My Votes/Endorsements for Election Day 2008

Local (San Francisco) Propositions

Yes on A – SF General Hospital and Trauma Center Earthquake Safety Bond, 2008:

Authorizes the issuance of $887,400,000 in general obligation bonds to earthquake retrofit San Francisco General Hospital. Allows the Board to impose and collect a general tax levy annually until such bonds are repaid. Allows landlords to pass through 50 percent of the increase in real property taxes attributable to the repayment of the bonds.

Charter Amendments

No on B – Establishing Affordable Housing Fund Using Set-Asides from Property Taxes:

Creates a baseline appropriation and set-aside equivalent to $0.025 on each $100 of assessed property tax valuation for the next 15 years to support affordable housing programs. Ultimately, could cost up to $2.3 billion – with all the housing dedicated to low- and very low-income people, providing little opportunity for working families to benefit.

No on C – Prohibiting City Employees from Serving on Charter Boards and Commissions:

Prohibits, except for specified positions, city employees from serving on Charter-created boards and commissions. There is no apparent reason to limit eligibility when the Board of Supervisors can reject a mayoral appointee.

Yes on D – Financing Pier 70 Waterfront District Development Plan upon Board of Supervisors’ Approval:

Creates a Pier 70 improvement district to preserve and restore historic buildings, make seismic upgrades, clean up toxics and fund parks and maritime facilities. Authorizes the city to appropriate General Fund revenues in an amount up to 75 percent of the projected hotel and payroll taxes attributable to new development.

No on E – Changing the Number of Signatures Required to Recall City Officials:

Would double the number of signatures required to petition for recall of a member of the Board of Supervisors by increasing the number to 20 percent of the voters in the district, greatly reducing the opportunity for voters to recall a supervisor.

No on F – Holding all Scheduled City Elections only in Even-Numbered Years:

Moves all elections of city officials to even-numbered years. Also, specifies that any person appointed to fill a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors with more than two years remaining on a term who is then elected to fill the balance of the term has served one of the person’s allowable two terms. No major American city holds mayoral campaigns in even years because of the danger of the race being overshadowed by concurrent campaigns for President and US Senate.

Yes on G – Allowing Retirement System Credit for Unpaid Parental Leave:

Allows police and firefighters taking unpaid parental leave to buy back the time as total years of city service for retirement purposes. No cost to the city, and will help attract and retain public safety employees.

No on H – Setting Renewable Energy Goals; Options for Providing Electric Power; Changing Revenue Bond Authority to Pay for Public Utility Facilities:

Grants authority to six members of the Board of Supervisors to municipalize electricity distribution in San Francisco. Requires the SF PUC by late April 2009 to issue a comprehensive plan to provide “cost effective” power to residents and businesses, including the costs and benefits of municipalizing PG&E. By the end of 2009 and without a further vote by the public, the Board of Supervisors could authorize the issuance of billions of dollars of bonds to force PG&E, or any other local utility to sell its local distribution system to the city.

No on I – Creating the Office of an Independent Rate-Payer Advocate:

Creates an independent rate-payer advocate appointed by the City Administrator to analyze and comment on rate proposals prepared by the SF Public Utilities Commission. Services to be paid from revenues of the utility rates that are the subject matter of those services.

No on J – Creating a Historic Preservation Commission:

Establishes a seven-member Historic Preservation Commission to replace the Landmarks Board. New commission would have the power to recommend landmark designations and historic district designations, certificates of appropriateness for work on landmark structures and amendments to the Preservation Element of the General Plan – powers that currently rest with the Planning Commission. Adds a layer of bureaucracy that could increase uncertainty in the building-permit process, and does not balance other planning priorities in the permitting process.

Ordinances

No on K – Changing the Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers:

Attempts to illegally circumvent state law by prohibiting legal action against prostitutes. May encourage sex trafficking and other violent crimes.

Yes on L – Funding the Community Justice Center:

Authorizes the creation of the Community Justice Center, in collaboration with the Superior Court, to address crimes that negatively impact the quality of life of those living and working in the Tenderloin, South of Market, Civic Center and Union Square neighborhoods. Authorizes the expenditure of $1,770,000 dollars for the court, $984,000 of which will come from earmarked federal grant funds.

