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.
The proposed ordinance is sponsored by Supervisor Cohen who added to the uptick in 2010.
∙ 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]
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.
Banks own foreclosed properties.
Banks are evil.
Banks have lots of money.
Supervisors like money.
Ergo, banks should pay lots of fines.
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?
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!
Foreclosed properties tend to be a source of blight and are rarely responsive to code enforcement citations unless the fines are really big.
because free market.
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.
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
Seriously doubt that this is a problem. Just seems like our brave leaders want to be in the news as doing something.
Whatever blight exists in San Francisco is a function of hobo-centric city government, not bank neglect.
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.
“hobo-centric city government” I love it HCCG
Will they impose the same requirement for buildings emptied under the Ellis Act?