Showing posts with label housing density. Show all posts
Showing posts with label housing density. Show all posts

Friday, March 8, 2019

Thousands of New Millionaires Are About to Eat San Francisco Alive

Thousands of New Millionaires Are About to Eat San Francisco Alive


Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and Pinterest plan to go public. California’s newly minted rich will be hungry for parties, houses, boats, bikes — and ice sculptures.


By Nellie Bowles
March 7, 2019


SAN FRANCISCO — Big wealth doesn’t come in monthly paychecks. It comes when a start-up goes public, transforming hypothetical money into extremely real money. This year — with Uber, Lyft, Slack, Postmates, Pinterest and Airbnb all hoping to enter the public markets — there’s going to be a lot of it in the Bay Area.

Estimates of Uber’s value on the market have been as high as $120 billion. Airbnb was most recently valued at $31 billion, with Lyft and Pinterest around $15 billion and $12 billion. It’s anyone’s guess what prices these companies actually will command once they go public, but even conservative estimates predict hundreds of billions of dollars will flood into town in the next year, creating thousands of new millionaires. It’s hard to imagine more money in San Francisco, but the city’s residents now need to start trying.

Welcomed finally into the elite caste who can afford to live comfortably in the Bay Area, the fleet of new millionaires are already itching to claim what has been promised all these years.

They want cars. They want to open new restaurants. They want to throw bigger parties. And they want houses.


One recent night, in a packed room with a view of the Bay Bridge and an open bar, real estate investors gathered. Standing at the front presenting was Deniz Kahramaner, a real estate agent specializing in data analytics at Compass.

“Are we going to see a one-bedroom condo that’s worth less than $1 million in five years?” he asked the crowd. “Are we going to see single family homes selling for one to three million?”


No, he said, not anymore. The energy rose as he revealed more data about new millionaires and about just how few new units have been built for them. San Francisco single-family home sale prices could climb to an average of $5 million, he said, to gasps.

“All cash. These are all cash buyers,” he said. “It’s just going to be astounding.”

Now, seemingly the whole city — and not just the financial planners and the real estate agents and the protesters who block tech buses — is scrambling to prepare.

If you live here now, you might have to move soon.CreditJim Wilson/The New York Times





ImageIf you live here now, you might have to move soon.CreditJim Wilson/The New York Times

Housing Madness

As the idea of the coming I.P.O.-palooza took on currency, sellers started pulling their houses off the market. The broader California housing market has softened, and home sales are down, but here’s one fix for that.

“Even if just half the I.P.O.s happen, there’s going to be ten thousand millionaires overnight,” said Herman Chan, a real estate agent with Sotheby’s. “People are like, ‘I’m not going to sell till next year, because there are going to be bajillionaires everywhere left and right.’”

One of those is his client Rick Rider, a 61-year-old C.E.O. who decided not to publicly list his Bay Area house until some of the I.P.O.s have happened.

“Our particular house is not a family home. It’s a Double Income No Kids sort of home,” Mr. Rider said. “So it would potentially play well for a lot of the people that would be benefiting from the I.P.O.s.”

The spending wars will likely stay close to work.

“The millennial tech workers are really looking for convenience,” said Christine Kim, the president of Climb Real Estate. “They seem to not want to own cars, and food deliveries are really easy now, and they want to be close to entertainment, so they’ll stay in the city.”

When Google in Mountain View and Facebook in Menlo Park went public, their workers were spread across the Bay Area, and so the impact on housing was diffuse. Now, many of the biggest start-ups are based in San Francisco, in part thanks to the city’s tax breaks. Brokers say San Francisco is where the workers want to stay.

In 2018 there were 5,644 properties sold in San Francisco and only 2,208 of those were single family homes. Software employees represent more than 50 percent of those buying, according to Compass. One real estate firm estimates an average one-bedroom in the city now rents for $3,690 per month. (Another firm puts that average at $3,551.)

“Now you’ve got all these I.P.O.s at the same time, and we’ll potentially have thousands of young people, all now with money, looking to buy homes,” said Shane Ray, a real estate agent. “You’ll be able to feel it.”

Those in the market for a house are trying to buy them fast while the inventory shrinks but before the wave hits.

