All posts by discowk7

This Real Estate Company Dumped Its Downtown San Francisco Mall. Now It’s Gobbling Up Apartments

Kevin V. Nguyen : sfstandard – excerpt

Thirteen years ago, Veritas Investments took advantage of the fallout from the Great Recession to start snapping up San Francisco homes by the thousands at a steep discount.

Fueled by a combination of private equity investment and lots of debt, Veritas continued its buying spree in the years that followed—eventually becoming the city’s largest residential landlord by 2016.

Now, amid a pandemic-induced real estate crash, a new outfit is poised to take Veritas’ place. Another opportunistic group—this time, a partnership between Ballast Investments and Brookfield Properties—has swooped in to buy up nearly $1 billion of mortgages that Veritas had defaulted on, public records show.

As a result, over 2,100 units across 76 apartment buildings in the city will have a new owner by the month’s end. While the foreclosed properties are technically on the market, industry observers say it’s most likely Ballast and Brookfield will just assume ownership of the buildings themselves, as they are now effectively Veritas’s lender…(more)

CA 120: California’s confusing primary voting process explained

By Paul Mitchell : capitolweekly – excerpt

While the Attorney General, Secretary of State and California Courts wade into whether former President Donald Trump will be on the Republican Primary ballot in 2024, California counties are in the process of mailing out ballots that will be sent the first week of February.

And even if Trump stays on the Republican primary ballot, there will be more than a quarter-million voters who have previously voted in a Republican Presidential primary who won’t find him on their ballot. And over 650,000 voters who previously voted in the Democratic primary who won’t find President Joe Biden on theirs.

Welcome to one of the most confusing parts of the election process in California: the Closed Primary.

While California has moved its legislative, congressional and statewide elections to an open-primary system, where all candidates from all parties are shown on the same ballot, the presidential elections still use a traditional primary system, with slightly different processes for Democrats and Republicans…(more)

Letter to the editor: Yes, a taxpayer can sue over the state’s housing laws

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Retired real estate lawyer weighs in on state law.

I love letters to the editor. Here’s one from someone who actually knows the answer to a question I raised:

In “Peskin, Chan want to know if SF can sue the state over impossible housing rules,” Tim Redmond asks, “Could a San Francisco citizen, or organization [as distinguished from San Francisco itself], sue? ‘That,’ said Peskin, ‘is a very good question.’”

The answer is that any citizen who has paid taxes to the state can sue the state (or an agency thereof) to restrain illegal, injurious, or wasteful expenditures under section 526a of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any such lawsuit needs to be brought in state court because federal courts have strict standing requirements…

The portion of SB 423 singling out San Francisco is illegal because it violates the California Constitution, Article IV, Section 16(b): “A local or special statute is invalid in any case if a general statute can be made applicable.” A taxpayer action could seek a declaration that this portion of SB 423 is an invalid special statute. Notably, there isn’t even language in the bill, as there is in other special statutes, purporting to justify it as addressing a problem unique to San Francisco.

A taxpayer action could also seek a broader declaration that the state housing laws do not take precedence over San Francisco zoning laws, because as a charter city, San Francisco has a right to home rule protected by the California Constitution. This power includes zoning. A conflicting state law, even on a matter of statewide concern, only prevails over home rule if the law is reasonably related to resolution of a matter of statewide concern and narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local governance.

The state housing laws fail this test for numerous reasons. Studies by the Terner Center show the laws have failed to achieve their goals and scholars have described them as “ad hoc and not model based.”

Nick Waranoff

Nick Waranoff is a retired real estate lawyer.

The year in housing policy: State forced SF into a no-win situation (and Breed went along)

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Photo shot from the year that the voters stopped SB50 from going through. Since then Wiener and company have gotten better at ignoring the will of the public. There might be enough pissed off voters to take him out this year. We finally have some opponents running with other ideas of how to do his job so voters have a chance to take him out and show the other Sacramento legislators that there are other ways to govern that do not involve forcing unwanted changes on the public.

