New photo

Lights on San Francisco Bay

Home sellers and home buyers don't see eye to eye on pricing
The troubling housing market doesn't seem to have helped align the opinions of home sellers and home buyers when it comes to pricing. Although people putting their home on the market today are more realistic about what it might fetch, especially compared to the "good old days", buyers still tend to think homes are overpriced and want to see more bargains.

And, perhaps unsurprisingly given their propensity to always see a silver lining, Realtors are generally expressing optimism about the housing market -- all this according to a second-quarter nationwide survey of 1,150 Realtors conducted by the Emeryville-based home values website HomeGain.

The survey shows that 36% of homeowners think their homes should be listed 10-20% higher than the price their Realtors are recommending, down from 45% in the first quarter. Conversely, 64% of homebuyers think that homes are overpriced (versus 59% who believed the same in the first quarter).

"The results ... indicate that home sellers seem to be getting the message that perhaps their homes are not worth as much as they thought they were, while buyers are expecting to find a bargain on every corner, " said Louis Cammarosano, general manager of HomeGain.
BayEast 2009: From $660K to $500K for this 3-bed home on Carson St in Oakland: perhaps a case of sellers and buyers having different price expectations.

The disparity could explain, at least in part, the steady stream of homes seeing price reductions -- such as this three-bedroom home at 4461 Carson St in Oakland's Redwood Heights neighborhood which has seen its price drop from $660,000 to $500,000; or this 3-bedroom contemporary on Santa Barbara Rd in north Berkeley which has just seen $100K knocked off its original $1,099,000 asking price.

The Realtors surveyed expressed more optimism on the direction of home prices in the second quarter survey than in the first quarter with 22% thinking that home values will rise in the next six months compared to just 11% who believed that three months ago. And 29% believe that home prices will fall in the next six months versus 53% who believed the same in the first quarter survey.
The complete survey results, including regional breakdown and real estate agent commentary, can be found here.

Good news, everyone! In March of this year, it would have taken five months to completely sell off the supply of single-family detached homes on the market— compared to 12.2 months just a year prior, according to a Realtors report.

Could have something to do with home prices declining 39 percent, but things are indeed moving at a faster clip now.

Compared to the same period a year ago, home sales increased 63.8 percent, with the California Association of Realtors president calling the market "very active." San Francisco came in eighth on the list of the cities with highest median home prices. No. 1: Santa Monica.

Scan of a print I made in the dark room of a photo I shot outside the Dept. of Public works building on Mission Street on a cloudy day.

HOMEBUYER TAX CREDIT
FEDERAL
CALIFORNIA
Amount of Tax Credit
10% of purchase price not to exceed $8,000.
5% of purchase price, not to exceed $10,000. Maximum tax credit for all taxpayers is $100 million to be allocated on a first-come, first‑served basis.
Principal Residence ? Yes.

Property purchased must be the taxpayer’s principal residence which is generally the home the taxpayer lives in most of the time (26 U.S.C. § 121)? Yes. Property purchased must be a qualified principal residence and eligible for the homeowner’s exemption from property taxes (Cal. Tax & Rev. Code § 218).
Type of Property:House, condominium, townhome, manufactured home, apartment cooperative, houseboat, houstrailer, or other type of property located in the U.S.
Single-family residence, whether detached or attached, condominium, cooperative project unit, houseboat, manufactured home, or mobilehome.
First-time Homebuyer? Yes. The buyer (and buyer’s spouse if any) must not have owned a principal residence during the three-year period before date of purchase? No. The buyer need not be a first-time homebuyer.
Unoccupied Property? No. Property may have been previously occupied or not? Yes. Property must have never been previously occupied as certified by the seller.
Minimum Occupancy Requirement
Must be the buyer’s principal residence for 36 months after purchase, otherwise credit must be repaid.
Must be the buyer’s principal residence for 2 years after purchase, otherwise credit must be repaid.
Income Restriction
Yes. Tax credit begins to phase out if modified adjusted gross income is over $75,000 (or $150,000 for joint filers). No tax credit at all if modified adjusted gross income is over $95,000 (or $170,000 for joint filers).
No.
Date of Purchase
January 1, 2009 to November 30, 2009, inclusive.
(Note: A repayable $7,500 tax credit is available for purchases from April 9, 2008 to December 31, 2008.)
March 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010, unless $100 million funding runs out.
Refundable
Yes. Any amount of the tax credit not used to reduce the tax owed may be added to the taxpayer’s tax refund check.
No.
Repayment
The buyer need not repay the tax credit if the buyer owns and occupies the property for at least 36 months after the purchase.
The buyer need not repay the tax credit if the buyer owns and occupies the property for at least two years immediately following the purchase.
Multiple Buyers
(not married to each other)
The $8,000 tax credit may be allocated between eligible taxpayers in any reasonable manner.
The $10,000 tax credit may be allocated between eligible taxpayers based on their percentage of ownership.
Maximum Credit for All Taxpayers
N/A
$100 million.
When to Claim
Full tax credit may be claimed on 2008 or 2009 tax returns.
1/3 of total tax credit may be claimed each year for 3 successive years (e.g. $3,333 for 2009, $3,333 for 2010, and $3,333 for 2011).
Tax Agency
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Franchise Tax Board (FTB).
How to File
First-Time Homebuyer Credit
(IRS Form 5405) to be filed with 2008 or 2009 tax returns
Specific procedure for claiming credit includes completing an Application for New Home Credit (FTB Form 3528-A).
When to File Form
Form 5405 must be filed with 2008 or 2009 tax returns.
FTB Form 3528-A must be faxed by escrow to the FTB within one week after close of escrow and filed with the buyer’s 2009 or 2010 tax returns.
Exceptions
Acquisitions by gift or inheritance, acquisitions from related persons as defined, and buyers who are nonresident aliens.
Credit allowed is not a business credit under Cal. Tax & Rev. Code § 17039.2.
Legal Authority
26 U.S.C. section 36.
Cal. Rev. & Tax Code section 17059 (as amended by Senate Bill 15).
Date of Enactment
February 17, 2009.
February 20, 2009.
More Information
IRS website at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204671,00.html.
FTB website at http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/New_Home_Credit.shtml which includes a tally of the $100 million original funding that is still available

