NMHC survey resultsEvery quarter, the National Multi-Housing Counsel, or NMHC, conducts a national survey to determine the trends of the rental housing market.  The results for the October 2010 survey were released by NMHC today.  The market news continues surprisingly positive.

 There are 4 questions asked each quarter and the responses are reduced to Indexes for the four question areas:  sales volume, debt financing, equity financing, and market tightness.  Survey results, in the form of a downloadable Excel spreadsheet, can be found at:  www.nmhc.org/goto/5920.  

In October 2010, all four market areas showed signs of improvement; many areas hitting record highs.  

The local market 

These market improvements are mirrored in the turnover data of my own office, Lightner Property Group, where 4 months ago we had pending notices to vacate in the high 20’s.  Now our pending notices to vacate numbers are fewer than 10.  In addition during the same period, we had more than four times the number of units being marketed than we have today.  Finally, we are asking more for our available units.  Fewer turnover units and increased asking prices shows the San Francisco market is in sync with national trends.

National survey results:  sales-debt-equity and market tightness 

 The NMHC survey shows national sales volume in October was at a NMHC housing survey resultsrecord high of 84, up from the prior quarter of 78.  For 2010, the annual average for sales volume is 73.  Again, another record high.    

Debt financing, or the institutional lending market, showed only a small increase of 1, increasing from 81 to 82.  Interestingly, not a single respondent indicated borrowing was worse than the prior quarter; another record. 

Equity financing, decreased slightly from 73 to 70, ending the year with an overall average of 70, again another record.  A score of 70 indicates a strong equity market. 

Finally, the Market Tightness level decreased from 83 to 77.  Market tightness measures the changes in occupancy and rent levels.  The break-even mark is at 50, so the market is clearly strong.  The 2010 average was 70, which is a number not seen since 2006, long before the financial collapse and burst of the housing bubble. 

So, what does this all mean?  

Without doubt, the rental market has benefited from the increase in the number of renters.  At least some of the increase in rental activity is related to the national move away from homeownership back to the rental market.  When the housing market was booming, and everyone could qualify for a mortgage, renters were hard to find and the rental market suffered.  Now the trend has reversed. 

Market dampers 

But while strong, the rental market has been kept controlled by the fact the job market continues to be weak.  A fragile job market translates into fewer new households, which keeps the rental market frail.  A market resulting from a typical pendulum swing would be much stronger than what we currently see.  Perhaps this tempered market will last longer and not end with the crash we typically see when the market wildly swings back and forth, and back again.  

The equity and debt markets are strong, suggesting that there is confidence in rental housing and residential rental real estate.  But the market confidence may be the result of investment funds having nowhere else to go.  Having been burned by stocks, the “for sale” residential real estate market and other equity investments, it is not surprising that investment income property is seen by investors as the safer bet right now.  While there is little hope for the killer returns seen in development and dot com style stock investments, investment income property performs well in times of inflation, providing a safe haven for cash in these times when the Fed pumps out dollars as fast as the ink can dry on the paper. 

Overall, market tightness is up.  Rental rents are increasing nationally, as well as locally.  Vacancies are down and units turn faster. Vacancy loss from rental turnover continues to decrease.

All market conditions point to a strong and healthy residential rental market.  If the job market can start to grow, perhaps we can find that balance between the two types of real estate investment: the rental and for-sale housing markets.  With a healthy job market, both the rental and for-sale markets can exist synergistically, allowing the economy to begin the absorption of the glut of for-sale housing.  

****************

For a complete look at the historical survey series, visit NMHC at:  http://www.nmhc.org/Content/Library.cfm?NavID=79. 

Currently, there are a number of bills which have passed both the Senate and the Assembly which are of interest to landlords and tenants in California.  In this series, we will look at three of them. 

AB 1800 (Hagman-Ma)
The first of our three bills, AB 1800, is a response to the numerous scams that have arisen out of the on-line rental market and the increasing number of owners renting their own units through on-line listing services.

