Should tenants get the first shot at buying their homes?
Bay Area cities consider policies that would shake up the real estate market
As the Bay Area grasps for new ways to quell its affordable housing shortage, several cities are considering controversial policies that would give some tenants a shot at buying their homes — a move that’s sharply dividing property owners and renters.
To prevent big-pocketed investors from scooping up homes, raising rents and forcing tenants out, East Palo Alto, San Jose, Oakland and Berkeley are eyeing ordinances that would give renters, nonprofits or the city first dibs on some sales. Known as opportunity-to-purchase acts, the ordinances have been heralded by tenant rights advocates as a way to give renters a leg up in the overheated housing market. But the idea faces strong opposition from some landlords and real estate groups who argue they represent an unconscionable interference in the rights of property owners.
“It’s going to be a battle,” said Sandy Perry, a board member of the South Bay Community Land Trust, which seeks to buy residential buildings and convert them to affordable housing. “We’re fighting against the real estate industry, which doesn’t want this to happen. But I think it’s a great opportunity. It’s an opportunity to do something very concrete against this wave of displacement that’s still going on in San
Jose and in Silicon Valley.”
The proposals vary, but generally they require owners of multi-unit rental properties to notify the tenants in their building, qualified affordable housing nonprofits and/or the city if they intend to sell. If none of those groups produce an offer the seller finds acceptable, the seller can list the property on the open market. After selecting the best offer, the seller then needs to give the tenants, nonprofits or the city the chance to match it. If that occurs, under East Palo Alto’s proposed ordinance, the owner would have to sell to whoever matches the offer. The buyer would be prohibited from raising rents past a certain level.
Under the model San Jose is workshopping, the owner would get the final say in selecting the buyer.
The San Francisco Community Land Trust is in the process of buying its first two buildings under the city’s 2-year-old purchase act — 40 units in the Tenderloin and four in Russian Hill. But though the city’s ordinance gave the land trust an unprecedented chance to compete with corporate investors, it’s challenging for nonprofits to find the cash to close deals, said Keith Cooley, director of asset management for the land trust. Other cities weighing opportunity to purchase acts are considering coupling them with city funds.
At an East Palo Alto City Council meeting earlier this month, heated debate over the city’s proposed purchase act lasted until midnight, forcing council members to postpone their vote. Opponents called the proposed ordinance unconstitutional and said it amounted to a “hostile takeover” of people’s houses, while supporters said it might be their only means of ever buying property. The City Council was set to revisit the item Dec. 22.
Jennifer Liu, vice president of the homeowner-focused Business and Housing Network, worries that East Palo Alto’s policy will prevent owners from selling to tech companies or their employees and getting the best price possible. She also worries the ordinance will bog down sales in months of red tape.
“Those are my lifetime savings for my retirement,” Liu said of her real estate investments. “So my concern is that later when I need the money and I need to sell it, I cannot sell it. And the price would be discounted because of this policy. I am deeply concerned.”
The ordinance wouldn’t impact a huge number of sales in East Palo Alto, according to a city analysis. Owner-occupied single-family homes, duplexes and triplexes would be exempt. Based on historical sales data, fewer than 23 single-family homes and seven multi-unit buildings would be subject to the ordinance each year.
In Oakland, a group of tenants recently convinced their landlord to sell their Fruitvale building for $3.3 million. The Oakland Community Land Trust is poised to buy it and help the tenants become partial owners. But the process took more than two years of rent strikes and protests, including a recent procession to the landlord’s house.
Advocates say an opportunity to purchase ordinance could have made the process easier. And if one is passed, it could open up the chance to buy for more tenants.
“This is something that over a 10-year period, I think it could have a radical impact,” said Leah Simon-Weisberg, legal director for the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
Oakland has been toying with the idea of an opportunity-to-purchase act since early last year, spurred by the activist group Moms 4 Housing, which skyrocketed to national fame when members started squatting in a vacant house with their children. Progress stalled during the pandemic, but Councilwoman Carroll Fife plans to bring the idea back for a vote next fall.
In Berkeley, Mayor Jesse Arreguín put discussions around a proposed tenant opportunity to purchase act on hold, after significant pushback. The city expects to present an updated version early next year.
San Jose housing officials also are working on an ordinance and expect to bring it before the City Council next spring.
Mayor Sam Liccardo said the city wants to make sure the measure won’t grind the housing market to a halt. After all, taxes on real estate transactions help fund affordable housing, he said.
“We need people to be able to engage in the market without thinking, hey, in San Jose you’re never going to be actually able to transact a sale because of the red tape,” Liccardo said.
Community group SOMOS Mayfair, which held a rally in support of an opportunity to purchase ordinance outside San Jose City Hall last week, is pushing officials to vote by February.
