Should You Wait Until After the Election to Buy or Sell a Home?

With the Democratic National Convention kicking off on Monday, the most contentious presidential race in modern history is finally at full throttle. It’s all anyone can talk about these days: Who on Earth will be our next leader, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Yet while all the political fireworks are spurring record ratings on CNN and Fox News—and, not incidentally, causing a boom in the installations of panic rooms and bomb shelters—it’s all apparently a bit of buzzkill for the housing market.

Sure, we’re in a boom market in many parts of the U.S. But even so, a palpable sense of unease and nervousness is convincing many Americans to hold off on buying or selling a home until after Election Day on Nov. 8.

This is hardly a new phenomenon. Even in less pugilistic eras, Realtors® have long noticed that home buyers and sellers cool their heels during presidential election years. Why? Because people are uncertain about what a new president will mean for the real estate market, and the U.S. economy as a whole. So they figure it’s wise to maintain a holding pattern until the next president is locked in place.

“People do use an election as an excuse to delay selling or buying a home,” says Florida Realtor Cara Ameer. “Having worked in real estate through several presidential election cycles, I have observed that it can seem harder in an election year to move properties. People have fears and concerns, whether perceived or real, about an election outcome that may have them putting their real estate process on pause.”

But should home buyers and sellers play a wait-and-see game during election years? It’s hard to say, although historic data do suggest that presidential elections can sometimes dampen profits.

According to a study of real estate in California going back to 1980, housing prices during presidential election years rise 1.5% less than other years. This might not seem like much, but let’s say your home is worth $166,000. Normally, you’d expect it to appreciate by $9,462 per year. But in an election year, that home would sell for only $7,462 more—or $2,000 less than usual.

But even if home prices do wind up dipping over the course of the great Chief Executive Death Match of 2016, many experts argue that this shouldn’t push home sellers to go into some kind of reverse hibernation until late fall.

“I don’t think it’s a wise idea to try to time any markets, especially housing,” says real estate expert Kurt Westfield at WCE Equity Group. “Housing markets are very localized, subject to microeconomic shifts. The election takes place on a much larger macroeconomic scale.”

In other words, the reality is that the presidential election has nothing to do with home prices in your particular area; those are determined more by—surprise!—simple supply and demand. In fact, if you feel that house hunters and hawkers in your area might be gun-shy right now, it actually leads to a prime opportunity. To borrow a sentiment from famed investor Warren Buffett, “Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.” Translation: Do the opposite of everyone else.

Ameer agrees with that sentiment.

“If everyone projects doom and gloom because they fear what might happen and decide to delay selling, then it is a great time for you to put your home on the market and make that move,” she says. After all, less inventory means more opportunity for home sellers, which might lead to multiple offers and push up your selling price.

Likewise, if you’re a buyer, an election year is a great time to bargain hunt, because fewer home shoppers may mean sellers will be more willing to cut a deal. Plus, mortgage interest rates are still at historic lows, which spells major savings.

“For right now, with interest rates remaining low, there has truly been no better time to maximize your purchasing power,” says Ameer. So forget about the presidential election—at least for now. “This definitely seems to be the year of buying a home, no matter what candidate ultimately wins.”

Source: Realtor.com, Judy Dutton
http://www.realtor.com/news/trends/should-you-wait-until-after-the-election-to-sell-a-home/?iid=rdc_news_hp_carousel_theLatest

When It Comes To Buying A Home, Are You A Donald or a Hillary?

Only because it is an election year and the Democratic conversion is on this week.



WHEN IT COMES TO BUYING A HOME, ARE YOU A DONALD OR A HILLARY?

Are you bold and independent, not considering anyone's opinion but your own?

Or are you more cautious and studied, making sure your choice is accepted and appreciated?

Do you buy like a Trump or claim your home like a Clinton?

There are pros and cons to both, depending on the situation. And, there are things you can learn from each of the presidential candidates that can make you a more successful real estate buyer.

Having confidence

It's no secret that Donald Trump will say anything to anyone at any time, regardless of (and sometimes in spite of) the potential blowback. Meek the man is not. Hillary Clinton is naturally more mild-mannered and careful in her approach and in the words she chooses. Basic gender difference? A huuuuuuuuuuugely exaggerated one, if it is.

But there's a lesson here on both sides. Being too aggressive can translate to bullying, which can turn off the seller and make them not want to work with you. But not being assertive enough can cause you to fade into the background.

Buying in a competitive market

He may claim to be a careful businessman with a track record of success, but Trump is also highly competitive and has been known to act on emotion. He's likely to haul off and make an all-cash offer over asking price that buries other potential buyers in a competitive market. His determination is often, simply, to win.

"A cardinal feature of high extroversion is relentless reward-seeking," Dan P. McAdams said in a psychological profile of Trump in The Atlantic. "Prompted by the activity of dopamine circuits in the brain, highly extroverted actors are driven to pursue positive emotional experiences, whether they come in the form of social approval, fame, or wealth. Indeed, it is the pursuit itself, more so even than the actual attainment of the goal, that extroverts find so gratifying."

Sound like something you would do? The relentless pursuit might win you the home. But will it be worth it?

When there's a prime piece of property everyone wants but the seller doesn't want to let it go

Again, a Trump-like buyer may let his or her wallet do the talking. A great offer may budge a seller who was previously steadfast about staying put. And, Trump wins points because he simply never backs down. But don't forget about the impact a human touch can have. A personal appeal to the buyer with, say, a handwritten note or a thoughtful detail like a new flowerpot filled with herbs because you see that the ones she has out front have died can go a long way.

Plus, Clinton has that secret weapon: Her husband, Bill. And you can't underestimate natural charisma and the influence it can have.

"Charismatic people start conversations with all types of people and network with ease," said Dal Sohal Strategies. "They come across as confident, being both credible and approachable to those they meet. People listen to them, respect their ideas, and want their opinion."