“I had this sense of existential dread that if we didn’t buy before all the I.P.O.s, we would forever be priced out,” said Tom McLeod, the founder of storage start-up Omni, who has been renting for nearly a decade. “We ended up pulling the trigger.”

The Airbnb HQ.CreditJason Henry for The New York Times


The Airbnb HQ.CreditJason Henry for The New York Times

Don’t Buy Boats

Companies instill in their employees a belief that stock only goes up. At this point, a decade since their founding, start-ups like Uber and Airbnb have been asking their employees to hold that faith for a long time. Now, wealth managers are hoping to rattle the religious.

Ryan S. Cole, a private wealth adviser at Citrine Capital, said he has started getting an influx of new clients who are preparing for wealth. He is worried. This generation of the start-up wealthy seem especially bullish on their company’s success.


“We’ve been trying to get them to exercise a little more caution, just because they’re so excited,” Mr. Cole said. “I don’t think a lot of them think there ever could be a downturn.”

He cautions that no one can be sure how well a stock will do. A company like Uber is still dramatically unprofitable, he tries to remind his clients. So many I.P.O.s turn out to be busts. Groupon opened around $26 a share and now trades around $3; Snap opened around $27 and now trades at $9.

“A lot of them are young — they’ve just seen their valuations going up forever and they don’t really understand that tech stocks are volatile,” Mr. Cole said. “And they have their managers painting especially rosy pictures of where the company is headed to get them to work harder.”

Mostly, he just urges his clients not to spend too much yet.

“They shouldn’t be buying boats,” Mr. Cole said. “We see a little bit of that.”

Electric bikes, on the other hand, are a favorite mode of transportation for the San Francisco tech worker. Owners of the electric bike shop New Wheel say they are preparing for the I.P.O.s by ordering 30 percent more of the Stromer ST3 — the most popular configuration retails for around $7,500 — and 200 percent more of the Riese & Muller front-loader bikes, which sell for around $9,500.

Michael Biggica, the founder of Pixel Financial Planning, said 2019 is the year of “pent-up demand” and that the excitement of a windfall can be intoxicating.


“My role is eliminating that emotion,” Mr. Biggica said.

Jonathan K. DeYoe, another private wealth adviser in the region, started working with tech clients in 1997 during the first dot-com boom. He said it was pretty exciting back then. Now, as he thinks about thousands of new millionaires coming onto the scene, he is worried about the region’s inequality.

“There’s some who’ve talked about pitchforks,” Mr. DeYoe said. “And I don’t think we’ll go there, but there’s a point when that makes sense.”

“It’s very visible,” Mr. DeYoe said. “This kind of wealth is very visible.”

A Lyft.CreditChristie Hemm Klok for The New York Times


Party City

In cities like Oakland and Berkeley and San Francisco, millennials obsess over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Twitter and attend Democratic Socialists of America meetings. But the socialist passion doesn’t seem to have impacted the city’s zeal for I.P.O. parties, which the party planning community says are going to surpass past booms.

Jay Siegan, a former live music club owner who now curates private entertainment and music, is gearing up. He has worked on events for many of the I.P.O. hopefuls, including Uber, Airbnb, Slack, Postmates and Lyft.

“We see multiple parties per I.P.O. for the company that is I.P.O.ing, as well as firms that are associated to them,” Mr. Siegan said. Budgets for start-up parties, he said, can easily go above $10 million. “They’re wanting to bring in A-list celebrities to perform at the dinner tables for the executives. They want ballet performers.”

A popular new feature he’s noticing is clients hoping to curate their own theme concerts featuring fleets of bands. Mr. Siegan says he recently put on one for a 1980s loving tech executive, featuring the B-52s, Devo, The Bangles, Tears for Fears and Flock of Seagulls.


In a warehouse in Concord, Calif., the I.P.O. ice sculptor is getting ready to staff up for what he says will be a long year.

“It’s going to be a lot of 14-hour days,” said Robert Chislett, founder of Chisel-it, who has around 15 ice sculptors currently employed.

Together, they have chiseled a full-size ice car for a tech executive’s party in Atherton and a 10-foot ice Taj Mahal for another’s swimming pool in San Jose.

But, he says, I.P.O.ing executives usually want predictable things. An ice chair with the logo on the back, for photos. A lot of logos carved into ice rockets, to indicate that the company’s stock will be like a rocket. And ice cubes, for drinks, with the company logo on each one.
To the Barricades and Back Again

And of course, the tech backlash, mostly quiet as stocks have vested, is preparing for its own revival.

