Posts Tagged ‘landlord’
Here’s what kicked things off:
Now I’ll tell you, I wouldn’t even dream of mentioning slight errors such as these to our touchy, touchy local press corpus. I mean, if they liked numbers, they’d have gone to bidness school and gotten an MBA, right?
“Math factcheck please: What is the % increase from 2145 to 8900?”
Well, let’s fix this sitch once and for all:
IMO, people oughtta say “a big increase” if that’s what they mean – there’s no reason to be so precise if you’re going to get it wrong, right?
The SFMTA’s New MUNI Blog Urges You to Raise Your Rent by Voting YES on the Half Billion Dollar Prop A, More or LessTuesday, September 9th, 2014
Why did the people at the SFMTA just happen to start up a PR blog three months before an election that it really, really care$ about, you know, so it can continue to pay its employees their six-figure salaries? Mmmm…
Their latest effort:
“Going Green – SF’s Taxis Can Help You Go Green by Gary Fiset, September 8, 2014”
Isn’t this a headline at least a touch patronizing? I think so. “Oh MUNI, help me go green! Empower us!”
Our occasional “Going Green” feature will focus on the sustainability efforts at the SFMTA. We’ll share fun facts and figures about one of the most sustainable transportation systems, including Muni and the city’s taxi fleet, in the U.S.
Boy, that prose gags, doesn’t it? I think what dude is saying is, “Vote YES on Prop A. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!”
SF taxis come in all shapes, sizes and colors, but the vast majority of the fleet is definitely green.
Again, that prose gags, doesn’t it? But I think what dude is really saying is, “Vote YES on Prop A. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!”
In the 90s taxis were mostly lumbering Crown Victoria sedans that got 10 miles per gallon. Today’s hybrid taxis get better than 40 miles per gallon, reducing the GHG emissions by 75 percent.
Well, let me call bullshit on that one, Gentle Reader. I’m showing a City MPG of 19 Miles Per Gallon for the oldest of the Crown Vics that the SFMTA is talking about. In fact, those lumbering Crown Vics weighed less than lithe, smallish, current-day BMWs, like an athletic 2.0 litre 5 Series, for example. So, if you throw in an airport run or two during an average shift, then you’re well over 20 MPG. Oh, what’s that, in real life, with the hills and all the passengers and luggage, 1990’s era CVs got less than 20 MPG? All right, well, then that means that, IRL, today’s hybrid taxis aren’t averaging “better than 40 MPG” in San Francisco taxi service, right? I mean I see the point you’re making, SFMTA, but you’re lying about mpg and you know it.
Converting SF’s taxi fleet to hybrid and CNG has resulted in removing more than 60 thousand tons of GHG emission savings, the equivalent of taking 6,890 passenger cars off the road every year.
Again, that prose gags, doesn’t it? And please note how the SFMTA spins the putting of GHG’s into the atmosphere as “removing” GHG’s – those are kind of opposite things, right?
So it’s looking like the SFMTA, San Francisco’s worst public agency and the operator of America’s slowest big-city public transit system, is giving itself an A+ on how it has managed taxis in SF.
I cry foul.
And, oh yes, I’ve learned a bit more about the rent increase, the”passthrough” you’ll be voting for yourself this November if you vote YES, as the SFMTA really wants you to do, on that huge Prop A bond. It’ll be turbo simple for your landlord to raise your rent to pay for Prop A. Other landlords will laugh at your landlord for NOT increasing your rent. So, even if you’ve never had to deal with rent passthroughs before, you’ll get one from Prop A.
So what you say, what’s a few bucks a month in increased rent over the next seven years to pay for a better MUNI? Well fine, Gentle Reader, as long as you know it won’t be just a “few” bucks, then vote AYE, and so long as you know what you’re getting us into. But IMO, the road to a better MUNI starts with a NO vote on Prop A.
