Zelda Bronstein in her article, Supply Sophistry, is completely correct in her examination of the many flaws in the supply and demand argument as it pertains to housing. It is worth noting that supply and demand doesn’t really apply to anything.
The supply and demand mantra has infiltrated all our economic debates and permeates our housing discussions even as it leads further and further away from economic justice. This myth is propagated by those who profit from entrenching it into our assumptions. Nothing has ever been a direct supply-and-demand relationship because a host of conditions—slavery, labor devaluation, tariffs, taxes, global corporate conglomeration—make consumerism an indirect relationship.
Apple still gets huge tax breaks that promote the economic inequality behind the housing crisis.Wikimedia Commons image by Andrew Hitchcock.
Supply-side economics was Ronald Reagan’s simplistic explanation of capitalism, the discredited “trickle down” theory. The idea is that perpetual growth, sponsored and spurred by tax benefits and subsidies for wealthy individuals and corporations, will inevitably dribble downward to the lower classes. As comedian Will Durst put it, “Trickle-down means the rich can pee on us from greater and greater heights.”
According to the Department of Treasury’s investigative and research unit, FinCen, the main drivers of housing prices are luxury housing, real estate speculation, and investment packaging by financial institutions. Conclusions of multi-year studies by Dr. John Rose as well as a 2018 paper from the International Monetary Fund, show that housing prices are disconnected from supply and demand for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it never applied in the first place.
From 2012 to 2019, SF Bay Area housing prices rose by 110 percent. The population decreased by 12 percent. What did increase was the wealth gap. During that same period, the average wage worker earned $45,000 a year, while those who received compensation rather than paychecks earned $160,000 a year.
According to Forbes, nearly one-third of San Francisco residents are multi-millionaires—that is, people who have received more than $2.3 million per year in liquid assets (stocks, investments, trusts, financial instruments that translate into cash) for at least three years. Those who live on paychecks cannot compete against those who can borrow against and get a tax write off for loans against investments. Teachers do not get stock options.
In a block of $1 million houses, when someone comes in and offers $2 million, then all the houses are worth $2 million. When a real estate speculator turns a $1 million single-family home into three units, they don’t build three $500,000 units, but three $2 million units. This has nothing to do with demand, and everything to do with wealth distribution.
Even if supply and demand were a real process, emphasizing supply intentionally ignores what drives demand: tax subsidies for multi-billion-dollar corporations to continually enlarge. Corporations don’t set up in places that do not, cannot provide the deep level of financial support that comes from wealthier states like California and Texas with strong supplemental industries like agriculture, oil, and manufacturing. When Kansas tried, it went bankrupt.
Tech, finance, and real estate development companies would not have imbedded themselves so deeply in the heart of San Francisco were it not for the billions of dollars in Department of Defense funding, tax breaks to stay in California, billions more in federal funds to keep expanding, and taxation policies that treat a paycheck with derision, but a dividend with reverence.
Now that some non-white people have the economic ability to afford the satisfaction, generational wealth, and financial security of single-family homes, those in power have cast them as the cause of high housing prices. Legislators funded by real estate and finance companies have upzoned and subsidized massive developments that target communities of low-and middle-income homeowners in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Miami, and Seattle. Politicians have laden residents with density and land-use requirements that place a financial burden on those least able to bear it. Those laws also come with an exorbitant environmental cost.
It is physically and financially impossible to build forever. A skyscraper does more harm to the climate than a flat home because a single-family home can have a radiant roof and dirt and trees, while a tower has more heat radiating area and requires a host of ecologically detrimental support systems. The loss of cities’ largest open space, backyards, has shifted everything from wind patterns to water retention, has changed the behavior of birds and bears. San Francisco, once a moderate temperature town, is now the fifth hottest heat island in the US. Density is doing damage and it’s pushing people further and further into rural areas.
Housing is at once a need, an investment, and a commodity. It involves multiple layers of creation, accessibility, availability, and safety. Housing is not simply a product universally available and analogous in quality like soap, yet public discussion continues to rely upon a dangerous economic mythology and ignore the immoral underpinnings of public policies.