The scam
The scam is a simple one. A scam artist advertises a housing rental on the Internet, often on Craig’s List. Often they have lifted the information from another site on the Internet, replacing only one important piece of information - the contact telephone number or email address. The deal is often too good to be true and generates a significant amount of interest and often a sense of urgency to act on the part of unsuspecting prospective renter, so as to not miss out on the “great deal”.

The scam works for regular long-terms rentals, as well as shorter vacation rentals; and it works for regular long-terms leases, as well as sub-leases. In the end, it appears to be most successful in the case of vacation rentals, which means that the San Francisco market is particularly vulnerable.   The scammer convinces the interested party to place a deposit or to pre-pay rent on the unit and obtains the money up front from the prospective renter. Sadly the scammer has nothing to do with the rental and is accepting the money under false pretenses. In the end, the unsuspecting tenant loses their money and has no rights to the rental, if there was a rental. AB1800 (Hagman and Ma) is intended to enhance protections for the unsuspecting tenant from scams such as this by increasing the penalty.

Amending Penal Code 602.9
The legislation, if it becomes law, will amend Penal Code 602.9 and increase the penalty to a year in jail and/or a $2500 fine per offense. Unfortunately, merely increasing the penalty deals with the scam problem after the fact. This means that for the legislation to be effective, someone must have become a victim to the scammer.

How to avoid the scam?
To avoid the scam entirely, what can a prospective renter do?

• • First, conduct business with a recognized local real estate company or rental agency. By spending some time doing research on the Internet, you can locate legitimate local rental agencies, as well as get a sense of who has the better reputation in your area as a responsive and responsible landlord and manager. While not all reviews are legitimate, you can get a fairly accurate picture of the style and reputation of a company by reading the available reviews on the various review sites now available. Don’t make big decisions - pro or con - based on a single review.
• • If the unit is not represented by a leasing or real estate company, make sure you are dealing with the owner by looking up the owner of the property on the Internet. Verify that the individual you are dealing with is the owner or agent of the owner. If necessary, ask to see the driver’s license or some other form of photo ID.
• • Don’t place a deposit on or pay rent for an apartment unit which you have not been able to see. Scams often include stories about the unit being unavailable to view at the time of the meeting or the owner being “out of town” and unavailable to show the unit. If you can’t see the unit in person, don’t place a deposit on the unit.
• • Never agree to accept keys to the unit through the mail. Legitimate owners have local representatives who provide keys, do walk-through inspections and are available to you in the event of an emergency during your occupancy. There should never be a reason you have to do business through the mail.
• • Red Flag: You have a difficult time obtaining the address of the rental unit.
• • Red Flag: Watch out in doing business with people who say they are out of town or out of the country. Even if they are legitimate, who wants an out of town landlord?
• • Don’t give anyone cash. A legitimate rental agent or landlord will not require that you pay them in cash.
• • If there is urgency and a rental deal too good to be true, be suspicious.

In response to the increasing number of scams on the Internet, the site http://www.lookstoogoodtobetrue.com/ has evolved and is now a resource to those suspicious of Internet deals or offers.  If you are suspicious about an offer you find advertised on the Internet, check it out on Looks Too Good to be True.

______________________________________________________________________

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 1800, as amended, Ma. Unlawful rental of residential dwelling:
penalties.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor, punishable as specified, for
any person to claim ownership or claim or take possession of, or
cause another to enter or remain in, a residential dwelling for the
purpose of renting or leasing the dwelling to another without the
consent of the owner or the owner’s lawful agent.
This bill would increase the misdemeanor penalties for this
offense, as specified. Because this bill would change the penalty for
a crime, it would create a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 
SECTION 1. Section 602.9 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 
602.9. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who, 
without the owner’s or owner’s agent’s consent, claims ownership or 
claims or takes possession of a residential dwelling for the purpose 
of renting that dwelling to another is guilty of a misdemeanor 
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, 
or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars 
($2,500), or by both that imprisonment and fine. Each violation is a 
separate offense. 
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who, without 
the owner’s or owner’s agent’s consent, causes another person to 
enter or remain in any residential dwelling for the purpose of 
renting that dwelling to another, is guilty of a misdemeanor 
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, 
or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars 
($2,500), or by both that imprisonment and fine. Each violation is a 
separate offense. 
(c) This section does not apply to any tenant, subtenant, lessee, 
sublessee, or assignee, nor to any other hirer having a lawful 
occupancy interest in the residential dwelling. 
(d) Nothing in this section shall preclude the prosecution of a 
person under any other applicable provision of law. 
(e) It is the intent of the Legislature that this section shall 
not preclude the prosecution of a person on grand theft or fraud 
charges. The Legislature finds that this section has never precluded 
prosecution of a person on grand theft or fraud charges. 
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to 
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because 
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school 
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or 
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty 
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the 
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the 
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California 
Constitution.

