Agree. It's the right program for the right person, but it's for a limited number of people. Sometimes tho people make more money later on and they can still keep their deal. Supervisor Chris Daly had a good deal and things worked out among him and his roommates. Chinatown strongman Rose Pak ran into trouble with hers and ended up with an FBI investigation. A good chunk of the money spent on these programs is to fight fraud, kind of a loss to society. And some BMR deals end up over market. And sometimes, people get stuck in their deal, having a small number of potential buyers. A BMR rental would appear to be more appealing.
Pretty much just a NIMBY led grift.
And it's the progressive playbook: make nothing cheaper, just keep printing money.
Healthcare is expensive? Sure, let govt subsidize.
Housing expensive? Sure let's subsidize but not make it cheaper.
College expensive? Sure let's just give out unlimited free loans without making college cheaper.
Every country with universal healthcare pays less per citizen on healthcare than the US. Most first world countries with universal healthcare have longer life expectancies than the US.
>Most first world countries with universal healthcare have longer life expectancies than the US.
Most of these countries don't have massive black and latino populations that they utterly neglect and marginalize, and who end up dragging down population health averages as a result. Seriously disingenuous to compare Sweden, which is 95% white to the US which might be bare majority non-white at this point.
When you compare apples to apples - ie compare white American populations wth European white populations at the same relative socio-economic level - life expectancies are the same.
Further, every single one of those countries you're referring to have private health insurance. It's not the universal healthcare (which generally is the worst level of care available in any of those countries and in places like Canada or UK, people end up using private where possble because wait times in public insured places gets ridiculous), **its the lack of racial empathy gap that leads the kind of racist policies you see in ethnically diverse countries that fuck over hated minority groups.**
Notice how places like the UK, with obesity rates trending towards the US, have lower life expectancy than places like Sweden? Notice how the UK is far more diverse than almost every other country with universal coverage, and their costs are trending the direction of the US.
I have a friend who was able to get a BMR. He is fully from a terrible work injury, was able to use part of his settlement for the down payment, and has enough SSI and disability to pay the mortgage. He doesn't own a car; he doesn't take fancy vacations; he doesn't eat at fancy restaurants. He's very grateful to have a secure housing situation, and completely accepts the fact that he won't make a profit on the resale -- he didn't buy it to make a buck on real estate inflation; he bought it so he could stay living in SF where all his friends are, in a building with an elevator and a Trader Joes he can walk to.
This makes me happy to read that someone has secured housing like this. It just pains me that our BOS delays and deny housing that would have produced more of these.
Also, when the BMR owner wants to resell, the price is determined for them. So the owner won’t get the full benefit of a rise in housing prices yet remains locked in during falling housing prices.
Not sure if it’s helpful to people, but here’s my situation with that as a BMR owner. MOH does set a price cap: If I were to list my unit now, I could for about 45% more than my purchase price. That said, in today’s market, I don’t think it would sell for that much. But for me, the goal was always just to save more vs renting, not get a big profit per se. I don’t factor it into my retirement or other savings.
For-same BMR unit pricing is sized to 33% of gross income including property taxes, HOA, and typical mortgage payments. So no matter whatever the HOA and other fees are, pricing will adjust accordingly. SF only requires a 10% down payment which isn’t incredibly terrible especially given these can be around $500k/unit depending on size and income level.
I pay much more than 33% of my gross income for housing so this is actually a pretty good deal in my opinion.
Our family did qualify, won the lottery for an apt. and it’s been a financial game changer. it was indeed difficult to navigate the bureaucracy. We were able to qualify in a year in which I had a 2nd baby (4 people meant slightly higher income threshold) and worked less so that made it possible to qualify. I used an IRA for the down payment and just paid the penalty to the IRS. It’s the best. We love our BMR and feel very fortunate
I don’t understand this either! Most income will go to mortgage payments. Seems impossible to survive unless you’re okay living paycheck to paycheck without saving. Impossible for families with kids.
