After 20 years in San Francisco, John Perry and Rob Picciotto, along with their children, Ben and Louisa, and three dogs, transplanted themselves to Oakland. “I didn’t think we would ever leave San Francisco, but a convergence of things made us consider moving,” said Perry.

In 1998, Perry and Picciotto had stretched to buy their Bernal Heights house and make it work as their family grew. In June it sold for more than triple what they’d paid, a windfall that allowed them to pay cash for a less expensive house in Oakland’s Leona Heights neighborhood in the hills above Mills College.

“We don’t have a mortgage anymore, which is awesome,” Perry said. “We doubled our square footage on more than an acre of land, and have phenomenal neighbors. Oakland is so diverse; it’s a whole new world to learn and explore. There’s more space, more mix.”

For a growing number of San Francisco residents, the math is compelling. Their houses now are worth more than ever. Meanwhile, although homes in the East Bay have had big price run-ups over the past year, they had fallen further during the downturn – meaning they’re still shy of their peaks.

“San Francisco is on the leading edge of the appreciation curve and other places are a step behind,” said Patrick Carlisle, chief market analyst with Paragon Real Estate Group in San Francisco. “The majority of our San Francisco neighborhoods now have met or exceeded their previous peak values reached in 2007 or 2008.”

Huge price differential

The result is that the price differential between San Francisco and other Bay Area counties, especially the East Bay, is greater now than ever, he said. Silicon Valley’s price appreciation has been strong enough that moving there from the city is more of a lateral move.

For David and Tamra Biener, the rising real estate market meant they could finally trade their cramped Dolores Street condo for a bigger place in the East Bay. With children soon to turn 6 and 8, their family outgrew the two-bedroom condo a couple of years ago – they’d converted the dining room to a third bedroom to make do – but were stuck because they were underwater.

“Our kids running up and down the hallway sounded like a herd of elephants to the people above and below,” he said. “We wanted to move in 2011, but at that time the condo was worth maybe $50,000 less than I’d bought it for. I was thinking, it’s another $50,000 in (real estate) commissions, so it will cost us $100,000 to get out of the condo. We can’t do that because we have to come up with 20 percent down on the new house. It’s supposed to work the other way.”

Way over asking price

But now the tide has turned.

“The crazy thing is that two years go by, we list our house for $50,000 more than I paid and get another $125,000 over listing,” he said.

Listed at $875,000, the house went for just a tad over $1 million. As soon as they were in contract, the Bieners made an offer on a five-bedroom Walnut Creek house with lots of room for the kids. It was listed at $1.285 million; their offer was just $15,000 over asking.

“There are two things going on that favor moving from the city to outside the city,” he said. “The prices have gone up way faster in San Francisco than they have outside of it. And the demand is so much higher in the city that you get that extra 10 or 20 percent over listing.”

Agents around the region said they’re seeing a definite increase in San Francisco out-migration.

“There was a time when you could be a move-up buyer in San Francisco, taking the equity out of your home or condo and buying a bigger one in the city, but that’s not the story anymore,” said Steve Dells, an agent for 25 years with Zephyr Real Estate in San Francisco. “The values in San Francisco have escalated so quickly and so much that whatever a move-up buyer can afford likely won’t be enough space to accommodate their reason for moving.”

Ashley Langworthy and Peter Gleason would have liked to be move-up San Francisco buyers, but the financials didn’t pencil out. With twins on the way, the couple needed more space than their one-bedroom Hayes Valley tenancy in common.

‘Cold foggy areas’

“The places in San Francisco where we could afford more space were in cold foggy areas near the edge of Daly City,” said Langworthy, a landscape designer. “We would have stayed in San Francisco if we could have been in neighborhoods we liked.”

Instead, they looked in the East Bay. However, the competition over there meant they got outbid 10 times and ended up paying above asking for a two-bedroom Berkeley house.

