“What are they so excited about?” asked Hunter. “That they have pricing power.”

Housing completions fell 0.9 percent to an annualized rate of 690,000, well below demand. Underlying demand consists of new households forming (about 1.1 million, according to Census data,) replacement demand (about 250,000 homes) and second home demand (about 50,000,) according to IHS Global Insight.

“The wide gap between housing completions and underlying demand suggests that inventories are likely to get leaner over the next 12 months,” IHS analysts said in a report to investors. “For the record, it takes about seven months on average for a single-family permit to turn into a completed home.”

The supply pinch can be seen quite dramatically in California, where there was barely a two-month supply of homes for sale in May. That, and a change in the mix of home sales from distressed to nondistressed, pushed the median sale price up 32 percent from a year ago. Some might call that a “bubble,” but the real state agents do not.

(Read More: Rising Rates Scare Borrowers Into Action)

“While home prices are increasing at levels above those observed in 2006-2007, the fundamentals of the housing market are much more solid than what we experienced a few years ago,” said Leslie Appleton-Young, chief economist for the California Association of Realtors. “More home buyers are putting down larger down payments, and many of them are opting for more stable loan products.”

That may be, but the jump in the median California home price jump is predominantly due to a change in the mix of homes selling, that is, more nondistressed sales and fewer foreclosure and short sales. The median price is where half the homes sell for more and half sell for less. In May, distressed properties accounted for 31 percent of total sales in California, down from 52 percent of sales a year ago, according to Propertyradar, a data and analytics company. Meanwhile, nondistressed sales were 69 percent of total sales, up from 48 percent a year ago.

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100821976

To know one big reason why, ask Wayne Koniuk. By trade, Mr. Koniuk fashions artificial limbs for amputees. By habit, he fits prostheses at no charge for people who cannot pay. This has left him a less-than-wealthy man.

But he does have one substantial asset: a Divisadero Street building that his father, Walter, an orthotist, bought in 1970 and gave to his only son in 2001 so Wayne could run his business on the ground floor and Wayne’s adult children would always have a place to live.

“For eternity,” Mr. Koniuk recalls his father saying, “my grandkids will always have a place they can go. No matter whatever happens, that building should stay in the family.”

Mr. Koniuk, who himself lives in suburban Belmont, gave a half-interest in the building to his older son in 2007 so he could evict a tenant and move in himself. But under San Francisco’s extraordinarily pro-tenant housing laws, landlords can do this only once per building.

So while Mr. Koniuk desperately wants to move his younger son into the building’s other four-bedroom apartment, he cannot. He is exploring legal options. Robert Murphy, who has lived there for 30 years without a lease, remains, paying $525.82 a month.

Last spring, Mr. Koniuk offered Mr. Murphy $45,000 to move out. Mr. Murphy’s lawyer demanded $70,000, a sum Mr. Koniuk says he does not have. Meanwhile, the city’s Rent Board notified Mr. Koniuk that he was allowed to increase Mr. Murphy’s monthly rent this year by $2.63.

Mr. Murphy did not respond to several phone messages left over a two-week period. Harold Jaffe, the lawyer who wrote the demand letter, said he no longer represented Mr. Murphy.

Increasingly, small-time landlords like Mr. Koniuk are just giving up. One of his Divisadero Street neighbors has left two large apartments on the second and third floors of her building vacant for more than a decade, after a series of tenant difficulties. It’s just not worth the bother, or the risk, of being legally tied to a tenant for decades.

“Vacancy rates are going up because owners have decided to take their units off the market,” said Ross Mirkarimi, a progressive member of the Board of Supervisors. He attributes that response to “peaking frustrations in dealing with the range of laws that protect tenants in San Francisco that make it difficult for small property owners to thrive.”

Perversely, that is hurting the city’s renters as well, as a large percentage of the city’s housing stock is allowed to just sit vacant, driving up rents that newcomers pay for market-rate housing.

San Francisco is a notoriously tough city for small-time landlords. “It is the dream of every landlord to be a landlord in the most lucrative market in the country,” said Ted Gullicksen, head of San Francisco’s powerful Tenants Union. “There’s no sympathy whatsoever.”

Without strong protections, tenant advocates say, only the wealthy would be able to afford to live here. Countless longtime residents, especially the elderly, would be out on the streets.

This is a consensus view in many circles, as illustrated by a recent feature in The San Francisco Chronicle. “Throwing senior citizens out on the sidewalk is never a good idea, but it isn’t stopping North Beach developer Peter Iskander,” it began.

Left unsaid was that one of the article’s featured characters, Carlo Tarrone, pays $450 a month in rent. Or, more significantly, that Mr. Tarrone in 1999 bought (half in cash) a two-unit residential building near Telegraph Hill that the real estate Web site Zillow values at $1.7 million. Mr. Tarrone, whom I interviewed by phone, is by no means poor or facing homelessness.

Mr. Koniuk is not a slick developer who aims to toss widows and orphans into the street. He could sell, but he does not want to. He wants to honor his father’s wishes and allow his own sons to live in his own building.

“My name is Koniuk. My sons’ name is Koniuk. My father’s name was Koniuk,” he said. “We should be able to move them into a building we own.”

estevens@baycitizen.org

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us/01bcstevens.html