Now, these are strategies specific to real estate, but they can work no matter what side of the deal you're on. Of course, if you have a charismatic husband with a checkered history when it comes to women, you'll obviously want to be careful who you put him in a room with.

Dealing with difficult sellers

Trump has never been known as the calm one. In fact, if there's anyone who's likely to inflame an already tense situation, it would be him. Adopting Clinton's more laid-back approach and calm demeanor could be key in situations where the seller is, say, refusing to do repairs or make concessions.

When price negotiations aren't going well

Trying to agree on a sales price is often one of the more challenging, and potentially problematic, parts of buying a home. Using profanity or browbeating/belittling the other party is probably not the preferred method of dealing with a tenuous negotiation (although it does seem to be effective in some political arenas). A softer, friendlier, more Clintonian approach and the ability to compromise might be a better option.

Because you're not as financially solvent as you'd like to be

Whether it's money that can't totally be accounted for - perhaps because of how it funded or was funneled through an eponymous foundation - or your background includes several bankruptcies and some questionable investments, you want to make sure you're putting your best financial foot forward when buying a house.

Both presidential candidates depend on donors to support their campaigns. And both have made a tremendous amount of money outside of politics - Trump in real estate and business, and Clinton partially thanks to speaking fees and book advances.

Trump has made some particular savvy real estate investments while leveraging personal contacts and tax advantages to lower his risk - a good strategy for any buyer, especially if you're short on cash.

"A 1983 profile by Marylin Bender in The New York Times described Trump's strategy," said the Washington Post. "He had an eye for what Bender called ‘good financing,' meaning that as much as possible, he'd avoid taking risks with his own wealth. Sometimes, that meant getting taxpayers to chip in. Trump has bragged about his ability to manipulate public officials into granting him tax abatements and other subsidies. Early in his career, he was buying lots across the country and improving them on 40-year mortgages from the federal government at 5.5 percent interest. Those terms meant ‘we didn't have to put up much cash,' he told Bender."

You might not be able to depend on taxpayers or donors when buying your home, or get the kind of tax assistance Trump has talked about, but there are lessons here for buyers who aren't as qualified as they'd like to be:

• Ask for financial contributions from parents
• Find down payment assistance programs where available
• Work on your credit before buying so you'll qualify for a lower interest rate
• Look for tax-advantaged situations like areas where property taxes are lower or buy a home that needs to be fixed up and use an FHA 203(k) rehabilitation loan, which often offers tax-deductible interest on the improvements

Maintaining good communication

Many agents will tell you that having good communication between all parties - REALTORS®, seller, and buyer - is the single most important factor in a successful real estate deal. That means honest, respectful discourse, which could be hard for some people (looking at you, Trumps of the world). But it also means timely and effective communication, which is more and more often handled through email - which is, umm, harder for some people than others.

Source: RealtyTimes, Jaymi Naciri
http://realtytimes.com/consumeradvice/buyersadvice1/item/46171-20160721-when-it-comes-to-buying-a-home-are-you-a-donald-or-a-hillary

Santa Clara approves Silicon Valley's biggest private development deal ever

SANTA CLARA -- Feeling giddy in the aftermath of the City Council's unanimous approval of a $6.5 billion development deal, Mayor Lisa Gillmor on Thursday called the experience "surreal."

"It's exhausting. It's a little bit nerve-wracking. There's so much information that we've had to digest, comprehend and weed through," Gillmor said, predicting, "This is going to be the key to our financial future in Santa Clara."

The 9.7 million-square-foot City Place -- described as the largest private development project in Silicon Valley's history -- is to be built by the Related Companies on 240 acres of city-owned land across from Levi Stadium. Plans call for up to 5.7 million square feet of offices, 1.1 million square feet of retail space, 700 hotel rooms and from 200 to 1,680 apartments, as well as a 35-acre park.

Sitting atop what is now a golf course and BMX track, the mixed-use project's anticipated tax and other financial benefits are "staggering," Gillmor said.

The city has projected that it will receive up to $16.9 million in annual tax benefits, along with $9 million to $14 million in yearly rent revenues, once the project is up and running.

The county should benefit, too: Its annual property and sales tax benefits are pegged at up to $11.6 million, while the Santa Clara Unified School District anticipates receiving as much as $22.1 million each year in property taxes. The Valley Transportation Authority would receive up to $8 million annually in sales taxes, according to City Place projections.

Santa Clara's share would be a huge shot in the arm to the city's general fund, which has taken a $14 million annual hit since the dissolution in 2012 of the state's redevelopment agencies, Gillmor said. It will "make up the cash flow into our general fund for generations to come."

Construction costs are tagged at $5 billion, with more than 80 percent of the work to be handled by union labor. Built on landfill, the project involves the construction of a massive platform on top of which its core elements -- dubbed the City Center -- will sit: retail and department stores, hotel rooms, residential units and about 1 million square feet of offices.

"We call it our uptown," said Gillmor.

Historically, the city has lacked its own entertainment district: "Residents have to go to other cities, like Campbell, Los Gatos and (San Jose's) Santana Row," said acting City Manager Rajeev Batra. "But this will provide all those restaurants and destinations in Santa Clara, and also keep our tax revenues here."

Councilwoman Kathy Watanabe put it like this: "It creates a new destination for out-of-towners coming to Silicon Valley. Sometimes it just takes awhile for things to happen, and now it's happening."

Tuesday's approval of the project was "definitely a relief," Batra said. "It's a big milestone, obviously, and you wouldn't believe how much hard work has gone into it from all of the staff. The documentation itself -- if you saw the package, there were 3,000 pages behind the 20-page report to the council."

The idea for the project was informally floated about four years ago, Gillmor said. Founded by Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross, Related began talking to the city about three years ago.

Construction on the first of the project's eight phases should begin in summer 2017 "if everything lines up," Batra said.

Likewise, the City Center should be completed in five to seven years, "if not a bit sooner," said Stephen Eimer, an executive vice president with Related and comanaging partner of the project.

