October 4, 2010
Cassidy's 1844 Market Street Project Facing Foreclosure
While it was a plugged-in tipster that first noticed movement on builder Joe Cassidy’s 113-unit mixed-use project at 1844 Market Street last May, and earlier this year a plugged-in reader reported Cassidy was continuing site excavation for the unfunded project on his own dime ("He can sell the dirt...and can keep his guys working since he owns Granite Excavation."), it’s another plugged-in reader that first catches the foreclosure filing for 1844 Market Street with a courthouse sale currently scheduled for October 18 and an estimated $12,329,428.48 owed.
∙ 1844 Market Watch: Movement On 113 "Fabulous" Units And Retail [SocketSite]
∙ It’s Back To
Building Digging At 1844 Market (Not So Much At 2200) [SocketSite]
∙ 1844 Market Street Development Hits A Banking Speed Bump [SocketSite]
First Published: October 4, 2010 8:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
On the foreclosure front, I see that last week the governor vetoed the bill (SB1178) that would have extended the anti-deficiency statute to refis. In other words, the law stays the same and the lender can continue to come after you for a refi loan balance after a foreclosure (assuming they jump through the right procedural hurdles during the foreclosure).
I guess the banks' lobbyists are better that the realtors' lobbyists.
Posted by: A.T. at October 4, 2010 8:43 AM
Maybe we can keep all large these large builds to the East side of Van Ness Avenue.
Posted by: kathleen at October 4, 2010 10:26 AM
"In other words, the law stays the same and the lender can continue to come after you for a refi loan balance after a foreclosure (assuming they jump through the right procedural hurdles during the foreclosure)."
Some scholars believe that a judge would implicitly say that the intent of SB1178 is already allowed by existing law and that a non-cash-out refi is already in the same status as a purchase money mortgage. SB1178 would have made it explicit.
Posted by: sfrenegade at October 4, 2010 10:57 AM
I don't get Kathleen's comment. This building design was, I believe, within the scale/height restrictions set by the Market/Octavia plan. Kathleen, are you suggesting the plan should be revisited (already!)? Or are you just venting some schadenfreude that this project collapsed?
Posted by: curmudgeon at October 4, 2010 12:57 PM
@Kathleen, "Maybe we can keep all large these large builds to the East side of Van Ness Avenue". Ahh deary, I live east of Van Ness...you just validated what our neighborhood told the Planning Commission during the hearings on the Mission Octavia Plan...SOMA west is the dumping spot for everything the rest of the city doesn't want. Our residential enclave has heights of like 25 feet and you and the City want to put 400 foot towers with NO parking 30 feet away on South Van Ness and Mission. Give me a break..take your share of the density and traffic too.
Posted by: Kathleen-NOT at October 4, 2010 1:08 PM
It's a shame that Mr. Cassady is not making money on this project. I am all for success. He seems to have built a heck of a lot housing.
Hopefully he has made his fortune and can retire to the good life. PTL.
I live East of Van Ness because of the scale.
Post Loma Prieta, the push was for big buildings south of market and in Dogpatch.
I am all for preserving light and air, and scale west of Van Ness Avenue.
I am not a fan of the current Octavia plan, or for the brand of koool aid that is being passed around that calls for multi-family everywhere you look.
My Company is called SFR for a reason. Leafy sunny neighborhoods with a higher concentration of SFRs and low density housing (3 units per building) have higher values.
Value is a great gauge for marketplace demand.
Surround the lower haight with multi-family housing and limited the parking with that new housing and there will be a tremendnous strains on the neighborhood, services and its' streets.
Posted by: Kathleen at October 4, 2010 1:30 PM
Kathleen, you don't seem to understand a basic of value. You might get a higher per unit value for "SFR" but you get a much lower value per unit of land. In a highly constricted city such as San Francisco, wasting land along major transit corridors for single family housing would be ludicrous. The Market Octavia Plan only has high-ish density along the Market Street spine, particularly close to Van Ness, and otherwise pretty much conforms to neighborhood norms. Which is definitely not "SFR".
Posted by: curmudgeon at October 4, 2010 2:45 PM
It's been obvious to anyone reading Socketsite for more than a few weeks that 'Kathleen' really wants to bring the suburbs to a dense city rather than do what everyone in EVERY OTHER major city does: When the organic growth of a city changes the city in ways unacceptable to you, you move. Period.
It is not a human right to move to a city and never have to experience growth and increased density arrive after you.
Posted by: Eric in SF at October 4, 2010 2:53 PM
Value is a great gauge for marketplace demand.
Isn't "value" a little subjective for that purpose?
Posted by: EH at October 4, 2010 3:56 PM
Cassidy is only facing foreclosure because he is suing the bank that currently holds the note. UBC Bank which was taken over by the Feds and sold to East West had agreed to a construction loan with Cassidy. When East West took over they reneged on the loan agreement. Cassidy can service the note if he wants to and that is a great property site. This will not go to foreclosure
Posted by: in the know at October 4, 2010 4:48 PM
This was the hardest thread to read in SS history.
Posted by: lolcat_94123 at October 4, 2010 5:59 PM
Who the Eff lives in SF for the single family homes?
And surrounding the haight - which is predominantly mult family with more... multi family.. will cause strains on the hood?
Where do these people come from?
Posted by: joe at October 4, 2010 6:22 PM
"Who the Eff lives in SF for the single family homes?"
A lot of people. You don't think there's a reason that there haven't been more efforts to combine lots, tear down SFRs, and build denser housing? There are an incredible number of SFRs in this city. That doesn't mean that they have a right to cause it to stay that way, although the board of supervisors generally works to keep it that way.
Kathleen at 10:26AM and 1:30PM is correct when she characterizes the city this way, but there is no reason that development here should continue to encourage SFRs. This should definitely be built as multi-family housing and the NIMBYs like Kathleen should be ignored.
Posted by: sfrenegade at October 4, 2010 6:43 PM
I dont want to put towers and building with no parking anywhere in town.
Even Kathleen-Not does not want this
This no parking idea is crazy. The traffic on 101 in the morning is going south from San Francisco.
I dont agree that this is a highly constticted city. I have lived here for 33 years and the population has remained stable the entire time.
And we have had enormous influx of housing.
If you are going to build something make it interesting and beautiful. Like the city.
I come from New York. That where the Eff i came from. Laahawn Guyland. I fled the suburbs.
I like managable sized city. where the sun makes into onto the sidewalk.
If Cassady gets East West Bank to make good On UCB's note more power to him. UCB went bust.
East West bank did not.
Posted by: kathleen at October 4, 2010 7:41 PM
The bank is not 'UBC,' it is UCB - United Commercial Bank who sold to East West.
Posted by: Rex at October 4, 2010 8:27 PM
San Francisco's population has grown by about 100,000-150,000 people in the last 30 years or so, which is about 15-20% growth.
Just goes to show, despite the massive amount of complaining that goes on, a few years later, nobody even notices these small developments, or that a few more people have moved into the city, and it does not destroy the neighborhood.
Posted by: lyqwyd at October 4, 2010 10:35 PM
"San Francisco's population has grown by about 100,000-150,000 people in the last 30 years or so, which is about 15-20% growth."
Well, not quite. Well, sort of. ;-)
SF's population in 1980 was about 679,000 and about 809,000 in 2009. So yes, about 130,000 increase in that 30-year period.
But in 1970, the population was 715,000, and in 1950 it was 775,000 - within spitting distance of today's figures. It's more accurate to say that the population has fluctuated pretty wildly over the past 60 years. Today's population is indeed more than it's ever been in the past, but it could drop as it did in the 60s and 70s.
I point all of this out because it was implied that the City had absorbed 100-150K people and nobody noticed. That may be sort of true, but the City already had the built-out capacity for that extra population, because the population had previously been at a similar peak. Growing up from there has required new housing capacity and increased density.
