The Mayor’s Office of Housing is helping to promote the resale of Candlestick Point (101 Crescent Way) Below Market Rate unit #2213. It’s two bedrooms, two baths, 1,063 square feet and asking $399,945 with purchase and resale restrictions.
If interested, you might also want to take a look at the bank owned Candlestick Point #2305. It’s two bedrooms, two baths, 1,063 square feet and asking $389,900. And it’s without any restrictions – other than the free market – of course.
∙ Listing: 101 Crescent Way #2213 (2/2) 1,063 sqft – $399,945 [MLS]
∙ Listing: 101 Crescent Way #2305 (2/2) 1,063 sqft – $389,900 [MLS]
OMG, that is too funny!
What’s the big deal?
BMR means BEYOND Market Value right?
/s
Seriously, as the market decline continues and the various BMR units are no longer “below market,” isn’t the logical move to remove the BMR status? Of course, that means shrinking the bureaucracy that manages this whole fiasco, so it’ll never happen.
As a BMR owner (not at Candlestick Point), I’ll be curious to see how the MOH “helps” the unfortunate owner of this unit. My guess is this unit will not be able to sell anytime soon, and it will just sit on the MLS along with many other BMR units. The current policies of the MOH are running the BMR program into the ground and, in the process, trapping many people–like this owner–in their homes. I feel sorry for this owner–he probably feels that buying into the BMR program was the biggest mistake he’s ever made…and (unfortunately) he’s probably right!
You would think a lawsuit challenging the notion of a BMR when other identical homes are selling BBMR would get the contract voided. Maybe it should be changed over to AMR
You even get an extra parking space with the lower-priced non-BMR unit. This is just silly.
#2305 described as ‘almost corner unit’ on mls remarks.
That’s awesome.
It’s a popular area, maybe the market rate unit will get competing offers…
“#2305 described as ‘almost corner unit’ on mls remarks”
And it’s got closet organizers!!!!!! Awesome. I am totally looking for a house with closet organizers.
Definitely something to highlight in the MLS.
Well, there is a bright side to this, which is that the BMR unit probably had fewer mortgage shenanigans/economy-destroying-side-effects than the bank owned unit.
It’s a popular area, maybe the market rate unit will get competing offers…
Doesn’t matter. You still have to sell it at the price the City tells you. What usually happens is that the names of the qualified buyers are put into a hat and someone selects one at random.
Doesn’t matter. You still have to sell it at the price the City tells you. What usually happens is that the names of the qualified buyers are put into a hat and someone selects one at random.
It was a joke, and I was referring to the “market rate” unit, not the “below market rate” unit.
In addition to the market price matching a supposedly below market price, the city is undercutting that BMR unit on the MOH website:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/moh_page.asp?id=112149
These four units at 101 Executive Park Blvd are bigger than the ones at 101 Crescent Way, but are a lot cheaper:
2 available 2BRs @ 1297-1516 sqft for $358.92-$381.25 HOA, and $266,004 to $269,385 purchase price
2 available 3BRs @ 1474-1878 sqft for $377-$423.50 HOA, and $295,630 to $302,669 purchase price
If you wanted to live in a BMR unit, you’d rather enter into the lottery for these 4 units instead of the 2 at Crescent.
This location could be thought of as almost Bayview. Imagine owning an above market rate below market rate almost corner unit in almost Bayview.
The market rate one is the one that advertised as “almost corner unit” not the above market below market rate one. Still whoever is setting the “below market rate” rate needs to take another look at the market. As for the owner of the BMR, I guess he or she is finding out that even BMR’s can decline in value.
When is this BMR maddness going to stop! Can we please end it?
Also, are the only homes being build in SF now for some special case or interest group?
the BMR disease has spread to south san francisco. i was looking at the two main developments over there (south city lights and park station) and they both have BMR.
BMR owners need to organize. The MOH created an affordable housing program that offers the opportunity to own while eliminating the benefit of participating in market appreciation. However, the program offers no protection against over development and leaves its participants hanging out to dry.
I see no reason why the MOH could not release some of the BMR inventory permanently to new buyers. Restrict the revenue participation of sellers to the BMR base price, but allow buyers to purchase without future restrictions.