The construction of outlying office parks -- up to another 5 million square feet or so, he said -- will be subject to market demand and likely come online later.

One detail of note: 49ers legend Joe Montana, a limited partner in the project, expects to establish a restaurant in the City Center: "He's going to do a Montana-themed, football-themed restaurant," Gillmor said. "He will have a signature development on this property."

City Place has not been without its critics. Neighbors have voiced concerns about traffic, parking and other quality-of-life issues. San Jose officials wondered about the project's environmental impact and complained that the city will have to provide housing and services for those who work at nearby City Place.

Gillmor on Thursday dismissed San Jose's objections: "This is going to be a huge benefit to the entire area," she said. "We want our workers to work here, play here and live here, and this is the kind of development that will do that for Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and especially North San Jose."

Source: San Jose Mercury News, Richard Scheinin
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_30077172/its-surreal-silicon-valleys-biggest-private-development-project

Mass Eviction—San Jose’s Largest—to Displace 670 People

Growing up in New Orleans, where roof-stripping squalls are a matter of course, Tyrone Lockett learned how the force of nature could render anyone a nomad. When Hurricane Katrina tore through frail levees in 2005, he watched the devastation from afar as his family lost everything to the floodwater fury.

“Mother Nature comes calling and takes what she will,” says Lockett, who settled in San Jose a year before the Loma Prieta earthquake shattered the cityscape.

But it was another force entirely that prompted the 49-year-old private school chef and his stroke-stricken wife to leave their longtime home: Silicon Valley’s ascendant economy, which turned his rent-controlled apartment into a goldmine.

Lockett recently moved out of his two-bedroom flat at The Reserve, a 216-unit west San Jose complex slated for the wrecking ball to make way for a market-rate replacement with 640 units and 8,000 square feet of shops and restaurants. It’s the kind of dense, urban architecture the city needs to fix the housing shortage and drive down living costs.

But there’s a hitch. Satisfying demand by supplanting low-density real estate with taller, more populated mixed-use developments casts existing tenants into a brutal market.

Nowhere is that problem more pronounced right now than at The Reserve, where some 670 residents have less than a year to get out. By the city’s count, it appears to be the largest eviction in Silicon Valley history—possibly the state’s—and it caught San Jose completely off guard.

For context, consider that San Francisco called a drawn-out eviction of 100 tenants from 86 rent-controlled units the largest in the city’s history. At The Reserve, nearly seven times as many people got the boot with far less notice.

To make matters worse, the South Bay city of a million has no policy on the books to help tenants pay for the forced move. This was never supposed to happen, says Randi Kinman, who chairs the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s policy advisory subcommittee, a regional planning body. Evicting 600-plus people from rent-controlled units conflicts with state-set goals to maintain housing stock for all income levels.

“We kind of brush off displacement from four units here or five units there,” Kinman says. “But at no point has there been any idea that we would see this scale of displacement or that it would remove this many rent-controlled units. When I brought this up at our meeting two months ago, people wanted to know how could this possibly be happening? Everybody just kind of looked at each other and said, ‘Holy smokes.’”

The project’s developer, Greystar Real Estate Partners, won city approval months ago and gave residents until next spring to clear out of the 45-year-old complex. Tenants challenged the permit, arguing that the environmental review wrongfully deemed the displacement a “less than significant impact” and that scores of them could become homeless. They lost the appeal in a 7-3 City Council vote last week, despite support from council members Ash Kalra, Tam Nguyen and Magdalena Carrasco.

“Honestly, I don’t even know what we’ll do now,” says Tanisha Orozco, 24, a five-year tenant who’s seven months pregnant and lives in a two-bedroom unit with her husband, their toddler and her mom and dad. “We’ll probably have to move to Sacramento.”

Because no city law requires the landlord to compensate tenants for forced relocation, Greystar drummed up its own offer. According to the latest version, only households making less than 80 percent of the region’s median income qualify. The 40 or so units that meet the threshold stand to gain three months’ rent, a refunded security deposit and help from a “relocation specialist” to scout out a new place.

Tenants who are older than 62, disabled or have at least one child who lives with and depends on them get another $3,000. Greystar also urged people to apply at some of the 8,000 apartment units it owns across San Jose.

“This was voluntary on our part,” says Greystar lobbyist Erik Schoennauer. “We wanted to help people who needed it even though there’s no policy requiring us to do so.”

Tenants say they don’t necessarily oppose redevelopment—The Reserve is apparently teeming with cockroaches and silverfish, and rife with code enforcement and health violations. Several tenants say they lived with overflowing sewage, black mold and holes in the dry wall for days before Greystar sent someone to help.

But the relocation benefits, tenants argue, leave most of them out and doesn’t come close to covering the cost of uprooting hundreds of people, many of whom live on fixed incomes and can’t afford market-rate housing in San Jose. They say the bulk of Greystar’s other apartments fall outside their price range. A 386-square-foot studio at The Reserve goes for up to $1,745 a month. Tenants implored the city and Greystar to offer more money to people to no avail.

“I really don’t characterize this as a negotiation,” Schoennauer says. “I would characterize it as a dialogue. We’re volunteering to do this.”

Councilman Chappie Jones, whose district encompasses the South Winchester Boulevard apartment complex, says he can’t do much to help The Reserve tenants. But he says their plight will inform future policy.

“One of the things that we learned from this is that we don’t have any rules to go by for these situation,” Jones says. “I was surprised to learn that. I expected something. That’s why I proposed a displacement ordinance. We’re in the eye of the storm here when it comes to issues of development and displacement.”

San Jose’s housing staff expects to bring a relocation compensation policy proposal back to the council this fall. That’s too late for tenants at The Reserve, who will all enter a rental market with a dearth of affordable housing and a 3-percent vacancy rate.

“Our life revolves around our son, who starts high school this year,” says Angel Milano, a 56-year-old electrical engineer who pays $2,200 a month for a two-bedroom apartment at The Reserve. “It’s going to be hard finding a place by his school. We’ll do what we can.”

