Posts Tagged ‘real estate’

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.

Opposition Meeting for the 5-Unit Development Proposed at 1846 Grove / 1815 Fulton on Oct. 3rd, Page Branch Library

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Background is here and here.

Meeting info is here:

Group: Save SF Open Space
Event title: NOPA community meeting on Grove Street Construction
Event purpose: This is a neighborhood meeting to discuss the construction project at 1846V Grove Street
Meeting Location: Park Branch of San Francisco Public Library, 1833 Page
Time and Date: 7:00-8:30 PM on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017

Contact info:

SaveSFopenspace@gmail.com

Capturefgdfgffff (1)

Opposition Organizes Against the 5-Unit Development Proposed for 1846 Grove / 1815 Fulton – A “Landlocked” Parcel Near Masonic

Thursday, September 7th, 2017

There was a meeting about this proposal, which was under the radar until a couple weeks ago. Now, it’s a heavy blip, so it won’t be able to sneak into the ‘hood the way The World’s Smallest Burger King snuck into a 990 square foot parcel on 9th Ave back in the day.

Anyway, here it is, and if anything the width of the 3.5 foot wide panhandle part has been dramatically exaggerated in this official map:

Capturefgdfgffff

The time to have built here was a century ago IMO.

I don’t think it’s going to work out but that’s JMO…

The Craziest Frisco Infill Development Scheme Ever: Five Units with Just 3.5 Feet of Frontage – At 1846 Grove AND 1815 Fulton

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

Presenting 1815-1823 Fulton Street aka 1846 Grove Street – it’s that large parcel that prolly should be part of the backyards of people who live on the block bounded by Fulton, Masonic, Grove, and Ashbury in the 94117. But it’s not, so the plan now is to have this land used for five new units.

Access will be just to the right (east) of Bistro Gambrinus along a 100(!) foot path what’s just 3.5 feet wide.

Captureuhuhuh copy

This was the old plan, with just four units. The lot looks like Oklahoma with the panhandle part pointing upwards:

36d559246e69668bdc66bc8dc9a81534.jpg.max800 copy

So, how do you get your furniture in? Through the 3.5 foot wide access canyon on Fulton. I guess it’s wide enough, but how would get materials to the site? And forget about a garage, right?

Man, when the neighbors find out about this, well, some of them will not be pleased, I promise you.

Hey, if you want to yammer about this plan, come to the Page Branch of your San Francisco Public Library on September 6th, 2017 at 7:30 PM for the mandatory Pre-Application meeting. I’m sure they’ll have plans for the current proposal.

This is Masonic. The back fences of these places are the eastern edge of the access path:

7J7C8904 copy

Oh here it is – this is your view from the sidewalk of Fulton. This is all the frontage you get to share with four other units:

7J7C8908 copy

Existing gate:

7J7C8911 copy

Fulton again:

7J7C8913 copy

And a wide angle view:

7J7C8914 copy

Now let’s go around the block to what I’m guessing is 1846 Grove. I suppose this area wouldn’t change:

7J7C8920 copy

I don’t know what else could be done with this parcel. So I suppose this plan would be the highest and best use. But I’ve never seen anything like it.

Here’s something from 2006, when the plan was to use the Grove side for access:

Capturedfsddgdd

Dear Mr. Teeters: Planning Department staff has reviewed your letter of December 15, 2005, requesting a determination of the procedural requirements for development of an interior lot with a 3’-6” wide pedestrian access to Grove Street. Both proposed schemes involve the construction of two structures of two dwelling units each. Scheme A keeps the lot as it is, while Scheme B subdivides the lots. I have made the following determinations.

1. Scheme A requires the following applications: • A variance under Section 134 for construction in the required rear yard • A variance under Section 151 for the lack of parking • A conditional use application under Section 209.1(g) to develop more than two units on the lot. • Building Permit Application with Section 311 neighbor notification

2. Scheme B requires the following applications: • A variance under Section 134 for construction in the required rear yard • A variance under Section 151 for the lack of parking • A variance under Section 121 for the lack of street frontage • Building Permit Application with Section 311 neighbor notification • Application for subdivision through the Department of Public Works.

This application does not need to be initiated or complete prior to Planning Department approval, however approval will be conditional on subdivision approval.

UPDATE: Early indications are there will be some opposition, to say the least:

ALERTALERTALERT

Twitterloin Update: Hibernia Bank / ONE JONES has a New Friendlier Fence – Was This a Good Investment of $20 Million?

Thursday, May 11th, 2017

IDK.

Anyway, this usually empty hulk has some new marketing signs out front…

7J7C1692 copy

…and here’s the new see-through fence:

7J7C1812 copy

Here’s a good one, from last year, from Area Realtor CWNevius:

The overhaul will surely have a positive effect on the neighborhood…

I’ll tell you, I have a beef with just about every part of this clause except for overhaul, because this building was indeed overhauled. But “will” and “surely” and “positive effect” and “neighborhood,” well, geez. Next time you’re at this corner, you know, buying your street meat or whatever, pop open your mobile and scan for WiFi – and then you’ll see that that there are no actual neighbors in this so-called neighborhood.

(And that’s just one clause of one bit out of four bits what made up a full two days’ work for Chuck Nevius. I don’t think I ever read all these bits. Look how happy he was when his colleague also got a ticket from the MUNI police, the same way as Chuck hisself did just a few months earlier. Except Chuck didn’t actually pay his fare. And then he complained about the way he was caught. And I think he’s still mad about getting towed by the SFMTA, even though he admitted breaking the rules. What a character!)

Anyway, who will dare to move into One Jones? Who will be The One?

(Hey what about the Academy of Art – they could have come in few years back and opened up yet another campus the way they did with that landmarked pavestone church at Van Ness and Union. I don’t think their stus would mind this 1 Jones location, at all…)

Our Golden Gate Park is Nothing But an Advertising Opportunity for Some Local realtors

Monday, May 1st, 2017

As you can see:

7J7C1281 copy

This is firmly inside of GGP, on MLK, not that far from Lincoln, way out there on the West Side.

Does our RPD have an advertising policy for GGP? IDK, but I doubt that this ad is kosher.

(The word realtor should never be capitalized. IMO. The people responsible for advertising here in GGP are agents and/or brokers and maybe realtors or not, but prolly there’s a realtor involved somewhere along the line.)

In closing, I’ve never seen this in GGP, in all my years. Tsk tsk, area realtors.

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

Sign of the Times: “BUBBLE REAL ESTATE”

Wednesday, July 20th, 2016

I’d seen this before, but I hadn’t seen the actual sign:

7J7C8970 copy

Still not sure how serious this venture is…

Historic Koshland Mansion, Frisco’s Most Expensive Listing, is Taken Over by HandyCam-Toting Skateboarders – Another Indignity at 3800 Washington

Wednesday, April 27th, 2016

For one brief shining moment, some thought Taylor Swift would buy this long-empty fixer-upper up in Presidio Heights.

Then there was the art-thieving squatter – he’s imprisoned now, AFAIK.

And now this is how things looked last week:

7J7C5599 copy

I count five sk8tr boyz recording their tricks up there.

Look for the results on the YouTube.

Our poor, poor Koshland Mansion…

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.”