Posts Tagged ‘000’

The US Attorney’s Office Throws Down: Reaches $80k Settlement with Fremont Apt. Complex for Discrimination Against Families

Tuesday, July 29th, 2014

First, take a look at this review on YP.Com:

“This place is awful!!! DO NOT MOVE HERE IF YOU HAVE KIDS!!! They act like they are family friendly but they most certainly are not. We were constantly harrassed for our 2 yr old’s night mares. We were threatened with calls to CPS because "we let him cry for more than 10 minutes", we called the police department to find out what our rights were and go figure we were doing nothing wrong. I would wake up to nasty messages from the manager about my bad parenting. Right before we moved they posted notice on all the tenants’ doors saying that kids were no longer allowed in the courtyard regardless of supervision. It said more specifically that parents were lazy and needed to make time for their kids and take them to park to play…

That was the wind-up, now here’s the pitch:

Justice Department Obtains $80,000 Settlement In Housing Discrimination Lawsuit Against California Landlord

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 25, 2014 - WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today announced an agreement with the owners and operators of Woodland Garden Apartments in Fremont, California, to settle allegations of discrimination against families with children. Under the consent order, which must still be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the defendants are required to pay $77,500 to the victims of their discrimination and an additional $2,500 to the government as a civil penalty. The settlement resolves a complaint filed by the department on Oct. 25, 2013.

The lawsuit alleged that the apartment complex maintained rules that discriminated against families with children in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the lawsuit challenged a rule that prohibited children from playing outside in the common grassy areas of the complex and provided that families would be evicted if they violated this rule. The lawsuit also alleged that the actions of the defendants constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination.

(more…)

Spank the Landlord! – Infamous Owner of 312 Fillmore Gets a Notice of Violation from San Francisco – Tenants Strike Back

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

Well some tenant at 312 Fillmore got a letter from the landlord and sent it off to Hoodline.com and the rest is history.

Here’s the update. Some of the tenants contacted DBI. See?

And then DBI sent an Inspector out two days ago.

And then the Inspector looked around and filed a Notice of Violation yesterday.

On 5/21/14 Inspector Steve Mungovan investigated the complaint at unit #25 of the subject property and observed violations of the San Francisco Housing Code which are delineated within the Notice of Violation issued on 5/22/2014 identified by Complaint Tracking #201474055. Pertinent observations are as follows: Peeling paint and damaged wall surfaces.”

This is only going to get worse for this particular landlord.

Oh, and guess what? If the LL tries to evict anybody soon, that action just might be presumed to be a retaliatory eviction.

Ouch.

On It Goes…

Description: The kitchen sink hot water pipe was changed out previously from galvanized to bronze; they didnt change out the cold water, which is still leaking. Because the building and piping is old, there are blockages. He has had water leak out and found standing water in the apartment. **He has had a water leak from rain that is coming through the window and there is damage to the wall below. There was also a large crack about 2-3 inches deep and a crack on the outside, where the water is coming in. The apartment has not been painted since he moved in, in 1989. Cracks in walls.
Instructions: 311 SR# 3649450 , ** 3649409 rec’d by HIS on 5/16/2014

The Reason Why It’s Not “Illegal” for the Landlord at 312 Fillmore to Require $100K Income and a 725 FICO Score

Tuesday, May 6th, 2014

Here’s the post from Hoodline. It shows part of a letter given to all the tenants at, let’s say, 312 Fillmore on Haight.

Can’t say that I know the purpose, but it could be to give a heads up to tenants who might wish to replace a roommate under the rules laid out by the San Francisco Rent Board. There’s some stuff in there about landlords “unreasonably” withholding consent from existing tenants who want to get a new roomie. Of course there are all kinds of factors that determine who and how many people can live in a unit in rent controlled SF, so it’s not impossible that you’d have two people in a one bedroom and then one moves out and another wants to move in. And at that point, that’s where incomes and credit scores can become factors. And if the LL says no to a potential new roomie, that’s when things can go to the SFRB.

Now if you want to say that this letter means “Make $100k Or Get Out,” well that’s your right, but I think you’re jumping to conclusions. If you want to say that this is a kind of harassment, well, you’re going to need a lot more than this to be able to do anything with it. And if you’re irritated by this landlord coming into your studio all the time without giving proper notice first, well, the lawgivers in Sacramento didn’t exactly specify a penalty for not giving proper notice, so there’s not much you can do there either.

(But, by all means, go ask Robert (or whatever his name is) what his intent was. And if he says, “Well, I’m evicting everybody in the building who makes less than $100k,” well, then the conclusion you all jumped to was OK fine.)

The proper response here is to ignore the letter and store it away along with all the others.

“Mixed use property – 25 residential, 5 commercial  30 unit, 5-story building

 18 studios, 6-one bedrooms & spacious 3 bedroom, 1-1/2 bath penthouse with formal living/dining rooms, extra large kitchen, utility area, fireplace and panoramic views.
Building size: 17,750 sq. ft.
Lot size: 5,980 sq. ft.
Year built: 1925
Zoning: NC2
Parcel #: 0849-020
Current rents are $1800 to $3500 Studio to 1 bedrooms”

Life goes on, in high-rent Frsico, a block from the projects, on Webster…

All right, play us out, Victor Vasquez:

Kool A.D., living contradictory since ’83
Arkansas street, like a block from the projects
HP some more blocks from some other projects
To Alameda, so we not by the projects
Now look at me, getting nods for my projects

I Disagree with This “YOU JUST BLEW $10,000″ Ad Campaign for Drunk Drivers – A “.08″ Blow Won’t Cost You 10K in Frisco

Friday, February 21st, 2014

I don’t think.