At Radio Habana Social Club in the Mission district, housing rights activists gathered one recent evening for a drink. By now, there is a well-known choreography: the cash comes flooding in to a few and the stock-less masses begin to gather. They will protest evictions, fight developers, organize against tax breaks and unfurl banners in front of tech buses.


“It’s going to mean mass displacement,” said Sarah “Fred” Sherburn-Zimmer, the executive director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, of the coming wealth influx.

She paused for a moment.

“It feels like the same game,” she said.

Activists stood elbow-to-elbow around a table of hummus and pepper jack cheese.

“We’ve lived through boom times before,” said Maria Zamudio, the group’s associate director. “We’ve learned our lessons. We know what a massive influx of money looks like. Concessions we made in the past, we will not make this year.”



Nellie Bowles covers tech and internet culture. Follow her on Twitter: @nelliebowles
READ 519 COMMENTS

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Judge denies "Sue the Suburbs" lawsuit seeking more housing in East Bay city

Judge denies "Sue the Suburbs" lawsuit seeking more housing in East Bay city

Apr 7, 2017, 7:04am PDT Updated Apr 7, 2017, 10:22am PDT


A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge ruled on Thursday against activists who filed a lawsuit against Lafayette that sought to increase the East Bay city's housing production.

Judge Judith Craddick denied a writ of mandate sought by pro-development activist Sonja Trauss, who leads the San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation (SFBARF). Her suit alleged that Lafayette had violated the state's Housing Accountability Act by approving a smaller single-family housing development in 2015 rather than a larger apartment complex.
Enlarge


A rendering of O'Brien Homes' proposed single-family project Homes at Deer Hill in… more

O'BRIEN HOMES

The case is part of the group's larger legal and political effort to increase the amount of housing development in the Bay Area. Trauss and her fellow activists have sought to use the 1982 Housing Accountability Act as a tool to keep cities from reducing the size of projects that fit within a city's zoning. They've also cited the law in a lawsuit against Berkeley over a rejected three-unit housing proposal and plan to take action again there.

The petitioners have 20 days to file an appeal in the Lafayette case but haven't decided whether to pursue it, said Trauss.

In Lafayette, developer O'Brien Homes had initially proposed 315 apartments at the intersection of Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads. But the developer revised its plans and eventually received approval for a project with 44 single-family homes, which will be more expensive.

Judge Craddick wrote that the developer said it voluntarily pursued the less dense project, so Lafayette didn't violate the Housing Accountability Act.

“Lafayette supports smart growth, not indiscriminate growth. In this case, the city and the developer agreed to work together on a more suitable plan for that parcel. That’s good government," said Steven Falk, Lafayette's city manager, in a statement.

Trauss and SFBARF argued that the city pressured the developer to reduce the size of its project, harming potential renters who want to live in Lafayette.

"We are disappointed that Judge Craddick sided against hundreds of middle-class aspirational residents in favor of upholding Lafayette's exclusionary character. The California Legislature passed the Housing Accountability Act to rein in NIMBY ("not in my backyard") suburbs like Lafayette. Unfortunately, the court ruled in favor of maintaining the housing shortage, which harms low- and middle-income people the most," the petitioners said in a statement.
 See Full Article HERE

Thursday, June 22, 2017

What housing crisis? Last-minute bill would let wealthy Marin County limit home building

 What housing crisis? Last-minute bill would let wealthy Marin County limit home building



Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-San Rafael), right, discusses legislation in 2016. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)
Liam DillonContact Reporter



One of California’s wealthiest counties may continue to get a pass under the state’s affordable housing laws.

Lawmakers are considering a measure that would allow parts of Marin County to limit growth more tightly than other regions of California. The provision, inserted last week into a bill connected to the state budget, lets Marin County’s largest cities and unincorporated areas maintain extra restrictions on how many homes developers can build.

Housing advocates say the carve-out runs counter to the push by Gov. Jerry Brown and lawmakers for more development as a way to combat the state’s housing affordability problems.

Since the changes are tied to last week’s passage of the state budget, which Brown has yet to sign, the measure does not have to go through the regular committee process. It’s had just one public hearing and lawmakers could vote on the bill as early as Thursday.

