This was the team that tied SFGov up in knots with an injunction for four long years.
Posts Tagged ‘lawsuit’
First SF Loses Its Hooters and Now This: Dick’s Last Resort Shutters After Six Months – Who’s Next for 353 Jefferson?Wednesday, January 14th, 2015
Of course, our Hooters was having to deal with some wage and hour lawsuit issues when it went away, but one supposes the rents up there at 353 Jefferson were too high for them to keep on keeping on.
This was the replacement – Dick’s Last Resort. It lasted six months.
I can’t imagine locals going to 353 Jefferson for any kind of restaurant, and the tourists are probably heavier at the other end of the wharf, and the building is set back a ways from the sidewalk, so these can be challenges:
Who will try to make a go of it next at this cursed location?
Whoa: Asiana Airlines Flights To and From SFO “Likely” to be Suspended for as much as Four Months – Punishment for Flight 214Thursday, November 13th, 2014
From San Francisco-based military writer Kyle Mizokami comes word of a plan to temporarily suspend Asiana Airlines flights between Incheon International Airport (ICN) and SFO:
“Under the plan, the ministry will ask Korean Air to use larger aircraft on the Incheon-San Francisco route to increase the number of seats, bring in chartered planes, or channel passengers on transit routes. A senior ministry official recently visited concerned lawmakers at the National Assembly to brief them on the plan.”
Does this seem real to you? It seems real to me. Or perhaps elements of the Republic of Korea are trying to scare Asiana straight after the Flight 214 disaster?
Korean Air currently uses Boeing 747 and 777 aircraft on this route – might it be tough for it to expand capacity just for a few months? IDK. I can’t think of too many options for KA to use planes larger than these, excepting for one or two of their ten newish double-decker superjumbo Airbus A380’s, but it’s not like those aircraft are just sitting around waiting to be used this way.
This suspension idea doesn’t make sense to me – I suppose we’ll find out tonight…
Sympathy for the Landlord Who Inherited the Apartment You Rent: Writer CW Nevius Cries a River over Rent ControlThursday, 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”)
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.
Allegations About the Troubles of the Koret Foundation: An $80,000 Life-Sized Mural of a Board Member?Thursday, October 9th, 2014
This is news to me:
“Without board approval, commissioned and installed a life-size mural depicting himself and now hung inside the Koret Foundation’s new headquarters in San Francisco at a cost to the Foundation of $80,000.”
I’ll tell you, this one allegation should prolly make you never even consider starting up any kind of foundation.
And what’s the response – a general denial about how all the charges are “bogus” and an ad hominem attack against the widow of Koret?
Spokesmodel Nate Ballard could try to explain the painting / mural – like he could say how it didn’t cost $80k or how it was authorized, but he chooses not to.
Hey is it “erratic” to want to invite non-poor non-Jewish Willie Brown in to the Koret Foundation? Probably. But there’s a lot of erraticism going on on these charitable boards – that’s no reason for a dismissal.
All right, have at it Koret Foundation. Let’s hope the fund will be in better shape and be used for better purposes after all this gets hashed out.
All the deets;
“Lawsuit Filed by Widow of Koret Foundation Founder Demands New Independent Board to Save Half-Billion Dollar Foundation from Spending Down Assets
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 8, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — The widow of Koret Foundation founder Joseph Koret has filed suit against Koret Foundation Board President Tad Taube, accusing him and the Foundation’s Board of Directors of conflicts of interest in funding pet projects that include conservative causes in the United States and charities in his native country of Poland.
The suit filed October 7, 2014 in San Francisco Superior Court by Mrs. Koret alleges that under Taube’s direction the board has ignored the priorities established by her late husband to help the poor and assist Jewish causes in the Bay Area and Israel.
Instead, her suit claims, the Koret board is using foundation funds to promote programs closely affiliated with individual board members and is purposely confusing the public by putting signage that prominently features Taube’s name alongside the Koret Foundation name on buildings and grants for which the Koret Foundation is the principal funder.