Some of Milano’s neighbors expect to move to the Central Valley, pulling their kids out of school and away from family. A nursing student says she’ll have to drop out to move. A single dad says he’ll have to dip into his daughter’s college fund for what will be his sixth move in five years.

“There goes the down payment we were saving for,” says Brandie Locke, 30, who moved into her first-story unit at The Reserve five years ago in the hope that the rent-control cap would help her and her husband save to buy a home. “You have to put your life on hold.”

Sandy Perry, head of Santa Clara County’s Affordable Housing Network, says the city made a mistake in arguing that simply replacing The Reserve’s 216 units with 650 new ones will offset displacement by creating more homes.

“They deny that any real displacement will take place,” Perry says. “Nothing could be further from the truth. When people can’t find a comparable apartment to rent, they don’t disappear into thin air. They relocate to outlying areas and commute for hours. Or they become homeless.”

Perry criticized San Jose’s mayor and council for not doing more to help. When more than 400 people faced eviction at Buena Vista mobile home park in Palo Alto, he says, Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian led a charge with other agencies that raised $45 million to buy the property and stave off redevelopment. When 100 people lost their home to a fire that torched Twin Pines Manor Apartments in Sunnyvale, the county, the city and a host of nonprofits raised money to find them shelter.

“Why is nobody championing people at The Reserve?” Perry wonders.

Jennifer Loving, executive director of Destination: Home, says the city needs to think about how to prevent displacement if it’s serious about ending homelessness.

“Prevention should be a huge part of the discussion,” she says. “When decisions are made at the policy level, there’s a human cost we have to consider.”

San Jose has provisions for tree displacement but nothing about displaced people, Kinman says. It’s a glaring oversight that’s made a tough situation disastrous, she says, predicting that the crisis at The Reserve will reverberate across the entire region.

“We want more housing and we want this development,” she says. “We just can’t ignore the impacts of the people who already live there. You can’t just count the numbers and say, ‘Well there’s a net gain here.’ If that were the case, we could tear down all the low-income housing and all the rent-controlled housing to make way for more units. But it doesn’t work that way. That destroys people’s lives.”

Lockett likens the lack of policy to account for mass eviction to the defective flood walls that turned Hurricane Katrina into the biggest manmade disaster in the nation’s history.

“This is our broken levee,” he says.

Source: San Jose Inside, Jennifer Wadsworth
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2016/06/29/mass-eviction-san-joses-largest-to-displace-670-people/

BREXIT AND U.S. REAL ESTATE: IS BRITAIN'S FOLLY OUR FORTUNE?

Last week, Britain voted to leave the European Union, an unexpected and historic decision that has been scrutinized all over the world - and is causing the kind of political hindsight and regret within Britain that has many asking if the vote can be undone. Or redone.

But while Brits wonder what comes next for them, aftershocks are reverberating through the rest of the world. The net worth of the world's top earners got clobbered post vote, and the U.S. stock market took a big hit, dropping sharply as of the next full trading day. American 401(k)s lost as much as $100 billion, according to a speech given by Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

But a run toward "safer" assets as a reaction to Brexit could actually present a huge opportunity for Americans. Looking to buy a house? This could be your best chance in years.

"Britain's decision to leave the European Union could benefit a group thousands of miles away," said the Wall Street Journal. "Several lenders posted rates for 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages of about 3.5% on Monday, nearing a 3.5-year low, and analysts expect coming reports to show that average U.S. mortgage rates have decreased since the Brexit vote Thursday. The main reason: Investors have flocked to the safety of U.S. Treasuries, pushing interest rates lower as riskier assets such as stocks tumbled. Mortgage rates tend to move up and down with 10-year Treasury rates, though the relationship isn't perfect."

Bankrate agrees it's a great time to lock in a rate, with the "average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage…down 10 basis points from a week ago."

Mortgage activity is up in the days since the Brexit vote - "Lenders across the country said refinancing applications since Thursday are up between 10% to 40% compared with typical volume this time of year, said the Wall Street Journal - with buyers looking to take advantage of low rates and new hope for refinancers.

In fact, this may be one of the best opportunities "since the Great Recession - for mortgage borrowers to lower their monthly payments, reduce the term of the mortgage or take out some cash," said the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. "With interest rates already hovering near historic lows - and then getting kicked down a notch by the "Brexit" surprise - another chance for homeowners to refinance a mortgage at near-bottom rates appears to be under way."

Lower rates have created anticipation of "a miniwave of refinancing in coming weeks" by lenders, said the Wall Street Journal. "In all, 40% of borrowers have loans with a rate of 4.5% or higher, according to CoreLogic Inc., a real-estate analytics firm, meaning they could save about $90 a month on average by refinancing at 3.5%."

Another boon to those looking to buy: an expected rise in interest rates will now likely be delayed until 2017. "Economic turbulence could prompt the Federal Reserve to hold off on raising interest rates until next year, which would likely help keep mortgage rates low," said the Wall Street Journal.

And then there's the popular idea that turbulence in international markets could pump up the interest in U.S. real estate by foreign buyers. Many experts think U.S. home equity could get a boost as demand for American real estate continues to grow.

"Some analysts believe that Britain's exit from the EU could lead to added demand for American real estate, especially in major cities like New York and Los Angeles," said Fortune. "Investors are primed to look at the U.S. real estate market as a reasonable alternative to the London market, which has long been a haven for the global rich to stow their excess wealth."

Source: RealtyTimes, Jaymi Naciri
http://realtytimes.com/consumeradvice/buyersadvice1/item/45687-20160630-brexit-and-us-real-estate-is-britains-folly-our-fortune

San Jose councilman reverses support of homeless housing project

A San Jose City Councilman has come up with the "genius" idea for a homeless camp in a neighborhood close on Senter Road near Tully. As you can imagine many residences complained and raised bloody hell with the city so the project is a no-go for the moment. But in my opinion this is a classic example of NIMBY. Part of the nimbyism is due to the fact that a homeless camp in the neighborhood will almost certainly bring down property values.



