The latest market report is here. (You can also view previous market updates by selecting the archives on the upper right portion of the screen).

This month it’s a mixed bag of tricks. 

Sales of single-family, re-sale homes rose 2.4% last month compared to June, and were up, year-over-year, by 3.8%. Year-to-date, home sales are down 7.8%.

Loft/condo sales were up 22% from June, and were flat compared to July 2007. Year-to-date, loft/condo sales are off 22.4%.

The median price for single-family, re-sale homes gained 2.7% from June, but it was down 5.5% year-over-year. The average price was off 7.3%, and it was down 9.7% compared to last July.

The median price for loft/condos in San Francisco gained 0.5% from June, and was up 3.8% year-over-year. The average price for condos rose 1.4% from June.  The average price was up 7.6% year-over-year.

Read on for full details.

Did they run away and join the circus? 

Did they get eaten by a bear?????

Did they get ABDUCTED BY ALIENS???????

The last post on here was about a week and a half ago, and many regular readers must think that I’ve all but abandoned you. 

But I promise!  It’s just not true!

Many of you know one of my dogs, Lace, had to be put down recently.  And if you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you know I also lost my dog, Powder, several months ago.  All of this has been really hard to deal with.  I’ve gone from owning three beautiful pit bulls, to one beautiful pit bull. 

To be frank, I just couldn’t bring myself to write. 

I was drained.  I was tired.  I was depressed.  I was human.

But, I’m back.  I still miss my girls dearly.  But I still have Ohm to keep me company when I need that doggie love and I still have my addiction to San Francisco Real Estate to distract me when I need to take my mind off of things.

So check back soon – this SF Real Estate Blog did NOT get abducted by aliens.  It’s right here where you can almost always depend on it.

The title is meant to be funny. The post isn’t.

I have thought about making a dart board with little post it notes with the various things I can’t stand about Chris Daly on it.  I decided against it because I suck at darts, and would just put a whole bunch of holes in my wall. 

Apparently, I’m not the only one that thinks Daly is the TIC anti-christ.  I’ve had lots of readers write in and ask all sorts of questions about Daly’s latest crusade to make 2 unit TIC’s more difficult to convert to condos. 

I recently had a reader, Andy, write in and comment on the blog.  Andy wrote:

Luba – I am closing on a vacated 2 unit TIC building with a friend of mine TOMORROW!! I just found out about this potential legislation yesterday, just read your blog, and am freaked out!!

I am 26 years old and am putting my entire savings up for this duplex and felt comfortable with the thought of being able to convert to condos within just one year. We found the perfect place: 2 unit, vacant, no evictions since 04 and we were planning on living in each unit for well over a year. We read all kinds of articles on conversion bypass to confirm our situation applied before making the decision to move forward… and now this?

Please let me know any news you hear and if there is anything at all we can do to stop this.

I responded to Andy and said:

First- congratulations on being so together at such a young age.  Few people can get their act together to buy a home at 26!

We don’t really know what’s happening with the legislation.  I’ve been writing my supervisor asking for a status update with no response just yet.

I’ll send you an email a little later today or tomorrow with whatever I think you can do, and whatever the current rumors are.

For now – you can call Chris Daly’s office to express your viewpoint, and you can also look for Plan C, which is a great organization that is battling for better condo conversion measures, among other things.

In a nutshell, as of now, you are fine and with 1 year of owner occupancy, you can apply for fast track conversion.

But – get involved.  Express your concerns to your city supervisor, to Chris Daly, and to anyone else you can think of.

And keep reading the blog – I will post updates as I hear about things.

Now, Andy didn’t just ask.  He took action. 

Andy wrote EACH of the 10 supervisors in San Francisco!