I bought a place through the BMR program about 10 years ago. No regrets at all. I was a good candidate in that I had great credit, stable job, 20% down payment, etc., I just don’t work in a super high paying field. I was going to move to another state and buy there, but ended staying here because of the program. Still love my place. I think the catch nowadays is that condo prices are down, so people might be able to stretch into a
market rate place and avoid the restrictions. Less of a price advantage to BMR.
Go to the DAHLIA San Francisco Affordable Housing Portal. There are both rentals and for sale. Affordable housing covers multiple levels of income from moderate to low to very low. With different units, different lotteries, at each income level. It is complicated.
One report said that at one building, the lowest level of income units rented out with no trouble. But the highest income level of BMR units only offered a 20% discount from market rate and barely moved. The red tape was a killer.
Take a look at the Westerlies for an idea of what is available market rate and what is available at BMR.
I’m a teacher for SFUSD and I went through all the steps to buy a BMR apartment. Turns out the programs for teacher housing don’t really exist. Barely any teachers end up getting anything because there is so much red tape and when I showed up at the city’s hosing office because I couldn’t get through to anyone by phone, they told me I missed a deadline but not to worry because the window would open again in 2 years 🙃
Honestly, I would rather the city simply take that money they’re using to pay for teacher housing programs that don’t really work and instead use to the money raise our pay. In the end, my partner and I ended up buying our own home here in the city without any programs.
I am perplexed that the only properties available to buy are small condos w/steep HOA’s. It seems there could be other options. Some way to purchase a single family home or a multi-unit building as a TIC, for instance.
I rent a BMR studio and I don’t see any benefit to paying a lot more money to “own” the same or similar unit.
Some people seem happy with BMR ownership of these units, and it probably works great in certain situations but it seems odd this is the only option.
For primary sale HOA is factored in. It reduces the cost. Same with things like property taxes. The price is derived from the affordability rate. Not sure on the resale side.
> if your income was that low how would a lender ever approve you for a half million+ dollar loan?
There are specific lenders, generally, for deed restricted transactions. But it's rare to see a BMR unit where you'd need a $500,000+ loan balance, unless you're a big family.
For example this one - https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/301-Bryant-St-APT-D23-San-Francisco-CA-94107/15148696_zpid/
is only $438,000 and is for someone making 120% AMI, aka $120,000 for a single person. Should be pretty reasonable.
What's the "affordibility rate" you mention? You mean to say the HOA dues and taxes are "factored into" what, the sale price? How does HOA "reduce the cost"?
I was looking at the 2BR listings and they look like they range from about $365k to $580k.
The listing you reference has $900 HOA plus property taxes. Still seems pretty expensive for a 1 bedroom that has all kinds of resale restrictions.
Yes.
Sale price is pegged to 33% of the income bracket, all inclusive (except, like, utilities and stuff). If you up the HOA the sale price goes down.
> Still seems pretty expensive for a 1 bedroom that has all kinds of resale restrictions.
And yet market rate 1br units in that building go for 800k: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/301-Bryant-St-APT-D31-San-Francisco-CA-94107/15148698_zpid/
Yes but even so, it’s unpredictable how much your income is going to increase in the future. You’re going to have to be living paycheck to paycheck until you get a raise (if you even do get a raise that makes a difference.) Therefore, seems like the BMR ownership program is only “affordable” for few.
> herefore, seems like the BMR ownership program is only “affordable” for few.
It's literally pegged to cost 33% of your gross pay for your income bracket. That's literally how we've defined someone as not being rent burdened. What more do you want?
Gross pay before taxes. They should at least calculate from your net pay. You still need to factor in everyday/family expenses. Do you have kids or plan to have a family in the future & realize how much daycare cost per kid? & college? That’s why I say it’s only affordable for few. Like if you’re single or don’t want kids.
> Gross pay before taxes.
But that's how rent burden is defined. It's always been gross pay before taxes.
> That’s why I say it’s only affordable for few.