Ask some home buyers, and they’ll tell you the Bay Area’s housing bubble is about to burst.
But according to real estate agents in the region, which is one of the nation’s most competitive housing markets, there’s no signs of a bubble at all. Nor do they expect competition to fall by the wayside anytime soon.
Though rising mortgage rates and home buyers’ fatigue could temporarily slow the pace of offers, sellers are comforted by two factors: tech fortunes and low inventory.
Demonstrators rally in March outside Roots International Academy during a protest against the Oakland Unified School District’s plan to close schools.
Stephen Lam/The Chronicle
Oakland Unified teachers are striking as the school district prepares to close several schools, which union leaders said would disproportionately affect Black and Latino students.
Though schools are open, officials have asked parents to keep kids home during the strike because there aren’t enough substitutes or staff to watch them during the day. The decision to close schools has come amid the district’s overspending and declining enrollment.
And they’re not the only ones with a rapidly changing student body. Student enrollment in the 10 largest Bay Area school districts has dropped this year because of demographic changes and migration to other cities and states.
Those losses could lead to budget reductions, as California’s funding for public schools is based on the size of their enrollments.
What to eat
Taylor Patrick (left) and Karl Fong crumb-coat cakes at Cakes by Karl in Vallejo.
Santiago Mejia/The Chronicle
The North Bay’s bakers are ready for the spotlight. In the sleepy communities of Benicia, American Canyon and Vallejo, entrepreneurs are taking advantage of affordable rents to hone their culinary skills. Pandemic pop-ups and longtime commercial bakers alike are churning out beautiful tarts and croissants by the dozen, attracted to the North Bay’s central location near other East Bay suburbs and not too far from San Francisco.
Meanwhile, bakeries (and other restaurants) are also popping up on the Peninsula and in the South Bay. Palo Alto is getting the newest outpost of Manresa Bread, the popular South Bay bakery, while popular San Jose coffee shop Nirvana Soul is opening another location in Cupertino. Elena Kadvany has the latest in this month’s openings roundup.
Around the Bay
Residents of the Jefferson Hotel on Eddy Street have complained of rodents and violence.
• One month later: Ridership is up after S.F. Muni began its rapid bus transit lane on Van Ness Avenue.
• Charged again: A woman who faced charges for allegedly coughing on and assaulting an Uber driver in San Francisco has been arrested in Florida for an unrelated case of identity theft.
• Budget problems: San Francisco City College students and professors are protesting after the beleaguered education system again suggested cuts to teaching staff.
• Coronavirus infections: What happens when your body contracts an asymptomatic case?
• Livable wages: About 2,000 workers in S.F.’s taxpayer-funded preschool and child care programs could receive as much as a $30,000 raise this year as the city tries to solve a shortage of early child educators.
• Personnel issue: A teacher at a San Rafael high school was arrested for allegedly being under the influence of alcohol and weed inside the classroom.
• One fish, two fish: California salmon are being trucked to cooler waters in the Sacramento River to help them spawn.
Back to life
Paper cut artist Yumei Hou stands alongside a mural she helped design on Grant Avenue in San Francisco’s Chinatown.
Brontë Wittpenn/The Chronicle
What will it take to bring San Francisco’s Chinatown back to life?
For a group of nonprofits that work in the community, their gamble rides on a contemporary arts festival called Neon Was Never Brighter.
The neighborhood’s tourist attraction, Grant Avenue, has suffered even before the pandemic. Redirecting the focus on the neighborhood’s culture, and the experiences of Asian Americans in San Francisco, might change that.
• Plus:The Smithsonian in Washington, D.C., will display a banner from a Chinatown march against racism during the pandemic.
Bay Briefing is written by Gwendolyn Wu (she/her) and sent to readers’ email inboxes on weekday mornings. Sign up for the newsletter here, and contact the writer at gwendolyn.wu@sfchronicle.com.
