SocketSite™

Great to see these beautiful houses being rehabilitated and generating strong rents!

$10,600 a month seems pretty freakin high to me to pay in rent. Assuming 20% down and taking into account the tax deductions, this monthly payment could buy a $3MM house.

So what do you think.....if they sell them at 3MM a piece, would that be a fair price?

Seems pretty outrageous to me - would this be considered "market rate??" Especially given it's government property?

And since this is federal property, it isn't covered by any of San Francisco's tenant protections, including rent control.

It's all going to a good cause - the restoration and maintenance of the Presidio, which is required by law to be entirely self-sustaining by 2013. As I understand it, rents on the residential units constitute the Presidio Trust's single largest source of income. I hope the Trust succeeds in renting these beautifully restored units at absolute top dollar.

"the park is sitting on $105 million — a huge chunk of cash — yet has asked Congress for a $20 million loan." This is according to the Bay Guardian.

I have lived in the Presidio for five years, and watched it turn into Pacific heights South, with a touch of downtown Redwood City. The emphasis is on real estate development, not on preserving the park, or wildlife.

John Stewart Company runs the leasing, and other assorted politicos are getting wealthy. Where is the good cause in this?

Where does all of the money go? The trust is accountable to nobody. There is only one open meeting of the board held per year.

A portfoilo of free real estate was turned over to the presidio trust. Becoming a park that needed no government $ should be easy to do.

The buzz words of being "self-sufficient" appease the public.

This is supposed to be a park, not an exclusive country club.

John, maybe these homes are different than the others in The Presidio that I have seen. But the ones I have seen were in dire needs of being updated to 21st century standards. If this house was absolutely perfect I don't think it would be worth $2MM, let alone $3MM.

all the houses in the presidio are being gutted and renovated to command these market rates for rent. i would love to live in one of them. you can get into one for much less than this monster. pilot row houses go for 4k per month. you can get on a waiting list to see them and apply by going to their website. imagine what we could really rent our places for here in town of not for the socialist rent control laws. wow!

james, one would assume that the "socialist rent control laws" would have had the effect of driving up rents on all non-rent controlled apartments - so the rent that you could receive would likely be less than what some market-rate rentals are going for now.

And need I remind you - SF rent control allows a unit to return to market rate whenever a tenant leaves (and then rent control kicks in), so "imagining" what could be had is not hard at all - go look at craigslist to fulfill your wildest dreams.

so if we had no rent control, rents would come down.

;)

Median rents would likely come down, yes. Mean rents would not because of the long term tenants paying a pittance right now.

I think it's actually "marginal rents" which would come down. The next available unit.

how many units are held off the market to avoid being rent controlled? i've read this debated in other places and it seems like quite a few.

http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html

i was just reading up on the subject here and it made me curious to know how many units are truly affected, pre-1979 in the city.

there's a rally today about changing the law:

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=6864

if sf has rent control, and the presidio (being federal land) doesn't, and the presidio has much higher rents, can't we conclude that there is a chance that getting rid of rent control may allow rents to climber higher?