“Defendants’ duty of loyalty to the Foundation has been corrupted by these directors’ close affiliations with many of the Foundation’s recent grants, resulting in tens of millions of dollars distributed due to self-interest,” according to the lawsuit.
The question in this case is how the board is spending the money. Perhaps somebody should look into that.
As far as whether Susan Koret is as crazy as 7/8ths of the board is making her out to be, well, that’s not the real issue.
Read the board’s letter below and then read Mrs. Koret’s side of the story here.
And let me just say, “Mmmm…”
Here it is:
“An Open Letter from the Koret Foundation Board of Directors
October 8, 2014
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
We are seven of the eight Directors of the Koret Foundation Board of Directors, and have served alongside the eighth, Ms. Susan Koret, for decades. Today, we write withone voice to express our regret regarding the actions Ms. Koret has taken in filing litigation against her fellow members of the Koret Foundation Board of Directors as well asthe Foundation.
We are each honored to be a part of advancing the local, national and global work of the Koret Foundation. We are also proud of the fact that the Foundation has provided $500 million in grants to non-profit organizations, and the majority of our funding has been dedicated to supporting the vulnerable and disadvantaged, children, families and the elderly. Our purpose is and will remain to support Jewish organizations worldwide, and to improve the quality of life for all the residents of the Bay Area community.
Ms. Koret has voted in full support of 95% of the grant decisions the Foundation has made. We are dismayed that she is now suing in disagreement with these very same decisions. She now makes vicious and unfounded personal attacks on her colleagues.
We believe Ms. Koret is taking these actions in an aggressive attempt to take over the assets of the Foundation. Alarmingly, her behavior has also become increasingly confused and erratic, and it is clear that Ms. Koret is unable to fulfill her duties as a Director.
We, the undersigned, unanimously decided to file a cross-complaint in order to respond swiftly and accurately to Ms. Koret’s false allegations. It is our hope that this matter will be resolved quickly. In the meantime, we assure you that the important humanitarian work of the Koret Foundation will continue, despite the attempted disruption by Ms. Koret.
Koret Foundation Board President
President, Howard Properties of San Francisco
Koret Foundation President-Elect and Tully M. Friedman Professor of Economics, Stanford University; Senior Fellow,
Koret Foundation President-Elect
Hoover Institution; and Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research
Richard L. Greene
Founding Partner, Greene, Radovsky, Maloney, Share & Hennigh
President Emeritus, University of California and Chancellor
Emeritus, University of California, San Diego
George P. Shultz Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
I’ll tell you, Supervisor Scott Wiener, for one, lives in fear of running afoul of these people, the very same people who vandalize the “no dogs allowed” signs our Feds put up on certain parts of our Federal lands:
Click to expand
Our Feds wonder why Bay Aryans can’t abide the rules the rest of America accepts with no trouble at all…
So look out, little Western Snow Plover. The dog pacs of the world say that you’re nothing special and that, in fact, you don’t even exist – they say there’s no such thing as a Western plover anything. OK fine.
As seen at Ocean Beach near Taraval, 1200mm focal length:
Good luck, little plover.
Dennis Herrera Throws Down: “Vows Aggressive Defense of the Prop B Waterfront Development Voting Measure”Tuesday, July 15th, 2014
All right, it’s on, the defense of Prop B (2014) is on:
SAN FRANCISCO (July 15, 2014) — The California State Lands Commission today sued San Francisco to invalidate Proposition B, an initiative measure passed in the June 3 election that requires voter approval for waterfront development height increases on property owned or controlled by the Port of San Francisco. The legal challenge filed in San Francisco Superior Court contends that the California legislature specifically intended to prohibit local voters from exercising authority over bay and coastal public trust lands, strictly limiting management of state tidelands to designated trustees. In its legal action today, the State Lands Commission argues that the sole trustee responsible for sovereign tidelands in San Francisco is the city’s Port Commission. The State Lands Commission is additionally seeking a preliminary injunction to bar San Francisco from enforcing Prop B.