Carneval

This is a ride at a carneval that was set up across from the Oracle Colesum. About a month ago I went to a Warrior game that started at 6 pm on a Sunday night and after the game I went to the Carneval to snap a few pictures. I posted most of the pictures on my photo sharing website

http://community.webshots.com/user/davidlklein

What do you think of this photo?

New Photo

Photo I shot last Sunday evening with camera movement, zoom lens movement and an open shutter of the exterior lights of the Dept. of Transportation Building in downtown Los Angeles.

Rent Control

Only four states have rent control laws and 35 ban rent control outright
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SFGate.
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/05/27/EDAQ10SG86.DTL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 (SF Chronicle)
ON THE JUNE 3 BALLOT/Proposition 98 and rent control/This abuse of property rights reduces affordable housing Kris Hunt

A lot of fears have been raised in regards to the impact on rent control of Proposition 98, the eminent domain reform proposition on the June 3 ballot. Despite what you may have read or heard, Proposition 98 phases out rent control on a unit-by-unit basis but only when the current renters move out. In fact, Section 6 of Proposition 98 places critical tenant protections into the California Constitution.
One might wonder why Proposition 98 includes the phasing out of rent control. Rent control is another form of governmental abuse of property rights. Proposition 98 opposes the use of eminent domain where private property (a house, a business, a farm or a place of worship) is taken and given to another private owner to redevelop. In the case of rent control, property rights are being abused because government is forcing the property owner to subsidize the rent of an individual renter.
Rent control is an emotional issue due to California's high housing costs.
Because of that, people often fail to take a serious look at its unintended consequences; those that negatively impact the very thing that rent control hopes to provide - an adequate supply of affordable housing.
Rent control actually reduces the supply of affordable rental housing.
This makes perfect economic sense. When you reduce or remove the financial rewards to a property owner for providing rental units, that owner is less likely to provide rental housing. Rental units are often converted to condominiums to escape rent restrictions, thereby eliminating even more rental housing. If restrictions are put on conversions to condominiums, those restrictions can further reduce the general housing supply. There is also little incentive to maintain or upgrade rental property when rents are tightly controlled.
Rent control is not based on financial need. Rent control rewards those who are able to stay in their units longest, with rents often rising dramatically when units are vacated. Students, growing families, those who must relocate for a new job, seniors and the disabled who want to move closer to transportation, all can face higher rent payments when they move. People may be forced to relocate to nearby cities and pay higher rent as well because the supply of rental units in the city with rent control has been reduced.
If the goal of rent control is to provide affordable housing, it should go to those who in need of economic aid, not just anyone who happens to be renting in a rent-controlled building. There are a variety of ways to provide needs-based housing subsidies, which would allow every taxpayer to help pay the cost, not just the owner of a rent-controlled property.
Only four states have rent control laws and 35 ban rent control outright.
Those numbers say a great deal about the problems with rent control.
Proposition 98's plan of phasing out rent control as tenants move is the best approach to solving very real inequities while supporting true reform of eminent domain law in California. Please vote yes on Proposition 98.
Kris Hunt is the executive director of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2008 SF Chronicle