And a YES vote tells the SFMTA to carry on, business as usual, you all are doing a great job, gee thanks for all the “EXCELLENT TRANSPORTATION CHOICES” [that’s an actual SFMTA corporate catchphrase, I’m srsly.], here, have some more money, build us another Subway to Nowhere why not…
OMG, I’m Confused: Rent a Tiny “Sleeping Room” on Page Street for $1250/Mo? But What About Rent Control?Wednesday, July 30th, 2014
[UPDATE: It’s back, after being hounded off of CL – here it is for the low, low price of $995 per month as of August 4, 2014.]
Or $1150, that’s the latest price for 1880 Page Street #3B. Excerpts from craigslist:
“Video Tour at http://youtu.be/8OEgeklUCDQ
Large sleeping room has newer carpet, sink with granite counter & closet. There is a shared hall bath. No Kitchen.
This is a rent control apartment.
Students, international students, co-signers all welcome.
Studio / 1 Bath in Haight Ashbury
Square feet: 200″
So I’m thinking there’s gotta be a kitchen associated with this apartment somewhere, right?
Hey, what about 1880 Page Street #3A?
Mmmm. It might be hard to believe but when we were deep into our Great Recession back in aught-ten, you could rent a two-bed on Page in the Upper Haight for a mere $1600 per month. See?
1 full Bathroom
If this two-bedroom unit rented for $1600 back in 2010 and the same tenant(s) is/are still there, then the current rent is going to be $1600-something per month, let’s guess, assuming no pass-throughs from the landlord.
Let me now direct you to Topic No. 359: Section 6.15c(3) Petitions Based on Proportional Rent.
But hey, maybe a new master tenant moved in to the two-bed just this year in high-rent 2014. In that case the rent could be what, like $4000 per month? IDK, I’m not up on things, pricewise. Anyway, imagining this, then maybe $1,000 or $1,250 or something like that per month is a fair price for just 30% of the apartment?
But then, no kitchen.
“California Civil Code section 1941 states that when a landlord rents property to a tenant as a place to live, the property must be in a “habitable” condition. (“Habitable” means fit to live in; “uninhabitable” means not fit to live in.) Section 1941 also states that the landlord must repair problems that make the property uninhabitable – except for problems caused by the tenant or the tenant’s guests, children or pets. In order for the property to be habitable, it must have … [a] kitchen with a sink, which cannot be made of an absorbent material (for example, wood)…”
Oh, and lastly, “SLEEPING ROOM?” Hey, you’re a naive international student right? Well, here’s your new sleeping room, hurray!
In the words of John Malkovich, WTF to that.
Or maybe Unit #3 used to be a three bedroom?
In closing, “Amenities: Carpet”
In closing, never forget Kitchens.
[UPDATE: “This posting has been flagged for removal.” But you can still find the ad below – just click on over.]
$1150 / 200ft² – Page Street Sleeping Room – No Kitchen (haight ashbury)
image 1image 2image 3image 4image 5image 6image 7image 8image 9image 10image 11image 12image 13image 14image 15image 16image 17image 18
© craigslist – Map data © OpenStreetMap
1880 Page Street
(google map) (yahoo map)
0BR / sharedBa 200ft2 apartment available aug 01
laundry in bldg street parking
Open House Dates
1880 Page Street #3B
Bill Harkins Brokerage #01230576
Video Tour at http://youtu.be/8OEgeklUCDQ
1880 Page Street is located close to Golden Gate Park, USF, UCSF, Haight Street & transportation and much more.
Large sleeping room has newer carpet, sink with granite counter & closet. There is a shared hall bath. No Kitchen.
This is a rent control apartment.
12 months then month to month rent control apartment. No pets. Students, international students, co-signers all welcome.
Tenants provide current downloaded pdf file of credit report showing FICO score by e-mail along with application provided by broker.
Please no applications prior to viewing. Co-signers provide same application and credit report. Students under 21 with co-signers do not need to provide credit reports. Some California high value property owner co-signers do not need to provide credit report. Service animals welcome please submit all requests for reasonable accommodation with application for owners approval.
