Archive for the ‘Real Estate’ Category

Antioch Council again adopts tenant anti-retaliation, harassment ordinance, spends $1.2 million for charging stations

Wednesday, August 23rd, 2023
Electric vehicle charging station examples. Source: City of Antioch

Approves contract for homeless encampment cleanup

“Gentrification only happens when filthy rich people push out people who rent,” Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker

By Allen D. Payton

During their Tuesday, August 22, 2023 meeting, for the third time, the Antioch City Council, on a 3-1-1 vote, approved the residential tenant anti-retaliation and harassment ordinance and unanimously voted to approve spending $1.2 million more for electric vehicle charging stations throughout the city for use by both the City vehicle fleet and the public. The council also voted to give a one-year extension to the multi-family housing project on Wild Horse Road and approved the contract for Homeless Encampment Cleanup.

Council Again Adopts Residential Tenant Anti-Retaliation, Harassment Ordinance

After approving it twice previously, the council again approved the anti-retaliation, harassment ordinance on a 3-1 vote with District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock voting no and District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica abstaining because he owns a property management company. The council had previously adopted the measure, but with District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson absent for the second reading, it passed on a 2-1 vote with changes. That required the item be brought back a second time for a first reading. (See related articles here and here)

“This legislation…is not the exact one we voted on weeks ago,” Thorpe stated. “No one is going to jail under this legislation. There is no provision for jail time. It doesn’t exist. There is no presumption of guilt in this legislation. Absolutely not. We have fixed that, and I think most parties are happy with that.”

“This is about the landlord’s intent if it’s in bad faith and it is, by the way, on the tenant to prove,” he added.

During another session of public comments – limited to just one minute each – on both sides of the matter, Mayor Lamar Thorpe warned members of the audience that the council meeting would end at 11 p.m. and if the council did not vote by then the item would be continued until the second meeting in September due to notification requirements for public hearings.

“Gentrification only happens when filthy rich people push out people who rent,” Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker said during council discussion.

“As I’ve said before, I agree with the ordinance but there needs to be some changes,” Ogorchock said referring to a section on single-family residences. “There was something that was talked about seniors. The seniors are safe. We added that in here. Health facilities…are in, here. They’re safe.”

She asked for a few changes.

“We can remove that language and add ‘as determined by the court’ because the court can imprison you,” Thorpe said with a laugh. He asked about language in the ordinance regarding landlords towing tenant vehicles being considered harassment.

“If you remove it in bad faith, I get that,” he said. “You are the second lawyer. The first lawyer told us something different. A landlord has a right to say, ‘this car is in violation…and I have to get it towed’. It can’t be harassment.”

“All this section is saying if you remove the vehicle…if you’re not supposed to tow the car but you do it anyway, you’re in violation of the law,” City Attorney Thomas L. Smith responded. “So, why don’t we add something to that to give you some clarification.”

“If you have a parking stall, your lease requires your vehicle to be registered…to be on the property,” Torres-Walker said. “If it’s not registered then they will tow your car. When you have a single-family home…you’re also renting the driveway. So, if my car is in the driveway how can you tow it?”

“Antioch steals cars every day,” she continued. “My car almost got towed. Is that harassment?”

“What this is saying is describing something that constitutes harassment,” Smith interjected and offered additional language. “If applicable law allows for towing the vehicle, then it’s not harassment.”

“That’s all we’re looking for,” Thorpe responded. “So, we will add that.”

“I had 10 other changes,” he continued to laughter by Torres-Walker. “I’m lying. I had a few other changes.”

“This doesn’t give ACCE or any organization to just walk onto a property,” Thorpe said about another section.

“This is more complicated,” Smith responded. “What we’re saying is the landlord shall allow the to enter and organize.”

“I just want to be clear that ACCE, if they have not been invited by a resident, they have a right to go onto an apartment complex and start organizing residents,” Thorpe shared. “This will be the last thing for me.”

“This is an important one,” Smith stated. “Here it says, ‘you won’t prohibit a tenant from organizing activities…or other political activities.’ It is a question of access. This is saying, you have to allow access, but you can provide the time and location. A right to access is a property right. But there is a question there of what is the government intent? Are we granting an accesss right?  We should clarify tenants can invite you but we aren’t requiring they allow.

“Do we have to take a vote to extend the meeting,” Torres-Walker then asked.

“Yes,” Smith responded.

