June 9, 2010
Real Estate Related June 8 Election Results: F Fails, G And 13 Pass
With a voter turnout of 23.35% and 104,616 ballots cast in San Francisco, Measure F (rent increase postponements due to financial hardship) has failed with 56.83% voting no while Measure G (making it city policy that San Francisco’s High Speed Rail terminal is located in the new Transbay Transit Center) has passed with 83.51% voting yes.
Statewide Proposition 13 which provides that a seismic retrofit will not trigger a property tax value reassessment received yes votes from 85.79% of San Francisco voters, it's headed for the same margin of victory statewide.
First Published: June 9, 2010 12:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Amazing, apparently it was so dumb even renters rejected it. And a great way to send off chris Daley to the burbs with a failed measure too. Sweet.
Sign? Sign 'o the times? ( think prince, 1980's.)
Posted by: 45yo hipster at June 9, 2010 7:56 AM
So dumb even renters rejected it? Recent history speaks volumes of the ignorance and stupidity of homeowners.
Posted by: guest at June 9, 2010 8:26 AM
good riddance with Daly. Fremont can't wait for you to get there sport. Still amazed that the SF "progressives" couldnt muster up enough support for this ill-conceived measure.
Posted by: anon$random at June 9, 2010 8:28 AM
Most renters know that this kind of legislation will eventually raise rents for the 99 percent of us who are not freelooaders
Posted by: spencer at June 9, 2010 8:43 AM
Well only ~59,000 San Franciscans voted against F. And I would bet that of those 59,000 no votes that more then 1/3rd of those were by homeowners. This vote might have been a bit closer if it were held during a higher turnout election. I think that this got put on the ballot for a primary election speaks volumes about how seriously its backers were about actually making a change compared to just throwing something out so they can campaign later on having supported renters.
People that are serious about initiatives and props pay a lot of attention to chosing the right election for their measure, which is why PG&E and Mercury Insurance put their Prop's out there for the primary and the legalize marijuana people waited to put their Prop on a general election ballot. For groups that just want an issue to run on don't care as much about being selective on chosing the right election.
Posted by: Rillion at June 9, 2010 9:04 AM
^ exactly Spencer. More and more San Franciscans are finally realizing that the left wing trifecta of tenant union, bay guardian rag and socialist leaning bored of stupidvisors is going off the rails of sane housing policy. More and more renters are abandoning a knee jerk reaction and realizing that the draconian and often absurd rental policies instilled in this city are ultimately counterproductive to most tenants, and serve to protect a small amount of self entitled long term renters. I think this is part of a huge psychological shift in the mindset of many younger renters which have been in the city less than 10 years. And more power to them!
Posted by: 45yo hipster at June 9, 2010 9:08 AM
My crystal ball says you have not seen the last of Prop F, nor Daly. The light turn out was the cause of the defeat. NEVER underestimate Daly and the progressives. They will never give up nor move a centimeter from their views. This fall's "Sit-Lie" ballot measure will be the real test of whether the people of San Francisco are fed up with potentially violent street people (note Sit-Lie has nothing to do with the homeless). In any case it should be fun to watch the progs in motion on that one.
Posted by: Wait till November at June 9, 2010 9:15 AM
45yo hipster, hahahahahaha. I love how you ascribe a trend when less then 10% of the SF population voted against this measure. Perspective my good man, perspective.
Just looked up the actual results and only 56,581 San Franciscans voted against this measure. Hardly some new wave of anti-rent control sentiment.
Posted by: Rillion at June 9, 2010 9:16 AM
Just took a look at the results from the 2008 general election in SF and there no side (yes or no) of any measure got less votes then No on F got yesterday. The worse result for any side of any SF issue in Nov 2008 got 58,049 votes (the No vote total for Measure A, which translated to a 16.19% no vote on some bonds I believe).
Posted by: Rillion at June 9, 2010 9:25 AM
I Partly agree with you rillion. Isn't that a-hole daley getting the boot end of this term? I think he cares about his legacy and was quite serious about this measure. An off year election allows the tenant union, tenderloin housing clinic, etc. to mobilize their dedicated zombie base of supporters to go out there and vote for specific measures. With a low overall turn out base, these morons can often pass bogus legislation. A low profile, low turn out election cuts both ways, my friend.
Posted by: 45yo hipster at June 9, 2010 9:25 AM
Yeah but even in SF the primary election voters are older and more conservative then the general election voters. In a town with 70% renters if you really want to pass a "pro"-renter measure, you are better off with a higher turn out. Part of what I think was really wrong with your comment was that you were attributing the rejection of this measure to a change in the mindset of younger renters. I bet the % make up of younger voters yesterday was really low so you can not credit younger renters/voters with victory of No on F.
