Posts Tagged ‘court’

Sympathy for the Landlord Who Inherited the Apartment You Rent: Writer CW Nevius Cries a River over Rent Control

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

HERE ARE JUST TEN OR SO THINGS WRONG WITH THE LATEST EFFORT FROM CW NEVIUS:

“Real estate attorney Elizabeth Erhardt has an incredibly unpopular outlook. She’s sympathetic to San Francisco landlords. And before being drowned out by a chorus of boos and hisses…”

THIS MIGHT COME AS A SURPRISE TO THE NEVIUS, BUT THIS “OUTLOOK” IS NOT “INCREDIBLY UNPOPULAR.” HOW ABOUT SOMEWHAT UNPOPULAR, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD?  STRIKE ONE

“They inherited a…. It’s her sole source of income.”

SO NEVIUS, YOU COULDN’T FIND ANY RICH SAN FRANCISCO LANDOWNER WHO DIDN’T INHERIT PROPERTY? EVERYBODY YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE GOT THEIR LAND FOR FREE WITH A STEPPED-UP BASIS, AND AT LEAST ONE IS LANDED GENTRY WITHOUT A J-O-B? WHAT IS THIS, ANOTHER EPISODE OF DOWNTON ABBEY? IT’S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP (LAND)LORD? DON’T YOU SEE THIS AS A PROBLEM FOR YOUR HARD-LUCK LANDLORD STORIES HERE? STRIKE TWO

“Oh come on, you say. Subletting without the landlord’s permission is illegal. Just toss them out.”

FIRST OF ALL NEVIUS, SUBLETTING WITHOUT THE LANDLORD’S PERMISSION ISN’T “ILLEGAL.” STRIKE THREE. AND SECOND OF ALL, WITHOUT REALIZING IT, YOU’RE CALLING INTO QUESTION THE MANAGEMENT SKILLZ OF THE OWNERS. OF COURSE MOST OF THESE ISSUES ARE WORKED OUT AT THE SF RENT BOARD, BUT YOU DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, OK FINE. BUT, FOR THAT, STRIKE FOUR.

“Erhardt says she had a case where the original tenant was paying $19 a month for his apartment because he’d installed sub-leasers to pay most of the way.”

SO FINE, TAKE IT TO THE RENT BOARD – WHAT’S THE PROBLEM HERE? PROVE UP YOUR CASE AND YOU’LL WIN, EASY-PEASY. AWWWW, THAT’S TOO HARD FOR YOU, YOU DON’T HAVE STOMACH TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF LANDLORDING IN SF? WELL, WHO PROMISED YOU, THE INHERITOR, THAT IT WOULD BE EASY, WHO PROMISED YOU A ROSE GARDEN? WHY NOT INSTEAD JUST SELL THE PROPERTY AND ENJOY YOUR UNEARNED INCOME? FOR NOT STATING THE OBVIOUS, THAT’S STRIKE FIVE FOR THE NEVIUS.

Critics say these are just a few anecdotal examples. 

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, NEVIUS? WHO ACTUALLY SAID THIS? AND HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF  STRAW DOGS HAVE YOU BIRTHED OVER THE YEARS, YOU LAZY WRITER, CW NEVIUS? STRIKE SIX. (LET’S BRING OUT THE “T”)

“…poperty owners.”

HEY NEVIUS, YOU DON’T HAVE AN EDITOR, HUH? I KNOW THAT BECAUSE OF TEH TYPOS. AND THAT’S NOT A PROBLEM IN ITSELF, BUT AN EDITOR WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM SAYING STUFF LIKE HOW NOT GETTING A LANDLORD’S PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING IS “ILLEGAL.” WHAT YOU NEED IS SOMEBODY TO GO THROUGH ALL YOUR SENTENCES AND THEN SAY, “NOW IS THIS ACTUALLY TRUE?” SO YEAH, SURE, YOU CAN FIX THE TYPOS, BUT WHAT ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ERRORS WHAT _AREN’T_ TYPOS? STRIKE SEVEN

A simple concept, rent-controlled apartments for those who need a financial break, has become as Byzantine as the tax code.