Their Hayes Valley TIC went for almost $100,000 more than the $450,000 they paid for it in 2008, not a windfall but enough to help them get a foothold in a stand-alone house in the East Bay. “I think the East Bay is a little more affordable than San Francisco, but it’s still very competitive,” Langworthy said.

Christine Englund and Dean Charlton migrated from the city to the East Bay because she got a dream job in San Ramon.

“Our house in West Portal is in one of the foggiest neighborhoods in town; 2 miles up from the ocean, you’re totally socked in for the summer,” Englund said. “It’s a two-bedroom one-bathroom, with a little yard, just 1,500 square feet.”

Listed at $799,000, the house got 12 offers and sold in late May for $1.025 million. “We hit just the right time,” Englund said. “Interest rates were still a bit lower than now and inventory was so tight in San Francisco.”

Their East Bay house, located in upscale Piedmont, was cheaper at $905,000 but at least 50 percent larger, with a third bedroom, second bathroom, bigger yard, deck and even a wine cellar.

“We got so much more space for the money, and then the weather, the people, the restaurants, everything we value were also great,” she said.

Fewer school-age kids in S.F.

While the current exodus is too new to have official statistics, longer-range census data underscore San Francisco’s ongoing family drain. San Francisco has about 8,000 fewer school-age youngsters in 2010 than in 2000. Of the city’s 805,235 residents, just 13.4 percent are younger than 18 – a smaller percentage than any other major U.S. city, including the Manhattan section of New York City, where 15 percent of the population is under 18. In San Jose, 24.8 percent of the residents are children; in Oakland, it’s 21.3 percent.

What will it mean to San Francisco if families continue to flee?

Perry, the 20-year resident who recently moved out with his partner and their children, has some sanguine thoughts.

“San Francisco renews itself on a regular basis,” he said. “A lot of cities don’t sustain the same populations through all the stages of (the residents’) lives. There may be different cities for different times in our life.”

Carolyn Said is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: csaid@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @csaid

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Families-flee-S-F-for-East-Bay-with-cheaper-homes-4796027.php

After 20 years in San Francisco, John Perry and Rob Picciotto, along with their children, Ben and Louisa, and three dogs, transplanted themselves to Oakland. “I didn’t think we would ever leave San Francisco, but a convergence of things made us consider moving,” said Perry.

In 1998, Perry and Picciotto had stretched to buy their Bernal Heights house and make it work as their family grew. In June it sold for more than triple what they’d paid, a windfall that allowed them to pay cash for a less expensive house in Oakland’s Leona Heights neighborhood in the hills above Mills College.

“We don’t have a mortgage anymore, which is awesome,” Perry said. “We doubled our square footage on more than an acre of land, and have phenomenal neighbors. Oakland is so diverse; it’s a whole new world to learn and explore. There’s more space, more mix.”

For a growing number of San Francisco residents, the math is compelling. Their houses now are worth more than ever. Meanwhile, although homes in the East Bay have had big price run-ups over the past year, they had fallen further during the downturn – meaning they’re still shy of their peaks.

“San Francisco is on the leading edge of the appreciation curve and other places are a step behind,” said Patrick Carlisle, chief market analyst with Paragon Real Estate Group in San Francisco. “The majority of our San Francisco neighborhoods now have met or exceeded their previous peak values reached in 2007 or 2008.”

Huge price differential

The result is that the price differential between San Francisco and other Bay Area counties, especially the East Bay, is greater now than ever, he said. Silicon Valley’s price appreciation has been strong enough that moving there from the city is more of a lateral move.

For David and Tamra Biener, the rising real estate market meant they could finally trade their cramped Dolores Street condo for a bigger place in the East Bay. With children soon to turn 6 and 8, their family outgrew the two-bedroom condo a couple of years ago – they’d converted the dining room to a third bedroom to make do – but were stuck because they were underwater.

“Our kids running up and down the hallway sounded like a herd of elephants to the people above and below,” he said. “We wanted to move in 2011, but at that time the condo was worth maybe $50,000 less than I’d bought it for. I was thinking, it’s another $50,000 in (real estate) commissions, so it will cost us $100,000 to get out of the condo. We can’t do that because we have to come up with 20 percent down on the new house. It’s supposed to work the other way.”

