I could go either way.
Boy, that’s a lot of smoke.
Burning trees amongst the trees:
Back in the day, people living in Marin City would tell me that they lived in:
1. Marin County; or
T’was ever thus.
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|
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
You see what happens is that sometimes people who, you know, don’t qualify to live in a federal housing project are tempted to park their rides on federal propertah, you know, within half a click of City Hall.
So what happens is you end up with a sign like this one: “RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY – OTHERS WILL BE TOWED”
Click to expand
Q. Hey, how does with square with TRANSIT FIRST?
A. It doesn’t, not at all.
I’ll tell you, I drive and ride through this area on a regular basis, and nobody messes with me.
And when I say “high-rent,” I mean the cheapest studio available these days is going for $2000 per month ($1995 Sharp studio in an attractive 1907 Victorian (lower pac hts)) and that’s on a so-called “traffic sewer” street waaaaaaaay too close to the projects.
Anyway, here it is, courtesy of the the Ocean Beach Bulletin, 16 hours of Lower Pac Heights:
“On 08/17/13 at 11:30pm, the two victims were walking on Bush near Divisadero. One of the victim’s was looking at her cell phone for directions when they were suddenly approached by the suspect. He pulled up his sweatshirt and showed them that he had a gun in his waistband and told the victim to give him her phone. The victim complied and the suspect fled south on Divisadero St. He was described as a black male, 20-25yrs, wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and blue jeans.
On 08/18/13 at 12:40am, the victim was walking on Scott St towards California and noticed the suspects on the opposite side of the street. The suspects then crossed over to the victim with one suspect in front and the other behind. One of the suspects pulled out a handgun and demanded the victim’s phone and the victim complied. The suspects fled east on California St. One suspect was described as a black male, wearing a dark jacket and black pants. The other suspect was a Hispanic male, 20-22yrs, wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and black pants.
On 08/18/13 at 2:37am, the victim was walking on the 3400 block of Sacramento St and was approached by the suspect. The suspect pointed a handgun at the victim and demanded his property. The victim handed over his backpack which contained his laptop, along with his phone and wallet. The suspect then fled to an older model tan vehicle which fled north on Walnut St. The suspect was a black male, 20-25yrs wearing a navy colored sweatshirt and had short dreadlocks.
On 08/18/13 at 4:35pm, on the 1700 block of Broderick, the four victims were taking pictures of each other when the two suspects approached. The first suspect was smiling and the victims were going to ask them to take a photo of them. One of the suspects suddenly grabbed one of the girls from behind and pointed a handgun at them. He said “this is no joke” and demanded all of their phones. The other suspect grabbed one of the phones from the victim’s hand while the other two victims handed their phones over. The suspects then fled east on Pine St. One suspect was described as a Hispanic male, 25yrs, wearing a black pea coat and a white baseball cap with a black brim. The other suspect was a black male, 26yrs, with a “buzz cut” hair style, wearing a dark coat and dark jeans.”
This kind of thing is much less likely to happen to people who are driving, biking or transiting by, IMO.
All the deets:
“Captain’s Message - Richmond Station Officers are leaving no stone unturned as we work to arrest offenders responsible for a series of robberies in the area bordering Divisadero to Presidio and Sacramento to Geary Blvd. Officers and Investigators are working with bordering districts saturating the area to apprehend these criminals. Our team has been interviewing witnesses, reviewing surveillance video and comparing notes with our neighboring districts in search of these persons. We continue to ask that you pay attention to your surroundings, walk with your head up and not be distracted by your mobile devices. Also we are able to track your phone if it is taken and has not been turned off, so please remember your password to your application.”
As in “The Projects.”
The climate here on McAllister is still a bit “muggy,” but this neighborhood is far from the worst in town.
(And if you hit a couple of green lights on the way to Civic Center, you’ll get there in less than a minute. Hurray!)
LS and RX for those keeping score:
Click to expand
Remember, “Transit First”
[UPDATE: Ah, well, TBI reacts by fixing the MACALLISTER typo, but by not fixing the map. You see, Gough doesn't dead end here and Laguna doesn't dead end here neither. The Bold Italic is written like it's produced by minimum security prisoners in upstate New York making 11 cents per hour, IMO.]
Here you go, “Where Are The Cheaper Rents in SF?”
Gannett Co. Inc’s money-losing (millions and millions so far) San Francisco media experiment is, once again, taking on an issue of concern to newcomers:
Where Should I Live And What Does Where I Live Say About Me?