The expansion was one half of Proposition 19, which California voters narrowly approved in November 2020. The California Realtors Association pumped $40.4 million into the Yes on Prop. 19 campaign, hoping it would stimulate housing sales by getting seniors to move to more suitable homes or neighborhoods.
The association doesn’t have enough “solid data” to comment on whether that was money well spent, a spokeswoman said.
Data obtained from county assessors, however, shows that all nine Bay Area counties have seen a jump — in some cases a leap — in the number of over-55 and disabled home buyers claiming the expanded tax break since it took effect on April 1, 2021.
Sonoma County, which had been averaging about 150 applications a year, received 441 in the 12 months ended April 1. Marin County’s numbers jumped from 60 or 70 in a typical year to 259. San Francisco got 240 claims in the latest 12-month period, up from two or three dozen the previous two years.
Single-family home sales in the San Francisco Metro area increased by about 19% from the 12 months ending April 2019 to the 12 months ending in April 2021, according to data from the real estate listing website Zillow, which is not nearly enough to account for these jumps.
Tax incentives are supposed to stimulate behavior, but it’s hard to know how many homeowners who applied for a Prop. 19 transfer would have moved without it. “You would expect to see some increase in over-55 sellers, irrespective of the law change, given the massive (home) price increases,” said Brad Williams, a partner with Capitol Matrix Consulting. It also came at a time when the pandemic was causing many people, like the Mischaks, to consider a lifestyle change.
“We rethought our lives. But where would we go? We’ve been to all seven continents. When it all came down to it, we wanted to stay in the Bay Area,” said Bob Mischak, a retired 64-year-old chief financial officer.
In September 2020, they started looking in Marin, but were concerned about the property tax increase they’d face if they sold their home of 28 years in Alameda and lost their Proposition 13 benefit.
Under Prop. 13, property in California is generally reassessed at market value only when it is transferred by sale, gift or bequest. In between transfers, a property’s tax assessment can’t go up by more than 2% a year, plus the value of additions or major improvements. Assessors call this the “factored base-year value” but most people call it their tax base or assessed value.
Including state and local property taxes, Californians typically pay around 1.1% to 1.2% of their assessed value each year.
Thanks to Prop. 13 and skyrocketing real estate prices, most people who have owned their homes for decades pay far less than neighbors who bought recently.
Prop. 13, passed by voters in 1978, helped prevent older adults from having to sell their homes to pay soaring property tax bills, but it also discouraged them from moving because they’d typically face a big tax increase if they bought a new one.
To nudge empty-nesters out of their family-size homes, voters subsequently passed Propositions 60, 90 and 110 from 1986 to 1990. These “tax-basis portability” measures said homeowners 55-plus or severely disabled could sell their primary home, buy or build a replacement home “of equal or lesser value” two years before or after the sale, and transfer their tax base from the old to the new home.
The new home, however, had to be in the same county as the original home or in one of a handful of counties that accepted transfers coming from other counties. (In the Bay Area, only Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties accepted incoming transfers in 2020.) A single person or married couple could do this only once in a lifetime.
These myriad restrictions prevented many older adults from taking advantage of tax-basis portability.
In 2018, the Realtors association sponsored a ballot initiative, Proposition 5, that would have greatly expanded the ways older people and the disabled could transfer their property tax base. But the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated it would reduce property tax revenue and the measure was soundly defeated.
Fast-forward to 2020. Acting hastily, the California Legislature placed Prop. 19 on the ballot. It largely mirrored Prop. 5, but found a way to “pay for” the expanded senior tax break by drastically downsizing a tax break that let parents and children (and grandparents and grandchildren if the parents were deceased) transfer a large amount of property between each other without it being reassessed.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that Prop. 19 would produce a net increase in property tax revenue that would be divvied up, according to a complicated formula, with some of the extra dollars going to fire departments. It passed with a slim 51.1% majority.