Posted by: Rillion at June 9, 2010 9:29 AM
Prop. F's loss is a good sign, however on a personal level I am selling my condo in SF right now. The serious threat of ever encroaching rent and eviction control is a principal reason. I live abroad for long stretches and like to rent the place out while gone. This time however, at the end of the lease I was seriously thinking about selling. My realtor alerted me to the fact I may have rent control issues. Fortunately my condo was built after 1979, so it's not subject to rent/eviction control. But I predict these protections will not last. Presently if a unit is subject to eviction control, a landlord who wants to sell, even when a lease period is ending, does not have the right to take back possession and put the place on the market. It goes on month to month until the tenant decides, if ever, to move. The BOS recently passed a proposal to change the eviction control law so that ALL units in SF are held under its clutches, further diminishing owner property rights. Thank you Gavin Newsom, for vetoing it. But if the mayor becomes Lt. Gov. in November, the BOS will appoint a temporary replacement, and you can bet he/she will be a "progressive," and the proposed expansion of eviction control will quickly be passed again and signed by the Daly, et al handpicked puppet. I speak not as a large landlord, but as a single dwelling owner who wants to be able to do what I want with property that I worked hard to buy and hold on to. You can bet after doing this research my resolve to sell hardened. My plans? Continue living abroad most of the time and buy another home in the Bay Area, in a county without rent control.
Posted by: Jim T. at June 9, 2010 9:36 AM
Prop. F failed even though the Bay Guardian got its slate elected to the DCCC. What this says to me is that Repubs made up an abnormally large share of the electorate--no surprise, given that there were two highly contested, high profile Republican primary contests and no high profile, highly contested Dem primary contests.
But I do think there's reason for hope. If the moderates had gotten there act together and qualified (for example) a reasonable condo-conversion measure--something like what Newsom proposes in his current budget--it probably would have passed too, especially if the title/ballot description clearly linked passage of the measure to additional funding for affordable housing and/or closing the budget gap. The pragmatic moderate camp needs to do a better job focusing on strategy opportunities presented by low-turnout elections, and bypass the board of supes.
Posted by: observantneighbor at June 9, 2010 10:05 AM
I disagree. I saw plenty of younger voters at my polling station, and with more younger tech workers with flex schedules, it's easy for them to vote mid day.
Furthermore, I spoke of a new trend in younger voters. A trend is the start of a change. I did not say it was the prevailing mindset. I meet plenty of liberal leaning younger people in the city that are tired of the old socialist guard, especially when it comes to poorly conceived housing policy. The rejection of measure F reinforces that anecdotal observation.
Posted by: 45yo hipster at June 9, 2010 10:06 AM
It makes no sense to me why anyone would support spending huge amounts of public money to subsidize one of the most profitable private industries, especially when all the public entities are operating at a loss.
It's more complex than that, obviously, but it seems to boil down to that.
Posted by: hugh at June 9, 2010 10:13 AM
Rillion, don't waste your time arguing with 47yo hippie. If you remember, he is the most brilliant real estate investor slash slumlord in the whole wide world. And if you don't remember, I'm sure he'll tell you again soon.
If he says that, contrary to common sense and years and years of factual evidence, young people are coming out in droves to vote in a midterm primary, then it must be so.
Posted by: nnona at June 9, 2010 10:36 AM
Jim T.: The ability of SF to expand rent control to currently exempt units is severely limted by state law. Even the "just cause" provision that the Board of Supervisors considered was of questionable legality, and that fell far short of extending rent control to currently exempt units.
Posted by: Dan at June 9, 2010 10:46 AM
26% turnout. Sigh. No way to decide issues.
They should leave props to the November election and let the primaries be just primaries.
Posted by: BobN at June 9, 2010 11:01 AM
Ohhhh, big mouth strikes again.
Nnona/gorge/etc. thanks for enlightening us. Hopefully it makes you feel better about yourself and assuages your frustrations as you toil away working for da man. Meanwhile I get to play with my new iPad toy while resting comfortably at home. Courtesy of my rental income.
Think I'll play me some Smiths...
Posted by: 45yo hipster at June 9, 2010 11:05 AM
The state law preventing rent control for newer units will never be overturned by SF.
And it would be reasonably easy to (negatively) incentivize a tenant to move by raising rents on a regular basis to the highest current market rate. As long as the rent was not raised to outragous levels (beyond the highest advertised market rental rate for a similar unit) then the tenant would either have to keep paying more rent or move out.
Posted by: anon at June 9, 2010 11:07 AM
Rent control is not eviction control. The state law only limits rent control. Cities are free to install eviction controls.