SAN JOSE -- After being hammered by a storm of public pressure including threats of a civil grand jury complaint, Councilman Tam Nguyen has reversed his support of a homeless housing project on Senter Road.

Nguyen, who in January supported rezoning the land for a transitional housing community, said Friday the project doesn't have enough safeguards and neighbors weren't engaged. Now, he wants the city to treat homeless housing like medical marijuana dispensaries -- keep them away from schools, churches and liquor stores. San Jose's pot ordinance limits collectives to 1 percent of the city, mostly industrial sites.

Coincidentally, Nguyen's district has the most medical cannabis shops.

The proposed development, called the Renascent Place, is a 162-unit complex for chronically homeless individuals. It would be built on county-owned land at 2500 Senter Road that's inside city limits. Santa Clara County teamed up with Charities Housing, a nonprofit housing developer, to propose the project.

A team of eight to 12 employees would provide supportive services on site and the facility would have 24-hour security, according to planning documents. The lease would be for 85 years. The city's Planning Commission in April unanimously approved the project permit, but a group of neighbors appealed. The City Council on Tuesday will consider whether to deny the appeal.

Nguyen thinks the city should uphold the appeal. But Mayor Sam Liccardo, Councilmen Charles "Chappie" Jones and Johnny Khamis support the project, while calling for a plan to increase community engagement. Nguyen criticized the project managers for a lack of outreach and not having a "safety plan" to protect residents. Though Nguyen's January memo supporting the land-use change cited on-site managers and 24/7 security as important safety tools, he now says that's not enough.

"The way they are doing it does not provide a safe environment for the homeless or the neighborhood," Nguyen said. "They did not consider other criteria like crime activity and dumping." City housing officials counter by saying having "more eyes on the street" will actually deter crime and improve safety in the neighborhood.

"We know that activation of sites and providing more eyes can make the neighborhood safer," said Ray Bramson, San Jose's homeless response manager. "The potential of the project is not only benefitting the residents that are living there but improving the entire area."

Nguyen said public pressure didn't factor into his decision to oppose the project, but emails show a group of residents threatening to file a civil grand jury complaint against the councilman unless he met with them.

The threat came from Delbert Ng, a retired electrical engineer who lives on Albany Circle, not far from the project's property line.

"The main concern is the size of the project and high concentration of the most problematic chronic homeless," Ng said. "These are severely mentally ill and drug and alcohol addicted individuals. And it's not a lockdown facility, so they can come out into the community."

Patricia Ramos-Anderson, who doesn't live near the site but said her parents own property there, said the community wasn't informed about the new development. But city records show there were at least five community meetings with more than 100 attendees.

Homeless advocate Jennifer Loving, who directs the nonprofit Destination: Home, says building more homeless housing is the only solution to end homelessness.

"People are speaking out against things that haven't even happened yet," Loving said. "We need to do projects if we want to end homelessness. The council asks for solutions and we deliver responses to end homelessness and people don't like them. But the projects that are being proposed are good, solid projects."

Nguyen, who just returned from a trip to Portland where he slept in an outdoor tent city, says that experience taught him the importance of keeping homeless housing projects away from neighbors.

"The neighbors want to protect the value of their property -- that's natural," Nguyen said.

But Bramson said the focus should be to transition people back into the community. Affordable housing needs to be near transit and services to be successful, he added.

"Residents are less likely to have vehicles and need to be in places to access what they need for everyday life -- things like shopping for groceries or getting to a pharmacy," he said.

If the housing project is approved Tuesday, city leaders will also ask to apply for a $14 million grant under the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program to improve transit, trails and other infrastructure.

Source: Mercury News, Ramona Giwargis
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_30007401/san-jose-councilman-opposes-homeless-housing-project-ahead

Film spotlights Palo Alto's only mobile home park, Buena Vista

Affordable housing is a hot topic here in the Silicon Valley. Housing prices are at an all time high (not complaining as a Realtor), rents are high and there are many in this valley who don't have the well paying jobs at the valley's many tech giants such as Google, Apple or others. There are many on the lower rung of the socio-economic latter such as janitors, food service workers, etc. who are just as important to this valley as the tech workers and they still need housing - affordable housing.

So there is a low income, mobile home park in Palo Alto, Buena Vista, that is under threat of closure due to developers who want the land. For that last 3+ years the residents haven't taken the matter lying down and protested, sat in on city council meetings, etc. to stop the closure. Well now the residents of Buena Vista Mobile home park are going to have a powerful new tool in their fight against the big developer who wants the land, a Moive; NOTES FROM BUENA VISTA (Teaser).

Time will tell if this movie will be effetive in stopping the plans of the developer and city council.



PALO ALTO -- The only mobile home park in Palo Alto is the subject of a documentary that will be shown Tuesday and Wednesday as part of Affordable Housing Week 2016 in Santa Clara County.

"Notes from Buena Vista," a documentary by filmmaker Elizabeth Lo, is an exploration of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park's 400 low-income, mostly Latino residents, who could lose their homes if property owners are successful in closing the housing site at 3980 El Camino Real.

Organizers say Lo's film addresses how "the severe shortage of affordable homes in Silicon Valley puts tremendous pressure on our communities, as households of all incomes compete to secure safe and affordable homes."

Buena Vista residents have lived with the uncertainty of their housing situation for about 3 ½ years.

The park's closure remains in limbo as residents, the property owner and the city of Palo Alto work out differences in court.

The park's owners, Toufic and Eva Jisser, filed an application to close the site in November 2012.

The Palo Alto City Council decided in May of last year to allow the Jissers to close the park.

The Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Residents Association then filed a lawsuit against the city in August, seeking to overturn the council's decision and, at the minimum, a larger relocation assistance package for tenants than required by the city.

In November, the Jissers also filed a lawsuit against the city, saying that requiring the owners to pay $8 million in tenant relocation assistance as a condition to close the park is a "staggering financial demand."

