April 16, 2012
Cracking Down On Unkempt Foreclosed Upon Properties In SF
Citing an uptick in foreclosure activity in San Francisco ("…there were 927 actual foreclosures in the 2010-2011 fiscal year or an average of 83 per month. This figure represents a 3% increase from the previous fiscal year, and a 1128% increase from five years ago…"), San Francisco’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee will review a proposed ordinance amending San Francisco Police Code to:
1) declare that public nuisances occurring at foreclosed properties be considered aggravating factors in imposing civil penalties and injunctive relief; 2) hold individuals and entities who own significant numbers of foreclosed properties to increased civil penalties for failing to maintain the properties; and 3) make environmental findings.
∙ As Pre-Foreclosure Activity Drops, Scheduled Auctions Tick Up In SF [SocketSite]
∙ Proposed Police Code: Additional Penalties for Foreclosed Properties [sfbos.org]
∙ San Francisco Supervisor Cohen Walks Away From Underwater Condo [SocketSite]
First Published: April 16, 2012 11:45 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
By what rationale is this ordinance solely focused on foreclosed properties? If it is deemed good public policy to require upkeep on properties this should apply to all owners and renters equally.
Posted by: Guest666 at April 16, 2012 11:51 AM
Banks own foreclosed properties.
Banks are evil.
Banks have lots of money.
Supervisors like money.
Ergo, banks should pay lots of fines.
Posted by: R at April 16, 2012 12:18 PM
Gee...here's a novel concept: why not force the banks to actually sell these properties to people who plan to - and can afford to - live in them? I guess blight, empty condos, and/or deadbeats living free are just more indicators of our strong and resilient local economy?
Posted by: Legacy Dude at April 16, 2012 12:45 PM
LD, the banks would be insolvent if forced to recognize these losses. They are forced to recognize the loss only when the asset is sold. No sale, no loss. No one is going to force them to do anything.
Thus, my friends who have not paid one dime of their mortgage since 2008, still own the place. No NOD. No NTS. Paying your mortgage is for chumps!
Posted by: tipster at April 16, 2012 1:24 PM
Foreclosed properties tend to be a source of blight and are rarely responsive to code enforcement citations unless the fines are really big.
Posted by: Mole Man at April 16, 2012 1:36 PM
because free market.
Posted by: EH at April 16, 2012 2:05 PM
It's a fine line if all property owners are required to keep their properties up. Who decides what level of upkeep is required? On the other hand if you own a handful of properties and are just sitting on them, it can bring down the value of the surrounding properties to a greater degree than a single residence. Banks should be willing to work with individuals on a greater scale. Home ownership is still the best way to encourage investment in a neighborhood.
Posted by: Urbancita at April 16, 2012 2:11 PM
This law only affects two types of people; bankers and speculators.
Bankers should be forced to sell them at market rate -lots of high credit earners could afford a place if sold at market rate.
Rich cash paying speculators should be forced to maintain the properties; either rent them out or remodel and sell. Having people with deep pockets buy up all of the properoty and do nothing with them other than land speculate do no one good but themselves.
Good idea for a law IMO
Posted by: kjhjkkh at April 16, 2012 7:18 PM
Seriously doubt that this is a problem. Just seems like our brave leaders want to be in the news as doing something.
Posted by: formerly%whatever at April 16, 2012 9:22 PM
Whatever blight exists in San Francisco is a function of hobo-centric city government, not bank neglect.
Posted by: soccer mom at April 16, 2012 9:58 PM
It's a fine line if all property owners are required to keep their properties up. Who decides what level of upkeep is required?San Francisco has municipal codes that cover this kind of thing, mostly, and other areas are defined by specific statutes. If what's being proposed here turns out anything like that for rental units, the Board of Supervisors defines "what level of upkeep is required", and DBI has a whole, well-defined administrative process for enforcement of it.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at April 16, 2012 10:11 PM
"hobo-centric city government" I love it HCCG
Posted by: wrath at April 17, 2012 10:31 AM
Will they impose the same requirement for buildings emptied under the Ellis Act?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at April 20, 2012 11:03 AM