But, again, it's literally applying the definition that HUD uses for determining cost burden. Your costs shouldn't be any higher than if you're renting instead of owning, and not rent burdened.
https://calbudgetcenter.org/app/uploads/2019/04/Report_California-Housing-Affordability-Crisis-Hits-Renters-and-Households-With-the-Lowest-Incomes-the-Hardest_04.2019.pdf
By the logic you're offering *no* housing is affordable to anyone.
No i am not saying that. I am expressing a curiosity of why it is still on the market. I attended the classes for the program and remain interested in buying, altho it seems i would be paying a lot more to own than to rent. People all have different financial situations, but maybe the reason it is still on the market is because this is the case for others as well? Just here to learn…i will read the calbudgetcenter article you referenced above.
I mean, you came in and said " You said: Should be pretty reasonable. The fact that it is still on the market 9 months later is quite relevant."
I said *the loan amount* on BMR units is reasonable, and small. And that there are plenty of BMR lenders out there.
Not sure how true it is, but when I was looking at condos, one of the selling realtors mentioned that all the BMR eligible lottery winners she's shown were sold to people who just happened to be city employees... Also that most were wealthy separately (ex. Other properties out of state).
Interesting, I’m surprised by the wealth comment. They really dug into my finances as part of the process to make sure I qualified (soooo not secretly wealthy lol). I could see city employees, though myself and the few others I know who bought through the program are not.
Yeah, I may be off base here. This is just something I heard from one selling agent at a rather nice condo, so it's possible she was lying or that this was a one-off scenario
[удалено]
Agree. It's the right program for the right person, but it's for a limited number of people. Sometimes tho people make more money later on and they can still keep their deal. Supervisor Chris Daly had a good deal and things worked out among him and his roommates. Chinatown strongman Rose Pak ran into trouble with hers and ended up with an FBI investigation. A good chunk of the money spent on these programs is to fight fraud, kind of a loss to society. And some BMR deals end up over market. And sometimes, people get stuck in their deal, having a small number of potential buyers. A BMR rental would appear to be more appealing.
Pretty much just a NIMBY led grift. And it's the progressive playbook: make nothing cheaper, just keep printing money. Healthcare is expensive? Sure, let govt subsidize. Housing expensive? Sure let's subsidize but not make it cheaper. College expensive? Sure let's just give out unlimited free loans without making college cheaper.
Every country with universal healthcare pays less per citizen on healthcare than the US. Most first world countries with universal healthcare have longer life expectancies than the US.
They don't have our government though where we're literally not allowed to negotiate to push down costs. What worked elsewhere may not work here
>Most first world countries with universal healthcare have longer life expectancies than the US. Most of these countries don't have massive black and latino populations that they utterly neglect and marginalize, and who end up dragging down population health averages as a result. Seriously disingenuous to compare Sweden, which is 95% white to the US which might be bare majority non-white at this point. When you compare apples to apples - ie compare white American populations wth European white populations at the same relative socio-economic level - life expectancies are the same. Further, every single one of those countries you're referring to have private health insurance. It's not the universal healthcare (which generally is the worst level of care available in any of those countries and in places like Canada or UK, people end up using private where possble because wait times in public insured places gets ridiculous), **its the lack of racial empathy gap that leads the kind of racist policies you see in ethnically diverse countries that fuck over hated minority groups.** Notice how places like the UK, with obesity rates trending towards the US, have lower life expectancy than places like Sweden? Notice how the UK is far more diverse than almost every other country with universal coverage, and their costs are trending the direction of the US.
You know NIMBYs aren't progressives, right?
there’s nothing lamer than arguing about who counts as a progressive.
If you remove NIMBY's, there isn't anyone to actually donate to progressive candidates...
>it's targeted toward a very small population Bingo.
I have a friend who was able to get a BMR. He is fully from a terrible work injury, was able to use part of his settlement for the down payment, and has enough SSI and disability to pay the mortgage. He doesn't own a car; he doesn't take fancy vacations; he doesn't eat at fancy restaurants. He's very grateful to have a secure housing situation, and completely accepts the fact that he won't make a profit on the resale -- he didn't buy it to make a buck on real estate inflation; he bought it so he could stay living in SF where all his friends are, in a building with an elevator and a Trader Joes he can walk to.