The supes did what they had to do, although a lot of them didn’t like it—but it’s not going to matter anyway.

It was a crazy year for housing in San Francisco, with the state forcing to city to adopt new rules for “constraint reduction” to comply with a new construction mandate that nobody, even housing developers, thinks is remotely possible.

The Regional Housing Needs Assessment calls for 82,000 new housing units in San Francisco, 46,000 of them affordable. (I love that terminology; it means the state wants to see 36,000 new units in the city that nobody but the very rich can afford.)

The city has six more years to reach that goal…

So now Sen. Scott Wiener, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the folks at the state Department of Housing and Community Development are going to have to deal with a basic problem:

They are asking cities like San Francisco to approve housing that doesn’t meet community needs and that developers don’t want to build…

What’s the state going to do? Penalize San Francisco for something completely out of the city’s control?

Or admit that this whole RHNA gambit was a fraud?.…(more)

RELATED:

Letter to the editor: Yes, a taxpayer can sue over the state’s housing laws by Nick Waranoff, retired real estate lawyer

These Bay Area housing developments are delayed because PG&E can’t get them parts for power

We have one of our eternal projects still under construction for this very reason. It’s absolutely nuts!
But Sacramento doesn’t care – they want us to fail to get SB423 streamlining, then possibly decertify our housing elements and they get BR projects across the state.

On 12/19/2023 1:03 PM PST zrants <zrants@gmail.com> wrote:

By J.K. Dineen : sfchronicle – excerpt A 19-story tower in the heart of downtown Oakland has made headlines both because it is one of the few significant housing developments under construction in the neighborhood and because it is one of the world’s tallest “mass timber” structures.

Developer oWow has been gearing up for a January grand opening of the 236-unit complex at 1510 Webster St. But, last week, company president Andy Ball was shocked to learn that the opening could be delayed by months, and perhaps as much as a year, because of something unexpected: a shortage of electrical transformers.

Ball said he called Pacific Gas & Electric on Dec. 11 to place the order for three subsurface distribution transformers, which transfer electrical energy from one circuit to another. He was told that the equipment would not be available until the second half of 2024 — at the earliest.

“It was a bombshell, the last thing I expected,” Ball said. “They are going to put developers out of business. They are going to destroy projects.”…

Sarkissian said it had informed 540 customers that they have two choices: redesign their projects to use above ground “pad transformers,” or “wait until the equipment becomes available.” Sarkissian cited a study by Edison Electric Institute, an industry association of investor-owned electric utilities, showing that approximately 75% of all utilities are experiencing similar shortages.

The issue is that above ground transformers can be large and unsightly, taking up space better used for retail or housing units or gyms or landscaping. In addition, most urban infill districts, including downtown Oakland, require developers to put their transformers below ground…(more)

How are they going to spin this one to blame the cities? Guess they will have no choice but to relax the requirement for below ground transformers if they want to meet their RHNA deadlines.

These Bay Area housing developments are delayed because PG&E can’t get them parts for power

By J.K. Dineen : sfchronicle – excerpt

A 19-story tower in the heart of downtown Oakland has made headlines both because it is one of the few significant housing developments under construction in the neighborhood and because it is one of the world’s tallest “mass timber” structures.

Developer oWow has been gearing up for a January grand opening of the 236-unit complex at 1510 Webster St. But, last week, company president Andy Ball was shocked to learn that the opening could be delayed by months, and perhaps as much as a year, because of something unexpected: a shortage of electrical transformers.

Ball said he called Pacific Gas & Electric on Dec. 11 to place the order for three subsurface distribution transformers, which transfer electrical energy from one circuit to another. He was told that the equipment would not be available until the second half of 2024 — at the earliest.