No on M – Changing the Residential Rent Ordinance to Prohibit Specific Acts of Harassment of Tenants by Landlords:

Provides for both criminal and civil cause of action against landlords for “harassment,” including failure to perform a repair, abuse of a landlord’s right to access a unit, threats by word or gesture and other repeated acts or omissions designed to encourage a tenant to vacate a unit. Can expose landlords to unfounded complaints and litigation.

No on N – Changing Real Property Transfer Tax Rates:

Increases the real property transfer tax rate from .75 percent to 1.5 percent if property value exceeds $5 million, and reduces the tax on residential property transfers by up to 1/3 if, after January 1, 2009, transferor has installed an active solar system or made seismic retrofitting improvements.

Yes on O – Replacing the Emergency Response Fee with a General Tax (Access Line Tax) and Revising the Telephone Users Tax:

Ratifies and approves the city’s existing 911 tax and telephone tax. If the measure does not pass, the city would risk losing between $85 and $90 million in annual revenue.

Yes on P – Changing the Composition of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board (a State Agency):

Replaces the 11- member SFTA board with five members: all of which must be elected officials: The Mayor and a designee, the President of the Board of Supervisors and a designee, and the Treasurer. The measure also makes it city policy to, to the extent feasible, merge SFTA’S functions into existing city departments.

Yes on Q – Modifying the Payroll Expense Tax:

Extends the 1.5 percent payroll tax to pass-through entities and shareholders of professional corporations for work or services performed in the city, excluding return on capital. Contains a 200 percent formula cap based on the average wages of the top 25 percent of a firm’s wage earners as a “safe harbor” to calculate the tax due. Also includes an expanded small business exemption for businesses with payrolls of less than $250,000.

Yes on R – Renaming the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant

Another chance by the City to "stick it" to Dubya!

Yes on S – Policy Regarding Budget Set-Asides and Identification of Replacement Funds:

Makes it city policy that new set-asides or other mandated levels of spending must identify a funding source, limits the duration and any annual growth in the set-aside or mandated level of spending. Requires city controller’s analysis of the fiscal impact of any proposed new set-aside. Make everyone accountable!

No on T – Free and Low-Cost Substance Abuse Treatment Programs:

Prohibits the reduction of funding, staffing or the number of substance-abuse treatment slots so long as there is excess demand for the slots. No funding source identified for the additional cost of the program.

Declarations of Policy

Neutral on U – Policy against Funding for Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq:

Makes it official San Francisco policy that Congress should vote against any further funding for the deployment of United States Armed services in Iraq, with the exception of funds specifically earmarked to provide for their safe and orderly withdrawal.

Yes on V – Policy against Terminating Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) Programs in Public High Schools:

Makes it city policy, though not binding on the school district, to offer voluntary extracurricular JROTC programs and to reverse the action by the Board of Education to terminate the program.

Board of Supervisors

District One (Richmond)

Sue Lee | Planning Commissioner

District Three (North Beach, Telegraph Hill, Financial District, Nob Hill)

Claudine Cheng | Former National President, Organization of Chinese Americans

District Four (Sunset, Parkside)

Carmen Chu | Incumbent Supervisor

District Seven (Parkside, Golden Gate Heights, Clarendon Heights, Twin Peaks, Forest Knolls, Midtown Terrace, Forest Hill, Miraloma Park, Sunnyside, Sherwood Forest, Westwood Highlands, Westwood Park, St. Francis Wood, Monterey Heights, Mt. Davidson, Balboa Terrace, Ingleside Terrace, Stonestown, Lakeside, Lake Shore, Merced Manor, Park Merced, Lake Merced, City College, San Francisco State)

Sean Elsbernd | Incumbent Supervisor

District Eleven (Excelsior, Ingleside, Oceanview, Merced Heights, Ingleside Heights, Mission Terrace, Outer Mission, Crocker Amazon)

Myrna Lim | Former Planning Commissioner

State Legislation

Yes on 1A – SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT.