WELL, LET’S SEE HERE. NUMBER ONE, SF RENT CONTROL IS NOT “AS BYZANTINE AS OUR TAX CODE,” NOT BY A LONG SHOT. FOUL TIP. NUMBER TWO, RENT CONTROL WAS MEANT FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST “THOSE WHO NEED A FINANCIAL BREAK.” RIGHT? ‘CAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MEANS-TESTED, RIGHT? IN THAT WAY, IT’S SIMILAR TO PROP 13, RIGHT? HEY NEVIUS, DO YOU PROPOSE MEANS-TESTING PROP  13? OH YOU DON’T? MMMM… AND HEY, AREN’T YOU A SAN FRANCISCO NEWCOMER WHOSE SOMA CONDO IS UP IN VALUE BIG-TIME SINCE YOU BOUGHT JUST A FEW YEARS AGO? HEY, DON’T YOU BENEFIT FROM PROP 13? DO YOU REALLY NEED IT, NEVIUS? HEY, WHY DON’T WE MEANS-TEST YOUR PROP 13 BENEFITS, NEVIUS? STRIKE EIGHT

“Rent control was enacted in 1979,” said New. “The law has been changed, like, 72 times since then.”

AND SOME OF THOSE CHANGES WERE, LIKE, AT THE BEHEST OF … THE SFAA, RIGHT? IS JANAN NEW COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CHANGES HER ORG INSTIGATED? WHY DIDN’T YOU ASK HER THAT, MR. EVERYMAN? STRIKE NINE 

“It’s the haves against the have-nots,” Erhardt said, “and every tenant attorney thinks they are Robin Hood.”

AND DOES EVERY TENANT ATTORNEY THINK THEY ARE ROBIN HOOD, IRL? NOPE. STRIKE TEN, AND YOU, CW NEVIUS, THE MIGHTY CASEY, ARE OUT.

AUDI 5000…

SFGate Properly Covers an Offensive Charm Offensive from Ugly Billionaire Vinod Khosla – Plus CW Nevius and Sean Parker

Monday, July 28th, 2014

The first rule of Fight Club is, of course, Don’t Talk About Fight Club!

Similarly, the first rule of managing property that’s a part of the coast of California is It’s Very Hard To Manage Property That’s A Part Of The Coast Of California!

If you don’t already know this, then you might be a naive billionaire like Vinod Khosla. Or Sean Parker, who didn’t know(!) he needed to get permits to do what he done with his recent wedding.

Hey, here we go:

Vinod Khosla blames costly demands for Martins Beach trial, by Peter Fimrite

Now this is a remarkable bit in that the writer had to use the word “said” 19 times. Check it:

So I guess that the Vinod Khosla PR people feel that this new article helps to make up for stuff like this:

Martins Beach billionaire evades questions on stand

But I don’t think so.

In any event let’s praise writer Peter Fimrite for not falling into the CW Nevius trap of believing everything a source says hook, line, and sinker, and then regurgitating it in the pages of the Chronicle. No no, Peter Fimrite plays it straight.

Here we go:

“The ugly courtroom clash over Martins Beach, near Half Moon Bay, would not have happened if government and environmental zealots had not made unreasonable and costly demands, billionaire investor Vinod Khosla said Thursday in defense of a beach closure that has captivated Californians up and down the coast.

Gee Vinod, you didn’t know that doing anything on the coast is hard? Are you stupid?

“If they wanted you to make your backyard a park, would that hurt you?” he asked.

The reply to this is that Martin’s Beach is not anyone’s backyard.

“The Coastal Commission and the county have been completely unreasonable. They have been taking an extreme view and don’t want to compromise on anything.”

Well, IMO, from an outsider’s perspective, is that they haven’t been unreasonable at all.

“The founder of Khosla Ventures characterized the lawsuit Thursday as a dishonest attempt to wrest control of his property regardless of his rights while, at the same time, impugning his reputation.”

Well, make a deal now and your reputation will improve, Vinod.

The fact is, he said, Martins Beach had been run like a business by the previous owners for many decades. The Deeney family set up the first cabin in 1918 and continued building through the 1950s.

 Uh, this was a vanity purchase from a billionaire. Martins Beach really isn’t a “business,” right?

“What’s amazing to me is that we did not change anything about how the property had been run for 50 or 60 years and then one day out of the blue we got a letter from the county saying we had to have 1973 prices and be open 24/7,” Khosla said, meaning he was limited to charging the visitors only $2 and could never close the gate. “Does the county charge 1973 prices?”

So there’s just three paying customers a day and what they get charged will make or break the “business” of Martins Beach? Does that make sense?

Speaking of which, why does this billionaire dude care about the reputation of some business in Marin?

The shellfish operator’s lease was not renewed and Khosla said the organization’s reputation was wrongly and unfairly dragged through the mud in the process.

