Posts Tagged ‘housing’

Frisco’s 2.5 Yelp-Starred RAINFOREST CAFE at Fisherman’s WHARF Just SHUT DOWN with NO NOTICE to EMPLOYEES

Monday, October 2nd, 2017

Crowd-sourced Yelp knows the score, already:

Yelpers report this location has closed.

And Redditors, there were the first to report:

Rainforest Cafe at Fisherman’s Wharf evidently closed overnight. Anyone know what happened?

But let’s go to the official website – Frisco is GONE-ZO, leaving Cali with just two locations, both in SoCal:

Capturefsdfdddg

But hey, wasn’t this outfit advertising for new employees just a couple Scaramuccis ago? Yes, on the craigslist:

Capturelikjholih

And yet, there was zero notice to the employees, some of whom are laboring today to clean the place up and do inventory.

Mmmm, what happened? Well, here’s a clue from Alyssa Pereira earlier this year:

Captureoluihoiujh

And there you have it.

Marketing 101: Don’t Call Your LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS until AFTER They are Built

Friday, September 29th, 2017

‘Cause not everybody agrees that what our Richmond District needs is (any?) (more?) LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS.

The Alexandria? Man, I saw E.T. here, man!* 

7J7C8967 copy

And I’m not exactly sure what LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS are, actually. (And even non-LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS can go for over a million dollars these days.)

In closing, SORT OF OUTER RICHMOND LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS FEVER – CATCH IT!

*Uh, the 20th Anniversary Edition with police guns replaced with flashlights, as I’m just a quasi old-timer, consarnit.

Low Maintenance Tree in the Richmond – It’s Not Much of a Tree, But It’s a Tree

Friday, September 15th, 2017

7J7C9586 copy

Ahem, oh it’s a century plant.

TMIK 🌈

ATTENTION FRISCO LANDLORDS: You Can’t Charge a $49.50 Application Fee – Take a Look at This Example on Page

Friday, August 11th, 2017

Here we go:

7J7C7509 copy

Now let’s hear from the California Apartment Association:

“As you consider prospective renters in 2017, remember that your applicant screening fee can only cover the expenses you incur in the process. This includes the actual money spent gathering information, as well as time spent by you or your staff. But no matter how much you pay for tenant screening, your fee to applicants may not exceed $47.72. That figure represents this year’s maximum applicant-screening charge. Each December, the state of California adjusts its cap on applicant-screening fees based on changes to the Consumer Price Index. This year’s adjustment amounted to an increase of $1.05.”

A landlord not following what the CAA says is a bad sign from the get-go.

The kind of people who overcharge on the application fee are the kind of people who do other things wrong as landlords as well.

(OTOH, I’m sure many landlords would prefer naive, moneyed tenants who say, “Take my money, take my money,” as they are less likely to complain about other issues.)

Anyway, the cost of doing a background check has come down over the years, non? So why not just charge prospective tenants the eight dollars or whatever you are out of pocket? Cause I’ll tell you, this isn’t a good look, this nickel-and-diming at the start of a potential $40-something thousand dollar land deal.

Speaking of which, back in the day, Before the Aughts, back during DotCom 1.0, let’s say 1998 or so, you’d see 50 people showing up at open houses. They’d each pay an application fee of $50 or so and then the manager / landlord / agent would have a nice multi-thousand dollar tax-free payday just by depositing a bunch of checks at the bank. Not bad for a few hours “work.” And they wouldn’t even do a background check on you, the sucker prospective tenant, ’cause that would increase costs.

A cite from that era:

“Some landlords in the San Francisco Bay Area were found guilty of charging application fees of $50 or more and/or collecting application fees when no rentals were even available.”

That’s what happens when people treat the application process as a profit center.

Anyway, choose wisely, tenants.

(more…)

The 94117 Vs. London Breed: “MISSING – Have You Seen Me? LOST LAW” – Yes, I’m Only a Bill

Tuesday, March 21st, 2017

As seen about town:

20170321_084748 copy

Looks like somebody is trying to get her to keep a promise?

Outrageousness: Six Tourists Bunking Up in Just One Room on Ocean Paying $6000 per Month?

Monday, March 6th, 2017

six bunks

This is a part of “Coliving Club Ocean,” which self-ID’s as:

  • 40 Beds
  • 9 Bedrooms
  • 6 Bathrooms

The cost to said newcomers is $998 per month, so that means that just one room is potentially generating $71,976 for somebody, or some entity, each year. And this location is by no means in any of Frisco’s typically high rent districts.

Wow.