In response, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement:
“For decades, land use decisions involving San Francisco’s waterfront have included voters, elected leaders and appointed members of our Planning and Port Commissions. It’s a participatory process that enacted a comprehensive Waterfront Land Use Plan in 1990, developed a showplace ballpark for the Giants, and continues to protect an urban waterfront that is the envy of cities worldwide. San Francisco’s deliberative decision-making process on waterfront land use has never been successfully challenged, and I intend to defend it aggressively. With today’s lawsuit, the State Lands Commission seems to have embraced the notion that any local initiative — and, by extension, any land use regulation approved by a Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission — affecting port property is barred by state law, and therefore invalid. That view represents a radical departure in law and practice from land use decision-making in San Francisco and elsewhere. While the City must certainly honor its obligations as trustee in managing public trust property, it is a legally and practically untenable position to argue that San Francisco’s voters and elected officials have no direct say over how our city’s waterfront is developed.”
Domestic Violencer Gurbaksh Chahal Resigns from Board of RadiumOne: Here’s His Nonsensical Open LetterThursday, May 29th, 2014
I’m not sure what Gurbaksh Chahal is talking about with this “exoneration” stuff. The best he could have hoped for was a “not guilty” verdict, and that’s not anything close to exoneration, not at all.
Did he have an agreement allowing himself to be convicted in San Francisco in exchange for something from the Board of RadiumOne? Is any such agreement in writing? Would it even be enforceable? IDK.
Did his father have a heart attack from the stress associated with the assault upon the girlfriend? IDK.
And who’s the primary owner of RadiumOne these days? IDK.
Anyway, here it is, entitled “Greed, Betrayal, and Honesty.”
To the Board of Directors of RadiumOne:
As you all know, I resigned from the board of directors on Tuesday. In light of recent events and to stay transparent and forthright, you give me no other vehicle than an open letter to communicate adequately.
I am deeply disappointed by your actions and decisions over the last few weeks.
All of you were well aware of the legal matter I had been struggling with since August, just as you were aware that of the exaggerated allegations against me. You supported me from the beginning both in person and in writing, and you made it clear that you had every intention of standing by me until justice prevailed.
Dennis Herrera Throws Down: Sues Short-Term Rental Scofflaws for Illegal Conversions, Unlawful Business Practices – Ellis Act, Baby!Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014
City Attorney Dennis Herrera, The Happy Warrior:
“Herrera sues short-term rental scofflaws for illegal conversions, unlawful business practices
Two cases target ‘egregious offenders’—both involving Ellis Act evictions of disabled tenants to illegally convert residential apartments into tourist lodging
SAN FRANCISCO (April 23, 2014) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today filed two separate lawsuits against short-term rental scofflaws for illegally converting residential apartments into commercial tourist lodging, which the property owners then marketed through such online platforms as Airbnb, Homeway.com and VRBO.com. In both cases, the defendants had previously evicted long-term residents from their apartments under the Ellis Act, a state law that allows landlords to evict tenants and withdraw their properties from the residential rental market. Two of the evicted tenants were disabled, according to San Francisco Superior Court and Rent Board records cited in today’s pleadings.
“In the midst of a housing crisis of historic proportions, illegal short-term rental conversions of our scarce residential housing stock risks becoming a major contributing factor,” said Herrera. “The cases I’ve filed today target two egregious offenders. These defendants didn’t just flout state and local law to conduct their illegal businesses, they evicted disabled tenants in order to do so. Today’s cases are the first among several housing-related matters under investigation by my office, and we intend to crack down hard on unlawful conduct that’s exacerbating—and in many cases profiting from—San Francisco’s alarming lack of affordable housing. I’m grateful to the city departments, including the San Francisco Planning Department, and community advocates who have worked with my office to help us pursue these kinds of scofflaws. And I encourage tenants and neighbors to report housing-related wrongdoing online to my office through our Up2Code.org website or the Up2Code app, or by calling our Code Enforcement Hotline at (415) 554-3977.”