Lo's documentary explores how development pressures in Silicon Valley threaten the livability of this area for many, such as the Buena Vista residents.

The documentary will be shown at 5 p.m. Tuesday at the Aquarius Theatre, 430 Emerson St. in Palo Alto and at 5 p.m. Wednesday at Camera 12 Cinemas, 201 S. Second St. in San Jose.

Admission is free. For tickets, visit SVatHome.EventBrite.com.

A discussion with the filmmaker and panelists will follow each screening.

Tuesday's panel includes Erika Escalante, president of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Residents Association; Amado Padilla, Stanford University professor who authored a report on the mobile home park residents' health and education; and Kyra Kazantzis of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.

Wednesday's panel includes Melodie Chaney, a resident of the mobile home park; Kent Greathouse, a resident of Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park in San Jose; Diana Castillo of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley; and Adam Marcus of the San Jose Housing Department.

Source: San Jose Mercury News, Jacqueline Lee
http://www.mercurynews.com/real-estate-news/ci_29904055/film-spotlights-palo-altos-only-mobile-home-park

INFO GRAPHIC - The Middle-Class Squeeze

San Jose city leaders drop plan to freeze rents

With ever increasing rents in San Jose and elsewhere in the Silicon Valley, there has been more and talk of rent control and other measures to supposedly help renters.



SAN JOSE -- When a divided City Council two weeks ago mustered the votes to lower maximum rent hikes in 44,000 apartments from 8 percent to 5 percent, there was concern that landlords would jack up rent before the rule goes into effect next fall.

But city officials have now abandoned the idea of a rent freeze to prevent last-minute increases, and instead are pushing to have the new law take effect sooner.

"We decided that it might be more efficient to just implement the drop immediately -- as quickly as possible -- to go from 8 percent to 5 percent," said Jacky Morales-Ferrand, the city's housing director. "Then we wouldn't have to address the issue of the freeze, which frankly I thought would have many more concerns and challenges from landlords."

The City Council next week will choose between two options: passing an "urgency" ordinance so changes take effect immediately, or a second option that would implement changes by the end of June.

An urgency ordinance requires a "super majority" vote from the council -- at least eight members would have to agree. That could be an uphill battle for a council that passed the lower rent increase cap by just one vote April 19. If there aren't enough votes for an urgency ordinance, the other option is to adopt a regular ordinance, which requires several public hearings and wouldn't take effect until 30 days after its passage.

Morales-Ferrand says making changes sooner is better to "protect tenants as quickly as possible."

And relief can't come quickly enough for Nicole Lindera, a 37-year-old health care worker who's lived in San Jose for more than a decade.

Shortly after the City Council voted to decrease rent hikes, she got a notice from her landlord -- rent is going up 8 percent on June 1. She pays $1,680 for a two-bedroom apartment built in the 1960s with no air conditioning.

"I've had to cut back on my groceries and can't afford to buy the things my son needs for school," Lindera said, adding that her fiance has worked four jobs to make ends meet. "The rent increases need to stop. Give the working people a break -- we are hardworking families."

But landlords have fought against the changes, saying rent increases allow them to invest in their buildings and stay in business.

Joshua Howard of the California Apartment Association says the city's existing rent control law was working well and rent freezes would have been "overly punitive."

"It sends the message from City Hall that they don't trust the housing providers in San Jose," Howard said. "It seems like an overreaction to an unfounded concern."

Howard said most landlords assumed the changes would go into effect in early 2017 but even that might not be enough time.

The City Council next week also will consider a handful of policies to protect renters if a landlord decides to close an apartment complex, convert to condominiums or demolish the property. The Ellis Act, one of the policies under consideration, would protect against landlords evicting existing tenants to re-rent apartments to others at a higher rate.

In other cities, these policies require property owners to provide relocation benefits, give proper notice and replace the rent-controlled units somewhere else in the city.

City officials also will work on a plan to increase staffing to monitor and enforce the new requirements.

Source: San Jose Mercury News, Ramona Giwargis
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_29850798/san-jose-rent-control-city-leaders-drop-plan

San Jose City Council Lowers Rent Control Cap to 5 Percent

In a split decision that closed out a marathon meeting, San Jose’s City Council lowered a cap on rent hikes for the first time in four decades.

The hearing, which began Tuesday and ended around 2am Wednesday morning, ended with a 6-5 vote to lower a cap on annual rent hikes from 8 to 5 percent. Council members Raul Peralez, Magdalena Carrasco, Donald Rocha, Pierluigi Oliverio and Ash Kalra opposed the move.

More than 500 people packed the council chambers and a staggering 200 signed up to speak. Landlords implored city leaders to leave the city’s rent control law alone or risk putting them at financial risk. Renters urged otherwise, saying soaring rents are literally pricing them out of their homes.

“This is an emergency,” Andrew Bigelow, a member of Silicon Valley De-Bug, told the council. “We cannot place the weight of a broken system on the impoverished. We cannot place the weight of this city on the poor.”

David Yin, a landlord and engineer, said that as an immigrant who arrived to San Jose in 1996, he had to work harder than the average person. Five years ago he bought an apartment complex, he said, which forced him to become a jack-of-all-trades to keep the place up.

“Keep in mind that all people deserve fair treatment,” he said from the podium.

During the hours of testimony, people shared personal accounts of sudden evictions and families divided by forced displacement. One man said he had to move to the Central Valley—the closest place he could afford rent—and left his son behind to finish high school.

According to the Mercury News, a real estate broker camped outside of City Hall during the meeting trying to talk landlords into selling their properties.

Local rent control applies only to units built before 1979, which makes up about one-third of the city’s apartment stock. State law prevents the city from extending rent control rules to apartments built any later. The council’s decision imposes a 5 percent cap, but it also allows landlords to bank unused increases and pass along building improvement costs up to 8 percent the following year.

The plan includes an anti-retaliation measure to protect tenants from eviction if they ask for improvements or report a problem to code violation. It also creates a rental registry to enforce the ordinance, a pilot mediation program and eliminates an option for landlords to pass off debt service to renters.