PG&E, water and garbage included.
Coin laundry room off 1st level lobby.
Square feet is estimate.
Smoking designations follows.
10 unit complex designated non smoking building
Final smoking designation not yet named or due till 12/31/14
#3C, #4 and #6 are smoking optional
#1, #2, #3A, #3B, #5, #8, #9 non smoking (no unit #7 exists)
Studio / 1 Bath in Haight Ashbury
Square feet: 200
1880 Page St #3B, San Francisco (Haight Ashbury)
* On Site Laundry
Bill Harkins, Bill Harkins Brokerage, Inc
The US Attorney’s Office Throws Down: Reaches $80k Settlement with Fremont Apt. Complex for Discrimination Against FamiliesTuesday, July 29th, 2014
“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.
Spank the Landlord! – Infamous Owner of 312 Fillmore Gets a Notice of Violation from San Francisco – Tenants Strike BackFriday, 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.
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 ScoreTuesday, 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.
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
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…
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
Wow, a Master Tenant Tells KQED He Rents Out Room for More Than Allowed by Rent Control – WTF? Plus, a Simple SolutionThursday, April 3rd, 2014
All right here we go:
“Brian Harrigan is on the other side of the equation. He is on the lease of an iconic four-bedroom Victorian in the Lower Haight. He could probably rent the rooms out for as much as $1,500 each, but he doesn’t want to be greedy. At the same time, he said, ‘If I was to rent it out at like $500 I would have hundreds of emails. You would get everyone applying for it, and it wouldn’t be manageable.’ Harrigan recently had a room open up in the apartment and he decided to put it up at $1,000 — about double the rent-controlled rate and $500 below what he could have charged. Even with the inflated price, he received about 50 applications for the one room.”
What what what – the rent for the room is “about double the rent-controlled rate?”
Non non non! You can’t do it that way in SF.
Here are the three rules, IIRC:
1. Total rent paid by the subtenants may not exceed the rent paid by the master tenant to the landlord.
2. Rent paid by subtenants to the master must be proportional to the total rent – so if the rent controlled rate is for a two-bedroom is $1000 per month to the landlord and the master and sub each share 50-50 (like the rooms and everything else are identical) then the rent charged to the sub should be $500, or close enough to $500.
3. The rent paid by the master to the landlord shall be disclosed in writing to the sub before the sub moves in in the first place.
Those are the rules – live it love it learn it.
Now, can a subtenant get back money from the master if the rent charged is deemed to be disproportionate? Hell yes, going back years.
So is it wise to tell KQED how you set the rate for a room in rent-controlled San Francisco if you’re not sure you’re doin it right? No.
So what should master tenants do then? ‘Cause if you advertise a room for $400 a month on craigslist the world will beat a path to your door, right?
Here’s what you do, you figure what the rent should be for a room but you keep it a secret at first. Then you advertise the room at a market rate, $1400, whatever – and that will cut down on the riff-raff, that will avoid a 50-person beauty contest from every state in the nation, right? And then after you pick somebody to be your new roomie, then comes The Reveal, which is actually the rent is only $400 a month are you cool with that. And it will be, I guarantee it.
What’s that, this strategy isn’t for you because ____? Well all right, have it your way. But just make sure* you split the rent proportionally, that’s what I’m saying.
*Heavy is the head what wears the master tenant crown, right? Of course, there are pros and cons to being a master tenant in rent controlled SF – it’s not for everyone.
1049 Market Street Tenants Win a Reprieve in Their Mass Eviction – Presser at City Hall Today at 4:30 PMWednesday, February 19th, 2014
Word comes from tommi avicolli mecca:
“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
1049 Market STREET Tenants Win a Reprieve in Their Mass Eviction
San Francisco – Tenants of 1049 Market, who are facing eviction at the hands of a landlord wanting to turn their live/work apartments into office spaces, will be holding a press conference today at 4:30pm on the steps of City Hall (Polk Street side) to announce that they have won another reprieve in their battle to stay in their homes. Their landlord has withdrawn his appeal of the suspension of THE permit that would have allowed him to demolish their apartments and evict them.