Except this time it’s a dump from TBI “partner” Zumper, whatever the Hell that is.
So all there’s for the low level TBI people to do is make the accompanying graphics to break up the grafs.
Oh, here we go:
So, you know why the rents are cheaper here generally, GANNETCOINCTHEBOLDITALICZUMPER? It’s because of all the federally-subsidized housing projects.
Oh, but you knew that and you showed that you knew that. So that’s good, I guess.
But actually, the area you’re showing is mostly PJ’s and concomitant parking lots? So the small number of readers you have won’t be able to actually move in, right? I can think of just one small area, in the upper right, where your data points come from. Is that what you’re talking about, TBIZumper?
Anyway, that’s why streets like Buchanan and Octavia dead end here, because of the Redevelopment, right?
Except Laguna doesn’t dead end, it does go through, right? Do you know that, TBI? The map says that you don’t know that. (And a good thing that Laguna doesn’t dead end, else the climate in this area would be even more muggy, if you know what I mean.)
And how many people at TBI looked at “MACALLISTER” and said, “Looks good to me, no problems here?”
But check it, the typos aren’t the problem, they are just the symptom of your problem.
“…here in San Francisco, we’re striving to create our own culturally significant publication that captures the city in such a thoughtful way…”
So, TBI, do you really think you’re a culturally significant publication? Do you really think you’re capturing the city in a thoughtful way?
So, TBI, do you really think you’re:
“a San Francisco-based website building a cultural narrative of the city for both locals and tourists?”
Well, I can see that you’re aimed at tourists but I don’t know about cultural narratives and whatnot.
All right, enjoy your high burn rate.
And enjoy your unsustainable clubhouse on Page while you slap a few graphics onto your partners’ pretty-much-worthless content.
And enjoy your self-indulgent field trips that really really super serve your readers.
END OF LINE.
[GRUB STREET SF has an explanation from the owner. Plus there’s good news for Dogpatch! Sort of. Before 7:30 PM, anyway.]
Remember back in the day, back more than a half-decade when a joint like Amici’s East Coast Pizzeria could get away with a delivery map like this?
Check it, the Western A and the Potrero Hill PJs were carved out of the delivery areas and the gritty “Uptown” Tenderloin / Twitterloin / 6th Street / Flank area only enjoyed daytime delivery, thusly:
And then came this map, which is a little less racist:
And oh wait, this is the current map still.
(At least the southern part of Potrero Hill isn’t carved out so blatantly these days.)
Taxi drivers can’t legally refuse to take you to certain areas of San Francisco due to their concerns over personal safety. Non, non, non. That’s a crime called failure to convey that can land a cabbie in the hoosegow. Why are pizza drivers treated differently?
Because in 1996, Supervisor Willie Kennedy gave us a law, (one that became national news), but then it got watered down such that a “reasonable good faith belief” that a driver would be in danger in a particular nabe is now enough to allow the brazen publication of redlined pizza maps.
And check it, flower and newspaper delivery people are off the hook as well.
Note also that there doesn’t seem to be any designated punishment for a violation anyway. Oh well.
To review, cabbies are on the hook, delivery people not.
NB: Dominoes appears to use a different map, or maybe none at all, as it seems they’ll delivery just about anywhere in our seven square.
The More You Know…
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or business entity to refuse to provide home delivery services to any residential address within the City and County of San Francisco falling within that person’s or business entity’s normal service range. A person or business entity may not set its normal service range to exclude a neighborhood or location based upon the race, color, ancestry, national origin, place of birth, sex, age, religion, creed, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, weight or height, of the residents of that neighborhood or location. Where a person or business entity regularly advertises home delivery services to the entire City and County, that person or business entity’s “normal service range” shall be defined by the geographic boundaries of the City and County.
(b) For purposes of this Section, “home delivery services” shall mean the delivery of merchandise to residential addresses, when such services are regularly advertised or provided by any person or business entity.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, it shall not be unlawful for a person or business entity to refuse to provide home delivery services to a residential address if (i) the occupants at that address have previously refused to pay in full for services provided to them by that person or business entity; or (ii) such refusal is necessary for the employer to comply with any applicable State or federal occupational safety and health requirements or existing union contract; or (iii) the person or business entity has a reasonable good faith belief that providing delivery services to that address would expose delivery personnel to an unreasonable risk of harm.
(Added by Ord. 217-96, App. 5/30/96; amended by Ord. 295-96, App. 7/17/96; Ord. 222-02, File No. 021462, App. 11/15/2002)