Click to expand

JMO

Here’s what happens IRL – there are many examples here, for better or worse.

What Comes at the End of 11th Street? The Beginning of 13th Street, Of Course! – This Photo Will Amaze You

Monday, February 10th, 2014

Or not. Actually, I’m pretty sure that this shot won’t amaze you. Sorry.

But since you’re here now anyway, take a gander, you silly goose:

Click to expand

Speaking of “BIKE LANE,” this is the intersection where an SFMTA MUNI bus ran over a cyclist about four months ago.

All the deets.

Ouch: Membership Dues Have [Fallen] at the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

Thursday, December 5th, 2013

[UPDATE:  Per the SFBC, “…you should have read Part VIII, lines 1b and 2a, of the 990s for both the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Education Fund.”

So, here’s 2010:

1b makes sense but 2a is not membership dues so adding them together doesn’t help.

And 2011:

Again, 1b makes sense but 2a is not membership dues so adding them together doesn’t help.

And here’s 2012:

(And the Bicycle Coalition Education Fund 990′s don’t really factor in all that much, like $10 or $20 grand each.)

So IDK, would you, Gentle Reader, suppose that different strategies were applied for 2010 and 2011 vs. 2012? I would. Because the “non-contribution portions of membership dues” went from $0 in 2010 and 2011 all the way up to $135,933 in 2012. Is there any explanation for this? Did the accountant(?) for 2011 and earlier fill out the 990 forms incorrectly? IDK. Is this kind of a thing a big deal, worth amending a bunch of other recent returns? IDK.

(Did IRS laws on this topic change the past several years? I don’t think so, as this guide from 2008 remains unchanged.)

Now when I say “membership dues,” what’s actually written in there for 2012 is “memberships.” Now memberships is a different thing, IMO. Memberships is what the SFBC spent a lot of time crowing about when memberships were actually increasing. But these days memberships are decreasing. Why is that? I ask.

So, what the SFBC is now calling it a 3% “membership income change” I’d call it a 3% membership dues decrease. And this comes at a time when the population of San Francisco is increasing and at a time when SFGov and the SFBC officially “expect” a sixfold increase in the number of trips made by bicycle in San Francisco by 2020, all the way up to 20%. (“20 by ’20″ or something.) I don’t think anybody believes in this fantasy, you know, actually, but, well, there you go.

So, membership dues at the SFBC have decreased more like 3% year over year, rather than 40-something percent.

But if I were running the SFBC and I were as sensitive about giving out my 990′s as this…

“The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s annual reports discuss our biggest successes and challenges, and present a broad picture of our income and expenses. If you have specific questions about our finances, please contact Leah Shahum, Executive Director, 415/431-BIKE x306.”

…I’d amend my returns so that they would be self consistent, at the very least. END UPDATE]

And by the past year, I mean let’s use the most recent Form 990, the one* that was filed about four months ago, and compare it with the one what was filed for the year before.

Check it. Here’s the 990 for 2011 - $344,663 in reported membership dues:

Click to expand

And here’s the 990 for 2012 – just $185,921:

Now, what could explain this sudden and dramatic drop in “support?”

Well, we had the Chris Bucchere accident in the first quarter of 2012 and some members didn’t exactly approve of the way that SFBC officers dealt with the issue. Perhaps revenue went down in the following quarters?

And we had the shocking SFBC endorsement of Republican-backed Mayor Ed Lee near the end of 2011 – I doubt that paying members would have approved of that had they been given the opportunity.

You know, this guy, the one who always looks up to the formerly-despised Willie Brown:

Of course, people can always do a Barter Membership, but you’d think that dues-paying members would volunteer anyway, right?

Take a look at the numbers on the tax returns, it seems as if the SFBC is just another arm of the SFMTA or, indeed, of SFGov. (Except it’s an agency that can officially endorse Ed Lee for Mayor.)

Oh well.

Anyway, this is why the SFBC no longer boasts of increasing membership anymore.

[UPDATE: Did the 10% discount for SFBC members at Rainbow Grocery really make that much of a difference? IDK. See Comments.]

*There’s also something called the Education Fund, which also gets membership dues – $10k for 2011 and $20k for 2012. But if you throw those numbers in you’re still looking at a 40-something percent decline year over year.

OMG, the Cadillac Version of the Chevy Volt, the 2014 XLR is Pricey! $76k for a Plug-In Hybrid?

Monday, October 14th, 2013

Here it is, the amazingly-expensive 2014 Cadillac XLR, for just(!) $75999:

(Note absurdly-large 20-inch wheels, you know, for “luxury.”)

Sometimes I just don’t know…

OMG, Your Reality Show Dreams Might Finally Be Realized: “MAJOR NETWORK CASTING NEW SERIES – $100K PRIZE!”

Tuesday, October 1st, 2013

It’s new, it’s you.

Its now, it’s wow

See?

This was put out last night by Eyeworks – that’s all i know

Oh, I should add, “fierce competitors” only!

Recruitment Ad: SFPD Officer Starting Salary in 2012 is $88,842-$118,898 Per Year – Yowzer

Friday, September 28th, 2012

Here’s your proof:

Click to expand

And that’s before benefits and the double-dipping…

Is this the highest starting salary for a 21 year-old cop anywhere in the world?

Possibly.

San Francisco City Hall: The Largest Classical Dome in the Western Hemisphere, Lit in Blue, Yesterday Night

Friday, September 21st, 2012

This is the scene at the end of Dreamforce 2012, one of San Francisco’s largest events in recent memory.

89,999 registrants had moved on at this point last night – here’s the last one:  

Click to expand

Yes, the fifth biggest classical dome in the world and first biggest in the New World.

Yes, bigger than the U.S. Capitol. On purpose.