“It was a bombshell, the last thing I expected,” Ball said. “They are going to put developers out of business. They are going to destroy projects.”…

Sarkissian said it had informed 540 customers that they have two choices: redesign their projects to use above ground “pad transformers,” or “wait until the equipment becomes available.” Sarkissian cited a study by Edison Electric Institute, an industry association of investor-owned electric utilities, showing that approximately 75% of all utilities are experiencing similar shortages.

The issue is that above ground transformers can be large and unsightly, taking up space better used for retail or housing units or gyms or landscaping. In addition, most urban infill districts, including downtown Oakland, require developers to put their transformers below ground…(more)

How are they going to spin this one to blame the cities? Guess they will have no choice but to relax the requirement for below ground transformers if they want to meet their RHNA deadlines.

SF’s state legislators have deeply damaged SF’s ability to prevent displacement

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Wiener, Ting, and Haney bills undermine ‘all that is sacred’ in San Francisco. Do they know what the fuck they are doing?…

It’s pretty stunning, when you think about it, how the people San Franciscans elected to represent them in Sacramento have worked to undermine the rights of San Francisco to protect tenants and vulnerable communities.

Assemblymembers Matt Haney and Phil Ting and State Sen. Scott Wiener are the lead authors of a series of bills that not only make life easier for big developers but dramatically cut what’s left of the city’s ability to fight wholesale displacement

The problem, Peskin said: The city can demand that ADUs are subject to rent control, but the state legislation pre-empts that, allowing projects to go forward with state authorization that do not include any rent-control requirements. Peskin:

I just want to say this for the record, so people that are watching, and I consider [Ting] to be a friend, that all of the things that we hold sacred in San Francisco are being undermined by the State of California by our own elected legislators.

So now the Planning Commission is being asked to give away much of its existing authority. There’s not a lot of office space proposed these days; most of the serious issues planning deals with are housing-related.

If the commission goes along with the concept, “it will be signing its own death warrant,” Peskin said. There won’t be much need for a Planning Commission, and there won’t be much opportunity for the public to challenge bad actors who are trying to get permits for dubious projects.

That, apparently, is how our state legislators and our mayor want it.

I just wonder, as Peskin says, if they know what the fuck they are about to unleash on San Francisco.

Unfortunately they probably do. Hope someone will conduct an interview or debate with the Wiener wannabes? Looks like we will need to hold our nose to vote him out. But, voting him out will send a powerful message to Sacramento politicians that SF hates his politics. Maybe give some credence to our demands that they change their tunes and return power back to the local communities that preserved our state in a more pristine manner for most of its history. Between our state leaders we have lost more individual power than we had under Reagan. Reagan gave us CEQA at least.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom advances water tunnel project amid opposition from environmental groups

By Adam Beam : sfgate – excerpt

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A long-sought and disputed project in drought-prone California aimed at capturing more water during heavy rain storms reached a key milestone on Friday when Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration finished an environmental review for an underground tunnel.

The tunnel would be about 45 miles (72 kilometers) long and 36 feet (10.9 meters) wide, or large enough to carry more than 161 million gallons of water per hour. The tunnel would be another way to get water from Northern California, where most of the state’s water is, to Southern California, where most of the people live.

The Newsom administration says the tunnel is a necessary upgrade of the state’s aging infrastructure because it will protect the water supply from earthquakes and capture more water from rainstorms known as atmospheric rivers that scientists say have been increasing because of climate change.

But environmental groups, Native American tribes and other opponents say the project will take more water out of the river than is necessary and will harm endangered species of fish.

Friday, the California Department of Water Resources released its final environmental impact report for the project. The report is the last step of a complex and lengthy state regulatory process. But it doesn’t mean the project is close to being built. The project still must complete a federal environmental review and obtain various state and federal permits. That process is expected to last until 2026…(more)

Billionaires’ utopia CEO defiant in face of loud calls to drop lawsuit against Solano County property owners

by Ethan Baron : mercurynews – excerpt (includes audio)

google maps

The CEO of a contentious plan backed by Silicon Valley billionaires for a utopia in Solano County refused to back down from a $510 million lawsuit against property owners, as he faced a mistrustful crowd of local residents.

