Every day, the rest of us are glad we do NOT live in California.

Oh man, this is good.

Here is what I think the Bay Area Realtors should do:  Sue the city and file an injunction, claiming (truthfully) that it harms the owner's "right of full enjoyment" of property and their "restraint of trade."  I particularily like the part where the owner HAS to give the contact info of every unit resident to the company making the offer, regardless of the occupant's desire for privacy (let alone if the offer is even good).  Imagine the amount of data you could collect by offer $1 on every property to build a list of tenants to sell to a marketing company...  Sounds like there should be a privacy risk reason added on to the suit as well. 

Get the Bay Area AOR and CAR to join in and you can maybe even make it a class action.  Should take a while to get through the courts and you can continue to appeal to the 9th circuit (which has surprisingly ruled in our favor of late) and even up to the supreme court if needed.  Could delay the implementation of the law for many years.

I haven't seen/heard of this particular law but it is important to know/understand any of possible local restrictions that may exist. It seems to me on the surface to be an example of unintended consequences.

Oh, Ryan Huggins - Thousand Oaks, CA absolutely nailed your answer! YES!

sounds like an over reach & non-constitutional. SF is just having such problems with homelessness they've just lost their minds. I would say you'd really be in trouble trying to change your 3 flat into something else for profit.

That is to broad of a reach of the government comrade

Only in California..., But Washington DC has a law for multi-family dwellings that the owner must offer the property to current tenants to purchase prior to selling to someone who does not currently occupy the dwelling.

Makes no sense and I'm from SF.

Sell one at a time...

keep that law and other similar laws in California..... we neither need nor want those laws....

Best answered by those in San Francisco

Can't say I've given this any thought. It's a San Francisco law and not sure how it impacts us in Charlotte.

I hope this idea doesn't catch on Caroline Gerardo  (even though I'm retired).

I hadn't heard of this. I don't quite see how this will solve the problem of homelessness, or the high price of housing and rentals! Will ask to check in with my San Francisco buds!

The non profits are getting 1st right to offer on these properties. It's a good time to be a non profit in CA. From the Seller's perspective they are now subject to restrictions on their sale & that may or may not be a negative for them.

Interesting. We don't have it in Florida.

Interesting.

Wow! That's interesting.

If you really want to make a ton of money, start a non-profit.

Interesting. Thank you.

What about it?  The movie Idiocracy comes to mind.

Caroline,

San Francisco dances to the beat of a different drum...It is on par with the Twinkie defense and other crazy things.  A

Sounds like a violation of freedom of alienation, but it is California and it must be something in the water!

Very interesting. San Francisco is a very progressive city. What starts there, sometimes, but not always, spreads to other parts of California. This law will generate much cash for attorneys.

Quoted from the  linked article:

Will COPA be ruled Illegal?

Two (2) San Francisco property owner associations have teamed up to hire litigation counsel, and we understand that a lawsuit will be filed within the next hundred (100) days. Those groups hope to obtain an injunction to stop implementation of the law. Without an injunction, it may take over a year for the law to be declared illegal, and compliance will be required in the interim. Many San Francisco Superior Court judges are very progressive, and it is sometimes the case that property owners do not succeed until a case is heard by an appellate court.

What? interesting.....

Well, that's whacky CA for you...lol

It occurs to me that because the "right of first offer" is required to occur before the property can be placed on the MLS or otherwise offered for sale the law is now creating pocket listings and violoating CAR MLS Model Rules.  Interesting concept on so many levels.  Thanks for bringing this one up, @Caroline Gerado

A 1st right of refusal given without being compensated? Ridiculous!

California ... The Official Land of Oz.

I am native born ... so I have license/birth certificate to say that!

Hmm, I understand the intent, but the reality is this is another California perversion.

At this time in Pinellas County Fl, non-profits have MASSIVE land holding in this area. This law has an insidious behind the curtain story that has little to do with affordable house and everything to do with acquisition.

Any entitlement group can launch a smear campaign when their offer is rejected. And the press feels compelled to amplify the perversions.

I have worked with investors who actually instructed me NOT to present them with available property that has not been available to the public for less than 30 days. They wanted the 1st time buyer to give it their best shot.

Non-profits with their perversions SHOULD NOT be given preferential treatment. The local gov't have immense power to re-develop if that is their intent. This is a power grab.

My disappointment is I did not find a easy way to connect this to Nancy...hmmm, is she involved with land grabbing non-profits?

Sounds like a good intention went frighteningly wrong.

At some point, you will have another IRS with all these gibberish laws

🎶If you're going to San Francisco

Be sure to wear your tinfoil hat

And heavy shoes so you don't step on needles🎶

Bizarro World Lives!

interesting

Interesting. I'm glad we don't have this here. 

OH MY, have to agree with Bob.

Do not know that we have that in our state.

CA what can I say......gets stranger and stranger.