(Hey, are these bunk beds made for adults? IDK. Hey, do they have a weight limit like, IDK, something like 165 pounds? Just asking.)

Anyway, wow

Mobile Marketing: Live at THE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD – Is This Shuttle How People Get Home from the Financh?

Monday, February 27th, 2017

Seems like an expensive place to live, for what you get:

7J7C7683 copy

Here It Is: Your New Homeless “Navigation” Center in Dogpatch – Opening March 2017

Wednesday, January 11th, 2017

Via Dogpatch Block Party:

C13UKFXUkAAyn4D copy

Volunteers wanted…

“Luxury Housing” at the Corner of 33rd and Nowhere – What Makes This Orange Building Out in the Outer Richmond “Luxury”

Friday, August 5th, 2016

I’m at a loss here:

7J7C9873 copy

Frisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera Goes After Lem-Ray Properties and Broker Chuck Post Over Section 8 Voucher Discrimination

Wednesday, April 20th, 2016

Just released:

“Herrera seeks injunction to halt discrimination over Section 8 vouchers

City Attorney calls vouchers ‘an essential tool for many San Franciscans to access affordable housing—especially in crisis like the one we are currently experiencing’

SAN FRANCISCO (April 20, 2016)—City Attorney Dennis Herrera is seeking a tough, enforceable court order to prevent a residential landlord and an affiliated real estate broker from continuing to flout the law by refusing to honor Section 8 vouchers. The motion for preliminary injunction filed in San Francisco Superior Court yesterday would require defendants Lem-Ray Properties, an affiliate of the once-high-flying Lembi real estate empire, and broker Chuck Post to immediately stop their unfair and illegal conduct and comply with the law.

“Housing vouchers are an essential tool for many San Franciscans to access affordable housing—especially in crisis like the one we are currently experiencing,” said Herrera. “Lem-Ray Properties and their real estate broker’s refusal to rent to tenants who rely on these vouchers discriminates against low-income communities. It’s a terrible injustice at a time when city leaders are struggling desperately to preserve San Francisco’s economic, social and cultural diversity.”

The requested injunction follows a March 22 ruling by Judge Ronald E. Quidachay that denied the defendants’ bid to dismiss Herrera’s suit. The ruling affirmed San Francisco’s local law that prohibits landlords from refusing to rent to tenants who intend to use federal housing vouchers.

Section 8 vouchers—so named for Section 8 of the Federal Housing Act, and also known as the Housing Choice Voucher Program—are administered locally by the San Francisco Housing Authority. The program allows low-income families to secure housing in the private rental market by requiring qualifying renters to pay thirty percent of their income toward rent, with Section 8 vouchers covering the remainder. The vouchers impose no additional costs on landlords, and landlords’ refusal to accept them violates local law.

Lem-Ray is among the entities associated with the Lembi family’s once expansive CitiApartments-Skyline Realty empire, which Herrera sued in 2006 for an array of lawless business and tenant harassment practices involving at least 30 properties. The defendant, which is still subject to the 2011 civil injunction Herrera secured in his five-year litigation battle, is among the landlords memorably dubbed “the Scumlords” in an award-winning 2006 exposé by investigative reporter G.W. Schulz. Schulz won first-place honors from the California Newspaper Publishers Association in 2007 for his San Francisco Bay Guardian series on tenant mistreatment by the Lembis, who at the time were among the largest residential property owners in the city. Chuck Post, also named in Herrera’s civil suit, is a real estate broker whose ApartmentsinSF.com website and other online rental postings brazenly flouted local law by advertising that Section 8 vouchers would not be accepted as payment for Lem-Ray’s residential apartments.

Under San Francisco law, property owners and real estate agents are prohibited from refusing to accept federal, state, or local housing subsidies as a form of rental payment, or to indicate in rental advertisements that housing subsidies will not be accepted as payment. Post and Lem-Ray are both alleged to have violated the local law, according to Herrera’s complaint, together with provisions of the California Unfair Competition Law that prohibit unfair and unlawful business practices.

If successful, Herrera’s lawsuit could secure civil penalties against Lem-Ray Properties of up to $6,000 for each violation of its 2011 court order, and civil penalties against both defendants of $2,500 for each violation of the state Unfair Competition Law. Both defendants could also be liable for three times the amount of a single month’s rent in which the landlords charged for any unit in violation of the Police Code provision. Herrera is also seeking a permanent injunction against both parties to bar them from business practices in violation of state or local law.

The case is: City and County of San Francisco and People of the State of California v. Chuck M. Post, Lem-Ray Properties I DE, LLC et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 548551, filed Oct. 21, 2015.”