Connect with us

California

California building sells for $64M less than 2019 as problems plague city

Published

on

California building sells for M less than 2019 as problems plague city


A property in California that sold for $86 million in 2019, has been acquired by a new owner for $64 million dollars less.

The building, at 410 Townsend street in San Francisco, was bought for just $22 million, SFGATE reported this week, in what could be an illustration of how the city is still battling against an underwhelming office real estate sector.

The property boasts 78,000 square feet and four floors and had been a home for tech firms in the area, said the website.

San Franscico’s office market is still struggling to recover from the COVID shock when lockdowns and stay-at-home orders led to a significant rise in home working. There were vacancy rates of about 22 percent at the end of the first quarter of 2024, according to real estate firm CBRE’s analysis.

Advertisement
A panoramic view from above San Francisco’s financial district on a bright sunny day. But the office real estate market is still struggling: one block sold for $64 million dollars less than it’s last selling…


Georgeclerk/Getty Images

But the new owners of the 410 Townsend street property believe the market is about to rebound.

“It’s our opinion that this is the start of the recovery for the San Francisco real estate market and 410 Townsend provides us with the opportunity to acquire a best-in-class creative brick and beam office asset well below replacement cost and where the asset traded in 2013 and 2019,” Albert Pura, senior director of one of the buyers, New York Life Real Estate Investors, told SFGATE.

But San Francisco’s office space real estate fightback is still in the early stages. CBRE’s analysis showed that the city ended the first quarter of this year with what they described as negative 387,000 square feet of net absorption

It was “the seventh consecutive quarter of occupancy losses,” the analysis said.

Homes have been hit hard too.

Advertisement

The data did show some interest in offices from research and development tenants, whose demand was up by about 56 percent. But even then, the nature of their interest pointed to some softness in the overall market.

“The increase in tenant demand is largely driven by tenants who need to make decisions about their space as their leases are coming to term. Many companies are seeking to reduce the size of their current space, which portends further occupancy losses,” CBRE’s report warned.

“The software and internet industry continued to lead demand along the Peninsula contributing to about 51.3 percent of the active requirements.”

CBRE’s says its report looks at the office building market of at least 10,000 square feet and collects its information “through telephone canvassing, third-party vendors, and listings received from owners, tenants and members of the commercial real estate brokerage community.”

Advertisement

Uncommon Knowledge

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.



Source link

California

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly

Published

on

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly


Wednesday, March 4, 2026 4:43AM

CA bill to keep police from moonlighting with ICE advances

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KABC) — A bill that would prevent police officers from moonlighting with federal immigration enforcement agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is advancing through the California State Assembly.

AB 1537 passed the State Assembly’s committee on public safety on Tuesday.

The bill also requires that officers report any offers for secondary employment related to immigration enforcement to their place of work.

Those failing to comply could face decertification as a peace officer in California.

Advertisement

The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, whose district includes Mar Vista, Ladera Heights, Mid-Wilshire and parts of South Los Angeles.

Copyright © 2026 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say

Published

on

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say


play

California Democrats running for governor, your party has a message for you. Think carefully about your candidacy and campaign ahead of the swiftly approaching filing deadline.

California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged candidates looking to assume the state’s highest office to “honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign” as March 6, the final day to declare candidacy, nears. Hicks said that concerns about the crowded field of Democrat candidates “persist” in an open letter on Tuesday, March 3.

Advertisement

It comes as five leading candidates, several of which are Democrats — Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Tom Steyer — are in a “virtual tie” per a recent poll, the Desert Sun reported, which is part of the USA TODAY Network.

Two Republican candidates pushing out California democrats in the gubernatorial bid may be “implausible,” but “it is not impossible,” Hicks said of the reasoning behind his latest message. Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, lead in RealClear Polling’s average of various polls.

The party chair spotlighted the need for California Democrats’ leadership, particularly over Proposition 50, the voter-approved measure that will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, paving the way for Democrats to secure more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“If in the unlikely event a Democrat failed to proceed to the general election for governor, there could be the potential for depressed Democratic turnout in California in November,” Hicks said. “The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025.”

Advertisement

During a press conference on March 2, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that when he is out in communities, people aren’t talking about the governor’s race. It’s an observation he called “interesting,” considering voting in the primary election starts in May.

“It’s been hard, I think, to focus on that race,” Newsom said, pointing to the attention on President Donald Trump, redistricting, and other matters.

What exactly is California Democratic Party asking of candidates?

In his open letter, Hicks gave directions to candidates.

First, assess your candidacy and campaign. If you don’t have a viable path to the general election, don’t file to get your name on the ballot for the primary election in June. Also, be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate by April 15 if you decide to file but can’t show “meaningful progress towards winning the primary election.”

Advertisement

When is the next California election? Primary election in 2026

California voters will trim the field of candidates for governor on June 2. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party preference, will move on to the November election.  

Paris Barraza is a reporter covering Los Angeles and Southern California for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at pbarraza@usatodayco.com.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students


The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a California law that limited when schools could require staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, clearing the way for schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the students’ approval.

Rear view of multiracial students with hands raised in classroom at high school

The decision came after religious parents and educators, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged California school policies aimed at preventing staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said the ruling favors parents’ ability to be informed. “The Supreme Court today rules in favor of the claim of parents to be able to know the gender identity and gender pronoun of the children,” Chemerinsky said.

Advertisement
FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

The decision temporarily blocks a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. The Thomas More Society called the decision a major victory for parents, saying the court found California’s policy likely violates constitutional rights.

Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court’s action is an emergency ruling. “This law is now put on hold. So what this means is that schools can require that teachers and other staff inform parents of the gender identity or gender pronouns of children,” he said.

scotus.PNG

Kathie Moehlig, founder and executive director of Trans Family Support Services, said she is concerned about how the ruling could affect students who do not have supportive families.

“I am really concerned about our kids that do come from these non affirming homes, that they know that they’re going to get in trouble, that they’re going to possibly have violence brought against them possibly kicked out of their homes,” Moehlig said.

Moehlig said parents should eventually know, but that the conversation should happen when a student feels safe. “Our students are going to be less inclined to confide in any adults that might be able to help to get them access to mental healthcare, to a support system. They may still tell their peers but they’re certainly not going to tell any other adult,” she said.

Advertisement

Equality California, a LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, shared a statement:

Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, released the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court shadow docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta regarding California’s student privacy protections for transgender youth. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in this case is deeply disturbing. By stepping in on an emergency basis, the Court has effectively upended California’s student privacy protections without hearing full arguments and before the judicial process has run its course. While not surprising, this move reflects a dangerous willingness to short-circuit the established judicial process to dismantle protections for transgender youth. While this case continues to be litigated, the ruling revives Judge Benitez’s prior decision, which broadly targets numerous California laws protecting transgender and gender-nonconforming students — threatening critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear. To be clear: today’s decision does not impact California’s SAFETY Act, which prohibits school districts from adopting policies that forcibly out transgender students. The SAFETY Act remains in full effect, and we will continue defending it. Transgender youth deserve dignity, safety, and the freedom to learn without fear. We will never stop fighting for transgender youth and their families. Equality California will continue working with parents, educators, and advocates to ensure schools remain safe, welcoming, and focused on the success and well-being of every student.

The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which will decide whether the California law is constitutional.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending