We’ve fielded more than our fair share of questions and concerns over the past month regarding Supervisor Daly’s proposal to require two-unit buildings to participate in San Francisco’s condo-conversion lottery.
And just as we were about to publish a summary, a plugged-in tipster comes through with the scoop via the office of Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier:
Thank you for your letter concerning draft ordinance #080820. This ordinance would require that 2 unit buildings go into the condo conversion lottery. You will be glad to know that I spoke with Supervisor Daly’s office yesterday and this legislation is not moving forward.
Again, Supervisor Daly’s proposed ordinance to require two-unit buildings to enter San Francisco’s condominium conversion lottery will not be on the November ballot.
∙ Potential November Ballot Measures: Condo Lottery For Two-Units? [SocketSite]
I have to say I’m surprised, but pleased. I doubt there are more than a few hundred two-unit TICs that get converted every year, so this initiative was really symbolic, punitive and quite unnecessary. Sometimes sanity prevails, even at City Hall.
Hooray!!
could someone please explain the significance of this proposal? what would it mean if passed? why is daly proposing what looks on the surface to be an anti-tenant proposal?
I’m glad this did not move forward. The cost of doing a two unit TIC is around $20,000 now. Its amazing that people have to pay that and then go into a lottery that may take anywhere from 5 to 20 years.
i share the collective sigh of relief and second anything horrible, crude, distasteful, or hateful that anyone wants to say about Chris Daly.
What was most disturbing about this proposed legislation was it didn’t grandfather any 2-unit owner who had already started the process of 1) buying, 2) evicting or moving in, 3) remodeling, or 4) the one year TIC waiting period prior to conversion – those steps could take several years. It only “grandfathered” those people who ALREADY had met all the criteria for starting the condo conversion process – i.e. he was changing the rules in the middle of the game.
[Removed by Editor – let’s keep it about the proposed legislation (or now lack thereof).]
I wonder if this is because they discovered that it doesn’t have to be on the ballot? Can the supes ammend the existing TIC legislation themselves to include 2 unit buildings?
dont scare me like that Jake. sure hope not. i got a call into Alioto’s office and will write what i find out
the supes could amend the condo conversion legislation, but they know that Newsom would veto it. And they don’t have 8 votes for an override (especially since Mirkarimi and Dufty are conflicted out, since they own TICs.
Seems like all of Daly’s legislation is DOA — hurray!
I just learned that Peskin and his old wife converted their single family home in North beach from a two unit building without permits.
The hypocrisy and abuse of power of some of these guys is unbelievable.
I just learned that Peskin and his old wife converted their single family home in North beach from a two unit building without permits.
The hypocrisy and abuse of power of some of these guys is unbelievable.
did he truly convert it to a SFH or are they just living in it as if it were a SFH? would be interesting to check the 3R report. if true someone should make a lot of noise about it.
anon/resp- either way (w or w/o permits) that elitist schmuck is using 2 units for personal pleasure. i’m sure some protected tenant would like to live in his unit for pennies on the dollar. hypocrite.
/resp- either way (w or w/o permits) that elitist schmuck is using 2 units for personal pleasure. i’m sure some protected tenant would like to live in his unit for pennies on the dollar. hypocrite.
Posted by: AMinSF at July 3, 2008 9:12 PM
LOL, excellent!
why are so many SS’s against property rights??
this a real estate blog after all…
Check the Peskin story out here.
http://sfbulldog.com/wordpress/other/?p=26
I just spoke with both Alioto’s office and Daly’s office. both clueless. No one said anything intelligent about the status of this legislation and I’m not familiar enough with the Supe’s rulemaking ability to make a guess. There is a rules committee meeting this Thursday so maybe we’ll ge some clarity on timing since the proposal has some “30-day period” expiring this Thursday also.
Yikes – does this mean there’s a chance it’s not actually DOA?
I just spoke with Daly’s office and the ordinance is DOA at least with respect to being included on the November ballot. However, the legislative aide I spoke with in Daly’s office indicated that Daly’s office may revisit the issue in August and to check back from time to time as to status (note that even if it is revisited in August, it wouldn’t be on the November ballot, which I think means that if they do revisit the issue in August, it would be an action by the Supes to amend the ordinance, which I certainly hope Newsom would veto). Let’s keep our collective fingers crossed.
So this is a great *rumor* – but can someone point me to something more official so I can relax?
Thanks!
i doubt there’s anything concrete as the ballot is five months away