“We’re hoping that this policy will give folks the opportunity to remain in the communities that they currently are, remain in the housing that they currently are,” said Andrea Portillo, community organizing and policy manager for the group, “and not be displaced once their property is sold.”
Jimmy Garoppolo is in his eighth year in the NFL. He’s 30 years old and has started 49 games in his career.
So why is he still making rookie mistakes?
And why is his coach still defending him as if he’s a rookie?
Don’t let the 322 yards passing fool you, Garoppolo turned out another dud on Dec. 23 in the Niners’ 2017 loss to the Titans in Nashville.
What he executed was easy. What he missed lost the 49ers the game.
Yes, against a defense that was selling out against the run and daring him to throw, he threw the game away.
Two interceptions. One took points off the board. The other put the Titans in prime position to punch in their first touchdown of the game.
Missed throws. One on a big fourth down, the other taking a surefire touchdown off the board.
Bad decisions. So many I lost count, in fact. (I’m sure I’ll find more when I can see the coaches’ film.) The most egregious being a late-game coverage sack that any veteran quarterback should know better than to take.
Now, every quarterback is entitled to mistakes. Most make up for it by making big, counter-acting, overriding throws.
Garoppolo doesn’t have that kind of arm. No, he’s a gunslinger with a slingshot.
That means not missing wideopen receivers on plays that are surefire touchdowns. Not taking sacks in situations where you need to throw the ball away. And it certainly means not throwing interceptions in the end zone or on an easy toss over the middle of the field.
Yet those were the mistakes Garoppolo made Dec. 23 in Nashville.
Those are all mistakes we’ve seen far too often throughout his 49ers’ career.
In order to be part of a winning effort for the 49ers, he needs to be nearly flawless. His teammates are good enough to cover for him.
They did that against the Titans
on the field. They did it after the game, too.
But no one covers for Garoppolo more than Kyle Shanahan.
The Niners’ head coach and offensive play-caller turned in a masterclass in the latter after the game. Niners receivers found themselves with acres of space, all they needed was a quarterback to hit them in stride.
But when Garoppolo failed to do that, Shanahan made sure to pin the game-deciding turnovers on “everyone”.
There’s something to be said for not throwing a teammate or a team captain under the bus, but there’s also something to be said for accountability.
This was supposed to be the season where Garoppolo was supposed to get some. Drafting Trey Lance provided the Niners with a competent backup — he was going to take Garoppolo’s job eventually, and if the veteran didn’t play well in-season, that day could come sooner than you might expect.
But Lance hasn’t been seen in weeks. He hasn’t taken a meaningful snap since Oct. 10, his Week 5 start against the Cardinals. So much for those Lanceled packages Shanahan was adamant he’d integrate into the offense this season.
So much for Garoppolo feeling the pressure.
Is Lance still this team’s quarterback of the future?
Because Garoppolo was unquestionably the weak link against the Titans — a quarterback worthy of a benching — and Shanahan decided that the backup quarterback the team deemed worthy of three firstround picks to select was not put in the game. That’s concerning.
I choose to believe that Shanahan was simply being stubborn — that the game was still close, so why go to what the Niners’ coach clearly deems the nuclear option?
It is late December, after all. Now’s not the time for a quarterback change, even if it’s long overdue.
That’s one thing, though. To be gaslit after the game — again — is a whole other thing.
No, there’s a large play afoot with Shanahan, and it stinks.
The Niners have been overt with their plan to trade Garoppolo
in the offseason. The Niners’ front office has developed a wellearned reputation for not leaking bad news, but boy, they’ve been leaking all the reasons they love Garoppolo.
It’s obvious: They want to recoup some value for the quarterback to lessen the sting from the trade.
But there’s not a well-run team in the NFL who would take on Garoppolo’s contract and pay the Niners a good draft pick for the pleasure.
Especially after Dec. 23. Perhaps there’s a bad-run team that will believe’s Shanahan’s ridiculous statement that it was the turnovers were a team effort. Maybe they lack the ability to watch games. (Listen, I don’t know what’s going on in Jacksonville.) This is what this season is all about, apparently. Not winning the Super Bowl. Not preparing the team’s quarterback of the future.
It’s about getting a draft pick. Even if this team gets into the tournament with all this talent and a style of play that’s perfectly suited for success in January, the weakest link of this team will still be the quarterback. It’s only a matter of time before that becomes obvious once again, just like it was Dec. 23.
But the Niners will continue to coddle the veteran, at least in public. All while holding the rookie to absurdly high standards.
And when it’s all said and done, this entire season will be sacrificed in a laughable effort to sell Jared Goff with a jawline.