Way over asking price

But now the tide has turned.

“The crazy thing is that two years go by, we list our house for $50,000 more than I paid and get another $125,000 over listing,” he said.

Listed at $875,000, the house went for just a tad over $1 million. As soon as they were in contract, the Bieners made an offer on a five-bedroom Walnut Creek house with lots of room for the kids. It was listed at $1.285 million; their offer was just $15,000 over asking.

“There are two things going on that favor moving from the city to outside the city,” he said. “The prices have gone up way faster in San Francisco than they have outside of it. And the demand is so much higher in the city that you get that extra 10 or 20 percent over listing.”

Agents around the region said they’re seeing a definite increase in San Francisco out-migration.

“There was a time when you could be a move-up buyer in San Francisco, taking the equity out of your home or condo and buying a bigger one in the city, but that’s not the story anymore,” said Steve Dells, an agent for 25 years with Zephyr Real Estate in San Francisco. “The values in San Francisco have escalated so quickly and so much that whatever a move-up buyer can afford likely won’t be enough space to accommodate their reason for moving.”

Ashley Langworthy and Peter Gleason would have liked to be move-up San Francisco buyers, but the financials didn’t pencil out. With twins on the way, the couple needed more space than their one-bedroom Hayes Valley tenancy in common.

‘Cold foggy areas’

“The places in San Francisco where we could afford more space were in cold foggy areas near the edge of Daly City,” said Langworthy, a landscape designer. “We would have stayed in San Francisco if we could have been in neighborhoods we liked.”

Instead, they looked in the East Bay. However, the competition over there meant they got outbid 10 times and ended up paying above asking for a two-bedroom Berkeley house.

Their Hayes Valley TIC went for almost $100,000 more than the $450,000 they paid for it in 2008, not a windfall but enough to help them get a foothold in a stand-alone house in the East Bay. “I think the East Bay is a little more affordable than San Francisco, but it’s still very competitive,” Langworthy said.

Christine Englund and Dean Charlton migrated from the city to the East Bay because she got a dream job in San Ramon.

“Our house in West Portal is in one of the foggiest neighborhoods in town; 2 miles up from the ocean, you’re totally socked in for the summer,” Englund said. “It’s a two-bedroom one-bathroom, with a little yard, just 1,500 square feet.”

Listed at $799,000, the house got 12 offers and sold in late May for $1.025 million. “We hit just the right time,” Englund said. “Interest rates were still a bit lower than now and inventory was so tight in San Francisco.”

Their East Bay house, located in upscale Piedmont, was cheaper at $905,000 but at least 50 percent larger, with a third bedroom, second bathroom, bigger yard, deck and even a wine cellar.

“We got so much more space for the money, and then the weather, the people, the restaurants, everything we value were also great,” she said.

Fewer school-age kids in S.F.

While the current exodus is too new to have official statistics, longer-range census data underscore San Francisco’s ongoing family drain. San Francisco has about 8,000 fewer school-age youngsters in 2010 than in 2000. Of the city’s 805,235 residents, just 13.4 percent are younger than 18 – a smaller percentage than any other major U.S. city, including the Manhattan section of New York City, where 15 percent of the population is under 18. In San Jose, 24.8 percent of the residents are children; in Oakland, it’s 21.3 percent.

What will it mean to San Francisco if families continue to flee?

Perry, the 20-year resident who recently moved out with his partner and their children, has some sanguine thoughts.

“San Francisco renews itself on a regular basis,” he said. “A lot of cities don’t sustain the same populations through all the stages of (the residents’) lives. There may be different cities for different times in our life.”

Carolyn Said is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: csaid@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @csaid

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Families-flee-S-F-for-East-Bay-with-cheaper-homes-4796027.php

Looking at 245 Bay Area ZIP codes, Zillow projects that 244 will see home values ratchet up by significant margins in 2013, with 27 ZIPs seeing double-digit appreciation. Only one of the ZIPs analyzed – 94515 in Calistoga – is forecast to see values recede, by a modest 1.4 percent.

