Tenants Demand City Enforce Eviction Disclosure Law
Ahhh… The journalistic masterminds at BeyondChron are at it again! Today they cover yet another open house protest at 1160 Alabama Street.
“Through his and other activists’ efforts during recent months to educate potential buyers, more than 90 percent of speculators have turned away, [Tenant's Union mob boss Ted] Gulickson said.”
Are you freekin’ kidding me?!? 90% of your dumb-ass friends and neighbors, perhaps, but certainly not 90% of the buying or selling population. Where the HELL do you get that figure? We have hit a new journalistic low today, my friends.
“In an effort to make eviction buyers more socially aware, tenant rights activists picketed a Tenancy in Common (TIC) open house yesterday at 1 p.m. Located in the heart of the Mission District, at 1160 Alabama St.., protestors asked potential buyers to turn away from a property being listed by BJ Droubi & Company where tenants recently had been evicted under the Ellis Act, a state law used primarily by speculators who intend to turn buildings into condominiums. Moreover, activists demanded that the realtors disclose the fact that all of the tenants had been evicted for the purpose of a TIC sale.”
Yes. This vacancy disclosure is a law, and it is something that is followed closely by good real estate agents. It is required to be provided to buyers, and is normally provided in a disclosure package along with other statutory disclosures, prior to said buyer writing an offer to purchase the property.
Is Super-Ted, the savior of all things rented, going to ask us to have it delivered via police motorcade to each buyer, long before they even visit a property, just to confirm that everyone is made aware of each unit’s status? Is it an agent’s fault if a buyer chooses not to read a disclosure package as thoroughly as Ted would like them to?
The Ted and Chris (Daly) show continue to persuade tenants to vote for unlawful referenda, which are subsequently ruled ridiculous and unenforceable (McTIC or Peskin’s Ellis Act amendment, for example). The more times they lose their poorly planned fights, the more ‘creative’ they must be to try to stop something that has an otherwise simple solution: BUILD MORE HOUSING!
The property mentioned above is a ~1000sqft flat with one car parking, listed for $499,000. We all know that you cannot buy this on the open condo market, so this is going to be an attractive purchase price for buyers. Had we built more housing to satisfy the needs of the average 1000sqft buyer, more of these buyers would have other options, and there wouldn’t be such high demand for this type of property. This is not a ‘family’ property, this is not what the Guardian is bitching about when they say that we need more family housing. This is an apples for apples comparison with what’s being built in Rincon Hill and SoBe (other than geographic location, of course).
The confusion about the supply and demand equation continues.