The compromise upset tenants and landlords alike. Property owners hoped the city would leave the decades-old rent control ordinance intact, while tenants wanted rent increases tied to inflation similar to several major cities.

“We were not satisfied with the result,” said Sandy Perry, an affordable housing advocate. “There were some incremental improvements, but not anywhere near what’s needed.”

Susan Price, herself a landlord, said she wants the city to not only lower the cap on rent hikes, but to adopt a requirement for “just cause” evictions.

“The city has to be bolder,” she said.

City officials will consider more changes to San Jose’s rent laws in the near future. Because this week’s meeting slogged on to such a later hour, the council deferred until May a proposal on an urgency ordinance that would temporarily freeze rent spikes.

Also up for consideration next month is a policy to curb demolition of rent-controlled apartments and another to pay relocation costs for tenants of units converted to market-rate housing.

Taking a cue from San Francisco, Councilman Manh Nguyen said the city should pass a $1 billion bond to build affordable housing. But his 11th hour memo wasn’t on the agenda, so his colleagues had to table a discussion about the idea.

Nguyen said rent control won’t fix the affordability crisis and the real solution is to build more housing. California Apartment Association (CAA), which makes up the landlord lobby, has repeated that message.

“Last night, the council found what some consider compromise, but not a solution to our housing challenges,” CAA spokesman Joshua Howard said. “If the city is serious about dealing with the housing crisis, they should do something now and do something big as Council member Manh Nguyen has proposed. Nguyen offers a community wide solution to a community wide issue.”

Tenant advocates agree, but they want a range of solutions for a city where more than half of renters pay more than a third of their salary to keep roofs over their heads.

“We all want affordable housing,” Price said. “But we can’t get that right away. In the meantime, we need rent control and better tenant protections.”

In other Bay Area cities, residents are taking rent control measures straight to voters. There's a chance this could happen in San Jose, too. But with the deadline for signature gathering almost here, that may not happen for another year.

Source: San Jose Inside, Jennifer Wadsworth
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2016/04/20/san-jose-city-council-lowers-rent-control-cap-to-5-percent/

Mountain View rent control fight headed for ballot box? Tenant advocates to file initiative

For the record, I am all for the free market and fundamentally I don't agree with rent control, but there is a push by Silicon Valley residents to enact rent control. You see, this is what happens when you have property owners/landlords who continually raise rents just because they can. Just saying. . . 



The fight over rent control in Silicon Valley is picking up steam.

The Mountain View Tenants' Coalition filed an initiative this afternoon named The Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Charter Amendment. This comes in the midst of a fierce rent control debate in San Jose and just one day after a Burlingame organization said it would file an initiative to overturn the city's anti-rent control law.

The Mountain View initiative would allow annual rent increases to between 2 and 5 percent, with the exact rate tied to changes to the Bay Area Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation. The initiative also calls for a just cause ordinance, which would require landlords to have specific reasons, such as non-payment or lease violations, to evict tenants.

The city has until April 16 to prepare an official ballot title and summary of the measure. Depending on when this occurs, tenant advocates will need to gather around 4,500 votes by late mid- to late June in order to ensure the measure will appear on the November ballot.

Since last summer, Mountain View tenants have packed multiple city council meetings sharing stories about rent hikes and displacement, and pressuring councilmembers to implement rent stabilization measures.

In December, the council increased funding for a rent relief program and approved a "right to lease" ordinance that requires landlords to offer tenants a lease no shorter than six months.

But on March 15, in the face of heavy opposition by local landlords, Mountain View's city council rejected a proposal that would require binding arbitration to settle disputes over rent increases.

"Call it binding arbitration; call it rent control; call it rent stabilization - it's picking an arbitrary number without basis and deciding that's the amount that rents can increase in a year," Jessica Epstein, government affairs director with the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, told the Mountain View Voice.

Tenants' Coalition volunteer Evan Ortiz said that meeting was the tipping point for the organization.

"Once we saw we weren't getting a reprieve from city council, we directed our energies to ... the charter amendments," he said.

Ortiz, who works at Google, has rented in Mountain View since 2011. He said the Tenants' Coalition came together last summer in response to a rise in evictions and what he called "egregious" rent increases.

He started with the group as a translator for Spanish-speaking tenants and got more involved as a result of his interaction with struggling renters.

"I just saw that the pain and suffering was so much more than I possibly could have imagined," Ortiz said.

Source: The Silicon Valley Business Journal, Bryce Druzin
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/04/01/mountain-view-rent-control-fight-headed-for-ballot.html



RELATED:
Why Rent Control Hurts Renters

San Jose: Neighbors say six-story apartment proposed for Almaden Road is too big

A trend I've been seeing a lot of here in the Silicon Valley is developers coming in and building mega apartment buildings and then charging as much as they can for the rent on those units. Well now it seems at least some local residents in the Almaden Valley neighborhood are fed up with it.


A developer's proposal to build a six-story apartment complex on Almaden Road has drawn the ire of some Willow Glen residents who say it's too big and dense for their neighborhood.

However, city staff said during an Oct. 13 public meeting hosted by the developer, Cypress Group, that the project is needed to help ease San Jose's housing shortage.

Cypress Group wants a one-acre parcel at 1777 Almaden Road rezoned from multi-family/single-family residential to planned development so that 92 market-rate units could be built there. The new zoning would enable more units than allowed by the lot's current zoning, which limits apartment buildings to three stories or less.

Staff said the parcel was designated in the city's general plan for high-density residential use. That dismayed some of the residents, who questioned why such a use in their largely single-family neighborhood can't be revisited.

Willow Glen resident David Lasich said in an interview he was frustrated at being told that work done on the city's general plan 10 or 20 years ago can't be undone at this point. He said he doubts that such a plan would fly in other areas, such as Dry Creek Road.

"The fact of the matter is, it's poorly designed," Lasich said.

