'Crisis' in evictions doesn't add up when you do the math
From today’s San Francisco Business Times comes a guest editorial written by Mike Sullivan of Plan C,
Recent attacks on homeownership in San Francisco have been justified as necessary reactions to an evictions problem.Tenant activists have focused particularly on so-called “Ellis Act” evictions, in which the building owner goes out of the landlord business entirely, and displaces all tenants in the building. By focusing only on Ellis evictions — just one piece of the eviction puzzle — these activists have managed to create the impression that there is an evictions crisis in San Francisco. A recent San Francisco Examiner article claimed that the number of Ellis Act evictions in 2005 represented “the highest level in San Francisco since the dot-com boom,” which Supervisor Daly described as being at a “crisis level.”
The problem with this analysis is that it’s only looking at one piece of the eviction puzzle.
The facts show a completely different story. Any complete analysis of evictions in San Francisco must look not only at Ellis evictions, but also “owner move-in” (OMI) evictions, where owners move into units they own, but do not evict tenants in other units. OMI evictions peaked at 1,400 evictions in 1998, but have gone down almost every year since, hitting a record low of 288 evictions in 2005. [more...]
This editorial brings up many points that those of us who are both pro-homeowner and pro-tenant can’t seem to get through to those in power. Proposition G (referenced in Mike’s article) began this problem by limiting OMI evictions, sparking the Ellis Act trend.
And this goes right back to my oft-argued point that if you place restrictions on this real estate market, those who want to own homes will find a way to do so.
In the meantime, those that don’t want to jump through hoops will see prices continue to climb with the further restrictions placed on the market by our ever-intelligent Supervisors.
As my memory serves, prior to Prop. G, TIC partners could purchase a building and owner-occupy as many units as they liked as long as each owner held at least a minimum share of the ownership. This was not about speculation, it was about ownership.
What led to last week’s vote was the practice of sellers and developers clearing out buildings so that buyers wouldn’t be burdened with the task (or the guilt). Many of these buildings would not have been cleared out if the Ellis Act hadn’t become so common-place, especially the larger buildings (5+ units).
So as you think about whose fault this really is, perhaps you should stop pointing the finger at the so-called ‘evil’ landlords, and look to those who claim to be looking out for the tenants… Who are they really helping here?
Housing prices to blame for Mission deaths? [SFHomeBlog]
Matt,
Here you are again saying something you can’t back up.
“In the meantime, those that don’t want to jump through hoops will see prices continue to climb with the further restrictions placed on the market by our ever-intelligent Supervisor.”
Please explain this statement, and if you use the supply & demand argument, I will burn it.
Furthermore, your general assertion that regulations are always bad is just plain wrong. True, OMI regs created more Ellis Act evictions, but this does not mean the former was wrong. We need to regulate until evictions are at the point we’d like them, whatever that is.
Question: At what point do you want evictions.
KK at May 19th, 2006 at 1:11 pm ( )Thanks, Kurt
Kurt, I won’t bother to state my case, because I’ll always be wrong with you. There seem to be plenty of people out there who not only agree with me but are much smarter than I am with regards to the economic details you are so quick to expound, and they are happy to crush your sweeping statements.
So burn whatever argments you wish. I won’t expend the time or the energy to debate with an unreasonable opponent.
Matt Lanning at May 19th, 2006 at 1:45 pm ( )Hello everyone,
Kurt, Can you please explain what, in your view, would be an ideal housing policy for San Francisco?
We have been debating around the edges of a specific issue that people are clearly divided on. Perhaps you have an answer to the broader problem…..
CameronRex at May 19th, 2006 at 5:28 pm ( )Cameron brings up a great point, Kurt. Perhaps you could break it down for my fine readers so we can properly debate your personal beliefs, rather than those recitations of old economic texts.
I assume you have an answer to San Francisco’s problems, don’t you? One that takes everyone’s best interests into account and levels the playing field for all parties? One that gives everyone, regardless of income, a home? One that doesn’t repeal Prop. 13, Prop. G, or Prop. M? One that doesn’t kick our current crop of Supervisors to the curb? Or most importantly, one that doesn’t take away any of the legal rights afforded to us all by the constitution?
And who is ‘we’ when you say that evictions need to be regulated until they are at a point where ‘we’ like them?
Do you have any stats on how many of ‘you’ there are versus how many of ‘us’ there are?