The council then passed a motion to extend the meeting by seven minutes on a 4-0 vote.

“Why don’t we say when hosted by a tenant?” Smith asked.

“Perfect language,” Thorpe responded who then made the motion to adopt the ordinance with the revised language.

But more wordsmithing continued to clarify the changes requested by Ogorchock and Thorpe.

Thorpe then said about the section on protecting senior residential homecare facilities, “I supported that change because I thought my colleague would support the ordinance. So, we’re striking that language.”

“That is my motion,” he stated.

The council then voted 3-1 to cheers from the audience, with Ogorchock voting against and Barbanica recusing himself. Audience members left the council chambers chanting, “this is what democracy looks like.”

Council Approves $1.2M More for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

The council voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Operating Budget to increase the funding from the General Fund for the Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Project by $1,226,760 for a total amount of $1,361,814.

According to the staff presentation during the meeting, the state now requires 50% of all new cars purchased by local governments to be fully electric. If local governments are going to purchase two new vehicles, one of them has to be battery electric or fuel cell electric by state mandate, Thomas Paddon explained. “The City must act beginning next year.”

The charging stations will be available to both City vehicles and the public.

“It’s a good idea. But if 20 people have those kind of cars, then it’s not wise. I can’t afford it,” said resident Julia Emegokwae. “Elon Musk and the electric car companies should pay, not the City, not the taxpayers.”

“We’re just catering to two companies, Ford and Chevy. I just went and looked at Kias. Kia has EV cars,” another speaker said. “Other companies have EV cars and crossovers. So, I don’t know why they just want to stay on Chevy and Ford. When it’s time to buy that battery…it’s expensive every five years.”

Council Discussion & Vote

District 3 Councilman Mike Barbanica said, “you mentioned buy one regular car and buy one electric.”

“It’s a 50% procurement requirement. This is coming from CARB (California Air Resources Board,” Paddon said during the presentation. “It’s going to be an ongoing thing. All of your purchases cumulatively over the next 15 years have to be electric. Then it’s 100% after 2027. This is specifically for municipal fleets. This only applies to vehicles to heavy vehicles.”

This doesn’t apply to police Interceptors.

“If we’re only looking at F-250’s and above how many vehicles are we looking at?” Barbanica asked.

“66,” Paddon responded. “The electric vehicles will be more affordable, anyway. There are vehicles like Kia that we recommend in the light duty space.”

“The funds will come from CDC grant. It will be 25 percent cost share the city will have to come up,” he stated in response to a question by Barbanica.

“This $1.3 million is 25% of taxpayer money,” Barbanica stated.

“This is like a down payment on the infrastructure to power the entire fleet,” Paddon responded.

“The money is recommended coming out of the General Fund,” Acting Public Works Director Scott Buenting added.

“We always want to make sure we budget the money in a responsible way. So, we have to front the money. Whether we have the money or not we have to move in this direction,” Mayor Lamar Thorpe stated.

The motion to approve the additional funds for the program passed 5-0.

Gives Extension to Multi-Family Project, Approves Homeless Encampment Cleanup Contract

After passing a motion to adjourn, the council voted to reopen the meeting 4-1 with Barbanica voting against. They then passed a motion adopting the Consent Calendar except Items H and O.

On a separate vote on Item H, regarding a one-year extension of the vesting tentative map for the multi-family housing project on Wild Horse Road, Thorpe recused himself, again because his home is too close to the project.

“The motion to go union, since it’s a private project, the city doesn’t have any power to force a private landowner to go union,” Attorney Smith explained in response to a question by Barbanica.

“This was supposed to be commercial on the front of this site,” Ogorchock explained.

“All they’re asking for, here, city attorney, is an extension?” Barbanica asked.

The motion then passed 4-0-1.

The council then approved Item O awarding a Maintenance Services Agreement for On-Call Homeless Encampment Cleanup Services throughout the City to Sharjo LLC dba ServiceMaster Restoration Management for a three (3) year term from July 25, 2023, to June 30, 2026, in the amount of $1,365,000 with an option to extend two (2) additional years from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2028, in an amount of $951,360 for a total contract amount not to exceed $2,316,360 over the five (5) year period.

The council had previously approved the budget item during their July 25th meeting on a split vote of 4-0-1 with Torres-Walker voting to abstain.

“I do agree we need to support our city workers,” she stated. “We should have worked with Safe Streets that could help homeless folks. We could have spent this million and some change in a better way…a way that is a lot more sustainable that could have got people off the streets.”