“The forces of supply and demand seem to be exacerbated here right now,” said Svenja Gudell, senior economist with Zillow in Seattle. “We’re happily surprised by how well (the market) is doing and how much it’s picking up steam.”

Strikingly, some of the strongest percentage increases are likely to happen in both the cheapest and the priciest areas in the nine-county region, Zillow predicts. Low-end Solano County markets such as Vacaville, Fairfield, Dixon and Suisun City, where values plunged during the real-estate downturn and are still half off their peaks, should see values bump up by more than 14 percent – admittedly easier to do off a low base.

At the same time, Portola Valley, Atherton and Palo Alto – with million-dollar-plus median values that now exceed their boom-time heights – should see appreciation above 12 percent, Zillow said.

Popular San Francisco neighborhoods such as Noe Valley, the Castro, Twin Peaks, the Mission and Bernal Heights are poised for double-digit appreciation, along with Menlo Park, Larkspur, Palo Alto, Alameda and North Berkeley, Zillow predicts.

Regaining value

One major way that the low-cost and high-end markets diverge is in where values are now relative to their peak. Zillow shows 25 ZIP codes where values have regained all the value lost during the downturn and then some. All are in pricey Silicon Valley or San Francisco neighborhoods where the median price is around $1 million. Meanwhile, about 100 ZIP codes are still 30 percent or more below their peaks – all in hard-hit, lower-end communities in Solano, Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

For the San Francisco metropolitan area (the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, Alameda and Contra Costa), Zillow projects that that values will rise 7.3 percent this year, more than double its predicted 3.3 percent national increase. The San Jose metro area (Santa Clara and San Benito counties) should rise 6.6 percent, it said.

“That is a really great number in the San Francisco metro,” Gudell said. “It is rather special compared to the U.S. as a whole.”

Zillow’s projections take into account both long-term historical trends back to 1997, as well as current data on how markets have behaved in recent months. It also factors in information on employment, income and other economic factors to predict what housing values might do, she said.

Can’t meet demand

Every market around the Bay Area – whether low-end, high-end or somewhere in the middle – now has one outstanding characteristic that is driving up prices: too few homes for sale to meet buyer appetite.

“There is no place where we see a steeper decline in listed homes (for sale) than the Bay Area,” said Lanny Baker, CEO of ZipRealty in Emeryville, which has agents throughout the Bay Area and the country. “This time last year there were 13,000 homes listed here. Today we see about 5,000 homes – a 60 percent reduction.”

Moreover, the mix of homes being sold has changed dramatically, something that particularly affects lower-end markets such as Solano County. Far fewer bargain-priced, bank-owned foreclosures are on the market.

In the low-cost markets, investors waving fistfuls of cash are snapping up properties, usually to keep as rentals, sometimes to flip. In the high-end markets, it’s tech millionaires – armed with far bigger wads of cash – who are jostling to live in homes in Silicon Valley or San Francisco.

“As soon as something new hits the market, it’s snapped up,” said Sandy Rainsbarger, an agent with ZipRealty in Vacaville. That town’s 95688 ZIP, where the median value is now $287,900, is projected by Zillow to see values rise 17.1 percent this year – the biggest price appreciation in the Bay Area. “There are multiple offers on every single property.”

Buyers pushed aside

Meanwhile, “regular” buyers, especially first-time home buyers who are relying on Federal Housing Administration mortgages, are finding themselves shoved aside time after time in frenzied bidding wars.

“The Bay Area is one of the fastest-moving markets in the country,” Baker said. “We see houses sell on average in 26 days here. One statistic we look at is what percentage of homes sell in just seven days; that’s like a red alert. If it gets to 15 percent, we know we’re in a zany market. In the Bay Area, it’s at 13 percent. In Sacramento, 25 percent of homes sell in less than seven days.