Oh well. Leaving you with this:

“Who is going to take a half-million dollars in liability and losses for something that is actually dangerous?” he asked…”

I can answer: a naive billionaire.

Google Seeks the “Right Balance” on the Right To Be Forgotten: “Expert Advisory Council” to Hold Meetings in Europe Soon

Friday, July 11th, 2014

The latest from the Google Blog on the so-called Right To Be Forgotten in the First Amendment-free EU:

Searching for the right balance

[So in five words I’m counting two puns and one subtle jab at the possibility of an absence of balance in this latest unappealable edict handed down from the Court of Justice.]

So here’s the wind-up:

“In May, the Court of Justice of the European Union established a “right to be forgotten.” Today, we published an op-ed by David Drummond, senior vice president of corporate development and chief legal officer, in the U.K.’s The Guardian, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, France’s Le Figaro and Spain’s El Pais, discussing the ruling and our response. We’re republishing the op-ed in full below. -Ed.”

And here’s the pitch – the final two grafs:

“That’s why we’ve also set up an advisory council of experts, the final membership of which we’re announcing today. These external experts from the worlds of academia, the media, data protection, civil society and the tech sector are serving as independent advisors to Google. The council will be asking for evidence and recommendations from different groups, and will hold public meetings this autumn across Europe to examine these issues more deeply. Its public report will include recommendations for particularly difficult removal requests (like criminal convictions); thoughts on the implications of the court’s decision for European Internet users, news publishers, search engines and others; and procedural steps that could improve accountability and transparency for websites and citizens.”

“The issues here at stake are important and difficult, but we’re committed to complying with the court’s decision. Indeed it’s hard not to empathize with some of the requests we’ve seen—from the man who asked that we not show a news article saying he had been questioned in connection with a crime (he’s able to demonstrate that he was never charged) to the mother who requested that we remove news articles for her daughter’s name as she had been the victim of abuse. It’s a complex issue, with no easy answers. So a robust debate is both welcome and necessary, as, on this issue at least, no search engine has an instant or perfect answer.”

“Posted by David Drummond, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer

Well played, G!

San Francisco’s Proposed Ban on Aerial Advertising is Just Asking for Litigation – Lots and Lots of Litigation

Tuesday, July 23rd, 2013

And I’ll tell you, the ban, if enacted, will work about as well as our ban on “rolling billboard” trucks, which is not well at all.

Hello, BOS? You can’t rely on the Honolulu decision. Well, maybe technically you can.*

But if they millionaires of SoMA are crying, I guess you all should pass whatever unconstitutional crap you want, what do I care.

As seen (over Union Square) (and heard only a little) yesterday, the scourge of millionaire condo owners everywhere:

Click to expand

*But not IRL, not really.

Heh: Rincon Hill Blogger Jamie Whitaker Pwns RPD Director Phil Ginsburg Using Math – And He Shows His Work

Monday, May 13th, 2013

Comes now the passionate and brusque Jamie Whitaker of Rincon Hill to totally pwn Recreation and Park Department Director and UC Hastings grad and Gavin Newsom lackey Phil Ginsburg.

“One issue that I am hopeful someone will take up is the claim by the Recreation and Parks Department’s Director Phil Ginsburg that “We want as much open space as possible, but we also need to have a way to care for it.” That was his quote in reference to why the City’s Recreation and Parks Department is unwilling to accept the donation of the park built in front of the new Rincon Green Apartments at 333 Harrison Street. Read the article here (hopefully, the shared full article will appear: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Creating-new-park-no-picnic-for-broke-city-4490422.php?t=27ec6d327d3f99889e

“This is a lie from Phil Ginsburg and it should infuriate everyone who lives in the Rincon neighborhood or nearby.  Why do I say it is a lie?”

Read the rest of this over at Rincon Hilla san francisco neighborhood blog.”

Hey, speaking of Gavin Newsom lackey Phil Ginsburg, a few years back he had a total boner for this nearby project at Justin Herman and yet NOBODY HAS EVER USED IT EXCEPT FOR OCCUPY SF FOR A FEW MONTHS.

Gavin Newsom lackey Phil Ginsburg must be aware, I mean he’s not stupid, that this bocce thing was/is a big fat waste, but he’s afraid to acknowledge this because then he’d have to get a job in the real world.

Oh well…

San Francisco’s Most Anticipated Play of 2013: A.C.T.’s “Black Watch” – A Must-See – Runs Through June 16th

Friday, May 10th, 2013

This is it. This is your San Francisco Theatre Performance of the Year.