Posted by: Dubocian at October 5, 2010 1:30 AM
What's your source for the 2009 figure? The CW is that the 2010 census will be the one of record.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 5, 2010 8:27 AM
^ACS and CADOF estimates are still "of record" and valid sources for population numbers. The actual census every 10 years is simply a different method of gathering information and used for some different things that the ACS and CADOF estimates.
What's your implication? That the estimates will be wildly different? Source for that?
Posted by: anon at October 5, 2010 8:30 AM
"I dont agree that this is a highly constticted city. I have lived here for 33 years and the population has remained stable the entire time.
And we have had enormous influx of housing."
If you've lived here for 33 years, you'd know how constricted it really is. The planning department is insane here and largely engages in crony capitalism, and the NIMBY attitude and community review process doesn't let anyone build anything.
In addition, while there has been some condo building in the South of Market area mostly (including Mission Bay/South Beach here), there hasn't been a massive influx of housing. The population of SF has fluctuated over time, as Dubocian also said.
Census 2000 said the population was around 776K, and the ACS isn't much up from there. The 1960 Census said that housing units in the city totaled about 310K, and ACS 2008 says around 323K, I believe.
If there was really densification here, we would see more removal of SFRs, combining of lots, and new multi-family housing on those lots. We haven't seen that. Instead, the multi-family housing that has been built has largely been built on former industrial land or generally unused land (and I include former parking lots or freeway right of ways as "unused" for purposes of this discussion).
Posted by: sfrenegade at October 5, 2010 10:07 AM
What drives the housing market isn't the population, it's the number of households.
Posted by: BobN at October 5, 2010 10:43 AM
To be accurate: the population grew until the 50s, shrank for 30 years until the 80s, and then grew again since then (the last growth period is the time under consideration).
"implied that the City had absorbed 100-150K people and nobody noticed"
Kathleen, who is complaining about development, said that the population has remained stable over the last 30 or so years, but actually it grew by well over 100,000 people, meaning she didn't notice such a change.
The point is that adding a population of well over 100,000 people to the city, goes apparently unnoticed, much to the contrary of the claims of the typical NIMBY, who generally argues that even the smallest addition (especially if it's a building with no parking) will cause massive parking problems, giant traffic problems, overrun the city's ability to provide services, and generally destroy the neighborhood/city.
If any of those claims were legit, the addition of 100,000 or more people (and 13,000 units of housing) would not have gone unnoticed.
Posted by: lyqwyd at October 5, 2010 11:03 AM
"What's your implication? That the estimates will be wildly different? Source for that?"
I asked a simple question and it was not directed to you. I'll wait for with someone else's answer, as you've exhausted any goodwill. Thanks.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 5, 2010 12:07 PM
When I moved here is 1976 the population as approxiamtely 750,000 people.
There was a sign on golden gate bridge when we crossed it with a population number.
Dont know if it was accurate, but I thought, how quaint. And where is the city? This is a city?
The only other city I had ever seen was NYC.
And here there was a cry from the rela estate indusrty that SF needed to build 20,000 housing units a year for 30 years to catch up with pent up housing demand.
I have no idea how many new housing units have been built in SF since 1976.
I do not think the SF population is 900,000 today.
We seems to straddle that 750K population point pretty consistantly over the past 6 decades.
Every time a couple gets married in the city and has a couple of kids, they move out of the city for schools.
We should worry about schools.
I wish developers could get rich building (good)schools and hospitals.
Posted by: KAthleen at October 6, 2010 8:27 AM
This loan was originated by United Commercial Bank, which failed in November 2009. East West bought the United Comm including the loans from the FDIC and is the major creditor, but the FDIC is on the hook for the majority of the losses on this one... (and by FDIC, I mean you and me in the end) because of the FDIC loss shares due to bank failures.
Posted by: jabo at October 17, 2010 4:07 PM