“I think throughout this year, we’ll see Bay Area markets continue to be very, very strong,” Baker said. “On the lower end, the specter of foreclosures and ‘Gosh, nobody’s ever going to want to live this far out’ has washed away, and there is more confidence in values recovering.

“On the high end, we’ve got Silicon Valley and the tech economy doing really well.”

Carolyn Said is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: csaid@sfchronicle.com

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Bay-Area-home-prices-projected-to-surge-4288392.php

Living in a single-family home in San Francisco is getting pricier and pricer — even for current tenants. As both rental and real estate prices climb, landlords are sending unwelcome news to tenants in the form of rent increases. Houses, it turns out, are exempt from the rent control laws that protect apartment-dwellers from rent hikes.

Carolyn Said reported in Sunday’s Chronicle that some landlords are jacking up the rent to push out tenants so homes can be sold on the newly hot market.

If you’re looking to get into a single-family home in San Francisco, the average rent for current listings is $3,517, according to Rentbits. That’s up from an average listing price of $2,530 last September. By comparison, the average single family home in New York City  is listed at “only” $3,073 per month, Rentbits reports. That’s yet another indicator that San Francisco rivals New York City as one of the least affordable places to live.

What does $3,500 a month get you in a San Francisco house?

In the Sunset, you can get three bedrooms, two bathrooms, an attached garage and a big yard.

<!– –>

In Bernal Heights, though, $3,520 may only get you a one-bedroom sublet. On the upside, it’s furnished and even comes with a flat-screen TV.

<!– –>

In the Pine Lake Park neighborhood, this $3,500 single-family home listing has two bedrooms — but then there’s an in-law unit with a third bedroom and its own kitchen, bathroom and living room.

<!– –>

Carrie Kirby is a freelance writer who recently returned to the Bay Area after living for six years in Chicago. Carrie is more heavily invested in real estate than she ever expected to be, since she and her husband are now long-distance landlords of their Chicago home, and have also purchased a house in Alameda. She posts about interesting properties and real estate trends in San Francisco and Silicon Valley every Tuesday. Carrie also shares money-saving tips on her blog, Frugalistic Mom.

Article source: http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2012/09/05/what-3500-gets-you-in-sf-single-family-homes/

For the past two legislative sessions, Mr. Ammiano has sought to close what he and many others see as a loophole in Proposition 13’s treatment of commercial property. Even if an owner sells his entire interest in a piece of commercial real estate, the property is not reassessed if no single entity acquires more than a half-ownership stake. It is easy for corporations to structure deals to avoid a tax increase.

Mr. Ammiano thinks it’s an outrage that companies can skirt the intentions of the law when properties change hands.

“You have very large commercial enterprises, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, with this little sleight of hand in the way they structure ownership,” he said Wednesday in an interview. “It is very, very dishonest.”

Yet the feisty Mr. Ammiano is quiet as a church mouse about altering the residential protections of Proposition 13 — of which he is a signal beneficiary.

Mr. Ammiano, who is also a comedian, pays just $530 a year in taxes on the Bernal Heights home he has owned since 1974. As far as the city and Proposition 13 are concerned, his house is worth $45,600. Zillow estimates its current worth at $645,000. At that value, the tax would be about $7,500.

How good a deal is this? Imagine for a moment that Mr. Ammiano’s house was a car. If he parked the car at a metered space near his Civic Center office, the amount he now contributes each day to the commonweal in the form of property tax would buy just a hair less than 29 minutes, curbside.

Perhaps his next stand-up routine could be built around this theme: San Francisco on $1.45 a Day.

There is nothing illegal about Mr. Ammiano’s good fortune. As long as a property does not change hands, Proposition 13 limits annual increases to 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less.

And he is hardly alone. The latest Case-Schiller survey for home sales in San Francisco reports a median market price of $760,000. Yet 23,059 of the 139,918 single-family homes in San Francisco are currently assessed at less than $100,000. If these properties were valued at the median, that would yield about $184 million in additional revenues; even valued at $500,000, they would generate an extra $114 million.

