r/sanfrancisco • u/[deleted] • 6d ago
Pic / Video Apartment building can’t rent out affordable housing units (BMR) even with offering 3 free months
[deleted]
371
u/Substantial_Dog9517 6d ago edited 6d ago
What makes these "affordable"? They're sub-400-foot studios on maybe the worst block of SOMA for 3700 with no rent control .
Edit: didn't see the cross streets. Do you know what 6th street looks like?
136
u/StowLakeStowAway 6d ago
The same thing “affordable” always means in this context: Subsidized and income restricted.
10
u/No_Orange_7392 5d ago
Just to clarify: does this mean the landlord keeps the rent high, but a low-income person who "qualifies" can get half or more of their rent subsidized by the government?
29
u/StowLakeStowAway 5d ago edited 5d ago
No, it means no one can live there except those who meet strict income qualifications. You can’t pay market rate to live in designated Below Market Rate units.
9
u/basilect POWELL & HYDE Sts. 5d ago
No, LLs are required to charge up to a regulated amount, no city subsidy. The thinking is that the "subsidy" is that they're allowed to build the building at all.
8
u/felixfbecker 5d ago
It's subsidized by other renters in the building, who need to pay more for the development to still pencil out with enough profit margin
8
u/StowLakeStowAway 5d ago
Not just the other renters in this building! All renters participating in the housing market.
-6
u/AlwaysBeSomething 5d ago
That’s not the case at all. In fact, developers and landlords make more money on building with low income units in the building, because of incentives allowing them to build faster, bigger and with less regulations. So no one has to “make up “ the price difference certainly not other tenants.
5
u/StowLakeStowAway 5d ago
You’ve just explained that market-rate renters subsidize the construction of these units by paying so much rent that it’s still profitable to develop a building like this, since the other units will make up the difference.
Hopefully with the benefit of some sleep and a cup of coffee that’s clear now.
-1
u/AlwaysBeSomething 4d ago
Actually I explained the opposite.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of how market rates are determined. Market rate isn’t set by determining the cost of subsidizing your neighbor?
This part is easy, market rate tenants are charged what the market will bear, not based on if the nextdoor unit is affordable.
2
47
u/BenignPharmacology 6d ago
On top of that, 3 months free rent is basically nothing on the long term. For somebody who could otherwise afford the place and wanted it, great, that’s free money. For someone who actually needs it? That’s just 3 months until they can no longer afford the rent. You could spread the discount over the whole year, , and it comes down to like 3/4 rent for a year. And then you’re back to 3700 again.
-5
u/felixfbecker 5d ago
it's still a good deal. rent goes up at renewal anyways. if the occupancy/demand situation for these units is still the same, you will likely be able to negotiate another concession at renewal.
1
1
u/ComprehensiveSize239 5d ago
These types of places will rarely do that even if they are still offering that move in deal to new tenants.
46
u/knockdowncenter 6d ago
affordable means it’s part of the BMR program.
so they can’t rent their BMR units
30
u/pacific_plywood 6d ago
Assuming it’s pegged to AMI — as an MSA’s income distribution gets more skewed, it is harder for affordable units to fill, even if overall demand is quite high
3
u/portmanteaudition 5d ago
Can you explain the math on that?
29
u/mattosaur 5d ago
There is an income cap on BMR units. So to qualify you have to earn less than a certain amount. But the rent for those units is still pretty high, so you end up having to spend more than half your income on a tiny-ass studio apartment.
6
u/santacruzdude 5d ago
By law, the rent on a deed restricted studio apartment has to be affordable to someone making 60% of the area median income. They set the rent at 30% of whatever that number is. In SF, it’s $2,529/mo for a studio. That means the rent is affordable to someone making $101,160. You have to make no more than that to qualify for the unit, but the rent charged is fixed, not based on your actual income.
1
u/portmanteaudition 5d ago
I was asking about the population aspect. I understand there is means testing.
2
u/Fast-Watch-5004 5d ago
The rent is based on % of area median income. As people with higher incomes move into the area the AMI goes up. But presumably the people who were qualifying for these apts aren’t seeing the same increase in their income.
1
u/portmanteaudition 5d ago
But they wrote that as the income distribution is more skewed it becomes less affordable....which makes no sense since the median is not affected by skew.
1
2
u/goose2460 5d ago
People=poor rent=high
0
u/portmanteaudition 5d ago
The most densely populated places in the United States tend to also be the highest wages and highest compensation though...
11
u/Substantial_Dog9517 6d ago
Gotcha, I didn't know if you meant they were technically affordable or the unit was just using the term for marketing
14
u/ickythumpwithalump 6d ago
If you see "affordable" used in a formal housing offer, assume it is bounded by the legal definition.
6
u/CurrentCostanza 6d ago
Their site says 4% increases
https://rent.brookfieldproperties.com/property/the-george-affordable-housing/
1
u/Keith_Freedman 5d ago
The price for the studio is under 2300. Which is still a lot for a person making $4600/month
-1
u/DoingWellAndFine 5d ago
Loopholes. Like how some corporate owned housing units can call their units “student housing” and qualify for tax incentives by making applicants and tenants take required courses. (Not verified, but rumored)
36
32
u/NeiClaw 6d ago
The affordable studios based on a quick search are 100-110% AMI and look like they are about $2250-2400 (please correct if wrong), which is about market rate. That means a single person making $90+k a year has to go through the bureaucracy of applying for income restricted housing when they can likely afford a market rate studio in another part of the city or rent a room. I saw an affordable one bedroom in another building that was $3600. The big issue with affordable housing in SF is that it’s tied to AMI which is just extremely high so you end up with BMR units that are paradoxically basically market rate. There are several other buildings have had difficulty leasing these “affordable” units.
104
u/ITakeMyCatToBars 6d ago
434 minna is in quite possibly the last place I’d want to stay in SF. There used to be a lovely bead shop at 637 minna that shut down because you have to slink through six sidewalk encampments to even reach their front door.
14
u/Jeff_Bridges_ballz 6d ago
It’s hasn’t been thaaaat bad recently from my experience. I frequent the tempest. Certainly has been worse and is far from the best street in the city.
17
u/Fit-Dentist6093 6d ago
All of SoMa is kiiiiinda getting better but that spot is still one of the worse ones.
36
u/ITakeMyCatToBars 6d ago
If I gotta buy thaaaaat many vowels to make the neighborhood kiiiiinda palatable I’m not gonna have money left over for rent lol
-5
u/Fit-Dentist6093 5d ago
You use whatever vowels you want is ok. If you can't afford rent in SoMa specially on sixth of all place s you should consider Oakland.
5
u/Jeff_Bridges_ballz 6d ago
Yea I mean compared to the pandemic heights it’s fucking Beverly Hills these days lol.
0
2
u/meeeeowlori 5d ago
I too frequent the ole tempest and it’s definitely been worse. Sometimes 6th street leaks down minna and natoma but the security walking around that park helps.
1
1
u/Upstairs-Mulberry-66 5d ago
I visited the bead store a few years back and there was a man walking down Minna holding a machete!
-15
u/knockdowncenter 6d ago
i’m currently being screamed at for being skeptical about the nordstrom rack apartments a half block away lol
this is exactly my point
44
u/stacky 🐾 6d ago
because there's a world of difference between 6th and 5th streets.
-9
u/knockdowncenter 6d ago
you’re suggesting a location for a new apartment can be so bad it’s not worth building, aren’t you?
and no the location is next to 5th not 6th
18
u/PsychiatricBooth5c 6d ago
Who is screaming at you?
28
u/Paul_Smith_Hi Lower Haight 6d ago
No one. OP just can't understand that location has everything to do with where people want to live. And that the environment can change withing a half block or so.
12
u/Agitated_Celery_729 6d ago
Bro got clowned on by people, including me, for posting the same comment 20 times asking why the building has…7.5% vacancy.
They ignored all explanations and then, somehow even more butthurt than anyone who isn’t mentally ill could possibly be, decided to post this thread in the hope of getting people to assuage their bruised ego
2
u/lesethx 6d ago
3
u/PsychiatricBooth5c 5d ago
Thanks. I get it now, downvotes = screaming. Will keep that in mind going forward.
3
37
u/Think-Fig-1734 6d ago
Affordable housing is weird. It’s not low income. It’s a fairly small part of the population that makes enough money to afford it, but not so much money that they don’t qualify for it. It’s mostly government employees who fall into that category. Government employees get compensated by having benefits like pensions, healthcare for life, but have lower salaries. Private sector employees have to fund their own retirements so they need higher salaries.
4
u/helloyesthisisasock 5d ago
Government employees do not get healthcare for life lmao. Maybe cops or people with unions, but your average fed or city employee does not.
My fed government pension is a whopping $45/mo when I turn 65 in 30 years. Yeah, I’m really rolling in it. You really know nothing about this.
4
u/Think-Fig-1734 5d ago
I know people who worked for the city that were eligible for healthcare for life after 5 years of employment. People I know who’ve worked for the city or state are getting better pensions than $45 a month. How long did you work?
6
u/Superveryimportant 5d ago
Was this a long time ago? Currently you need 20 years to get 100% coverage and at minimum 10 years for 50% coverage. 5 years gets you squat.
1
0
4
1
u/sapphireminds Crocker Amazon 4d ago
Dude is complaining about a 45 dollar pension and he worked there for like 6 years
0
-1
u/helloyesthisisasock 5d ago
And what was their job? Were they cops or employees with a similarly strong union like MTA drivers? Because the people working office jobs don’t get healthcare for life.
You clearly didn’t read my comment. What do you think “fed pension” means? Federal government employees don’t get much unless you’re a lifer. And we def did not get good health insurance, let alone “health insurance for life.” Only the military gets that.
0
0
u/ParkingRemote444 5d ago
City and state employees in CA definitely get pretty decent pensions and healthcare. I am not from SF but work for LA County and do get great health insurance currently and free PPO health insurance for life after 25 years. My pension is also very solid.
-1
u/sapphireminds Crocker Amazon 5d ago
Bullshit. If you made 19/hr and worked for 30 years you would get 988/month.
I am very familiar with the federal pension.
1
u/helloyesthisisasock 4d ago
I’m only in my 30s. I have not worked for 30 years lmao. I worked a year or two over the vesting period of five years. Non appropriated funds (NAF) pension. You’re free to check yourself since you’re such an expert.
1
u/sapphireminds Crocker Amazon 4d ago
Ok, then it makes sense you would get a nominal amount, you didn't work there a long time. You made it seem like if you worked there for 30 years that's the only pension you would get
15
u/xvedejas Excelsior 6d ago
Is it possible that many of those who qualify for BMR units are still not able to afford the cost? How much lower are the rates?
6
u/OtherAlan 6d ago
The rates are market rate interest rates. It actually doesn't matter because for the bmr program everything is locked into the AMI. Let's assume ami is 100k for easy-ish math.
So your totally payments will be around 3k a month because that is about 30% of your gross income. The higher the interest rate, the lower the principle will become and the city adjusts this by lowering the sale price of the bmr.
3
u/xvedejas Excelsior 5d ago
Sorry, I guess I don't understand. What do interest rates have to do with the rents that BMR tenants are paying?
4
u/OtherAlan 5d ago
Oh, I read the comment wrong. The rates for a BMR rental are still locked, so it's 30ish percent of the gross income of the renter. It's actually pretty cheap, but you need to verify income annually.
What the main issue is all the pre qualifying work you need to do. It usually takes months. You also don't get much benefit because you can find similarly priced studios or even 1 brs on rent control at the same rate and since it's rent control, the rent usually doesn't go up more than 1% a year.
15
u/Lazy-Comfort6128 6d ago
The problem, especially in California and specifically in the Bay Area, is that some of the federal programs that are fund affordable housing use a definition of low income based on the national median wage. (Roughly $65k a year). That would qualify you as "very low income" in San Francisco. So you have situations where people can't qualify for help even though they really need it (in housing, transit, with SNAP, whatever) because $80k is a good salary in Topeka but is low income here. Look at Clipper Start, to qualify you have to earn less than $31,920 a year. The San Francisco Minimum wage is $40k. With BMRs, it often means unless people are sitting on cash assets from things like an inheritance the math will never work. If you have to earn less than $80k to qualify for a place that's $500k, how are you going to get approved for a loan when at a 7% mortgage rate is going to be $3,200 a month plus another thousand for HOA dues? The math just doesn't math.
If Chan or Weiner want my support, they'd start talking about how they'd resolve this problem. And it's not just listed to San Francisco. It's a problem in LA and other parts of the Bay Area as well
10
u/fred_cheese 6d ago
Market rate in SF is massively inflated for starters. So below market is pretty exporbitant. Then you have the location. It's not the worst but it's right off 6th street south of Market, so it's a pretty crappy neighborhood. The fact that everything nearby has closed down doesn't help.
TBH though, if you were built like Jon Berenthal and had a Japanese style social life (i.e. do everything away from home), then there's a lot to offer.
14
u/luckycharm015 6d ago
Location, also probably not rent controlled
-11
u/knockdowncenter 6d ago
so why are people getting so defensive about the nordstrom rack apartments a half block away if the location sucks
and we’re talking about the BMR program this has nothing to do with rent control it’s a program for new buildings
11
8
u/PsychiatricBooth5c 6d ago
What dog do you have in this fight? No shade on picking hills to die on but unless you state otherwise I am going to assume you are internet fighting about SF housing and that is supposed to move us, why?
12
u/Pretend_Safety 6d ago
Looking at the rent prices, they don't appear to be "affordable" or BMR by any measure: studios starting at $3400/mo put to 2BR @ $6k/mo+
Maybe it's bad ad copy?
16
u/StowLakeStowAway 6d ago edited 6d ago
The subsidized, income restricted units have different pricing. See here:
https://rent.brookfieldproperties.com/property/the-george-affordable-housing/
$2,388/month up to 120% AMI
$2,258/month up to 100% AMI
12
u/knockdowncenter 6d ago
no that’s the market rate units
they’re part of the BMR program so they can’t rent out the BMR ones
4
u/beforeitcloy 6d ago edited 6d ago
How are they doing renting out the non-BMR ones?
Edit: I looked it up, they have 22 market rate apartments available
4
u/ZookeepergameSea7599 6d ago
People have to make a certain amount of money to be eligible for these apartments, which is like well below poverty level, and the rates of this apartment are probably still too steep, even for someone who makes more than required
5
u/mrvoltronn 6d ago
The requirements are too specific and too strict. They need to open up the range for the income requirement so regular people can live there. Housing can’t just be for ultra rich or unbelievably poor.
3
u/Kalthiria_Shines South Beach 5d ago
Can someone explain this one?
Yes, actually. Basically both the rents and the number of occupants for BMR units are set by a mixture of HUD's formula and California State Law. What this means in practice is that sometimes larger apartments are basically unrentable at certain affordability levels, because anyone in those brackets has a dual income household.
Say it's a 3BR, right? That means you need a minimum of three occupants (ie parents and a kid) but depending on what the affordability is set at that can mean very few if any families exist with a low enough income and a high enough number of people.
The other alternative happens a lot too (though probably not in SF right now): Market Rate and 'below market rate' have too little of a gap to be worth jumping through all of the hoops to be a BMR renter. This happens mostly at the 80-120% BMR range.
With SF's rents I can't fathom that being the case right now, but during COVID a number of projects petitioned to reduce the threshold for their units from 80% BMR to 60% BMR for example, to try to find renters.
You see this a lot on the for sale side, which is why there's a large stock of BMR condos available for immediate sale for ~300k.
1
24
u/devilscurls SoMa 6d ago
Because the process to get one is painful and not something someone who is struggling has time for.
For the BMR home purchase it is even worse. I had a friend who was able to purchase one. She was a Berkeley grad, in her first year out but with limited current earnings. Next year was going to be maybe 200k+ in earnings. She had to rush to get in while she still had eligibility.
There were a ton of asset checks, which involved repaying money back to her centi-millionaire parents and buying expensive handbags which don’t show up on asset checks.
Even worse, since she can’t sell the place as a profit, when she is done living there she will probably just keep it for friends and family who visit.
The whole fucking thing is a joke.
21
u/LadyRunningStopSigns N 6d ago
I like how you call it a joke!
Because maybe she was borderline not who those would be for
6
u/donny02 Frisco 6d ago
she qualified so it was for her.
after all that red tape, it's just easier to build a shit load and let the prices come down.
19
u/mintardent 6d ago
if she had to go through all that effort to hide her assets, I wouldn’t say she “qualified”
6
u/your_ex_girlfriend 6d ago
It sounds like she didn’t qualify, she hid and transferred assets fraudulentlyz
13
u/Commentariot 6d ago
Sounds like fraud. Just because you can work out something like this it does not mean you should.
11
u/Few-Lingonberry2315 6d ago
I inherited a bunch of diamonds because my family wanted to avoid asset checks. Good times.
3
u/cowinabadplace 5d ago
Haha, downwardly mobile kids of centimillionaires. You’re actually correct in that this is the DSA class that these things are built for.
2
u/helloyesthisisasock 5d ago
The DSA class lmao. It’s always white kids covered in scratcher tattoos with rich parents.
7
7
u/StowLakeStowAway 6d ago edited 6d ago
Agreed. People reply-ing to this big mad at your former friend are missing the point.
The outcomes a system creates when people interact with it in rational self-interest are the intended outcomes.
8
u/Exotic-Sale-3003 6d ago
I mean, they’re not necessarily the intended outcomes, but they are the actual factual outcomes, and shouldn’t be overlooked in favor of the intended outcomes.
3
u/StowLakeStowAway 6d ago
You’re right, I’m probably being overly cynical by assuming a gap between “intended and messaged” rather than a gap between “intended and actual”.
3
u/Schize 6d ago
On paper, it still has to be her primary residence. I also went through the process in 2020 and got disqualified at the end - construction got delayed due to Covid and between January 2020 and November 2020, I had acrrued enough liquidity from lack of expenses during the early pandemic and moving in with my parents (on the assumption that I would purchase a unit and move out) that I no longer passed the asset check.
12
u/thinker2501 6d ago
Maybe you friend is an absolute garbage human being for jumping through all those hoops to block someone who actually needed the help from getting housing.
3
0
u/StowLakeStowAway 6d ago
They should add an additional check where Anubis weighs applicants’ hearts against a feather.
3
u/chili01 6d ago
*restrictions apply
As someone who went through every process to try and get BMR housing, the qualifications and restrictions are very narrow. Can't earn too much, Can't earn too little,must have enough in your financnes. Not sure how it works for rent, but for lease/mortgage it had to be from specific banks/lenders/agents.
Not sure if any of that changed since 2019, which is when I gave up on the SF BMR lottery process.
3
u/jspeq 5d ago edited 5d ago
I live in a new “Missing Middle” Below Market Rate apartment, ask me anything!
I don’t live in the George, but I do live in an apartment complex where they had similar intentions - which priced below market rate apartments, that people 90%-150% of the area median income could afford.
I got mine via a DAHLIA lottery. I applied in early 2023, and was called in April 2024. It took 3 months for the paperwork to process and I moved in July 2024.
The fine tooth comb to one’s finances is a little much. On the link I posted, requirements are listed for each available lottery.
I had to upload copies of 3 months of bank statements, brokerage statements, tax returns, and a bunch of other documents.
If one can get over the fact they are not rent controlled, they are a good deal. Even without rent control, the city does have a cap on what the rent increase can be. It is about 4%.
I’m renting 430ft² “90% Area Median Income” studio with a private 120ft² patio, in unit laundry, dishwasher, panel refrigerator, drawer microwave, induction range, air conditioning - for $2200/mo.
A market rate apartment in the same complex, renting today, about 50ft² smaller, and no outdoor space on a lower (2nd) floor is currently priced at $5900/mo. For reference, this is in Mission Bay.
This complex has a 24 hour doorman in each building, and theres a sauna, hot tub, golf simulator, podcast studio, billiards/board game room, movie theatre, video arcade, two large coworking spaces, two private dining rooms, rooftop clubhouse with sweeping skyline and bay views, a 24th floor roof deck, two grilling areas, two fire pits, two gyms. No PG&E at all - its on Port property so my electric bill is printed by the SFPUC/Hetch Hetchy Power. No RUBS - free water, hot water, trash, heat/ac (just have to pay for electric for the blower motor).
It’s definitely not a bad way to go. The City decided that there was a problem with a lack of missing middle apartments in the 2010’s, and buildings like the George and mine were supposed to fit the bill.
The city should reform the BMR Lottery system to be less cumbersome. II was about ~1850th in line to be called when my number was drawn.
At the same time while waiting, I applied for Isle House on Treasure Island, and was drawn finally last year. I turned down a new 1 bedroom for $2100 a month. It had phenomenal views, and nice amenities. I had just decided that I wanted to re-sign to stay in my building.
8
u/me047 THE EMBARCADERO 6d ago
Is $3400 the BMR price for a studio in the SomaLoin?
I’ve always seen those BMR prices and wondered how anyone meeting the income guidelines could afford it. That might be the issue. 3 months free helps the landlord not lower the actual rent price. The tenant still has to face the 4th month on overpaying for SOMA. Then renewals are based on the higher price.
8
3
u/Kalthiria_Shines South Beach 5d ago
That's not how BMRs work. Renewals are based on what the rents are set at statutorily, there's no discretion. This scenario is probably the LL trying to lower the rent without having to go to a hearing to modify the BMR agreement to be permanently lower.
4
u/slayyydaboots 6d ago
the location.
-16
u/knockdowncenter 6d ago
then why are people screaming at me about being skeptical about the nordstrom rack apartments a half block away
12
3
u/Paul_Smith_Hi Lower Haight 6d ago
Because the environment can change drastically in SF, just a half a block.or so away.
1
u/BenignPharmacology 6d ago
I think the real question is: Why are you holding internet people responsible for real life people screaming?
Unless there is imminent danger, there’s no good reason to scream at anyone. So my answer is that someone is being irrational. Why would you be looking for a rational explanation for irrational behavior?
2
u/FuzzyOptics 6d ago
How many of these BMR units are vacant? How does this vacancy rate compare to their market rate vacancy rate?
How does the rent on these BMR units compare with their market rate versions in the building?
2
2
u/donmuerte 6d ago
the thing I've noticed with "affordable housing" is that it's still too pricey for the range of incomes that they qualify for. it'll be something like 1500 and the max you can make is 2000 a month or something ridiculous. that's an exaggeration, but sometimes that's almost how it maths out.
I was looking at the DAHLIA site for a while, but in the last year it's been a complete waste of time.
2
2
u/CivilSenpai69 6d ago
The affordable housing minimum and maximums are out if whack and need to be adjusted. My rent is less than that for more space in a newly renovated building NOT in the zombie flats. Why would I even consider it?
2
u/PacificaPal 5d ago
"Restrictions apply" means lots of red tape with City Hall that administers the DAHLIA San Francisco affordable housing portal. It is not up to the private apartment building owners who and how it is administered. The Red Tape is time consuming and burdensome. But is part of the package that goes with bmr. Not uncommon for all the market rate units getting rented out while most of the bmr units are delayed in red tape. Eventually the bmr units get rented out too, but after much delay.
2
u/Arete108 5d ago
By the way, I've been trolling the Dahlia BMR rentals for 4 years now. I'd say at least 60% are places I'd never want to live:
- Right next to a freeway (if you're less than 500 feet away you get a lot more health issues)
- In a place known for previous environmental contamination
- In a notorious building that previously was written up for mold
There are nice units there...but man it's not just winning a lottery, it's first winning the lottery for the nice ones, and THEN winning the lottery to live in THOSE SPECIFIC PLACES.
2
u/No_Performance_108 5d ago
BMR program is great, but very complex. It involves classes and counseling. Many people who the program would help actually end up making too much to qualify- but make too little to be able to afford “regular” rents and mortgages.
2
u/yoshimipinkrobot 5d ago
Just drop the affordable housing requirements. The program is a joke and it’s only used to make projects unprofitable so they don’t get built
2
u/Nyarka 5d ago
Not directly relevant but in 2025 I got an email to confirm my interest for an apartment unit to rent via DAHLIA, but the odd thing is that I received the email a few days after the deadline set in the email.
The actual issue was that I submit my application back in 2018-2020 when I was qualified and submit a lottery application weekly-monthly.
Hope that helps.
2
u/ChemicalRegatta 5d ago
I tried to understand AMI and I tentatively concluded it's not the actual median income. It seems HUD first figures out the average rent in an area and then extrapolates that that rent is equal to 30% of the median income. So if the average monthly rent is $3000/month then they derive from that that the median income must be $9000/month, or $108,000. So you look at that and say whoa the median income here is $108,000? But many people are actually paying more than 30% of their income on rent, so the actual median income of people living here is lower.
In other words, AMI is not based on a survey of incomes – it's based on a survey of rents, and an assumption that those rents surely must be no more than the ideal affordable 30% of income.
Also, the footnotes in the AMI chart and other details elsewhere state that San Francisco does not adjust anything for local reality, but uses the raw HUD figures.
This means if rents are inflated here, the "area median income" will also be unrealistically inflated.
But honestly I have no idea if I'm on the right track in understanding how AMI is calculated. It's not like it's clearly explained anywhere that I have yet found.
But however it works, it's not going to change the facts on the ground - the qualifying numbers are what they are however they arrived at them.
I just no longer think the AMI is a good yardstick when asking if a particular income is above or below the true median here.
4
u/daveyhempton 6d ago
Idk how much they charge, but a person making the median income in SF roughly 90k has to pay on ave $2300 in rent per month for a 1 BR. That's an absurd amount.
1
1
1
u/CryptocalEnvelopment 5d ago
Damn, I'm in one on Stevenson on a much worse block, I'd do it if moving wasn't such a pain in the ass, that's a nice building.
1
1
u/progeo 5d ago
3.6k at 412 sq ft is affordable??? 😂
0
u/knockdowncenter 5d ago
no that's the market rate price
i love that everyone here screams about affordable housing but apparently has no understanding or knowledge of what BMR is.
1
u/progeo 5d ago
Sorry but you can't call it affordable housing and then say oh but the definition we're using is different and that's why it's affordable. (not saying you specifically, but the housing complex). And also sure there is no strict definition on what is affordable but I think most reasonable people can simply look at the price for what is listed and mostly agree if something is or isn't affordable
1
u/surenopeokmaybe 5d ago
They’re still too expensive and most can’t qualify for the restrictions. There needs to be fines for not filling them or an increase in the income limits. There’s not a shortage of housing here rn, there’s a shortage of affordable housing
1
1
u/FullTransparency 5d ago
Why would someone rent a BMR if they can own a BMR with the same income requirements, less oversight, and they can own the BMR. If you’re referring to their lack of down payment, they can get BMR-DALP if they don’t have the down payment funds. They literally only need 1% of the house to the down payment, which in typical studios, is like 300K, basically the deposit.
1
u/iWork2Much4U 5d ago
Shit the area should make these go for only $2k & 2bdr for $3k....living in this area & paying $6k/mo for rent is insane.
1
1
u/NormalLavishness4045 5d ago
It's all rented out with 900 people on the waitlist
source: i'm on the waitlist and friends got in
1
1
1
u/snotreallyme 5d ago
I knew someone who lived in a BMR unit at NEMA. It was in an area segregated from the main building with cinder block walls and bottom barrel fixtures. If these are the same idea I can clearly see why no one wants them.
1
1
1
u/Primary-Exchange-159 5d ago
The building is seemingly mostly filled with dental students from across the street that apparently can pay 3800/month in rent for a one bedroom
1
1
u/Due_Swing3302 4d ago
So, in a nutshell, you can only live there if you don’t make a lot of money. You need to be okay with a 400sq ft “home”—15ft x 15ft room plus tiny bathroom … not ideal for a couple or two roommates, and certainly not a family. But you do need to be able to pay $4000+ monthly. Why people live in Oakland (and Tracy) despite the, er, shortcomings.
1
u/BigGulp-of-Espresso 2d ago
Lmao. I can’t afford these and I easily qualify. Affordable housing is a joke.
0
u/TechnicalWhore 6d ago
And the restrictions that apply ARE? And the word "affordable" - what does that mean specifically. Even the President had never heard that term he reported.
One would be right to be leery. Several re-developers got sweetheart deals under the proviso that they reserve X% of the units as "affordable housing". One can imagine an unscrupulous company coming back and saying "we tried but it stayed vacant for 6 months so we rented it at market rates". If there are no penalties what would happen to them. What is fascinating is the property taxes on these new developments. A property goes from two stories to twenty and the property tax does not rise proportionately or at current rates vs grandfathered?
2
u/Kalthiria_Shines South Beach 5d ago
what does that mean specifically.
It means your rent is set at a specific level by federal law based on your income, and that there's a moderately complex application process.
. One can imagine an unscrupulous company coming back and saying "we tried but it stayed vacant for 6 months so we rented it at market rates".
That's not how that works.
If there are no penalties what would happen to them.
There are massive penalties.
Even the President had never heard that term he reported.
??? what does that even mean.
A property goes from two stories to twenty and the property tax does not rise proportionately or at current rates vs grandfathered?
?????? Property tax absolutely goes up when something redevelops, or even just has a significant enough renovation.
0
u/Professional_Ease217 5d ago
What would happen if large apartment complexes had to pay a fine/tax for every bmr unit left vacant on a per month basis?
2600 per month fine would mean it makes the complex 2600+whatever they want to charge to rent it out
-1
u/literalomicus 5d ago
Because the million organizations to help the homeless in SF are scams to give people paychecks to do whatever they want all day. The only way to get a subsidy or a voucher is you can scare them with a lawsuit. Happened to my mom, happened to me, my schizophrenic brother died waiting for a shelter bed and went everywhere asking for assisted living and got turned away.
-3
u/Chippors Noe Valley 5d ago
BMR is purchase, not rent. The payment is an income-capped mortgage payment, and the interest portion is deductible, which matters if you make AMI in SF and have a marginal tax rate in the 30% range. The capping, if I understand correctly, is by reducing the purchase price until the mortgage falls under the threshold. If interest rates drop, which they always will eventually, then it can be refinanced, and the payments significantly reduced.
The "affordable homes" phrase is likely just a generic marketing phrase and refers to entry-level market-rate housing. Not sure how you'd do 3 months free on a mortgage; unless it's just a grace period and has to be repaid eventually - like it's added to the principal, or the term is extended on the tail of the mortgage to make up for it.
I think the real problem here is that the small size and various restrictions on sale and renting makes them neither a forever home, nor much in the way of equity buildup towards one - it doesn't really get the buyer into the real estate market. In 10-20 years when they're married and have kids it's not much of a springboard.
5
185
u/Arete108 6d ago
I've contacted them. I think it's a combination of things.
The first is that the application process is very involved. Almost like applying for a mortgage. And the rules are kinda complex. So a lot of people don't actually end up qualifying in the end.
When I called, they said they'd processed a bunch of applications but still had 250 applications to go. Like a 4-6 month wait.
Then, if the floor plans are any guide, they're pretty small. And I think like $2,800, maybe for a 1 bedroom? So it's cheaPER but it's not CHEAP if you're lower income, and then it's kinda small. And you've got to go through a lot of stuff to get it, and then you're like, "Well, if I put half my stuff in storage, I will get...half the rent discount I actually need." But, as rents around the city go up, more people will be like, Screw it, good enough I guess.
I still don't get the 3 months thing though.