The appeal on that suspension was scheduled to be heard today at the Board of Appeals at 5pm.
Officials of the Department of Building Inspections (DBI) suspended the permit after a walk through of the building. DBI officials DETERMINED that they had discretion in requiring the landlord to install light wells, a very expensive renovation, to fix a major code violation cited in a 2007 Notice of Violation: the lack of natural light in some of the apartments. Other violations are minor and can be easily addressed by the owner.
Tenants received eviction notices last September, but with the help of Housing Rights Committee, legal support from Tenderloin Housing Clinic and the involvement of Supervisor Jane Kim and DBI, they organized to stay in their homes and fight back.
“It’s a clear victory for us tenants,” said 1049 Market resident Marcele Wilson, “This is about evicting working-class tenants and artists so that they can convert our apartments into offices and cash in on the mid-Market tech boom. But these are our homes, we’re not leaving.”
Tenants will be on hand for interviews today at 4:30pm.”
Uh Oh, Now There’s a Lawsuit Against the City for Recent Ellis Act Legislation – SFAA & realtors Fighting UsWednesday, January 29th, 2014
Read it and weep, San Francisco. We’re getting sued:
“For Immediate Release, January 29, 2014:
San Francisco Housing Associations File Lawsuit to Block Anti-Family Legislation
San Francisco – On Tuesday January 28, 2014, the San Francisco Apartment Association, Coalition for Better Housing and the San Francisco Association of REALTORS® filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of legislation known as the Avalos Ellis Act and Merger Prohibition Legislation.
The legislation was passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed into law by Mayor Ed Lee in violation of building owners’ rights under the state law known as the Ellis Act.
The legislation prohibits owners of multi-unit buildings from combining units in a building for ten years following an Ellis Act eviction or for five years following an owner-move in eviction.
On a practical level, the legislation prevents families who own a building from creating a home that meets their needs. For example, the legislation prevents a family from combining two small units into a larger one to provide a home for a growing family. Couples with young children often find themselves in need of additional space they did not anticipate when they purchased a rental building, yet the legislation punishes them.
Only 2 percent of new housing built in San Francisco since 2001 are single-family homes that provide adequate space for families, often with multiple generations living together. Lack of adequate housing to meet the needs of families has contributed San Francisco losing 5,278 people younger than 18 between 2000 and 2010, according to the census.
“The San Francisco Association of REALTORS® supports the rights of private property owners for the free use of their property as their needs suit them. This legislation only exacerbates the problems families face in finding adequate housing and drives out the families that have created the diversity we want and celebrate in our city,” said Walt Baczkowski, CEO of the San Francisco Association of Realtors.
Because so few single family homes are being constructed, families rely on improving buildings they own, including tenancies in common to add living space. This legislation prohibits them from creating the home they need in a building they own.
“Families are fleeing San Francisco due to a multitude of reasons that include a lack of adequate space for growing families that often include multiple generations. This legislation exacerbates that problem by punishing and limiting options for families who simply seek to create a home that meets the needs of their family,” stated Janan New, Executive Director of the San Francisco Apartment Association. “This legislation punishes hard working families, while doing little to protect renters.”
The lawsuit states that the legislation is pre-empted by state law known as the Ellis Act, which allows building owners to take a building off the rental market and convert those units to condominiums or single -family homes. Under the law, building owners are already required to give occupants up to one year advance notice and provide relocation fees of $5,210 per tenant, up to a maximum of $15,632, plus $3,473 additional for tenants who are senior or disabled.
“My clients are seeking relief from this just-passed legislation which unfairly takes away the right of individuals and families who simply want to create a home for themselves and their family in a building they own,” stated Jim Parrinello, attorney for the plaintiffs.