The measure, Assembly Bill 121, is the latest salvo in a lengthy debate about low-income housing in the Northern California county, which has one of the state’s largest gaps between rich and poor.

Following a 2009 investigation by federal housing officials, Marin County supervisors agreed to boost affordable development as a way to desegregate the mostly white region. But neighborhood opposition to low-income housing continued, including a long-stalled 2013 proposal from “Star Wars” creator George Lucas to build hundreds of affordable units on a former dairy farm.

Today, the county’s per capita income of $60,236 is the highest of any county in the state, according to U.S. census figures. But the average renter in Marin County makes just $19.21 an hour and would need to work 77 hours a week to afford a studio apartment at the $1,915-a-month market rate, according to data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The bill came at the request of Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-San Rafael). Levine said his proposal reflects Marin County’s character: Communities there should have buildings that look like those in Santa Rosa and Petaluma rather than those in the larger cities of Oakland and San Francisco.


“If you're standing on the ground there, it's a suburban county and then if you were to hike a couple of miles west, you would see that it is a rural county,” Levine said.

Brown and legislators have been working on a package of bills that aim to increase funding for low-income housing as well as wipe away some of the restrictions local governments put on development. But no significant measure has passed in recent years, frustrating housing advocates.

“In a year where the Legislature has been talking endlessly about the housing crisis in this state and trying to make it easier to build affordable housing and higher-density housing, the one and only thing that comes out of the budget process is a deeply flawed measure that only adds barriers to development in one of the most exclusionary counties in the state,” said Anya Lawler, policy advocate at the Western Center on Law & Poverty.

Levine agrees Marin County has an affordable housing crisis, and argued the bill would actually help make it easier to build.

We have an affordable housing crisis in #Marin and #Sonoma. Solutions are complicated, but Dr Sweeney @HomewrdBndMarin is helping to solve.

The budget-related legislation extends a law written by Levine in 2014. The original law allowed the cities of Novato and San Rafael, as well as unincorporated Marin County, to shrink the size of projects they’d allow developers to build to below roughly three stories high. That would be more generous than what other areas of California are allowed under state housing law.

Generally, affordable housing developers need to build larger projects for them to be financially viable. But some affordable housing groups in the region supported Levine’s initial effort because they believed smaller sizes might limit some community opposition.

Beyond that, Levine said, land in the county is very expensive and smaller projects can avoid costs often associated with larger buildings, such as steel construction and underground parking.

Levine’s original law was supposed to expire at the end of 2023. But under AB 121, the lower-density rules would continue for five years after that.

Housing advocates who are against his bill don’t understand how affordable housing can get done in his district, Levine said.

“There are ideologues in housing,” he said. “What I'm most interested in is pragmatic approaches that result in more housing for the people that need it.”

Some who supported Levine’s initial approach now are against AB 121. Michael Lane, policy director for the Non-Profit Housing Assn. of Northern California, said Levine’s new bill doesn’t make sense.

The original law required Novato, San Rafael and Marin County to analyze its effects on affordable construction by 2019. Lane said there is no reason to extend the law’s provisions before knowing whether it has worked.

“It’s way too early,” Lane said. “We don’t understand why this became a priority and why all the other housing issues didn’t.”

At the measure’s hearing before legislators Tuesday, Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber) criticized the bill, calling out what he said were “hypocritical” communities that don't want to do their part in solving the housing problem. “They love their lifestyles, but don’t bother us with the low-income housing,” Nielsen said of those local residents.

Brown and the legislative leadership typically agree on budget-related bills before they’re introduced. Levine said he was able to get his housing provision into such a bill because “that’s just the way it evolved.”

Spokespeople for Brown, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) either declined to comment or gave no substantive response to the bill.

“It got put in,” said Kevin Liao, a Rendon spokesman. “It’s the nature of the budget negotiations.”


Editor's Note: While this LA Times writer is bashing Marc Levine and Marin County unfairly and failed to identify WHY the bill was submitted,  at least they are reporting it. (Where is the Marin IJ?)  George Lucas stopped development of his projects because of environmental restrictions not just local opposition.  Had he promoted a site that was closer to 101 freeway and did not negatively impact Miller Creek, it is likely that he would have a project today.