At one point during the meeting Lasich turned to Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, who represents Willow Glen, and challenged some of his earlier comments that he had never seen a project on residential land rejected by the city.

"High density, that's never revisited?" Lasich said.

"No, in fact the densities only get higher," Oliverio said. "We just approved 144 units to the acre on The Alameda."

Oliverio told The Resident that the project is coming at a time when the city is experiencing a housing crisis and expects to see about 250,000 more residents by 2040. He said more high-density market-rate projects are needed to help the city make up a $100 million loss in park fees and to retain as much land as possible for commercial and industrial use.

According to Oliverio, similar developments pay six figures in road paving fees and annual property taxes, and seven figures in park fees. He said developers of the five-story mixed use building on West San Carlos Street and Meridian Avenue paid $2.8 million in park fees.

"If we're not going to convert industrial-commercial areas to housing when it comes to land already zoned residential, the city council will look to maximize those parcels so we can maintain land for jobs," Oliverio said.

"When you build single-family homes, you lose money," he added. "The higher the density, the more revenue it brings the city."

City planners told residents also worried about congestion that a traffic study was done and is under review. They said that segment of Almaden Road is envisioned as a multi-modal corridor because of its proximity to the Tamien and Curtner light rail stops and is slated to have bike lanes on both sides leading to those stops.

Lasich said he was still disappointed at the end of the meeting but recognized that the project is inevitable.

"You can't stop progress," he said.

The plan will go to the planning director and city council for hearings, although the dates are still undetermined.

Source: Mercury News, Julia Baum
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-jose-neighborhoods/ci_29004735/san-jose-neighbors-say-six-story-apartment-proposed

San Jose considers stronger rent control law for next year

What do you get when you have a region with a booming job market and not enough available housing? A hot housing market and out of control rents. And when you have high enough rents, people will get outraged and put pressure on city leaders to do something about it. That's what is happening in San Jose, the heart of the silicon valley, and now they are considering strengthening their existing rent control ordinance by (among other things) lowering the allowable rent increase to 3% a year, down from 8% a year. Understandably many landlords are upset about this and claim this will lead to differed maintenance and blight will follow.

For us non landlords, I totally understand the renters perspective and their need for rent control. There are allot of people in this valley, that are also vital to the economy here, but don't have the high paying job in the tech sector but still need that roof over their head for them and their family. 

On the other hand I don't agree with rent control. The market should settle the issue with getting rent under control, not local bureaucrats making themselves look good to get votes. The market will bring rents back into balance but it will take time. Check out the great video from Preger Universtiy by Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute on Why Rent Control Hurts Renters.


San Jose considers stronger rent control law for next year

SAN JOSE -- As Silicon Valley's soaring rents continue to squeeze out the working class and developers push to build more market-rate apartments, city leaders on Tuesday will discuss a controversial proposal to beef up San Jose's rent control law by January.

The city's current ordinance, adopted in 1979, caps annual allowable rent increases at 8 percent, the rate of inflation in the 1970s. But San Jose has never adjusted that amount, even though the annual Consumer Price Index for the area has increased an average of 3 percent since 1983.

"This allowable increase is among the highest of any jurisdiction in California with a rent ordinance," said Jacky Morales-Ferrand in her memo to the City Council. "As such, the allowed rate is nearly equal to the market rate rent increases in the last five years."

Now, a plan presented to the City Council on Tuesday proposes lowering the 8 percent annual allowable rent increases and adding a new provision requiring property owners to disclose all rents charged to tenants to prevent new renters from being overcharged.

As other Bay Area cities have done, San Jose is also looking at establishing a "just cause" ordinance to ensure renters are not evicted without cause to bring in new tenants to pay higher rents.

Although San Jose's ordinance does not allow landlords to increase rents beyond 8 percent after the eviction of a tenant without cause, advocates and city officials agree the provision is impossible to enforce. That's why city officials are recommending the new provision of having landlords report all rents charged to tenants.

The proposal to expand San Jose's rent control and bolster tenant protections first was brought to the City Council by Councilman Raul Peralez in May. The council ranked the idea as its second-highest priority the following month.

But one thing not included in the plan headed to City Council on Tuesday is expanding rent control to cover more units, an idea mentioned in Peralez's original proposal.

"We believe there were legal challenges to expanding it," Morales-Ferrand said Monday.

Currently, the city's rent control ordinance covers properties with three or more units that were constructed before 1979. That's only 43,000 of the 122,000 renter-occupied dwellings in San Jose -- about 35 percent -- and the local ordinance excludes duplexes.

And even with its current rent control law, San Jose's rents have skyrocketed nearly 54 percent in the past five years, city officials said. In 2010, the average rent in San Jose was $1,451 a month, but by this year, it swelled to an unprecedented $2,227 a month. By contrast, wages have remained stagnant with the median income rising only 11 percent from 2011 to 2015.

While San Jose leaders acknowledge the painful plight of renters, they're also tasked with balancing the rights of landlords and property owners. The city held numerous meetings with stakeholders on both sides. During a meeting with the Tri-County Apartment Association, property owners said lowering allowable rent increases reduces their ability to improve the buildings and could lead to blight.

A memo from Vice Mayor Rose Herrera and Councilman Johnny Khamis urged the council to assemble a task force comprising renters and landlords to discuss those types of challenges. They also asked city staff to explore establishing income eligibility criteria for rent-controlled units.

One sore spot for the council members is establishing an ordinance to prohibit tenant discrimination based on source of income. Rental rights advocates say renters using Section 8 vouchers and other subsidies experience discrimination from landlords, but a memo from five council members recommended waiting to pass a law against it.

Mayor Sam Liccardo, along with Councilwoman Magdalena Carrasco and Councilmen Chappie Jones, Raul Peralez and Don Rocha, proposed waiting until the city of Santa Monica settles a lawsuit on a similar anti-discrimination ordinance.

Source: Mercury News, Ramona Giwargis
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_28734596/san-jose-considers-new-rent-control-law-next