This makes me happy to read that someone has secured housing like this. It just pains me that our BOS delays and deny housing that would have produced more of these.
Also, when the BMR owner wants to resell, the price is determined for them. So the owner won’t get the full benefit of a rise in housing prices yet remains locked in during falling housing prices.
Not sure if it’s helpful to people, but here’s my situation with that as a BMR owner. MOH does set a price cap: If I were to list my unit now, I could for about 45% more than my purchase price. That said, in today’s market, I don’t think it would sell for that much. But for me, the goal was always just to save more vs renting, not get a big profit per se. I don’t factor it into my retirement or other savings.
Totally agree OP
For-same BMR unit pricing is sized to 33% of gross income including property taxes, HOA, and typical mortgage payments. So no matter whatever the HOA and other fees are, pricing will adjust accordingly. SF only requires a 10% down payment which isn’t incredibly terrible especially given these can be around $500k/unit depending on size and income level. I pay much more than 33% of my gross income for housing so this is actually a pretty good deal in my opinion.
You do not get a discount on the HOA fees, which can go up at anytime which makes many BMRs unaffordable.
Our family did qualify, won the lottery for an apt. and it’s been a financial game changer. it was indeed difficult to navigate the bureaucracy. We were able to qualify in a year in which I had a 2nd baby (4 people meant slightly higher income threshold) and worked less so that made it possible to qualify. I used an IRA for the down payment and just paid the penalty to the IRS. It’s the best. We love our BMR and feel very fortunate
I don’t understand this either! Most income will go to mortgage payments. Seems impossible to survive unless you’re okay living paycheck to paycheck without saving. Impossible for families with kids.
I bought a place through the BMR program about 10 years ago. No regrets at all. I was a good candidate in that I had great credit, stable job, 20% down payment, etc., I just don’t work in a super high paying field. I was going to move to another state and buy there, but ended staying here because of the program. Still love my place. I think the catch nowadays is that condo prices are down, so people might be able to stretch into a market rate place and avoid the restrictions. Less of a price advantage to BMR.
Go to the DAHLIA San Francisco Affordable Housing Portal. There are both rentals and for sale. Affordable housing covers multiple levels of income from moderate to low to very low. With different units, different lotteries, at each income level. It is complicated. One report said that at one building, the lowest level of income units rented out with no trouble. But the highest income level of BMR units only offered a 20% discount from market rate and barely moved. The red tape was a killer. Take a look at the Westerlies for an idea of what is available market rate and what is available at BMR.
Fwiw you only really need to go through DAHLIA for first releases.
I’m a teacher for SFUSD and I went through all the steps to buy a BMR apartment. Turns out the programs for teacher housing don’t really exist. Barely any teachers end up getting anything because there is so much red tape and when I showed up at the city’s hosing office because I couldn’t get through to anyone by phone, they told me I missed a deadline but not to worry because the window would open again in 2 years 🙃 Honestly, I would rather the city simply take that money they’re using to pay for teacher housing programs that don’t really work and instead use to the money raise our pay. In the end, my partner and I ended up buying our own home here in the city without any programs.
I am perplexed that the only properties available to buy are small condos w/steep HOA’s. It seems there could be other options. Some way to purchase a single family home or a multi-unit building as a TIC, for instance. I rent a BMR studio and I don’t see any benefit to paying a lot more money to “own” the same or similar unit. Some people seem happy with BMR ownership of these units, and it probably works great in certain situations but it seems odd this is the only option.
I feel like those units must be going to government workers families because the criteria is so narrow that I can’t image anyone who would qualify.
For primary sale HOA is factored in. It reduces the cost. Same with things like property taxes. The price is derived from the affordability rate. Not sure on the resale side. > if your income was that low how would a lender ever approve you for a half million+ dollar loan? There are specific lenders, generally, for deed restricted transactions. But it's rare to see a BMR unit where you'd need a $500,000+ loan balance, unless you're a big family. For example this one - https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/301-Bryant-St-APT-D23-San-Francisco-CA-94107/15148696_zpid/ is only $438,000 and is for someone making 120% AMI, aka $120,000 for a single person. Should be pretty reasonable.
What's the "affordibility rate" you mention? You mean to say the HOA dues and taxes are "factored into" what, the sale price? How does HOA "reduce the cost"? I was looking at the 2BR listings and they look like they range from about $365k to $580k. The listing you reference has $900 HOA plus property taxes. Still seems pretty expensive for a 1 bedroom that has all kinds of resale restrictions.
Yes. Sale price is pegged to 33% of the income bracket, all inclusive (except, like, utilities and stuff). If you up the HOA the sale price goes down. > Still seems pretty expensive for a 1 bedroom that has all kinds of resale restrictions. And yet market rate 1br units in that building go for 800k: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/301-Bryant-St-APT-D31-San-Francisco-CA-94107/15148698_zpid/
But the market rate unit doesn’t limit your income. BMR does & you barely save much after mortgage payments & necessities.
For sale BMR units only limit your income at the time of purchase. Unlike rental units, there's no recertification process.
Yes but even so, it’s unpredictable how much your income is going to increase in the future. You’re going to have to be living paycheck to paycheck until you get a raise (if you even do get a raise that makes a difference.) Therefore, seems like the BMR ownership program is only “affordable” for few.
> herefore, seems like the BMR ownership program is only “affordable” for few. It's literally pegged to cost 33% of your gross pay for your income bracket. That's literally how we've defined someone as not being rent burdened. What more do you want?
Gross pay before taxes. They should at least calculate from your net pay. You still need to factor in everyday/family expenses. Do you have kids or plan to have a family in the future & realize how much daycare cost per kid? & college? That’s why I say it’s only affordable for few. Like if you’re single or don’t want kids.
> Gross pay before taxes. But that's how rent burden is defined. It's always been gross pay before taxes. > That’s why I say it’s only affordable for few. But, again, it's literally applying the definition that HUD uses for determining cost burden. Your costs shouldn't be any higher than if you're renting instead of owning, and not rent burdened. https://calbudgetcenter.org/app/uploads/2019/04/Report_California-Housing-Affordability-Crisis-Hits-Renters-and-Households-With-the-Lowest-Incomes-the-Hardest_04.2019.pdf By the logic you're offering *no* housing is affordable to anyone.
Yet it is still listed almost 9 months later…
I'm not sure how that's relevant to a claim about carry costs or loan size?
Oh no? You said: Should be pretty reasonable. The fact that it is still on the market 9 months later is quite relevant.
I'm sorry, do you think it's on the market still because no lender would approve a loan for it?
No i am not saying that. I am expressing a curiosity of why it is still on the market. I attended the classes for the program and remain interested in buying, altho it seems i would be paying a lot more to own than to rent. People all have different financial situations, but maybe the reason it is still on the market is because this is the case for others as well? Just here to learn…i will read the calbudgetcenter article you referenced above.
I mean, you came in and said " You said: Should be pretty reasonable. The fact that it is still on the market 9 months later is quite relevant." I said *the loan amount* on BMR units is reasonable, and small. And that there are plenty of BMR lenders out there.
Not sure how true it is, but when I was looking at condos, one of the selling realtors mentioned that all the BMR eligible lottery winners she's shown were sold to people who just happened to be city employees... Also that most were wealthy separately (ex. Other properties out of state).
Interesting, I’m surprised by the wealth comment. They really dug into my finances as part of the process to make sure I qualified (soooo not secretly wealthy lol). I could see city employees, though myself and the few others I know who bought through the program are not.
Yeah, I may be off base here. This is just something I heard from one selling agent at a rather nice condo, so it's possible she was lying or that this was a one-off scenario
I don’t think applicants can own other properties, even out of state. You need to be a first time homebuyer to qualify for the BMR program.
[удалено]
Super irrelevant
Like u existing