I look forward to your comments…
Matt Lanning at May 21st, 2006 at 7:14 pm ( )Matt & Cameron,
What you’re both doing is called “deflecting.” I attacked your point, you can’t defend it, so you deflect the issue to something else where you might have a chance.
I’m don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I don’t to to say that you’re position is wrong.
KK at May 22nd, 2006 at 11:55 am ( )Thanks, Kurt
Kurt,
You have now made it clear that the main reason for your posts is to be negative and contrary. Given an opportunity to express something ‘positive’ you decide to attack Matt and I….again. That you do not like or accept previous responses does not negate the response itself.
All of that reading you do and you don’t have ANY ideas for SF housing policy? Really?
CameronRex at May 22nd, 2006 at 5:50 pm ( )Cameron,
First I attacked Matt’s and your positions, not you personally. If I did that, Matt would delete the post.
Second, I have ideas for housing, and since I assume you guys have backed off your ridiculous assertions that adding housing will somehow decrease price, I’ll indulge you.
For housing:
1. strengthen rent control, but means test it for income.
2. strengthen eviction prevention, esp. for protected tenants.
3. encourage development of small units with common areas such as kitchens and bathroom that sell for say $250k.
4. mark prop. tax to market for non-primary residences (if possible at city level).
Now that you’ve successfully managed to not address my questions and still maintain you’re not wrong, I’ve done what you wanted. In terms of discussing issues, you don’t respond and instead deflect. This is the behavior of a scoundrel, not someone seeking truth and justice.
kk at May 23rd, 2006 at 7:42 am ( )Good Morning Kurt,
Still with the namecalling… ‘scoundrel’…at least its inventive. I haven’t seen it used in years.
However, two thoughts to express. One which you will not like and one which might surprise you.
1/ I’m not going to speak/write for Matt but I’ve never really backed off the “ridiculous” idea of supply and demand. And, if you read through my previous comments I actually did write that at this point in time there is so much pent up demand in SF that I’m not sure more supply will actually effect price (or something to that effect). My point all along, which you seemed to ignore, is that tamping down on supply will definitely NOT lower prices. Not possible. If you believe otherwise than it is not me who is being ridiculous.
2/ Surprise! I actually think your 4 ideas have merit:
1. strengthen rent control, but means test it for income.
Not sure what ‘strengthen’ means. Rent control is pretty firmly entrenched in SF. However, means testing to income is not a bad idea and might actually get the program to focus on who really needs it. This does not address Matt’s concern, which I also think has merit, that it should be the City as a whole and not just landlords that provide the ‘welfare’ of subsidised units. However, as I’ve written before…as long as Prop 13 applies to rental buildings I’m not going to lose any sleep for the landlords especially if they are able to raise rents to market rates for those rich enough to afford it.
2. strengthen eviction prevention, esp. for protected tenants.
I don’t disagree here either as long as ‘means’ testing is also included for this group. No one should end up on the street when they are sick and/or old. But I also think this is a govt/City responsibility that should not just be shirked on landowners. (see above comments about Prop 13…not losing sleep)
3. encourage development of small units with common areas such as kitchens and bathroom that sell for say $250k.
This is a very intriguing idea. Not sure many people would want to spend even $250,000 and not have their own bathroom but the basic idea should be explored. Very cool possibilities with this one.
4. mark prop. tax to market for non-primary residences (if possible at city level).
At first blush I agree with you 100% here. Personally, I think Prop 13 should be amended to exclude commercial property. I’d allow up to two personal properties to be shielded…need the support of those with $$$ to pass the overhaul of Prop 13 in the first place and shielding a main residence and vacation home is still ‘fair’ as for some people the vacation home is the cabin in the woods grandpa built by hand. (yes I know for some it is also the 3 floor log mansion overlooking Lake Tahoe but its impossible to tax one and not the other…beside just the revenue rise from commercial property alone would be immense.) NOW, the problem with this idea in SF is the flip side of Rent Control. If a landlord’s property is now valued at market value you could have a situation where the taxes exceed the income from the property due rent control. Some adjustment would have to be made for that….valuing the property based on some multiple of rents (similar to what purchasers of these properties look at when deciding whether or not to purchase.)
Well, thank you for stepping up with some ideas. Have a great day. This ‘scoundrel’ needs to get to work so he can pay for his own overpriced accomodations.
CameronRex at May 23rd, 2006 at 5:42 pm ( )