Former Wall Street investor Jan Sramek on Tuesday addressed about 150 ranchers and other locals at the American Legion hall in Rio Vista, a hamlet of 10,000 people on the Sacramento River near Antioch. His company, California Forever, billed the gathering as a town hall to inform the public and gather feedback about the plan to build a new city with tens of thousands of homes in the next 35 to 40 years.

In jeans, scuffed brown dress shoes and an open-necked gray button-up shirt, Sramek highlighted his “blue-collar” background in the Czech Republic — mechanic father, teacher mother — and noted that “a series of scholarships” led to his degrees from the United Kingdom’s prestigious University of Cambridge and London School of Economics. He said he left Goldman Sachs, “where shifting pieces of paper around” was “a really easy way to make money,” after 20 months to co-found an “education company to help people train and acquire new skills.”

California Forever, founded in 2017 and funded by billionaire venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Michael Moritz and fellow billionaires LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and businesswoman Laurene Powell Jobs, raised hackles in rural Solano County by keeping their plan secret while buying up tens of thousands of acres, much of the land agricultural, then suing dozens of landowners in May for $510 million in damages over claims that through “endless greed” they conspired to jack up the sale prices of their properties…(more)

How do we send the billionaire venture capitalists back to the paper shuffling jobs? Under which laws is the case being filed? Where is the protection for the US Airforce and the public parks? Must the state legislature specify a distance from sensitive areas to protect them from encroachment by millionaires? The Governor is already trying to raid the Bay’s natural water supply that will be needed to keep the salt water flushed out of the Bay. The real question is priorities. Why is the our government that claims to be deeply in debt continuing to spend money against us while begging for more? ourneighborhoodvoices.com should find a lot of fans in Solano County.

A Bike Lane Moved, and This San Francisco Neighborhood Erupted

By Astrid Kane : sfstandard – excerpt

Kevin Ortiz, co-president of the San Francisco Latinx Democratic Club, spoke during a protest this week criticizing Valencia Street’s center-striped bicycle lanes.

Two of the most heavily used bike lanes in San Francisco intersect in the city’s Mission District, at Valencia and 17th streets, where there’s a taqueria, a police station, an upscale furniture store and a famous sex shop.

One set of lanes cuts east-west, from the giant rainbow flag in the nearby Castro across the Mission into Potrero Hill. As with most bike lanes, these flank the parking lane, are generally unprotected from cars and, for the most part, don’t offend anyone. The other, running north-south through the ever-trendy neighborhood, has lately become a cultural flashpoint, a fight on par with the conflict over tech shuttle buses.

Four months ago, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency relocated the north-south bike lanes along Valencia between 15th to 23rd streets from the sides of the street to the center, zipping them together for the span of eight blocks before unzipping them again. In the process, several dozen parking spaces were eliminated, too…

Grumbling about this eight-block stretch has been building since summer. But the anger erupted Tuesday when several dozen small business owners occupied the street, chanting and holding signs calling on the city to remove the lanes, as Streetsblog first reported.

The protest came just a few days after the bar and live-music venue Amado’s closed, with its owner claiming that sales dropped 80% after the bike lane was installed and created a hassle for musicians due to a lack of parking.

Opponents have seized on the bike lane as more evidence that the city runs roughshod over the small businesses that fill its coffers with tax revenue and give it character. But how does moving a bike lane by a few feet destroy a business?…

More than Just a Bike Lane

“Everybody’s focused on the bike lane, but it’s really about a bureaucracy,” said Bill Dickenson, who sits on a steering committee of the San Francisco Small Business Coalition, which organized Tuesday’s protest on Valencia. “The SFMTA is a government agency that has gone rogue in many ways.”…

An April 2023 planning document appears to put the cost at $590,000, funded by several previous ballot measures, but SFMTA confirmed to The Standard that $1.5 million had been spent so far, with the total amount yet to be determined…(more)