And if you think you can just raise the rent to an above market rate to evict someone with eviction control but not rent control, you would be wrong.
And if you think you can raise the rent to the highest advertised rate, rather than the actual market rate, you would also be wrong. An advertised rate is not a market rate.
However, while I agree that the state law preventing rent control for newer units is unlikely to be overturned in the near future, after electing George W Bush to two terms (!), the mood of the country turned and it installed a socialist in the white house, so drastic changes can happen sooner, and more drastically, than you'd think.
Posted by: tipster at June 9, 2010 11:16 AM
"it installed a socialist in the white house"
Someone drank the tea flavored kool aid.
Posted by: Rillion at June 9, 2010 11:32 AM
"after electing George W Bush to two terms (!), the mood of the country turned and it installed a socialist in the white house, so drastic changes can happen sooner..."
Wow, nutbag. LOL. And a unique nutbag in that sense that they'll believe in anything, as long as it has a cranky, negative spin to it.
Posted by: Agent415 at June 9, 2010 11:37 AM
"Someone drank the tea flavored kool aid. "
Indeed. Someone who doesn't know what a socialist is.
Is it just me, or has tipster gotten more silly since fluj officially left? (even if he lurks here still)
"More and more renters are abandoning a knee jerk reaction and realizing that the draconian and often absurd rental policies instilled in this city are ultimately counterproductive to most tenants, and serve to protect a small amount of self entitled long term renters."
If only that were the case. But call me when the voters start fixing the draconian housing restrictions here too.
Posted by: sfrenegade at June 9, 2010 11:43 AM
Ok, ok. Perhaps I was a bit euphoric. But my point still stands that measure F went too far, even for numnuts is SF to push it through. That says something about the limits of socialist housing policy stupidity.
So if newsom becomes Lt. Gov, does the BOS get to appoint an interim mayor? Is the next mayor elected in 2012? That is scary. I hope someone like dufty wins mayor in the next elections...I still remember how close this town was to electing matt Gonzales. But I think those dark days are finally over...all these new, young SF hipsters aren't socialists!
Posted by: 45yo hipster at June 9, 2010 11:58 AM
The significance of Prop F's failure is that its proponents thought they could not lose!
They believed it was a shoo-in, a given. That's why the last laugh is soooo best this time.
Newsom vetoed the measure and Chris Daly et al. put it on the ballot with all the "gotcha gavin!" "kill my landlord" usual bravado "we'll let the voters decide" (wink, wink). Pesonally, I thought they were right and fully expected to wake up to *another* SFRB draconian measure enacted. I was shocked. As I'm sure Daly et al are as well. Their silence is deafining.
Posted by: smallprop at June 9, 2010 1:45 PM
The "rent control" vs. "eviction control" distinction is generally irrelevant when it comes to units that are exempt from rent control under state law (e.g. SFRs and condos). In SF, an owner can evict a tenant to move in himself, so the eviction control ordinance is no bar. And if you wanted to continue renting it, state law permits you to raise the rent, and the current tenant can either pay it or you get a new tenant who can -- there is no point to raising it above what any tenant would pay. There is a "lawyerly" argument that a big rent hike is "really" an eviction (i.e. a constructive eviction), but no judge would let that fly because the state law absolutely permits it (the judge decides, not a jury).
Posted by: A.T. at June 9, 2010 3:19 PM
Oh my, tipster. That last post was hilarious. Unless of course you were actually serious in which case I'd call it embarrassing...
Posted by: Willow at June 9, 2010 4:13 PM
If Newsom wins lt. gov, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu would then become interim Mayor.
Posted by: nsc68 at June 9, 2010 6:34 PM
Chiu would only be interim Mayor until the Board decides on a replacement:
Posted by: Dan at June 9, 2010 6:41 PM
...and I should add, then the board, by a majority vote of 6, determines who will be the interim mayor through 2012. If they pick Peskin...
Posted by: nsc68 at June 9, 2010 6:44 PM
Yep, tippy always has an ax to grind (usually anti SF RE) but every once in a while he just simply goes off the rails with political nonsense. Dumbass post of the week indeed.
Posted by: 45yo hipster at June 9, 2010 7:18 PM
Um, the last part of the post above was tongue-in-cheek, just trying to illustrate that the same voters who voted in Bush voted in Obama, as opposite as can be in many ways. So you can't count on the voters today voting the same way tomorrow.
That appeared to fly way over certain, very, very predictable, responders heads. I'll try to speak more slowly for you guys in the future.
Posted by: tipster at June 9, 2010 7:55 PM
Tipster, satire does not go over well in a one paragraph post. You really need to build up to it like Swift did.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at June 10, 2010 12:55 AM