If the sale yields a price above the seller’s BMR base pricing, the MOH ought deposit the overage into their Down Payment Assistance Loan Program fund. DALP, as it turns out, is a FAR better assistance vehicle to buyers…
“Also, are the only homes being build in SF now for some special case or interest group?”
That seems to be how stuff works here. You have rent control to help long-term renters (including elderly). You have BMR units to help people who make median or less income (note that median here is still more than 50% above national median). You have things like the planning department and historic preservation that keep home values extremely high for many other properties, particularly in more “prime” areas. And the NIMBYs screw everything up for everyone.
If the city truly wanted to lower the price of housing stock, it could reduce bureaucracy and reduce the power of NIMBYs, among other things. As it is, all housing in SF generally favors an interest group.
Seconding JC’s comment RE: DALP. BMR artificially lessens the entry point, but does so primarily for those without resources to compensate for other issues (housing price fluctuations, job transitions, HOA assessments, etc), while DALP — wisely utilized, of course — actually creates more financial cushion for entry-level buyers. It often brings the primary loan under the magical FHA limit, reducing the rate and eliminating the mortgage insurance requirement. As a silent second it doesn’t limit appreciation or refinancing, and the resale pool is the normal housing market. It could, perhaps rightly, be argued that it only helps to artificially inflate property values along with other City & County policies mentioned but I don’t believe this particular program is nearly as guilty as BMR.
Many policies/programs in this City inflate prices while providing value to no one. How about the $21,500,000 the developer @ ORH was supposed to pay in fees. What is the benefit? Assuming 300 units at 1000 sf ea that’s $72,000 a unit or $72 a square foot. What is accomplished accept artificially inflating the value of condos at the Met? Everybody is harping on the developer to pay his final $5,000,000. Why aren’t we asking what the hell happened to the $16,500,000 already paid.
Rent control does not help just long-term tenants. If you rented in 2006, you were protected from gouging in 2007 and 2008, when rents spiked because of the sales bust. Now, prices have returned to 2006 levels, and below, and the landlord has a good deal if you stayed and you have a good deal because you didn’t face an unstable housing situation.
If you want to trash special interests in housing, don’t forget Prop 13. Or, if we’re looking at the really big picture, the mortgage-interest deduction, the capital-gains exclusion for real estate and the idiotic $8,000 tax credit in effect for most of this year.
Guess who gets to make up for all those tax handouts to the ultimate special-interest groups? That’s right — renters, many of whom would be homeowners by now if they hadn’t been too responsible to buy into the absurd bubble of 2000-2006.
Why can’t the price be dropped lower on the BMR unit? I understand while the Mayor’s office puts an upper cap on BMR units, but is there really a lower cap?
Can’t the BMR sale price be dropped and the seller or lender take a loss like anyone else? Just drop the price until is sells (with restrictions) and that’s the new BMR price.
marty, I’ll trade you a cap gain exclusion, prop 13, a new buyer credit, the mortgage interest deduction and the FHA for an end to rent control and all property tax. deal? cities, of course, would be welcome to create residency taxes.
“DALP, as it turns out, is a FAR better assistance vehicle to buyers…”
Negative. People who lack the ability to save a downpayment are more likely to default on their loans than those who can. Requiring a downpayment not only cushions the lender against loss it reduces the likelihood of there being a loss.
An end to all market distortions would be best.
the BMR disease has spread to south san francisco. i was looking at the two main developments over there (south city lights and park station) and they both have BMR.
@condoshopper
At South City Lights, 20% of the units are BMR.
The irony is that BMR folks seem to be a more fundamentally sound home buyer than the typical FHA buyer. The idea that the government would be better subsidizing the down payment rather than the price of the purchase is backasswards.
It is much better to subsidize the price, and make it lower, than to subsidize the financing, and make the price higher.
These folks need 10% down. And they have savings, steady income, and can’t use a gift for all of the down payment. Helping these buyers buy at a manageable price is exactly the way government should be intervening, if it is intervening at all.
Reducing the financing costs seems like a less responsible policy. Of course that is the current policy; mortgage interest is tax deductible, there is no capital gains tax, there are artificially low interest rates, reduced down payment requirements and otherwise loose lending standards.