It’s Black Watch from Scotland.

It’s down in the Armory, in the Mission. If you show up late, they won’t let you in. 110 minutes, no intermission. And, oh yeah, all the tickets cost $100.

But everyone seems to love it. 

Get your tickets now if you want to go.

Look, it’s getting attention already:

Chad Jones of the San Francisco Chronicle

Karen D-Souza of the San Jose Mercury News

Georgia Rowe of the San Francisco Examiner

A shot from yesterday’s press preview at The Drill Court:

By  Brenden Mendoza – thanks!

All right, see you there!

Handy Guide: How to listen to Scootish People.

Here’s where it’s at:

The Armory Community Center
333 14th Street (between Mission and Valencia)
San Francisco, CA 94103

View a larger map and get directions

Use the Bay Area’s 511 TakeTransit Trip Planner to get public transit information.

For more information about public transportation and parking lot options please visit the Black Watch show page.

All the deets: 

National Theatre of Scotland’s Black Watch

May 9–June 16, 2013
A Revolutionary Theatrical Event

by Gregory Burke
Directed by John Tiffany

Performing in the Armory Community Center, located in San Francisco’s Mission District at 333 14th Street (between Mission and Valencia).

THERE WILL BE NO LATE SEATING!
Please plan appropriate travel time when making arrangements.

Running time:
1 hour and 50 minutes with no intermission

The internationally acclaimed hit—named “#1 Theatrical Event of the Year!”
by the New York Times
After transfixing audiences across the globe and receiving unanimous critical acclaim worldwide, National Theatre of Scotland’s revolutionary production of Black Watch makes its highly anticipated Bay Area premiere. Inspired by interviews with soldiers who served in Iraq with Scotland’s nearly 300-year-old Black Watch regiment, this hauntingly powerful depiction of war is so inventive and groundbreaking in scope that it demands a completely unique performance venue—and will take over the long-dormant Drill Court at San Francisco’s historic Mission Armory. Splicing together exquisitely deployed stagecraft, from choreographed marches and Scottish ballads to searing video news footage, Black Watch captures the layered state of being at war, from moment to gripping moment. A transformative theatrical event you don’t want to miss, Black Watch delivers a visceral, unforgettable experience.

Performances of Black Watch will take place in the Armory Community Center, located in San Francisco’s Mission District., located at 333 14th Street (between Mission and Valencia). Click here for directions.

“Thrilling . . . a necessary reminder of the transporting power that is unique to theater.” —The New York Times

“A genuine spectacle that revels in its own theatricality and comes replete with music, marching, explosive effects and its own piper.” —Chicago Tribune

“Magnificent” —New York Observer

“Enthralling” —Washington Post

“★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ! The world must see this play. Immediately.” —The Herald (Scotland)

“★ ★ ★ ★ ★! Fierce, passionate, and unguarded” —The Guardian

“A landmark event” —The Independent (London)

“A glorious piece of theater—raw, truthful, uncomfortable, moving, graceful and dynamic” —Scotland on Sunday

“Stirring and absorbing” —The West Australian

“A pulsating epic” —Daily Mail

Here’s How the “Drop Charge Against Petrelis” Blogspot is Dead Wrong About Attempted Bathroom Penis Photo Taking

Thursday, February 7th, 2013

Here’s how the “Drop Charge Against Petrelis” Blogspot looks at things:

“Page 5 of the transcript illustrates how the DA’s office frames the taking of a photograph: “The conduct in this case amount to a gross invasion of privacy.” Let’s get real! While Michael’s action can be seen as an annoyance, the innocuous photograph hardly warrants such an overblown mischaracterization.”

But here’s the reality, from the webpage entitled “peaking-at-wieners-wiener-in-city-hall”

“Of all the luck an activist could ask for in terms of an impromptu run-in with an ambitious homosexual politician of the Democratic persuasion. My new camera was ready for use in the second floor men’s room at City Hall on Friday afternoon when I walked in. Scott Wiener was standing at the urinal and had just started to tinkle as I entered and the camera took 4-6 seconds to focus, enough time for him to put away his wiener and zipper up.”

If Michael Petrelis is unapologetic then he’s forcing the DA’s office into a prosecution.

Any money “wasted” on this action is on M. Petrelis and not on SFGov.

Simply, M Petrelis is not being oppressed by SFGov.