Prop. 19 replaced the old portability propositions (60, 90 and 110) that applied to 55-plus and disabled homeowners. Under the new law, they can transfer their tax base from their existing primary residence to a new primary residence of any value, anywhere in the state. However, if the home they buy costs more than the one they sell, the difference in value (with a small adjustment for inflation) is added to their old tax base to arrive at their new tax base.
Suppose an eligible homeowner sold a home for $1 million. The assessed value at the time of sale was $400,000. The homeowner bought a replacement home for $1.5 million. Ignoring the small adjustment, the $500,000 difference in sales prices would be added to the old tax base of $400,000. The new assessed value would be $900,000. Without a Prop. 19 transfer, it would be $1.5 million. Prop. 19 would save this homeowner about $7,000 a year in property taxes.
An older adult or disabled homeowner can now do this three times each; a husband and wife could do it a total of six times (should they live that long). The replacement home still has to be purchased no more than two years before or after the sale of the original home.
People of any age whose home is severely damaged by a natural disaster can also use Prop. 19 to transfer their tax base from that home to a replacement home of any value anywhere in the state.
Homeowners apply for the transfer with the assessor in the county where the replacement home is located. They have three years from the date they buy the replacement home to file the claim for it to apply retroactively.
Bob and Melissa Mischak say that the tax break expanded under Prop. 19 was the “driver” of their decision to move to Tiburon from Alameda.
Jessica Christian/The Chronicle
After Prop. 19 passed, the Mischaks got more serious about moving. They put an offer on a condo in Tiburon and had it accepted in January 2021. They put their Alameda home on the market in March 2021, and it sold in one day, sooner than expected.
They knew the portability provision took effect April 1, 2021, but Prop. 19 did not make it clear whether the sale of the original home and purchase of the replacement home both had to take place on or after that date, or if one could take place before and one after. This was one of many questions and ambiguities lurking in Prop. 19 that would not be clarified until the Legislature passed SB539 in September 2021. (It said the purchase or sale, but not both, could take place before April 1, 2021, but that edict came too late for the Mischaks.)
Rather than take any chances, they delayed the closing of their Alameda home until April 1, 2021, and closed on their smaller but more expensive Tiburon home the next day. Although the substantial price difference was added to their old tax base from Alameda, Bob Mischak says he’s still saving about $5,600 a year in property taxes.
Asked whether they would have moved without Prop. 19, Mischak said “maybe.”
Shana Rohde-Lynch, a Compass Realtor in Marin, has had three clients, including the Mischaks, buy homes in Tiburon and take advantage of Prop. 19.
“It was definitely the driver,” she said. “People had wanted to move in the past, but you couldn’t transfer your tax base everywhere. The combination of people re-evaluating their lives during COVID and the tax change was a motivation for a lot of people.”
Other agents say their clients aren’t aware of Prop. 19, or they’re aware but don’t want to move because of the steep capital gains tax they’d owe on a highly appreciated home.
“The philosophy (behind Prop. 19) was to help spur home sales,” said Cameron Platt, co-founder of Abio Properties in Oakland. While he can’t personally say whether it has increased sales, “it has made it easier to talk to our clients who are eligible, calming some of their fears about how much more expensive this is going to be.”
His clients Linda and Ed Tywoniak are putting their home of 38 years in Oakland up for sale and are looking for homes in Pleasant Hill, where their children and grandchildren live. They’re planning to downsize, but will apply for a Prop. 19 transfer when they cross into Contra Costa County.
“It’s hard to say” what role Prop. 19 played in their decision, Linda Tywoniak said. “I wasn’t really that aware of it,” when they started planning their move. “Most of my questions were about capital gains, to tell you the truth.” When their agent told her about Prop. 19, “it was a surprise.” Prop. 19 “was an added incentive. Maybe it put me over the edge.”
No Bay Area county has gotten more Prop. 19 transfers than Contra Costa. It received 833 in the 12 months ended April 1, compared with 250 in an average year, Assessor Gus Kramer said. When asked why they moved into the county, a substantial number “said their kids moved because they couldn’t afford to live in San Francisco, San Mateo or Santa Clara County, and we want to be closer to our grandchildren,” he added.
Of the 833 applications received, 387 came from within Contra Costa and 446 came from other counties. It got 205 from Alameda, 59 from San Mateo, 50 from Santa Clara, 26 from San Francisco and the rest from other counties.
In addition, 282 homeowners filed a claim to move their tax base from Contra Costa to another county, Kramer said. (Although homeowners file a Prop. 19 application with the county they’re moving to, that county sends a form to the county they’re moving from to verify their tax base, which is how assessors know how many people are moving out.)
Sonoma also had more people moving in (225) than moving out (87). Napa had 89 moving in and only 13 moving out.
Santa Clara, on the other hand, had 598 people applying to transfer their tax base out of the county and only 99 transferring into the county.
Some homeowners have faced long delays in getting their Prop. 19 applications approved. While waiting, some have had to pay property tax on the full market value of their newly purchased home — or the previous owner’s assessed value — and await a refund.
Some assessors said they couldn’t begin approving or denying claims until the Legislature passed the clarifying bill in September or until the Board of Equalization issued a letter to assessors on Feb. 17 providing guidance based on that bill. San Francisco and Sonoma county assessors say they have just begun processing Prop. 19 applications. Some other counties are closer to clearing their backlogs.
Santa Clara County, on the other hand, didn’t wait for guidance to start approving applications. “We decided to take the most conservative interpretation of the ballot measure” and use that to process Prop. 19 applications, county Chief Appraiser John Recchio said. The guidance issued in February will change assessments for a few homeowners, “but it will be a lower assessment,” not a higher one.
County assessors were also deluged with work that resulted from the other half of Prop. 19, which vastly shrank the ways parents and children can transfer property between each other without it being reassessed. The stingier rules apply to properties transferred after Feb. 16, 2021. Most assessors received an avalanche of applications from families who rushed to transfer property before that date so they could claim exemptions from reassessment under the old rules.
San Francisco, for example, got 2,571 claims for “intergenerational transfers” between Nov. 9, 2020 (when Prop. 19 passed), and Feb. 15, 2021. Since then it has only received about 275.
Marin County got 844 applications in the 3.5 months between Dec. 1, 2020, and Feb. 15, 2020, compared with only 146 in the previous 14.5 months.
The parent-child provision of Prop. 19 is expected to increase home sales — and tax revenue — for many counties. In the past, a parent or child could transfer a primary residence and a substantial amount of other property — such as a rental or vacation home or commercial property — without it being assessed. The parent or child receiving the property could live in it, use it or leave it vacant.
In the future, a primary residence (or family farm with a home) will escape reassessment only if the parent or child receiving it also uses it as a primary residence, and even then there is a limit on the value that can escape reassessment. All other property will be reassessed at market value upon transfer. That means children who inherit homes they don’t want to live in are more likely to sell them.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is collecting signatures for a November 2022 ballot initiative, called the Repeal the Death Tax Act, that would overturn the parent-child provisions of Prop. 19 and reinstate the previous rules. To get on the ballot, they need to collect 997,139 valid signatures, which must be submitted by the end of April.
The Board of Equalization doesn’t have data yet on the financial impact of Prop. 19. But the proposition requires the California Director of Finance, on or before September 1 each year from 2022 through 2027, “to calculate the additional revenues and savings that accrued to the state” for the previous fiscal year ending June 30. In making this calculation, the director “shall use actual data or best available estimates where actual data is not available.”
For more information about Prop. 19, visit your county assessor’s website or go to https://boe.ca.gov/prop19.
Kathleen Pender is a Bay Area writer. Email: metrodesk@sfchronicle.com
Bay Area home shoppers stayed out of the market in February — with prices continuing to rise, few houses for sale, global unrest and stock market dips giving jitters to would-be buyers.
Home sales dropped nearly 20% from the previous February, with the steepest declines in the most expensive counties — Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco, according to CoreLogic data.
At the same time, prices for existing homes pushed up 17% from the previous year, topping a $1.1 million median in the nine-county region. “It’s actually sad for buyers,” said veteran San Jose agent Gustavo Gonzalez. “It’s so competitive, so expensive.”
Economic uncertainties have given some Bay Area buyers pause before making a major investment. Stock prices dropped in the early months of the year, cutting into the wealth of many tech professionals. Interest rates have crept up steadily, reaching 4.7% for a standard 30-year fixed mortgage, up from 3.2% last year, according to Freddie Mac.
“People’s buying power has been reduced,” said Menlo Park agent Brett Caviness, president of the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors. “That’s the biggest issue — the uncertainty.”
Nationally, the housing market has been on a record streak. Home values grew 20% during the last 12 months, with double-digit gains in each of those months, according to CoreLogic.
CoreLogic economist Selma Hepp said demand remains strong, as about eight in 10 homes are selling above listing prices. “It’s just the lack of inventory,” she said.
With prices and interest rates rising steadily, buyers might be caught up in a fear of missing out, she said. “We thought there would be less demand at this point,” Hepp said.
CoreLogic expects higher interest rates and prices to cool the market in the coming months.
The Bay Area housing market remains tilted heavily toward sellers. All nine counties in the Bay Area reported double-digit price growth year-over-year.
The median price for a resale home in Santa Clara County shot up 29% to $1.65 million in Februrary, leaped 28% in Alameda County to $1.2 million, and climbed 22% in San Francisco to $1.83 million. Contra Costa County home prices rose 15% to $850,000 and jumped 12% to $1.79 million in San Mateo County.
With rising prices came slowing sales of existing homes, however. San Francisco plummeted 27%, Santa Clara dropped 25% and San Mateo fell 24% from last February. Condo and new home sales also slumped.
Bay Area agents say month after month of rising prices and a limited number of homes for sale has sent some shoppers out of the market. Some are waiting for better conditions and selection, while others have looked to townhomes and condos. The question of whether to stay or leave the Bay Area also looms for many prospective buyers.
Caviness said clients are asking themselves: “How long is it worth it to pay the price of being in Silicon Valley?”
He’s seen clients look to townhomes and condos as a less expensive alternative to single-family homes. Tight living quarters and communal spaces have fallen out of favor during the pandemic, but first-time buyers can find it easier to fit into a budget. The median price for a Bay Area condo was $796,000 in February.
For buyers, choices have been limited and competition fierce.
Pleasanton agent Sheila Cunha expects more homes to come on to the market for the spring selling season. “We hope we’re going to have more inventory,” she said, “but buyers are getting a little more scared.”
Buyers continue to want move-in ready homes, and renovations and upgrades have been paying off in higher sale prices, Cunha said. Buyers “want to move in and get on with their lives.”
She listed a three-bedroom, two-bath home on a busy street in Livermore for $799,000. With a new kitchen and enticing price for first-time Bay Area buyers, the seller was able to pick from a dozen offers. The deal closed for $925,000, she said.
Santa Clara County prices have risen from a pre-pandemic level of $1.24 million in February 2020 to $1.65 million in two years. Homes sell quickly, generally after one open house and a few days to collect bids and choose a winner.
“As soon as they come on to the market, they go off,” Gonzalez said. “There’s no time to think.”
He has noticed the continued, strong demand for more home and work space. Gonzalez helped two recent home sellers move out of San Jose for bigger homes, with smaller price tags, in Tracy and the Sierra foothills.
Remote work and the desire for bigger homes and lots have inspired many sellers. “When people call me, ” he said, “they’re ready to sell.”
RNR Real Estate Briefs from Realty News Report– TOMBALL, Texas – Colliers announced the sale of 3.9 acres (Lot 15) in Tomball Business and Technology Park, at 21240 and 21242 Spell Circle in Tomball. The buyer, an LLC of Nickson Industrial Warehouses, was represented by ACC Realty, LLC. Tom Condon, Jr.of Colliers in The Woodlandsrepresented the seller, Tomball Economic Development Corp. Jane Mathewswith Stewart Title in Tomball coordinated the closing. Nickson Industrial Warehouses plans to build two office warehouses totaling 47,458 SF.
HOUSTON – Cushman Wakefield represented the seller of two industrial portfolios totaling 1,450,039 SF. They consist of the Northwest Houston Portfolio (eight buildings totaling 740,925 SF) and the 610 Loop Portfolio (five buildings totaling 709,114 SF). The portfolio is 97.4 percent leased. The Northwest Houston Portfolio is along the Highway 290 corridor. Cushman Wakefield’s Jim Carpenter, Jud Clements, Robby Rieke, Taylor Starnes, Jim Foreman and Brooke Forrest represented the seller.
PASADENA, Texas – NAI Partners arranged a 295,134-SF industrial lease for Frederick Trucking at Bayport South Business Park, located at 10591 Red Bluff Road.NAI Partners’ Chris Harorepresented the tenant in the transaction. Richard Quarles, Mark Nicholas, and Jarret Venghausof JLL represented the landlord.
RICHMOND, Texas – Skechers USA leased 8,012 SF of retail space in the Grand at Aliana at West Grand Parkway S and West Airport Boulevard, Richmond, from NewQuest Properties. Josh Friedlander and David Meyers of NewQuest Properties represented the landlord. Chris Campion of CAC Realtyrepresented the tenant.
HOUSTON – NAI Partners arranged a 10,000 SF lease for Prescolaire Early Learning Academy at 9554 Louetta Road in Houston. NAI Partners’ Jason Gainesand Zach Leger represented the landlord, Cedar Knob Investments.
HOUSTON – Lightstone Capita lprovided a $14.75 million first mortgage to finance the acquisition and renovation of Villa Ana, a 176-unit apartment complex in Houston. The garden-style apartment property, built in 1979, is located at 10101 W. Sam Houston Parkway, in the Alief submarket, near the Southwest Freeway. The deal was brought to Lightstone Capital by Jim Richards, an Executive Vice President in CBRE’s Houston office. It was handled in Lightstone Capital’s Dallas office, which is led by Lance Wright.
HUMBLE, Texas – Feng Cha Boba Tea has leased 1,400 SF in the Atascocita Plaza Shopping Center, 6900 FM 1960 E in Humble. The shop currently has 25 locations nationwide — 15 in Texas. The landlord was represented by Kristen Barker of Wulfe Co.
HOUSTON – NAI Partners arranged a 4,242 SF lease for DeNiel Foot and Ankle at 15003 FM 529 in Houston. The landlord, Signal Hearthstone, LLC, was represented by Zach Leger andJason Gaines of NAI Partners. Victor Lofinmakin represented the tenant.
KATY, Texas — Net Design and Remodel has leased 1,200 SF in the Mason Village Shopping Center at 21979 Katy Freeway in Katy. The company is a construction and remodeling firm offering interior design, home construction, lighting installations and other services. The landlord was represented by Wes Miller and Kristen Barker of Wulfe Co.
HOUSTON – NAI Partners — the commercial real estate services business of Partners Real Estate Company — recently arranged the sale of a 22,000 SF crane served-office and manufacturing facility at 13720 FM 529 in Houston. NAI Partners’ Chris Caudill and Jake Wilkinson represented the seller, Beltway Coalition, LLC. Jake Gaffney of the Finial Group represented the buyer, Three Diamond Holdings.
HOUSTON — Gorjana, the Laguna Beach-founded jewelry brand, will open its first Houston store this spring at Montrose Collective. Gorjana selected a 1,375 SF space within the mixed-use development at 888 Westheimer.
WILLIS, Texas – Jersey Mike’s Subs has leased 1,564 SF in Willis Crossing, 9571 W FM 1097, Willis, from Edifice WT, LLC. Kevin Sims andNick Ramsey of NewQuest Properties represented the landlord.Lane Zieben and Lasater Miller of the Retail Connection represented the tenant.
AUSTIN, Texas – A fund controlled by New York-based DRA Advisors, LLC, and Dallas-based Pillar Commercial acquired 823 Congress, a recently renovated, 190,254 SF office and retail property at the southeast corner of Congress Avenue and 9th Street in downtown Austin. The property also includes a six-story parking garage at 900 Brazos St. Newmark’s Chris Murphy, Robert Hill, Gary Carr and Chase Tagen represented the seller. Newmark’s David Milestone, Brett Green and Josh Francis facilitated the financing.
DALLAS — JLL closed the sale of an eight-property, Class A, self-storage portfolio totaling 4,317 units across markets in Chicago, Raleigh, N.C., Fayetteville, N.C. and Dallas. The property was marketed on behalf of the seller, Harrison Street. Life Storage acquired the portfolio.
AUSTIN, Texas – NAI Partners—the commercial real estate services business of Partners Real Estate Company — recently arranged the sale of a 15,862 SF office building at 6414 River Place Blvd. in Austin. NAI Partners’ Connor Watson, Ryan McCullough and Tyler Jaynes represented the seller, BRHG Austin Property One, LP and procured the buyer, 6414 River Place Blvd. Austin, LLC.
MCKINNEY, Texas –Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, recently broke ground on the McKinney Airport Trade Center in McKinney. Located at FM 546/Harry McKillop Boulevard, the industrial campus is Greystar’s first industrial center in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex. Randy Wood of NAI Robert Lynn represented Greystar on the land purchase along with Bill and David Cox from Carey Cox Co.
FRISCO– Angela Chen of Henry S. Miller Brokerage, represented Earth and Roots CBD in a lease of retail space at 615 Main Street in Frisco. Michael Gresback and Maury Levy of Henry S. Miller, represented the landlord, Oakmont Land Six of Dallas.
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — The SHVO real estate development firm announced in March the renovation of the iconic Transamerica Pyramid Center in San Francisco by renowned architects Foster + Partners. The firm is now unveiling plans for Three Transamerica (545 Sansome). The historic building is an Art Deco structure originally designed for the California Ink Co. It was built in the 1930s.
PETERSBURG, Fla. — Greystar, a major investment, development and rental housing management firm, has announced that Tampa Bay area high-rise Ascent St. Pete celebrated its topping off on April 29. Rising higher than any other rental community in the Tampa Bay region, Ascent St. Pete provides residents with 360-degree views of Tampa Bay as well as the Gulf of Mexico. The podium-style high-rise will reach 36 stories with 357 units.
NASHVILLE – JLL’s Project and Development Services team has been selected to manage the design and construction of FirstBank’s new 52,000-SF headquarters at ONE22ONE, a Class-AA office building in Downtown Nashville. JLL Project Manager Jasmine Jarupat will oversee the project on behalf of FirstBank.
ETC
HOUSTON – Gulf Coast Commercial Group will begin site preparations next month for the first phase of Magnolia Village. The mixed-use project at FM 1488 and Spur 149 will span 60 acres. Primary phase one construction will encompass 36 acres and incorporate three retail buildings totaling 10,000 SF each on the hard corner – and just to the east, 12 single tenant pad buildings fronting FM 1488 – as well as 300 multifamily units on nearly 12 acres developed by Trammell Crow Residential.The entire retail portion of phase one is being designed by Houston-based Identity Architects and will offer a stylish, transitional exterior featuring brick and stone elements. Gulf Coast selected Court Richardson and Thomas Holdsworth of Houston-based Ironbridge Realty Partners to market the first to deliver multi-tenant retail and restaurant spaces fronting FM 1488 and Spur 149.Magnolia Village will be located directly across Spur 149 from Stratus Properties’ 120-acre Magnolia Place mixed-use development, where a new H-E-B is under construction.