Rent Control Economics 101

It is not a surprise that the benefits and costs of rent control are hotly contested and debated in San Francisco. Most tenants, especially those who are long term residents, will espouse the benefits of rent control concluding with the very real and very personal benefit:  “I couldn’t live here without it.”

But when you ask a rental property owner, you hear a very different story.

More often than not, a property owner will have a rent control horror story which often ends with the owner selling the building in frustration, taking their housing units off the market in protest, or out of fear, the payment to of thousands of dollars to a hostile and unappreciative residential tenant, merely for them to vacate the unit.

Rent Control Benefits

Still, there is no doubt that rent control in San Francisco has legitimate benefits to identifiable San Francisco renters. No doubt some of these renters need financial assistance. No doubt, some actually deserve it.  No doubt there are societal benefits that stem from rent control that should not be dismissed or overlooked.

The question is not can we find some good in rent control; of course we can find some good. The question to be asked of all of our social safety-net systems spawned before the turn of this Century is: could there be another, better way to get to the same, or even a better result?  

Narrow Cast Rent Control Benefits

A look at the available evidence leads down a road which suggests the current rent control system is outdated, inefficient and overkill in the new economy we face in 2010.  Like so many of the programs of the past, rent control as a “public policy” is ready for a major overhaul and improvement.  It is time for rent control to become surgical and to narrow cast the benefits, rather than broadcast the benefits.

The San Francisco rent control public safety net, which is entirely privately funded, is too wide, too deep and too inefficient. Like so many of the entitlement programs of the 1970s, it mis-allocates and overspends limited resources.

The current rent control system transfers resources to the entire general populace of renters, when only a few are in need.  Instead of providing $50 of assistance to a single needy resident, the current system takes that $50 and distributes it among 10 residents, irrespective of need. The deserving few are forced to share assistance benefits with renters who can and should take care of themselves.  Imagine food stamps for everyone, just because a few people deservedly need them?  It makes no sense and we can’t afford it.

Marketplace distortions 

In addition to the public transfer of private resources for a public good, rent control distorts the behavior of the market place.

Go to any free market city, even a desirable one with a tight housing supply like San Francisco, and you will find rent specials and promotions, as building owners attempt to entice customers into moving to their complex or building. 

Missing concessions

Now look at San Francisco. No promotions. No market incentives.  No negotiations.  No DEALS. The dynamic market is dead.  Why?   Because concessions- inducements- incentives- and negotiations can be and have been used against property owners to reduce the base rent of tenants. The result?

New San Francisco residents receive none of the typical market concessions we see in dynamic free markets. Concession dollars are reallocated in budgets by San Francisco owners to allow longer periods of vacancy.  Money that could be in the pockets of residents, remains locked inside the building.

Price reductions slow to occur

A related distortion is that rental rates are not lowered as quickly as they are in other cities. Go anywhere else and you will see a market that reacts in real time.  Rents are reduced –and discounted and adjusted sometimes daily and even hourly.  These market adjustments happen quickly, in prompt response to a changing market.  As a market slows, rental rates go down.  It if slows further, the rates go down further.  You will not find these consumer benefits in San Francisco.

In San Francisco you can see pricing stagnate week after week as owners refuse to drop pricing because it is permanently lost.  In todays environment of annual increases that are typically only $1 per thousand in rent, a $50 per month price decrease equates to a lifetime of rental increases. 