Yes on 2 – STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Yes on 3 – CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. GRANT PROGRAM. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Yes on 4 – WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Yes on 5 – NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

No on 6 – POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING. CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

No on 7 – RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

No on 8 – ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.

INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

No on 9 - CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

No on 10 - ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.
BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

No on 11 - REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

Yes on 12 - VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008.

Lenders Stall Short Sales, Practitioners Say

Source: Reuters, Nick Carey (04/22/08)

Real estate practitioners across the country believe mortgage lenders are worsening the housing downturn by taking months to make decisions on short sales and sticking to high internal target prices.

As a result, home buyers are abandoning short sale properties, forcing them to be sold in foreclosure sales that typically result in lenders accepting lower prices than they could have achieved in a short sale.

"The only question banks should ask is can they make more in a short sale than in foreclosure," according to Lighthouse Point, Fla.-based real estate practitioner Ron Rosen, who cites a "broken" system. "The answer is that in nine out of 10 cases they will lose more money in a foreclosure. But banks seem to be asking a different question."

Some practitioners contend that lenders lack the appropriate systems and staff to handle short sale requests, while lenders insist the short sale process is complicated by the need for approvals from investors and mortgage insurers.

Still, practitioners note that a more efficient short sale process would boost prices and reduce inventory.

[Photo courtesy of beforethecoffee | flickr]

Ask and you shall receive.

The push-and-pull factors that has been rearing its ugly head in the foreclosure market has been, well, coming to a head in the recent months.

The common misnomer with the drop in recent home sales is that no one is buying these days.

However, a certain portion of the inventory, which is held hostage by lenders in short sales, just aren't closing in a timely fashion. There are actually deals in place, but the mortgagors are taking their sweet time -- months, even.

Lenders just aren't bending over backwards to speed up the process for borrowers, who are playing the short sale card with them. And why would they cut these borrowers some slack?

Put yourself in the lender's perspective. Would you take less money than what is owed to you, just because the borrower is threatening to walk away from the property? Other than charging interest -- which won't be coming to you anytime soon -- how would you recoup that loan balance?

You certainly wouldn't want to be stuck with the mortgage loan since you aren't in the business of owning property.

But even then, why would you want to be held hostage by the person you lent money to? The very same person who fought tooth and nail to get the mortgage in the first place?

The answer is: you wouldn't want to do any favors for such a person.

But the fact of the matter is business should never be personal, and the bottom line is you will eventually be holding the bag when the borrower does leave the property. And at that point, wouldn't it be in your best interest just to take deals that made sense?

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume the lenders get a clue and start running this foreclosure business like they do the finance industry. You need to cut losses, but you also need to invest your time and resources in segments that will return a yield.

In this case, that segment is the high volume of impending foreclosures. EVERYONE knows this. Even folks who don't own real estate know this. If you had a pulse in 2007, you knew this by just picking up a newspaper or reading Google news any day of the week!

So the lenders need to understand that this is, indeed, the new reality and they have to stop jimmy-jacking with agents who are trying their best to move these properties.

Take the highest and best price, and move on to the next deal. And we all know there will be a next deal... and one after that... and another...

They have to reposition their human resources and place them on the front lines. Not hiding behind the mountain of paperwork that is engulfing their cubicles.

There also needs to be a a widely-used system in place to help everyone involved streamline the negotiations and close deals.

Contrary to popular belief, there are buyers and *gasp* investors out there looking to purchase these loans from the mortgage lenders. How's that for your white knight?

And now even the National Association of Realtors have established a committee to do their part in ensuring these deals go as smoothly as possible: NAR considers new short-sale disclosure rules.

The onus, now, is on the lenders to get past the daze of the foreclosure crisis and rise up to the occasion. Yes, dozens of banks are reporting billions in write-downs, but that still doesn't preclude them from actually trying to divest some of these bad loans.

Get your bankers, employees, admin. assistants, CSR's, maintenance crew -- anyone! -- to pick up the phones at the loss mitigation department and process these deals.

The inventory needs to move! The sooner, the better. Not four to six months to close escrow.

//Phil De La Cruz