The motion to approve passed 4-1 with the mayor pro tem voting against.

The council then voted again to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m.

Because the discussion and vote on the anti-retaliation and harassment ordinance item ran past 11 p.m., the council continued the remaining item regarding discussion of potentially hiring retired police officers to help the department until their next meeting.

Property Tax Reduction Scam Alert: important warning from Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer

Friday, July 28th, 2023

Don’t pay a fee to have your property taxes reduced

(Martinez, CA) – Many property owners throughout Contra Costa County are receiving an official looking document in the mail regarding a fee-based service to have their property’s taxable value reduced. Although these mailers have the appearance of an official government document, the correspondence is not from the Contra Costa County Assessor or any other Contra Costa County Office. 

The California Attorney General’s Office has posted warnings to California property owners on their website about the practices of these companies. For more information, please visit the Attorney General’s Consumer Alert at

Current scam mailers are requiring both a $40 county filing fee with the Clerk of the Assessment Appeals Board for a formal appeal, and a contingent fee of 30% of any tax savings as a result of filing the application. 

It is important for property owners to know that the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office does not charge a fee to complete an informal value review for our taxpayers.

Property owners who believe the current market value of their property is less than the assessed value, can file a FREE “Request for Value Review (Prop 8)” form with the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office. Please visit our webpage at and select “Review Your Value” to find a downloadable application.

Antioch Council adopts tenant anti-retaliation, harassment ordinance on split vote

Tuesday, July 25th, 2023

Including two amendments by Thorpe, one by Ogorchock but she vote no

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting Tuesday, July 25, 2023, the Antioch City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting retaliation and harassment against residential tenants on a 3-1 vote. District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica who is a real estate broker and owns a property management company said, “upon advice of the city attorney I’m going to recuse myself from this item.” District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock was the lone vote against the ordinance.

The ordinance is in response to requests by multiple residents at previous council meetings beginning last year.

Mayor Lamar Thorpe temporarily handed the gavel to Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker to run the meeting. While he limited public comments to 90 seconds on other items, he said he couldn’t do that for this item as it was a public hearing which allows for five minutes per public speaker.

According to the City staff report regarding the associated costs, “adoption of the ordinance will have direct and indirect fiscal impacts if the City engages in enforcement of the ordinance, either through the code enforcement process or through litigation. The proposed Ordinance may be enforced by an aggrieved tenant, an organization or other entity that represents the interests of aggrieved tenants, or the City.

At a minimum, an assistant city attorney or deputy city attorney position plus administrative support would be necessary for the City Attorney’s Office to provide support services to the public for this ordinance.”

According to an attorney who spoke as the proponent, the ordinance includes three things.

“It needs a reasonable standard for the violation. This ordinance includes things that are unique to Antioch including towing cars. Finally, it has a third element, remedies that can be used when the landlord violates the ordinance. They include attorney’s fees so tenants don’t have to pay out of pocket.”

“Here, there are aspects to the landlord. Any violation has to be done in bad faith,” he continued. “Bad faith conduct is the base line.”

“If it’s frivolous the landlord can collect attorney’s fees from the tenant,” the attorney added.

“You’re going to hear it’s unnecessary, it’s duplicative and doesn’t do anything,” he stated.

“There’s a talking point that tenants just need to be educated and I find that offensive,” the attorney continued. “The tenants know their rights. These tenants know the law and they know their living conditions. Thank you for putting on a great ordinance, tonight.”

The opponent was a representative of the California Apartment Association, that represents property owners in Antioch and Contra Costa County.

“It does fail to recognize some existing anti-harassment that are codified in state law,” she said. “We are redefining harassment and creating landmines.”

Speaking of one portion of the ordinance she stated, “there is a presumption of guilt. This provision blurs the burden of proof. It’s contradictory.”

One section she claimed was a backdoor to rent control as it allows for the claim any rent increase could be considered harassment.

“We ask you to reject this…and move forward with an inclusionary process,” she concluded.

Public Comments

During public comments several landlords spoke against the proposed ordinance in its current form and asked for changes before the council adopted it.

The first speaker was Joe Stokely, Sr., a rental property owner in Antioch. “I stand here before you confused and irritated. What is being proposed will produce a complete opposite affect than what the council is trying to accomplish. Why would anyone want to invest and want to continue owning rental property in the city facing a hostile environment.“You presume…all landlords are bad.”

“Please don’t make me have to go through the process at my age of selling my properties and invest elsewhere,” he concluded.

Another speaker, Ranae Callaway, branch manager of a mortgage company and representing the Delta Association of Realtors. She pointed out the “severe fines against landlords” included in the ordinance. “The ordinance does not provide a clear definition of bad faith or who will define it.”

Another speaker named James, said “My family has lived here for 100 years. For over 60 years we have provided below-market rate rentals in District 1. During those 60 years we’ve had four evictions.”

He asked for a progressive ordinance that respects both landlords and tenants. Let’s take the opportunity to collaborate…to develop an ordinance that works for everyone.”

Aeysha Corio, a Realtor, landlord and a City of Concord Planning Commissioner, spoke next saying, “I went over this ordinance. I do believe there needs to be protections for tenants. But it is incredibly unbalanced.”

“You got to find another way to deal with people who are violating people’s rights,” she continued and said, “I feel like this polarization of tenant vs. landlord needs to go. We should be working together.”

Antioch landlord and Realtor, Scott MacIntyre spoke next saying, “We already have laws in California. I myself am a very ethical housing provider. I follow the law and expect the city to follow the law, too. There are 14,000 homes in Antioch that are rentals. Don’t lump us in with a few very bad landlords.”

“It’s very ambiguous…very broad interpretation. I agree with it. Just want to see it tightened up,” he added.

Millie Phillips, a faith organizer that does tenants’ rights work in Contra Costa County, thanked the council “for an ordinance we can support.”

“They’re not saying every landlord is the same. They’ve talked about very specific landlords,” she stated. “All over the state there are laws that protect tenants that are working and are not affecting people who are not harassing. So, I don’t see the issue. Don’t do that kind of behavior and this ordinance will never apply to you. This is directed at the bad actors.”

Joe Stokley, Jr., of Stokley Properties with over 100 rentals in Antioch said if the council passes the ordinance, he would sell his properties and invest elsewhere.

Almost all of the remaining speakers were tenants in favor of the ordinance, including several members of Rising Juntos (formerly known as East County Regional Group) and Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action.

“You should take this up with corporate landlords who are making you look bad,” said another speaker to the landlords in attendance.

Speakers also asked for the council to adopt a Just Cause Eviction ordinance in September.

Council Discussion and Decision

During council discussion of the item Ogorchock spoke first saying, “My heart goes out to some of you who have to live in these conditions. But with this ordinance I do have some questions.”

She spoke of the difference between corporate ownership of rental property versus single-family homes.

“Bad faith needs to be defined because it’s in here, a lot,” she stated.

Ogorchock also spoke of part of the ordinance applying to single family homes and people who rent out rooms.

“Under presumption of guilt there’s no due process,” she continued.

“I don’t see in here anything about senior home care facilities,” Ogorchock stated.

“There is a lot of good, in here. But these are some of the things I’m pointing out,” she said.

“I also wrote in here, Measure O. Did we list any of these people paying under Measure O, did we advise them of these meetings?” Ogorchock asked.

She said the burden of proof shouldn’t all be on the owners and the fines in the ordinance were excessive.

“The complaints are mainly about the corporate owners,” Ogorchock explained. “Maybe we should be looking at changing some of the language in here, so it applies to corporate owners.”

She asked “for an ordinance that we can all live with.”

Torres-Walker said, “this is a hard decision to deal with. We have been dealing with this for three years. Mayor Thorpe attempted to have a meeting with landlords, non-profits. For some reason we couldn’t come to agreement at that point.”

“Not all landlords are slumlords,” she continued. “I’m one mortgage payment away from losing my house.”

“I feel like landlords abandoning their business in Antioch over public policy is trying to censor renters,” Torres-Walker continued. “I would hope those that do would work with first-time homebuyers.”

She then made a motion to approve the ordinance waiving the second reading with District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson seconding the motion.

Before the vote Thorpe asked questions about the sections of the ordinance

“I’m going to rent my guest room to a friend for six months. Does this mean I have to rent the room to someone else?” he asked.

“It’s providing a right to a renter to sublet to another,” City Attorney Thomas L. Smith said.

“What this is saying if I rent my home to a family, they can go sublet, even if I say they can’t do that?” Thorpe asked.

“A right to one-to-one replacement of a tenant. If you are a renter in a place and you have a roommate in a place, you would have the right to replace that roommate…with another person,” Smith responded.

“My concern is if I’m renting my house and I’m renting it to a family, and I say I just want this family…they have that right to rent out a guest room without my permission?” the mayor asked.

“It’s not that simple. You have a contract,” Smith explained. “It’s your contract that governs. But I will say with this provision your concern is who has that right. It is a fair concern to have.”

“I don’t think that’s right and the first thing I’m going to say is this is going to be a friendly amendment to change that provision,” Thorpe stated.

“Some of the landlords are concerned about subletting would automatically find the landlord out of compliance,” he then said.

“The housing services part was a concern if the definition allowed for unlimited subletting. If your amendment goes through it would be a moot point,” the representative for the California Apartments Association responded.

“The issue that was trying to be prevented, here is the landlord rents out to four people and two move out and the landlord requires the remaining tenants to pay the entire rent,” said the other attorney. “Generally, it’s one lease per rental unit. In a house you’ll have several tenants on one lease. This is not making landlord rent their guest rooms. This means one leaving one coming in.”

“The one-to-one thing, I’m still going to stick with my amendment,” Thorpe said.

“Oh, refuse to accept or acknowledge tenant’s payment. There were some valid points made here, today. We’re not supposed to accept rent during the eviction process,” he stated.

“You could add some language clarifying when landlords are going through the eviction process,” Smith responded.

“That will be my second amendment,” the mayor shared.

Ogorchock then asked Thorpe to add senior home care into the exemptions, to which he agreed.

“They would qualify under…hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, so it would make sense,” he stated.

Torres-Walker asked, “why” and “they’re renters?”

“Yes,” Ogorchock responded and explained how homes have five or six tenants, plus caregivers and live-in nurses.

Smith suggested a substitute motion with the mayor’s amendments which Torres-Walker did, seconded by Wilson and it passed 3-1 with Ogorchock voting no.

Torres-Walker then thanked Barbanica for recusing himself from the process, “which was absolutely the right thing to do.”

The audience erupted in cheers as they left the Council Chambers.

Buy or sell your home with one of the professionals at Drewry Real Estate

Wednesday, July 19th, 2023
Paid advertisement

On split votes Antioch Council re-approves revised tobacco ordinance, rental registry with future tax on landlords

Wednesday, June 14th, 2023
The Antioch City Council meeting lasted until almost midnight Tuesday, June 13, 2023. Video screenshot.

By Allen D. Payton

During their Tuesday, June 13, 2023, meeting, the Antioch City Council re-approved the revised tobacco product sales ordinance on a 3-2 vote and a rental registry with a future tax on landlords to pay for it on a 4-1 vote. With 12 items on the agenda and 19 items on the Consent Calendar, the meeting lasted until almost midnight violating the direction the council majority said they wanted to go at last Tuesday’s special meeting during discussion of the agenda items.

Re-Approve Revised Tobacco Products Sales Ordinance

On an expected 3-2 vote, with Mayor Lamar Thorpe and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson voting against, the council majority re-approved the revision to the tobacco products sales ordinance which contains the following:

1. The terminology and definitions of flavored tobacco were amended to better align with State terms and definitions.

2. The prohibition on package size and price was eliminated. The prior language restricted the sale of small cigars (cigarillos) to minimum packs of 20, large cigars to minimum packs of 10, and required a minimum sales price for cigarettes of $10.

During the second reading of the ordinance, Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker and Thorpe were absent. Instead of postponing the item, the remaining three council members voted 2-1 with Wilson voting no, as she had done during the vote on the first reading, requiring the item be brought back for a first vote, again. Although it was approved, the item must be brought back for a vote on the second reading at the next council meeting.

Approves Rental Registry with Future Tax on Landlords

The council also approved on another split vote the creation of a Rental Registry with a future Rent Program fee, or tax on landlords to pay for it.

According to the city staff report, the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) currently requires the establishment of a registry of regulated units. This ordinance will have a marginal fiscal impact in expanding application of the registry program, which would be funded through a Rent Program fee if adopted at a future date.

Staff determined that it would be prudent to require registration of all residential rental units in the City rather than only apartment complexes. If the City Council adopts additional tenant protections, such as just cause eviction, those protections would likely apply to a wider scope of rental units. Registration of such additional units would aid in the administration of the additional protection policies. A Citywide program would also allow the registration component to be a requirement for a complete application rather than an opt-in system.

The Proposed Ordinance would authorize a consolidated Citywide registration program to clarify and establish the authority of the Finance Department to administer the Rental Unit Registry and collect tenant program fees. It would also authorize the Rent Program and Finance Department to utilize an alternative means of registering rental units on properties containing five or more units.”

One of the speakers said she wants the system to also track evictions.

District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock moved approval and Torres-Walker seconded the motion.

Barbanica asked, “what information on this registry do you plan to include and

“The business license fee registers the owner at the property,” said Assistant City Attorney Rachel Hundley. “You get to know the units but you don’t get to know the details….more specific information such as the deeds…inspection violations.”

“So, you’re looking to really pry into those property owners’ personal business?” he asked.

“No,” she responded.

The motion then passed 4-1 with Barbanica, who is a real estate broker and property manager, voting against.

County Assessor Kramer working to increase property tax exemption from $7K to $100K

Thursday, April 21st, 2022

Working on proposition for November ballot; would save $1,000 per year on average

Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer.

The only law protecting seniors and other property owner dollars against inflation and real estate is Proposition 13. The most your real estate taxes can be raised is 2% a year under Prop 13.

Presently Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer and several other assessors throughout the California are working to increase the homeowner’s exemption from $7,000 a year to $100,000 a year minimum. This would give every homeowner almost a $1,000 a year reduction in their property taxes.

Prior to Prop 13 passing in 1978 the homeowner’s exemption was 25% of the assessed value. That also is an alternative to the $100,000 homeowner’s exemption being proposed. Please stay tuned for a proposition that addresses this on our upcoming November 2022 ballot.

“We’re working with the Jarvis Gann group,” Kramer said. “If there was ever a time to help homeowners this is the time with inflation, increased values, and increases in interest rates.”

“The state should have indexed the exemption in 1978 but they were greedy and did not,” he added.

As this proposition develops, he will keep the public informed, Kramer shared.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office issues important warning to taxpayers

Thursday, February 10th, 2022

Preserve equity, build for the future using a 1031 Tax Exchange

Sunday, March 14th, 2021

By Patrick McCarran, Real Estate Broker

Leaving California or is it time to reinvest in a different property or state? Due to the recent upswing in homes values we have realized a significant growth in equity.  Many owners think that they may be stuck in their current investment property. Whether you bought it as an investment, or it was an owner occupied that went past your three-year deferment period you have options. Maybe you would prefer an investment in a different city, region or even another state. Possibly you would like to combine many properties into few or few into many. The answer is a 1031 Tax Exchanges otherwise known as a Starker Exchange. This process allows real estate owners to defer taxes on capital gains resulting from the sale of investment real estate, often a sizable sum since combined Federal and State taxes can run as high as 38 percent.

In general terms to roll their profit into another property and defer the tax and preserve equity and cash flow.

To accomplish this, sellers need to engage a Qualified 1031 Intermediary to document the sale as an exchange and to receive the funds from the sale. I cannot stress the importance of a THIRD party for the exchange. This does NOT mean a title or escrow company. By definition you cannot have any direct control over the funds, which is not just in your pocket but anywhere within your reach.

Central to a 1031 Exchange is the interpretation of like-kind property. While the common assumption is that like-kind implies land for land or a condominium for a condominium swap, the definition of like kind has become far less literal.  Today it defines like kind as meaning that both the replacement and the original property must be used as an investment. So, land, condominiums, single-family homes and motels can all be exchanged for one another as long as they are used in the exchanger’s business or held as an investment.

1031 Exchanges do have specific IRS requirements and a set timeframe for performing. This is why it is very important that you contact an experience agent such as myself and engage the Intermediary BEFORE  you close and ideally before you place the property for sale.

There Are other options for example you can opt for a Reverse Exchange where you buy the replacement property first then sell the current property.  An Improvement Exchange, allows you to build investment properties from the ground up or improve existing properties.

If you want more information on 1031 Exchange or have any questions feel free to contact myself or a real estate professional you know. Make sure that he or she is familiar not only with the process but also with the specific documentation and time frame mandated by the IRS.

This article is intended to inform readers, but does not constitute any financial or legal advice.

Patrick McCarran is a local Realtor and Broker DRE# 01325072. He can be contacted by phone or text at (925) 899-5536, or An independently owned and operated office.  In association with Realty One Group Elite DRE# 0193160. Equal Housing Opportunity.