This is from July, but given this blog's focus on The Mission, I thought it worth noting....
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/07/07/tidbits1.html
From the San Francisco Business Times...
On the face of it, one of the nation's largest mortgage lenders and a San Francisco activist group hell-bent on blocking development would seem like strange bedfellows.
Yet snuggled up together are $36 billion Wachovia and the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (MAC), with a $500,000 philanthropic donation from the bank acting as matchmaker.
The money was donated last year to the Mission Economic Development Association, which provides financial, housing and employment services in the Mission. The funds will go toward creating the San Francisco Immigrants' Center, which is a new HQ for MEDA and nearly a dozen nonprofits affiliated with it.
Among them is MAC. The development association is the largest of the nonprofit groups that banded together to form MAC a decade ago.
As its web site flatly states, MAC "fights to stop market-rate development in the Mission District." Originally formed to beat back loft conversions and dot-com encroachment into the Mission, it has lived on to frustrate a string of projects. It fought the expansion of Slanted Door restaurant and battled each of the various attempts at redeveloping the ancient Armory (which, as a result, ended up as a pornography studio). Still, there's no doubting MAC's political pull: It was a major driver in the Board of Supervisors' 2006 decision to place a moratorium on market-rate housing in the area, a move that put several dozen projects in deep freeze.
All that would seem to put it at odds with the "economic development" in the middle of MEDA's name, but Luis Granados, executive director of MEDA, sees no conflict between the two groups' efforts. Market-rate housing in the Mission is geared to affluent singles who can afford a $700,000 condo, he said, and has nothing to do with economic development on behalf of working class Mission families.
"We can argue the supply-and-demand thing, but the housing built in the Mission has not been affordable and it's been studios and one bedrooms," he said. "There is nothing a teacher and someone who works at a biotech company could afford. The facts are the facts."
Rey Ocañas, Wachovia's community relations executive for the region, is sanguine that the mortgage-heavy bank is indirectly bankrolling an organization that effectively exists to eliminate mortgage opportunities.
"Our foundation is targeting low-income needs," he said. "We're not going to tell them what issues to align with. We want to support the work they do in the community. If they take an unpopular position now and then, so be it."
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Moving Into Investment Property as Your Primary Residence? Think Again!
Part of the housing stimulus packaged signed into law last week will significantly reduce the gains you can claim from your primary residence (for the years you did not live there).
According to the Wall Street Journal article, August 6, 2008, "House-Hoppers May Suffer Under New Tax Rules",
"Here's an example: Suppose a married couple buys a home on Jan. 1 next year for $600,000, says Mr. Olivieri of White & Case. They plan to hold it as an investment. On Jan. 1, 2012 -- three years later -- they begin using it as their principal residence. They live there two years and sell it on Jan. 1, 2014 for $1.1 million, for a profit of $500,000.
Under the old law, they would have been able to exclude the entire $500,000 gain from their taxable income, Mr. Olivieri says. But under the new law, they could exclude only two-fifths of the gain, or $200,000, since the other three-fifths would be considered attributable to the three years the home wasn't their principal residence, he says."
I have heard of this strategy among some circles in San Francisco. The idea is that if you own multiple properties, you should live in them for two years and turn them into your primary residence, so that when you sell the property, you can claim the first $250k in gain (or $500k if you are married), tax-free.
This strategy will be severely impacted going forward.
Here is the link to the article - Subscription Required...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121798585043615583.html
According to the Wall Street Journal article, August 6, 2008, "House-Hoppers May Suffer Under New Tax Rules",
"Here's an example: Suppose a married couple buys a home on Jan. 1 next year for $600,000, says Mr. Olivieri of White & Case. They plan to hold it as an investment. On Jan. 1, 2012 -- three years later -- they begin using it as their principal residence. They live there two years and sell it on Jan. 1, 2014 for $1.1 million, for a profit of $500,000.
Under the old law, they would have been able to exclude the entire $500,000 gain from their taxable income, Mr. Olivieri says. But under the new law, they could exclude only two-fifths of the gain, or $200,000, since the other three-fifths would be considered attributable to the three years the home wasn't their principal residence, he says."
I have heard of this strategy among some circles in San Francisco. The idea is that if you own multiple properties, you should live in them for two years and turn them into your primary residence, so that when you sell the property, you can claim the first $250k in gain (or $500k if you are married), tax-free.
This strategy will be severely impacted going forward.
Here is the link to the article - Subscription Required...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121798585043615583.html
Monday, August 4, 2008
Wow!!! 2448 Folsom
2448 Folsom, Listed at $1,475,000, 2,271 square feet on a 4,896 square foot lot.
For those of you city dwellers looking for something different… Something creative with a different “energy”…. This is it! This property is a complete contrast to the ornate, remodeled Victorians you will find in Noe Valley, Eureka Valley/Castro and, of course, the money neighborhoods across town. For me – this house was a breath of fresh air!
This house is originally a two-unit building, currently used as a SFR. The upstairs “unit” serves as the 3 bedrooms (plus office) and 1 bath for the house. The property is on a double lot; providing plenty of room for an underutilized (in my opinion) artist studio and large backyard (planted largely with native, low-water plants). The property has a storage shed and parking for at least 2 cars.
The kitchen has a large wolf stove and a center island with an image of trees growing up the one side of the island (it’s beautiful) and a grey stone backsplash. Both floors have high ceilings. The downstairs bathroom is remodeled and the upstairs bathroom is not. The artist studio (and cabana), truthfully, look better in the pictures than in reality and would require quite a bit more work from the new owners. The backyard is expansive with complete sun at 4pm in the afternoon. The bedrooms lack adequate closet space and it does not appear that the upstairs has updated heat or electric systems.
Despite the closets, the remodeling of the upstairs bathroom, the heat/electrical issues the house may have and the work required to really use the “artist studio”, I’d buy this house in a heartbeat. It has a wonderful energy and, as someone commented at the open house yesterday… It feels like a playground for adults. I would love to raise my kids in this kind of funky, open and sunny environment.
I really loved this house. Touring the house reinforced my inclinations to introduce more “flair” in my own design choices and reinforced the market appetite for properties that stray from norm.
8/11: Property in Contract
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
