You’ve seen how it looks post-clean up. Now here’s how it looks on any given day, pre-clean up.
Take a close look – perhaps your crew is represented here:
Oh look, those four-bedroom apartments are coming, sooner or later.
Here’s the lot of our former LUCKY PENNY (“People Hate Us On YELP!”) as it is these days:
Man, the only time I’ve seen as many cars here was that week in December when news got out that the joint was going kaput. (Otherwise, this place was like a ghost town in the daytime…)
So now this parcel of land can fulfill its highest and best purpose – as a parking lot for neighboring Trader Joe’s #100:
Hey, are people living inside the Lucky Penny, our Brokedown Palace these days? IDK. But what are the people in there doing?
Here’s how it used to be, via the Yelp:
|Mon||Open 24 hours|
|Tue||Open 24 hours||Open now|
|Wed||Open 24 hours|
|Thu||Open 24 hours|
|Fri||Open 24 hours|
|Sat||Open 24 hours|
|Sun||Open 24 hours|
But this is how things are now, closing early on Monday Tuesday Wednesday nights:
(That’s right – not 9:30 P, 9:20 P.)
How soon afore this valuable parcel, betwixt Trader Joe’s & City Target West and smackdab at the crossroads of Geary & Masonic, will become mad million dollar plus condos? IOW, How Soon Is Now?
The writing’s on the wall, so let’s visit, like for the first time in my life, ever, in all my years.
Oh look, no waiting!
I’m never going back, but I’m glad I went, you know, afore it leaves us…
Click on “Lease Now” to see this:
“*To reserve your new home, please click the “Get Approved” button above to complete our rental application and start the screening process. You will be required to submit a payment of $35.00 for the non-refundable Application Fee and the Security Deposit of $500-$1000 for the apartment is due within 72 hours by drop off or overnight mail. After three days from the date of application, the Security Deposit is non-refundable.”
Well, first off, “home.” Like, it’s not even a condo, man. How about “apartment” instead?
And second off, I ain’t never paid no nonrefundable application fee. What you do is ask how much the credit / eviction check costs them and then offer to pay that. If that’s a no-go, then perhaps you shouldn’t move in? (I realize that building employees have to deal with flaky people all the time, but I’m not the flaky people category, I don’t think.*)
What really grinds my gears is the idea of any building manager talking about any kind of “non-refundable” deposit. Such a deposit does not exist under California law.
(m) “No lease or rental agreement may contain a provision characterizing any security as “nonrefundable.”
You want to quibble? Fine, quibble, but this non-refundable status is agin the law, agin the law I tells you!
Most people in Cali can market apartments without prima facie violations of Cali law. So why can’t you, 100 Van Ness? Why can’t you?
Oh what’s that, what’s $35 to somebody who thinks moving into the Outer Twitterloin at $4000 for a one-bedroom is a good idea? All right, well, maybe it’s not a good idea to move into this building. Realize that most of the non-BMR people are probably not going to renew after their first year (just like at the abysmal “luxury” Fillmore Center apartments near Japantown, where you can pay thousands and thousands per month in rent, and for what). So, why are so many people going to move out of 100 VN after just a year? Think on that. Part of the reason might have to do with dealing with the 20-somethings in “building management.” Are they going to come in and say, uh oh, you walked on our cheap, brand-new hardwood flooring in high heels so here’s a bill for $7,000 for reflooring? Maybe. (Stuff like that happens just around the corner of 100VN all the time.) And there’s the nabe, which might wear you down over the months. OTOH, maybe this building is a dream come true for you, right next to Van Ness Station and not too far from the Civic Center BART Station. Fine, be my guest. Enjoy. But the same 20-something chicas who don’t understand why it’s not kosher to expropriate four-figure “Security Deposits” in the Great State of California just might not be aware of all the other laws what protect you.
Oh, what’s that, it’s OK to retain a “holding deposit?” Well, we aren’t at that point yet, because you all labeled it a “Security Deposit.” I’m now satisfied that you all don’t know what you’re doing. Welcome to Cali, 100VN Management. It’s going to be a bumpy ride…
END OF LINE
*Like the last time I bought a car, I didn’t even test drive it. No salesperson neither – the “big guy” had to assign a salesperson to me at the end of the sales process in order to “get the transaction to go through.” This sales process took about seven minutes. Later on, the salesperson had to “orient” me. I asked for the 30-second version of his 20-minute spiel. It was basically this: “Never press this button.” And I’ll tell you, that was good advice. I had already figured the downsides of pressing the button and if I hadn’t, then I would have figured things out fast, like during the times that I pressed that button by mistake. In any event, what he meant was, never press this button unless you know what it does and the conditions are right for it. The point is that I’m not a flake so I never pay no nonrefundable application fee and you shouldn’t either. Sometimes, like back during Dot Com 1 in the late ’90’s, landlords would harvest thousands of dollars in application fees for just one unit over one weekend. Did the LLs actually run the checks potential tenants paid for? Nope. That’s what made it a scam. A nice, four-figure, income tax-free scam. These days, they charge you $35 to run a check that costs them even less than before, like a few bucks max. Oh well.
I give up, NEMA is here to stay. All it took was one little weather station high (nine stories) above Mid Market:
How should the NEMA people celebrate this climate-related milestone? What would they say?
WEATHER, NOT PLEATHER
FORECASTS, NOT WHORECASTS
CLIMATE SAVVY, NOT SHABBY
You get the idea. (Like similarly, I could almost write one of Frank Chu’s signs after seeing so many over the years.)
Do you know that at least two people moved into the NeMA for less than $2k per month? (No, not the Below Market Rent people-some of those are paying high thtee figs, I’m srsly.) Granted, these were studios on low floors, but still, people pay more than that now for bedbug-infested cribs across the street and a bit to the northeast in the actual Tenderloin.
So Nema tenants, brace, brace, brace – your massive rent increase is coming, soon, FYI.
Leaving you with:
IMO, Parkmerced’s #sobestplacetolive rivals NEMA’s nonsensical “AMENITIES, NOT ENEMIES” slogan.
NEMA has many more catchphrases, so Parkmerced will have to do a lot of work to catch up:
Click to expand
All right, #sobesthaveagoodday.
“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 &quot;we let him cry for more than 10 minutes&quot;, 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:
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.