Andy wrote:

I am writing in hopes of a vote against the proposed legislation by Supervisor Daly that would stop 2 Unit TIC Owner Occupied buildings from bypassing the Condo Conversion Lottery in < ?xml:namespace prefix ="" st1 ns ="" "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />San Francisco.< ?xml:namespace prefix ="" o ns ="" "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I am a first time home buyer about closing on a currently eligible 2 unit TIC property tomorrow, and will be putting my entire savings into my unit along with a friend of mine. We researched thoroughly the ability to condo convert before making the choice, and just found out about this proposed legislation yesterday, and, to say the least, we are pretty freaked out.

I have included below an email I sent to Chris Daly this morning expressing my concern.

Please let me know your thoughts if you have the chance. I hope that you and your fellow colleagues on the Board are listening closely to the community regarding this issue as it looks like everyone is sharing my concern (even though most are not directly affected like me).

Thanks in advance for any support on this issue.

Best regards,
Andy

And Andy got responses from lots of the Supervisors!  Most mentioned that Chris Daly didn’t get enough support for his legislation to make the ballot. 

The BEST news came from Chris Daly’s office:

Now – while I like the part where it says “no plans” but I don’t like the part where it says “at this point” and I like the part where it says “tabled” but I don’t like the part where it says “for now.”

So…. what’s a San Francisco real estate owner/buyer/seller to do???  BE LIKE ANDY!

Take a moment to become a member of Plan C.  And then, write your supervisors!  Or hell, write ALL the supervisors!

The reality is – San Francisco real estate is expensive.  And when you’re trying to get started in the SF market, oftentimes, a TIC is your best option.  As long as tenants aren’t being forcefully evicted to make way for condo conversion (which can’t happen due to rules prohibiting condo conversion on Ellis Acted buildings or buildings with more than one owner move in), I think that TIC ownership and condo conversion must be a part of the SF real estate market in order to serve the needs of the first time homebuyer. 

So there.  If you agree, get involved.  If you don’t voice your opinion – no one will know to listen.

Recently, the San Francisco Board of Realtors posed a question to the members about toilets. 

Now, it’s not like when you see a group of Realtors standing around, all we’re talking about it toilets.  But, some some toilet related legislation potential rearing its ugly head, the Board thought they’d get some comments from members. 

The proposal that is being developed by the city’s Public Utilities Commission would require the installation of ultra low-flow toilets at point of sale.

I felt strong enough on the subject to write in, as did many others.  I thought I’d share the responses with you all.  My comments are in there as well.  But the funny thing is that I wrote in BEFORE my plumbing incident this weekend where my toilet became backed up for NO reason, and ended up in causing poo water (yes, water filled with human waste) to rise up into my bathtubs.  Yes.  You read that right.  Poo water actually came up into my tubs.  Needless to say – I’m opposed.

Anyhow, here’s the scoop from other members.  Feel free to add your own thoughts and comments.

OPPOSE

“We should oppose this legislation. Unless the City can come up with a City-funded solution to solve the inadequate waste pipe diameter issues, it’s unfair to have the Seller bear the cost of low-flow toilets at point of sale. Most of the newly mandated toilets will fail at the job they are intended to do, and we’ll not only have the cost issues, but liability tied back to the seller for plumbing failure issues, which will ultimately tie back to the Broker and Agent – the people we are committed to serve as an Association. Plumbing first, then fixtures – if there is anything related to this that should hit the ballots.” Anonymous

“…I know quite a few people with low and ultra low toilets, and there are lots of complaints due to the poor flushing ability, plus leaks and pipe problems, partly due to the pressurized nature of the flush. Rather than make people have more costs added by force, either at point of sale or by a certain date, I would rather see the Supervisors just ask people to conserve water, and let the people decide, in whatever way they can, to do just that. Generally, our city dwellers are pretty darned good at this.” Danita Kulp

“Oppose low flush; let it be discretionary…But there is only so much government should be involved with.” Astrid Lacitis

“I made the stupid mistake of actually installing one of those in my home – and I even went as far as getting a dual flush toilet to be SUPER conservative about water. Here’s the issue – nothing goes down in just one flush. And I mean NOTHING! Not even with the “big” flush. And when it comes to, er, um, solid human waste – it can take 4 or 5 flushes something to get it down. I haven’t quite figured out how flushing 5 times will ever save as much water as using twice the water of one flush but just flushing once.” Luba Muzichenko