Herrera’s complaints filed in San Francisco Superior Court this morning detail pervasive violations of the city Planning Code and state Unfair Competition Law at three addresses: 3073-3075 Clay Street, owned by defendants Darren and Valerie Lee; and 734 and 790 Bay Street, which is owned or managed by defendants Lev, Tamara and Tatyana Yurovsky. If successful, the litigation could result in permanent court-ordered injunctions; civil penalties of up to $200 per day for Planning Code violations; up to $2,500 for each unlawful business act; disgorgement of illegally obtained profits; and attorneys’ fees. Though the Ellis Act itself does not preclude the commercial use of properties for tourists where long-term tenants have previously been evicted, Herrera’s litigation emphasized longstanding city policy that tourist conversions of residential properties be aggressively policed “in order to protect the residents and to conserve the limited housing resources.”
According to one of Herrera’s civil actions, defendants Darren and Valerie Lee purchased 3073-3075 Clay Street in 2004, and invoked the Ellis Act in 2005 to evict their tenants from both of the property’s residential units. One of the evicted tenants was disabled. Evidence presented in the complaint found that the Lees have marketed 3075 Clay Street, a four-bedroom, three-bathroom property, for tourist lodging on such vacation websites such as Homeaway.com and VRBO.com since 2009, describing it as an “exquisitely renovated home, in prime Pacific Heights.” The Lees charged their guests between $395 and $595 per night for a minimum stay of three nights. But in doing so, the owners flouted the city’s required conditional use authorization process—depriving neighbors and city planners of their role to first determine whether the conversion is necessary or desirable; compatible with the neighborhood; detrimental to the City’s housing stock; or consistent with the city’s Planning Code or Planning Department’s General Plan. According to Herrera’s complaint, San Francisco’s Planning Department repeatedly cited the Lees for their illegal use of the property for commercial tourist lodging, even collecting penalties of as much $250 per day for violations. The Lees—who at one point assured Planning Department officials that their illegal conduct had stopped—then defiantly resumed marketing and renting their property to tourists. In 3073 Clay Street, the Lees evicted a disabled tenant who had lived in the unit for more than ten years and, until evicted, was paying $1,087 per month. By invoking the Ellis Act, the Lees were legally restricted until August 25, 2011, from re-renting the unit at market rate. But evidence presented in Herrera’s action shows that the Lees admitted to the Planning Department that they had, in fact, re-rented 3073 Clay Street and charged their new residential tenants between $5,000-$7,038 per month.
Herrera’s other civil complaint against Lev, Tamara and Tatyana Yurovsky notes that they, too, used the Ellis Act to evict long-term residential tenants — including one who was disabled — from one of their properties, at 734 Bay Street. Together with a residential unit at another of their properties owned by Lev and Tatyana and managed by Tamara, at 790 Bay Street, the Yurovskys illegally converted their apartments into tourist use beginning in 2010. They marketed the rentals to tourists on Airbnb.com and “greatsfvacation.com” for rates of between $165 and $320 per night, with three-night minimum stays. Though the Yurovsky defendants boasted on social media that they had hosted several hundred tourists, according to evidence detailed in the complaint, they too flouted the city’s conditional use authorization process, violating the San Francisco Planning Code and state law.
The cases are: City and County of San Francisco and People of the State of California v. Darren Lee et al., San Francisco Superior Court No. 538857; and City and County of San Francisco and People of the State of California v. Tamara Yurovsky et al., San Francisco Superior Court No. 538854. Additional documentation from the case is available on the City Attorney’s website at:http://www.sfcityattorney.org/