more representative Board and would give elected District members to be responsible for what happens in their District.”
I think a big problem with district elections, specifically Daly’s district, was that his district represented people from two distinctly different economic groups. First, you had the people in SROs and other poorer people, but then you also had the richer condo owners South of Market/Mission Bay/etc. Daly clearly was able to cater only to the poorer residents to win the election while ignoring everyone else.
^^^That just sounds like simple politics to me. A good 48-50% of the country didn’t care for Bush in the last two national elections, but he catered to the 50-52% of the people that could get him elected, while ignoring everyone else.
As a Soma resident, I voted against Daly. But g is on the right track here – the problem is that too many of the condo owners in Soma are absentee owners. Either monied collectors buying 2nd or 3rd homes, or local area flippers/investors who bought rentals. In either case, they don’t vote, at least not in Soma.
Conversely, many of the people who rent those units tend to be younger singles who are more concerned with happy hours and getting into b-school or law school in 2 years. Or they get married, have a kid, and move to the east bay. In either case, they’re here temporarily and don’t care about district elections. So the overly vocal minority succeeds in making its voice heard. Hopefully this trend reverses itself as Soma builds a critical mass of more permanent residents.
When I moved to San Francisco 32 years ago, the board of supervisors job was a part-time job. That is why we had 12. And why Dan White was angry. The part-time pay. (Among other things)
We have big budget crisis. Let’s eliminate 7 of the supervisor positions, immediately.
Create a 5-board member with district lines that match exactly with the new proposed 5-station police districts.
It would be harder for the politicians to ignore the police department. The politicians would basically get a report card from the police department via crime stats. They would be directly responsible to their constituency for crime matters.
It would force our elected officials to start thinking about the city as one unit again, instead of twelve special interest groups with opposing agendas.
If we only had five supervisors, do you think Daly would get re-elected?
The citizenry would be forced to make better choices.
-Just another pinko liberal
^^^there are only 11 supervisors, not 12.
I am closing on a vacated 2 unit TIC building with a friend of mine TOMORROW!! I just found out about this potential legislation yesterday, just read your blog, and am freaked out!!
I am 26 years old and am putting my entire savings up for this duplex and felt comfortable with the thought of being able to convert to condos within just one year. We found the perfect place: 2 unit, vacant, no evictions since 04 and we were planning on living in each unit for well over a year. We read all kinds of articles on conversion bypass to confirm our situation applied before making the decision to move forward… and now this?
Please let me know any news you hear and if there is anything at all we can do to stop this.