SUPPORT

“California, and S.F. in particular, has historically been a tremendous agent for change on many types of issues, especially environmental ones. This is a heritage I am very proud of, and I hope we continue that heritage with the mandate for ultra low-flow toilets. I only hope that Sup. Leno’s bill is reasonable in its requirements. “Reasonable” is obviously very grey territory, but the basic concept of mandating the installation of ULF toilets is sound and appropriate, and is the only way we will be able to get the job done in a meaningful way. In sum, the CONVENIENCE of being able to use as much water as we please to flush a toilet is simply irresponsible and one we, as “citizens of the earth” cannot responsibly ignore, and I urge the Association to support Sup. Leno’s bill (assuming he doesn’t tack a ton of other garbage onto it!).” Brian Birney

“But in-wall tanks should be exempt since there is no way to retrofit them.” Lena Emmery

“I agree that the Association is justified in taking the positions — since we are a trade organization — that point of sale requirements should be opposed. BUT…what if it is actually a really good idea and would help the world? I am not saying this particular idea is the greatest, but I ask you this, will we ever support a really good idea that might not be good for our wallets?” Daniel Hershkowitz

“I think the politics are such that it will likely pass no matter what we do. So to be on the “green” bandwagon, I think the Association should come out in support of requiring ALL properties to install them, not just at the point of sale. It is much more persuasive to have the whole city save water instead of the 1% or 2% of properties that sell each year.” Mark Karwowski

“In my humble opinion, I think we need to do all we can to curtail the use of water wherever we can. It is clearly becoming a worldwide catastrophe. Perhaps we could have some suggestions from the experts as to how homeowners can accomplish the goals without too much expense.” Alice Micklewright

“Here’s the opportunity for SFAR. Since this is an inevitable issue and will eventually happen anyhow, SFAR members have a chance to show community leadership and responsibility by taking a positive stand for water and the environment…Such a position will help maintain the community conscious image of REALTORS®. Pierce Smith

Just got this update from Monica Di Perna of Guarantee Mortgage.  Oh, and be forewarned – there’s talk of Pres. Bush actually doing something positive with his power, specifically, it’ll have a positive affect on the San Francisco real estate market.  Yes… I know… almost impossible to believe!  But check it: 

Bush signs housing rescue law

President enacts controversial measure that aims to help borrowers, bolster the housing market and provide a fail-safe for Fannie and Freddie.

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — President Bush on Wednesday signed into law a sweeping housing bill that aims to boost the struggling housing market and bolster mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Senate voted 72-13 in favor of the bill on Saturday, after the House passed it three days earlier.

“We look forward to put in place new authorities to improve confidence and stability in markets, and to provide better oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. “The Federal Housing Administration will begin to implement new policies intended to keep more deserving American families in their homes.”

The new law, one of the most far-reaching on housing in decades, marks the centerpiece of Washington’s efforts to address the nation’s housing meltdown.

The legislation has two principal objectives: to offer affordable government-backed mortgages to homeowners at risk of foreclosure, and to bolster Fannie and Freddie with a temporary rescue plan and a new, more stringent regulator.

The White House last week reversed its long-standing threat to veto the bill. In fact, the administration still objects to parts of the legislation, including aid to states to buy foreclosed properties.

But the president decided to sign it since “oversight of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and the new temporary authorities requested by [Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson are urgently needed now, and they’ll contribute to confidence and stability in housing and financial markets,” Fratto said last week.

Helping at-risk borrowers

Provisions that will most directly affect consumers and communities include:

A larger role for the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA will be allowed to insure up to $300 billion in new 30-year fixed-rate mortgages for at-risk borrowers in owner-occupied homes if their lenders agree to write down loan balances to 90% of the homes’ current appraised value.