So this kind of thing is absurd:

“Needless to say, as an independent blogger who frequently displeases the powerful and politicians with access to law enforcement agencies that create legal hassles for me, I stand in strong solidarity…”

Just saying.

Restored Bocce Ball Courts at Justin Herman Plaza – Unused Since OccupySF – Wouldn’t a Playground Be Nicer?

Friday, January 25th, 2013

Hell yes.

Click to expand

But for some reason, former Mayor Gavin Newsom moved Heaven and Earth to get this useless monument to Eurocentrism installed before he left office.

And then nobody used it so Occupy took it over.

And then it got restored.

Like a year ago.

And nobody’s used it since.

Oh well.

Apocalypto! Hey, What Happened to that Bay Area Mayan Prophecy “Film?” – Plus, Examiner Publisher Todd Vogt Cowardice

Thursday, December 20th, 2012

Well if the world ends tomorrow, 12-21-2012, the joke’s on me.

But otherwise…

So, earlier this year some rich whacko up in Marin started making a video* in Latin America what was supposed to be all about the so-called Mayan Prophecy.

But things headed south with the production, so that got written up in a blog down south, down in Los Angeles.

And then the same basic info was posted in the San Francisco Examiner. (It used to be right here.)

And then the rich Marin whacko actually went and sued that film-industry blog earlier this year.

And then the rich Marin whacko lost her lawsuit, big time.

So then I made a post about this affair, you know, because nobody else up here had done so.

Then I got a threatening letter from the same attorney who lost the case in L.A. Read that letter here.

But apparently, that threat was all lies and jest.

Oh well.

Hey, do you like sports analogies ‘n stuff?

This is rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot’s inchoate SLAPP lawsuit against TheWrap blog, IMO:

See? Kicker Garo Yepremien tried to score a few points but then opposing counsel filed a special motion to strike that was so special that discovery was immediately halted. Then he lost the hearing and that was the end of the suit, it looks like. I’m saying Elisabeth Theriot got pwned in court.

With a quickness.

Which, you know, this kind of thing doesn’t happen every day so that’s why I made a post about it.

But now the world is supposed to end tomorrow ‘n stuff and there’s no Mayan Prophecy “film” to see.

Oh well.

Now, what about San Francisco Examiner President and Publisher Todd Vogt? Do you think he got some sort of request or demand or something from rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot or the wire service or somebody to take down the wire story on these topics, you know, that used to be posted right here?

Why would the ‘Xam have a page dedicated to rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot (just look at the URL bar) with nothing to say about her? It’s because the story about her that used to be there is no longer there.
Is there cowardice here?

I’ll tell you, TheWrap.com stood up to rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot and was/will be rewarded with mandatory attorney fees as a kind of reward.

Why couldn’t/can’t the ‘Xam stand up to rich Marin County whacko Elisabeth Theriot too?

I don’t know.

Now I’ll tell you, when an actual newspaper (improperly, IMO) caves to some rich lady, that just might have the effect of emboldening her. Then she just might start going after poor, defenseless WordPress bloggers.

But maybe I’m way off on this one.

If so, please somebody disabuse me.

* I call it a video because it was (mostly?) recorded on digicams – no film required. The current title of this still-troubled production is Mayan Revelations & Hollywood Lies. It’s delayed. It’s nonsense. Oh what’s that, we’re going to see just how important that Long Count calendar is tout de suite? No we won’t. Sorry. Oh, over the coming decades? No we won’t. Sorry.

A Few Questions for Blogger Michael Petrelis of the Petrelis Files re: the Scott Wiener Bathroom Incident

Wednesday, December 5th, 2012

So, let’s see here.

1. The idea of taking a photo of Supervisor Scott Wiener’s weiner in a bathroom was good  because…

Because why? I don’t get it.

2. Making a federal case (potentially, eventually), a cause celebre, out of this incident is helpful because…

Because why? I don’t get it.

And you say you “allegedly” attempted to violate Section 647(j)(1) of the California Penal Code because, like, you don’t know what you actually did and why you did it?’

Isn’t that the kind of thing criminals say?

I think so.

Here’s what you should do, you apologize.

You say:

1. I’m sorry for what I did. I got carried away over the whole nudity ban thing (or whatever it was) and I did something I shouldn’t have. I won’t do anything like that ever again; and

2. You say it like you mean it, whether you mean it or not.

And if you had done that already, then we wouldn’t be here with you wasting your time and the time and money of other people, like taxpayers ‘n stuff.

Just saying…