Do price controls work? The anecdotal evidence is lush with stories of inequities and problems. The academic literature indicates “no”.  A Goggle search comes up with paper after paper and research article warning of unintended consequences and market distortions resulting from price controls.  Economic models teach us price controls provide a short term solution at a significant long term cost. 

But for a real answer look at the San Francisco rental market. At times of increasing vacancy the San Francesco rental housing market does not react as a typical healthy free market.   But it could; it should; and it can.

Do you have an opinion about San Francisco rent control?  How would you improve the system?  Share you ideas through Comments.  

Newest assault on San Francisco property owners comes from the Board of Supervisors

Seven members of the SF Board of Supervisors have put forth a sweeping proposal, in the form of a Charter Amendment, to fundamentally change the way the San Francisco Rent Control Ordinance is implemented and monitored.  The measure should appear on the November 2010 ballot where San Francisco voters can approve or reject it.  Perhaps not surprisingly in a city like San Francisco, the proposal is unabashedly and mathematically pro-tenant. 

Current Rent Board Commission structure

Currently the Rent Board Commission is appointed by the Mayor and is made up of 10 members, 5 of whom vote and 5 of whom are alternates and vote when a voting member is absent.  Each body of 5 is made up of 2 tenant commissioners, 2 landlord commissioners and 1 neutral.  The qualifications are simple.  To be a tenant commissioner you must be a SF tenant and not own property.  To be a landlord commissioner you must own SF residential rental property.  To be a neutral you must not be a tenant or a landlord.  Generally this has meant the neutral is a homeowner. 

The Commission structure has changed only once since the inception of the Ordinance in 1979.    Previously, Commissioners had designated alternates; if both a voting commissioner and their specified alternate were absent, there was no vote for that seat.  Now if that occurs and the other alternate is in attendance, the secondary alternate can vote instead.  

The Commission is important because it holds two critical functions.  First, the Commission makes the rules which implement the Rent Ordinance.  Over the years, it is rule changes that have provided some of the most important shifts in the implementation of the Ordinance.  Second, the Commission is responsible for the hearing of cases that are appealed from the administrative hearing decisions of the Administrative Law Judges, as a result of cases filed with the Rent Board by both landlords and tenants.  This appellate judiciary function is critical to the fair implementation of the Ordinance. 

The Charter Amendment proposal

The new proposal changes every aspect of the Commission structure formula.  First, the Commissioners would no longer be appointed exclusively by the Mayor, but appointments would be shared with the Board of Supervisors, furthering weakening the position of the Mayor in San Francisco. 

Second, the Commission would mathematically favor tenants, who would own the largest number of voting representatives with three, landlords with two and neutrals with two, for a total of seven voting members.  With this guaranteed built-in majority, the tenant community would effectively and easily block any future landlord sponsored legislation or changes.  Any successful landlord vote would always require both neutral votes.  The other unlikely scenario is that one tenant commissioner would have to break ranks with the other tenant commissioners along with a single neutral vote and vote with the landlord group. 

In comparison, the tenant community four votes would need only a single neutral vote to move forward with any change.  And with four tenant votes, a missing neutral would always result in either a tie vote or a tenant win.  The built-in imbalance would always favor the tenant community. 

Finally, since over the years the tenant community has lost some of their favorite commissioners to home ownership, the requirement that tenant commissioners own no property is removed from the tenant qualification standards.

Perhaps the most alarming part of this modification stems from the Rent Board Commission’s function as an appellate adjudicatory body.  Any quasi-adjudicatory body should be balanced and fair.  A built-in numerical advantage is neither balanced nor fair. This new structure would undermine any remaining public confidence in a Rent Board where fair results are possible. 

The last time a proposal was put forth to change the structure of the Rent Board was in 2003, when Supervisor Daly attempted to have the Rent Board elected. 

The current seven sponsoring supervisors are Campos, Alvalos, Daly, Mar, Maxwell, Mirkarimi, and Chiu.  It takes only six supervisors to place a measure on the ballet. 

What do you think of this proposed change?  Please respond in Comments, or share you point of view privately at Examiner@LightnerGroup.com

 First published on Examiner.com. 

SF Legislative Recap for Residential Rental Real Estate mid-year 2010

With just a month to go until the official mid-year point of the year, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has been busy passing legislation.  Despite the economic crisis, the budget deficit, the health care crisis and a host of other pressing issues facing our city, state and country, our dedicated Board has found time to shift their attention to the business of rental housing long enough to make changes to the Rent Ordinance as well as other laws impacting rental housing. 

In case you have been busy working, here’s the short list of changes coming from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and a link to the legislative language:

Amendment to Just Cause Eviction limiting evictions during the school year (0060-10)

A resident now has a defense during the school year, to an eviction if they have a custodial relationship with a school age child.  The interesting part of this modification is that the legislation is crafted as a defense to an eviction, rather than an eviction prohibition. 

Amendment to Just Cause Eviction extending protections to buildings previously not covered (0030-10)

Buildings built after 1979, the residents of which had not been protected under the Just Cause Eviction protections, will now, after a foreclosure, have Just Cause protections during their lease term.  In addition, after a foreclosure certain notices must be provided to the tenants.  Failure to provide the notices creates a defense to an eviction.

No Smoking in public areas (0058-10)

The no smoking ban has been extended to residential multi-family housing and encompasses common areas, building entrances and sidewalks.

Soft-story building earthquake improvement fee waivers (0054-10)

As an economic inducement for building owners to spend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, the City will waive a few hundred or a few thousands in buildings fees, if you voluntarily make structural improvements to your soft-story building.

Fee Increase for Recordation (0070-10)

If you record a real estate instrument, you will now pay $3 per page rather than $2.

 Link:  2010 Passed San Francisco Ordinances  

First posted on www.Examiner.com

The new battle is over a business concept commonly known as “carried interest”.  Many investment vehicles, regardless of industry, include a profit split that allows the promoter of the investment to participate in the profits of the investment.  This promotional interest in the investment is referred to as the “carried interest”.  It is intended to align the sponsors’ interests with those of the investors by providing a profit participation in the deal.  The investment sponsor often receives both fees for services rendered which are taxed at ordinary income rates, and if they have an interest in the “back-end” of the deal or profits, they receive that profit interest as income that is taxed at a capital gain rate. 

In 2007 Congress became increasingly alarmed at the apparent unfair tax treatment of the hedge funds and other investment managers who were receiving all of their income from sponsored investments as “carried interest” taxed at the beneficial capital gains rate.  Little or none of their fees were packaged as ordinary income.  To many, this seemed a fundamentally imbalanced result. 

As is typical of Congress however, they never seem to be able to fix an identified problem with the accuracy and precision of a scalpel.  The current proposed carried interest fix would impact not only the recognized problem, but all transactions with “carried interest” or promote incentives. 

There are fundamental differences between the structure of a real estate investment and investments in other industries.  Some real estate transactions need the benefits of the carried interest because of the significant length of time real estate transactions and developments take.  Just as capital gains treatment is intended to provide some tax relief for long term investments, the taxation of the carried interest is intended to do the same.   For a more complete discussion and history of the legislation, please see the National Multi Housing Council’s “Taxation of Promote Interest” at http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ContentList.cfm?NavID=389. 

Various proposals from Congress have languished in committees.  President Obama introduced his own carried interest legislation as part of his overall budget proposals.  The Real Estate Law Blog reported today:

… both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, along with their respective Chairs, Sander Levin and Max Baucus, have indicated a desire to pass as quickly as possible—but no later than May 31, 2010—a roughly $30 billion tax extenders package. As originally described, the tax extenders package was intended to address numerous areas, including individual tax relief, business tax relief, the extension of numerous expired energy incentives, disaster relief, community assistance, and a handful of miscellaneous provisions. Earlier this week, Rep. Levin announced that lawmakers are close to agreement on a provision that would phase in increased taxation on carried interests.  (See http://relaw.typepad.com/real-estate-law-blog/2010/05/more-info-re-pending-carried-interest-legislation.html)

Congress is expected to vote on the proposal early next week.  If you are a real estate investor, or ever hope to be one, you should weigh in on this policy changing, and bottom line impacting, legislation.  Regardless of how you feel about the underlying issue, a far reaching change of this magnitude seems ill-timed and ill-conceived in light of the current anemic health of real estate and its import to the overall health of the national economy. 

If you are an investor or sponsor of investments, what do you think of carried interest?  Is it fair and reasonable, or simply a way to avoid taxes for savvy Wall Street investors?  Share your thoughts and feelings through Comments.  

Want to find out who your Congressional representatives are so you can weigh in?

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?command=congdir

Additional Resources for “Carried Interest”:

Taxation of Promote Interest

http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ContentList.cfm?NavID=389

Carried Interest Q&A

http://relaw.typepad.com/real-estate-law-blog/2010/05/qa-about-carried-interest.html

Legislation Ending Hedge Fund Managers Carried Interest Failed at Close of 2009

http://www.financialcrisisupdate.com/2010/01/legislation-ending-hedge-fund-managers-carried-interest-failed-at-close-of-2009.html

The National Multi Housing Council (NMHC, Washington, DC) has released the results for their quarterly survey of market conditions, according to Michael Tucker in a May 7, 2010 press release. 

For over a decade, the organization has surveyed CEOs and other senior executives of apartment-related firms who serve on the Board of Directors or Advisotry Committee in four key areas:  market tightness, sales volume, equity financing and debt financing.  The quarterly nationwide results are available to interested persons HERE.

April 2010 numbers reveal an improving residential rental market. 

• Market tightness made the largest gain quarter over quarter by increasing, meaning demand and rents are up. 
• Sales volume is up, indicating the market is moving again and there are both buyers and sellers in the marketplace. 
• Equity financing is generally available, indicating there is interest in the market and optimism for residential real estate. 
• Finally, debt financing showed slight signs of improvement, indicating it was more available than it was in January 2010 by returning to levels reported in October 2009. 

For a complete look at the historical numbers since 1999 visit:  www.NMHC.org/goto/QuarterlySurvey09.

_______________________________________________________________

This blog post is also available at Examiner.com

Part Time Resident Manager or a Resident Manager Team

to join our team! 

Could our new team member be you?

• do you like working with people?
• do you enjoy helping others?
• are you friendly and outgoing?
• are you detail oriented?
• do you like putting things in order?
• do you receive satisfaction from having a project “just right”?
• do you like to putter in a lovely garden?  
• are you a problem solver?
• do you enjoy working alone sometimes?
• are you self-motivated?
• are you a positive person who sees the glass half-full?
• do you enjoy learning?
• are you interested in learning about real estate and real estate management?

   

If you have answered YES to these questions, you may be the person we are looking for!

Our  charming 18-unit building in the Richmond-Lake Street area of San Francisco needs a new on-site manager!

Target Start Date June 1, 2010

We have an opening for a part-time, resident manager or resident manager team, for our charming 18-unit building located at 140-20^th Avenue, between Lake Street and California Street in the Richmond District of San Francisco.

The position is both administrative and janitorial in nature. 

For more information please visit the Lightner Property Group jobs page.

A Man of Action - Art Swanson
Contributed by Jo Goecke, RHN member

Art Swanson gives new meaning to the business term “bottom-up management.” Over the past two decades, he has climbed from maintenance/painter to Chief of Operations at Lightner Property Group (LPG). While he modestly claims to be a problem solver, his standard for excellence is legendary among Lightner tenants. Experience counts. Swanson has been a hands-on participant in LPG’s explosive growth for 22 years. “We currently manage 15 residential buildings and 6 commercial properties including Russian Hill, Lower Pacific Heights, Pacific Heights Marina, Nob Hill, Richmond/Sea Cliff, Laurel Heights, USF/Pan Handle, SOMA, Hayes Valley, Market/Castro, and West Oakland,” he emphasizes. “Managers report directly to me on a daily basis.”

Fueled by recent complaints from Lightner’s tenants involving late-night disturbances in and around the Heritage Marina Motel, located on the corner of Van Ness Avenue and Filbert Street, Bill Lightner, president of LPG, collaborated with the upper management team to develop a plan of action. Following the meeting, Swanson contacted the new on-site manager at Heritage and made it clear that “Lightner would take a determined approach, including, but not limited, to contacting the police and filing a formal complaint. Both the property manager and on-site manager are fairly new at the property but appear to be taking the steps necessary to clean up the site. I keep in touch on a regular basis and continue to monitor any complaints from Lightner’s residents across the street. We will not tolerate any decadent or criminal behavior.” I am vehemently opposed to any illegal activity that violates other person’s rights and/or any disrespect for personal property, including people’s right to quiet enjoyment in their home.”

Swanson and LPG feel fortunate that Carolyn Doyle manages the 1472 Filbert property. Swanson identifies Doyle as an extremely competent and knowledgeable manager. “However,” he stresses,“tenants have to be alert and take personal responsibility for their safety. It stands to reason that closing doors when entering or leaving the building is paramount to building safety. Never letting someone you do not know gain access to the building is another important safety measure. Reporting malfunction of entries to management, calling police when necessary to report malicious or suspicious behavior when seen, and membership in your neighborhood association are essential tools.”

San Francisco’s Police Chief George Gascón has implemented a collective effort through neighborhood programs that build relationships with residents to increase personal safety. “Lightner supports Chief Gascón’s plan,” continues Swanson. “When you get involved, it is easier for the police to respond. For example, when a crime in progress is reported, the caller only needs to leave a first name and cell phone number. The police can contact you when they arrive on the scene and ask any follow-up questions that may help in identifying the criminal. They are not going to reveal that you called.”

Graffiti is a well-established phenomenon and its immediate removal contributes to the stabilization of neighborhoods. Swanson applies a seasoned perspective and recently moved decisively to have the graffiti removed on the side of an out building on the Heritage Marina Motel’s roof. “Studies show that immediate removal of graffiti discourages the vandals from returning; it takes a while and you need to be diligent. It pays off in the end. Of course, it is more difficult to control on a vacant building.”

In closing, Swanson believes that people work for more than a paycheck; he is both proud but modest regarding the distinguished recognition he has received from the community, “People like to lease from property managers who maintain a standard of excellence,“ he concludes.


Source: RHN Spring 2010 Newsletter (http://www.rhn.org/Spring%202010%20Newsletter.pdf) by Jo Goecke

The Fifth Annual AIM (Apartment Internet Marketing) conference is next week.  The conference begins on April 28th and ends on April 30th, Wednesday to Friday.  It is being held in Southern California, at the Huntington Beach Hyatt Regency Resort and Spa.  You can view the AIM agenda HERE. 

If you don’t have the time to attend, don’t fret.  I am attending and will be sharing the conference information and lessons learned with my Examiner readers. So, for in-depth information, insights and reporting, check in here, starting Wednesday next week. 

And for quick ideas, you can also read my frequent conference Twitter posts by following me on Twitter at @MyRentalUnits.

Lightner Property Group was an early adopter of social media.  We have perfected our apartment marketing adding a dash of social media, distilling the process into a standardized formula.  We find this method to be efficient and cost effective.  I am particularly excited to hear about the lessons learned from the larger companies - those with more staff and larger budgets.  I am interested to hear what they say about the growing social media trend and apartment marketing in general. 

Join me next week, reporting from Southern California! 

Selected Companies Already Registered for AIM 2010 according to the AIM site:

So, how does one possibly keep up?

Calendaring is my method to limiting e-mail madness.

Every email that fits the above-criteria is copied into my Outlook calendar, placed strategically based upon importance. This greatly limits forgetting something is due and saves me time in not having to hunt for the email detailing the project. (Because you know when you put it on your to-do list you still then have to go back through your thousands of emails and find the right one.) Also, if it turns out there is a change in project timelines you simply change the date and time in your calendar, and voila.

This post was written by Cathleen Higgins, Lightner Property Group’s Communications Director. Cathleen joined Lightner Property Group in 2007 and has over a decade of experience in real estate marketing and sales in the Seattle area. She holds a degree in English from Chico State and a Certificate in Graphic Design from The Art Institute of Seattle, as well as being a California licensed real estate salesperson. E-mail Cathleen