>The issue of rentals vs. ownership is an interesting one. One of the
>problems posed by the issue is that it is back&white, no middle ground.
>Condominiums and Tenancies-in-common/coops don't seem to have resolved
>the problem here>
Actually tenants-in-common, at least in this area, seems to have evolved as
a kind of gray area mechanism for getting around the prohibitions against
condominium conversion. San Francisco has created an absurd lottery system
in which a very small number of rental units are allowed to be converted
each year, providing a bonanza for the lucky few. In Berkeley, where
conversions are completely outlawed, there was a proposal to legalize them
but with a large tax by which the city would recapture the increased value
and supposedly apply the money toward affordable (presumably rental)
housing projects.
It seems that some of the beaurocratic methods advanced to "protect"
affordable housing, such as rent control and the above referenced condo
conversion laws, have resulted in less affordable housing and the removal
of some good ways that entry level and/or nontraditional households can get
into ownership. In Berkeley there is anecdotal evidence that thousands of
rental units, mainly "in law" units rented by students have been withdrawn
from the market because of rent control, and certainly the number of rental
units that have been built is very low despite the fact that new units are
exempt.
Finally, many cities, while giving lip service to the idea of affordable
housing, conserving resources by increasing density in already built-out
areas, and *sustainable development*, make it almost impossible to add 2nd
units to existing houses because of off street parking requirements.
**********************************
Jonathan Cohen, AIA
246 First St., Suite 203
San Francisco, CA 94105 USA
email: kvetcher@xxxxxxxx
**********************************
>problems posed by the issue is that it is back&white, no middle ground.
>Condominiums and Tenancies-in-common/coops don't seem to have resolved
>the problem here>
Actually tenants-in-common, at least in this area, seems to have evolved as
a kind of gray area mechanism for getting around the prohibitions against
condominium conversion. San Francisco has created an absurd lottery system
in which a very small number of rental units are allowed to be converted
each year, providing a bonanza for the lucky few. In Berkeley, where
conversions are completely outlawed, there was a proposal to legalize them
but with a large tax by which the city would recapture the increased value
and supposedly apply the money toward affordable (presumably rental)
housing projects.
It seems that some of the beaurocratic methods advanced to "protect"
affordable housing, such as rent control and the above referenced condo
conversion laws, have resulted in less affordable housing and the removal
of some good ways that entry level and/or nontraditional households can get
into ownership. In Berkeley there is anecdotal evidence that thousands of
rental units, mainly "in law" units rented by students have been withdrawn
from the market because of rent control, and certainly the number of rental
units that have been built is very low despite the fact that new units are
exempt.
Finally, many cities, while giving lip service to the idea of affordable
housing, conserving resources by increasing density in already built-out
areas, and *sustainable development*, make it almost impossible to add 2nd
units to existing houses because of off street parking requirements.
**********************************
Jonathan Cohen, AIA
246 First St., Suite 203
San Francisco, CA 94105 USA
email: kvetcher@xxxxxxxx
**********************************