The cost of the new FHA program – which would begin on Oct. 1 and be in place for just a few years – will be funded by fees from Fannie and Freddie, along with fees paid by both lenders and borrowers.

While the law authorizes the FHA to insure up to $300 billion in loans, the CBO estimates that the agency is only likely to insure up to $68 billion and help keep roughly 325,000 people in their homes. Those estimates were based on the CBO’s assessment of who is likely to qualify under the program and accounts for a certain number likely to default anyway.

(Here are more details on this provision.)

A stronger regulator for the GSEs. The new regulator will have a greater say over how well funded the two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are – a major concern in the markets that has sent stocks in both companies plunging in the past two months.

A permanent increase in “conforming loan” limits. The law will permanently increase the cap on the size of mortgages guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie to a maximum of $625,500 from $417,000.

The FHA maximum loan limits for high-cost areas would also increase to a maximum of $625,500. Higher loan limits will make it easier for borrowers to get mortgages, because those mortgages are more likely to be traded if they are considered conforming.

A new home-buyer credit. The new law includes a tax refund for first-time home buyers worth up to 10% of a home’s purchase price but no more than $7,500.

The refund, however, serves more as an interest-free loan, since it would have to be paid back over 15 years in equal installments.

A ban on down-payment assistance from sellers. The new law eliminates a program that has allowed sellers to provide down payment assistance for FHA loans.

The law would also increase to 3.5% from 3% the down payment requirement for borrowers getting FHA loans.

A new affordable housing trust fund. The law establishes a permanent fund to promote affordable housing. The fund will be paid for by fees from Fannie and Freddie.

Grants to states to buy foreclosed properties. The law grants $4 billion to states to buy up and rehabilitate foreclosed properties. The White House has opposed such funding, contending that it will benefit lenders and not homeowners.

Bolster Fannie and Freddie

A late and controversial addition to the new housing law provides temporary authority for the Treasury to lend a financial hand to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if the Treasury deems it necessary to help stabilize markets.

Concerns over whether Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500) will have enough money to weather future losses in the housing market has sent shares plummeting in recent weeks. Since the beginning of June, Fannie’s stock price has dropped 55% and Freddie’s plummeted 64%. For the past year, they’re both down over 80%.

Fannie and Freddie guarantee the purchase and trade of mortgages and own or back $5.2 trillion in mortgages.

The law includes provisions that let Treasury offer Fannie and Freddie an unlimited line of credit and buy stock in the companies. The provisions expire in 18 months.

Both critics and supporters of the Paulson plan have expressed concern that loaning or investing money in the companies could leave taxpayers with a fat bill to pay.

Treasury Secretary Paulson has said that merely having the powers in place may boost confidence in the two companies enough to preclude the need for Treasury to step in.

The Congressional Budget Office last week estimated the potential cost of a rescue could be $25 billion. CBO said there is probably a better than 50% chance that Treasury would not need to step in. It also said there is a 5% chance that Freddie’s and Fannie’s losses could cost the government $100 billion. 

This photo could have been taken on just about any summer San Francisco day. Twin Peaks is almost always the border between a peaceful blanket of fog and splendid sunshine.

It is sleepy, rather mundane yet magically spectacular images like this that fuel my love affair with SF on a daily basis.

And even though I’ve lived here almost my entire life, every day, I seem to find another beautiful moment that makes me fall in love with our beautiful City all over again.

I’m sure tomorrow, I’ll find another.

Welcome back to Photo Friday – my little way of taking a break from San Francisco Real Estate and instead blogging about our great City’s past instead. All photos are published with permission from the San Francisco History Center and San Francisco Public Library.

I’ve always had a soft spot for cows.  In fact, I envy those with the willower to be vegetarians.  I love meat.  I love beef.  But I definitely love cows.  (And yes, I’m just city slicker enough to make “moo” noises at them when I drive by them on the back roads of the Bay Area.)

I found this photo taken in Glen Canyon where the Good Brother Dairy, among several other dairy companies, had dairy farms.  The notes attached to this photo read: