Fireworks gone wrong

Fireworks gone wrong

Fireworks gone wrong

Fireworks gone wrong

To all our loyal readers,

We have officially moved this entire blog over to theFrontSteps.com, and we invite you to come on over, spread the word, and join us.

If you are subscribed to our email feed, or RSS feed here are the new links to subscribe again:
EMAIL
RSS.

Thank you so much! We’ll see you on theFrontSteps.

We know this site has been down all week, the new one will be up next week.  In the meantime, we just posted the newest Stage of the Tour de San Francisco (real estate), you can see it at www.tdsf.blogspot.com.  Forest Hill is the location today. 

We’re moving to a different location, name, and domain. There will be no posts here for the week of 6/11-6/15 2007. We’re going to take the week to set things up at the new spot, restructure, and organize. We hope to be up at our new location and look by 6/18 or thereabouts. As soon as all is up and running, we’ll announce it here. So check back.

If you’d like to join us, please contact us at info@sfnewsletter.com. 

Thank you,
alex

The newest stage of our Tour de San Francisco (real estate), Diamond Heights (District 4b), has been posted. We invite you to check it out, especially all you fans of Mid-Century Modern.

From the San Francisco Association of Realtors Advantage Online:

“SB 464 Amended

SB 464 (the anti-Ellis Act bill) still is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. The speculation is that the bill’s author, Sheila Kuehl of Santa Monica, still does not have the votes needed for passage. But to improve her chances she has amended the bill once again by limiting its application to persons who have owned residential rental property for three years.

Six weeks ago, Kuehl amended SB 464 by inserting the following language in the bill: ‘[The bill] shall apply only to owners who acquired ownership of property pursuant to a purchase agreement or contract for exchange entered into on or after March 27, 2007.’

So, to review, SB 464 would amend the Ellis Act (the State law that allows residential rental property owners to go out of the rental business) by limiting its application to the owner of any residential real property who has owned the property for three years. In addition, SB 464 would apply only to owners who acquired ownership of property pursuant to a purchase agreement or contract for exchange entered into on or after March 27, 2007. It also would allow a public entity to require that if any tenant is at least 62 years of age or disabled, and has lived in his or her accommodations for at least one year prior to the date of delivery to the public entity of the notice of intent to withdraw pursuant to the Act, the date of withdrawal of the accommodations to be extended to one year after the date of delivery of the notice

Currently, virtually all of the Republicans and several key Democrats are opposed to SB 464. If these key Democrats reverse their positions on the bill, Kuehl could secure the votes she needs to pass SB 464. This is the last week that bills can be voted upon in their house of origin so, whether she has the votes needed for passage or not, it is likely that Kuehl will bring the bill to a vote before week’s end.”

-Previous Follow up post [sfn BLOG]
-Ellis Act a la SB 464 [sfn BLOG]
-Ellis Act getting tougher or easier [sfn BLOG]
-Leland Yee [website]
-San Francisco Tenant’s Union [website]
-the legal part of evictions [Sirkin Paul Associates]
-the low down [Senate Judiciary Committe]
-Rent vs. Buy, the old debate…in an interactive graph [sfn BLOG]

We know of a property on Vallejo that just came up for sale, but is not in MLS that would appeal to many a contractor. Asking price is $6MM. We have been asked not to post the location at this time, but you are free to contact us if you are a serious buyer, and we’ll gladly give you the details, or get you in to see the property.
We’re sure word will leak to some other blogs, but we won’t be leaking it, and out of respect for our colleagues, we won’t be posting it.
“Sleepiguy”, it is not the property we mentioned in our Property Pipeline on May 14th, but we wouldn’t be surprised if that leaked out soon too. It’s killing us not to be able to announce that one either.
We apologize for not being able to post on these, but think this is a fair solution to those we know read this site for information about purchasing properties of that caliber, and those sources that give us information asking for confidentiality.