Of course, many people simply cannot afford to have their property taxes jump to market rates. Proposition 13 has delivered just what Howard Jarvis, its crusty champion, wanted: Older residents are not getting squeezed out of their homes by rapidly escalating taxes.

But you can make the case that the cost of that benefit has escalated out of all proportion to reason. It certainly looks that way to Anthony Costa, Mr. Ammiano’s next-door neighbor.

Mr. Costa, a City College librarian, bought his house — a mirror image of Mr. Ammiano’s — in 2004. He pays $8,300 in annual property taxes.

While he says he bears his neighbor no ill-will, what Mr. Costa does object to — strenuously — is the reduction in government services he attributes squarely to Proposition 13.

“Prop 13 is a tragedy which has made things in California worse every year since it was passed,” Mr. Costa wrote in an e-mail. “The people of California have to settle for inferior schools, libraries, transit, roads, sewers, parks and other services. I don’t object as much to my personal tax bill, as I do the obscene discrepancy between the great wealth of this state and the relative poverty of our government and public institutions.”

Even Mr. Ammiano agrees that it is unfair that he pays one-sixteenth the property tax of Mr. Costa. “My feeling is, there’s a need for reform, absolutely,” he said.

But that isn’t where he’s expending his energy in Sacramento.

A little defensively, Mr. Ammiano, 69, noted that he had not availed himself of every opportunity to whittle down his property tax bill. “There is a senior-citizen exemption for homeowners tax in San Francisco,” he said, “and I do not take advantage of that.”

Actually, there used to be such a tax break. It was suspended in 2009, according to the city assessor’s office — a victim of state budget cuts.

estevens@baycitizen.org

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03bcstevens.html

But after all the grand fanfare, with impressive deals made in anticipation of city funding contributions and millions of dollars raised for design and preliminary development, the harsh reality of the national housing meltdown brought the dream crashing to a halt. Public housing residents who have been repeatedly disappointed are back in limbo, living day-to-day in homes that — in many cases — are vermin-infested, lack heat, have broken walls, ceilings or windows, and are consistently rated as dangerous and life-threatening.

In U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development inspections, a score of at least 60 out of 100 is considered passing. Scores at the eight public housing projects supposed to be upgraded by Hope SF range from 51 to 65 — and HUD found “life-threatening conditions present” at all of them.

For decades, running well into the early ’90s, the rundown condition of San Francisco’s public housing was a disgrace to The City. Executive managers were ousted and angry federal reports blasted the projects’ inadequate upkeep. Then between 1994 and 2006, money from the federal Hope VI program successfully revitalized public housing in the Mission, North Beach, Western Addition, Hayes Valley and Bernal Heights.

But the money from Washington eventually disappeared. Newsom tried to continue the work by assembling one of his bolder programs. Hope SF was a complex package partnering with private or nonprofit developers who would make money by building market-rate condos in the area. However, with the housing market and real estate financing limping along in the Bay Area, four years after Hope SF began, only two of its sites — in Hunters Point and the Bayview — actually have the public funds to move ahead.

Funding has run dry for six other developments, including the 769-unit Sunnydale housing project, sites atop Potrero Hill and in the Western Addition. The dismal news arrived in The City’s March report outlining San Francisco’s next decade of development: City Hall needs $127 million for infrastructure upgrades such as utilities, street paving and drainage before money becomes available to finish the public housing rebuild.

The fact remains that Hope SF made a four-year-old unfulfilled promise to San Franciscans whose needs have been shoved back to the end of the line for a disgracefully long time.

There can be no arguing about how difficult today’s municipal spending constraints are. But simply giving up and leaving Hope SF on the back burner will only worsen the problems plaguing these low-income communities. This is a time to try moving beyond the bureaucratic envelope. Some ways should be found to sweeten the developer deals so they become more attractive to private funding. It would seem that a task force of creative business people ought to be able to find some way to move Hope SF forward.

Article source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/04/san-francisco-public-housing-shouldn-t-be-left-hopeless