Posts Tagged ‘rent control’

The Most Airbnb People You Could Possibly Imagine, Alamo Square Area, Western Addition, USA

Monday, August 11th, 2014

(Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That.)

This has been a remarkable change, over the past half-decade.

You see them, all over the place, every day, coming and going, taking photos of buildings, looking at maps, asking where “the Seven Ladies” are, asking where the “Full House house” is, and rolling luggage up and down the street, you know, that kind of thing.

Sometimes I don’t know if they’re Airbnb people, but other times, like this time, it’s easy to tell: 

Click to expand

I don’t have a generalized beef against tourists – that makes me different from the typical Western Addition NIMBY.

In any event, this is what Airbnb looks like IRL on the street.

Will This Fall’s Half-Billion Transit Bond Allow Your Landlord to Raise Your Rent, Costing You Thousands? – “Pass-Throughs”

Friday, August 1st, 2014

I don’t know.

But check this out:

“Ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the City and County of San Francisco on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, for the purpose of submitting to San Francisco voters a proposition to incur the following bonded debt of the City and County: $500,000,000 to finance the construction, acquisition, and improvement of certain transportation and transit related improvements, and related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes; authorizing landlords to pass-through 50% of  the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants under Administrative Code Chapter 37…”

All right kids – you do the math. Start with $850,000,000 and divide that up among the denizens of the 415 / 628.

I don’t know how to do that but when I tried, I came up with a $30 a month rent increase for you, Gentle Reader, for the next 7-10 years.

Would the average landlord take the trouble to do a pass-through? IDK. I’m thinking the typical rent-controlled renter in SF doesn’t have to deal with pass-throughs currently. But maybe this big old honking bond would be the trigger for a wave of passthroughs?

Here’s what former SFGov employee Howard Wong has to say:

Arguments against MUNI infrastructure improvement bond

What does the ballot measure do:

Raises property taxes and rents (50% pass-through) to pay for General Obligation Bonds of $500 million, with $350 million in interest payments, for a total debt load of $850 million.

Funds “may be allocated” for transit and roads—carte blanche authority for unspecific projects.

If the Bond is rejected by voters, property taxes and rents would be reduced for everyone—not just for rich companies and the wealthy.

To read the Ordinance’s legal language is to oppose the Bond Measure.

http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/Meeting_Information/BSC/agendas/2014/November/1-B%20Transportation%20Road%20Improvement%20GO.pdf

The SFMTA wants more money, certainly. But the question is what will the SFMTA do for us in order to get the money, right? Otherwise, we’re just shoveling more coal into a broken-down machine. Why not use the bond as a carrot to get the SFMTA to reform?

Perhaps our SFMTA doesn’t deserve this bond?

Anyway, if I were promoting this bond, I’d figure out what the odds are that landlords would pass through 50% of the burden and also how much rents would be increased, on average, and for how long. And then I’d say, well this is what the SFMTA is going to do with your money and this is how much it will cost you, the renter, or you, the owner.

Is this massive transit bond a good idea?

I don’t know.

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
Rent: $1,150
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?

Well, I think I’ve found the kitchen.

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?

“Price: $1,595
2 Bedrooms
1 full Bathroom
650 sqft”

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.

Uh oh.

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.

Uh oh:

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 1
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
tuesday 2014-07-29

1880 Page Street #3B

Bill Harkins Brokerage #01230576
www.billharkins.com

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.

Lease Terms:
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)

Details:
Studio / 1 Bath in Haight Ashbury
Rent: $1,150
Square feet: 200

Location:
1880 Page St #3B, San Francisco (Haight Ashbury)

Amenities:
* Carpet
* On Site Laundry

Contact:
Bill Harkins, Bill Harkins Brokerage, Inc

Spank the Landlord! – Infamous Owner of 312 Fillmore Gets a Notice of Violation from San Francisco – Tenants Strike Back

Friday, 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.

Ouch.

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 Score

Tuesday, 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.

“Mixed use property – 25 residential, 5 commercial  30 unit, 5-story building

 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
Zoning: NC2
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…

All right, play us out, Victor Vasquez:

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 Solution

Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

All right here we go:

In San Francisco, Rooms for $1,000/Month Are Now Scarce - Sam Harnett | April 2, 2014

“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. 

Aha! Watch Supervisor Scott Wiener Attempt to Prove He’s Not the Best Friend of SF’s Real Estate Industry

Tuesday, February 25th, 2014

Supervisor Scott Wiener goes long-form in The Castro Biscuit

Roy: As an initial matter, if you’re going to run a one-sided hit piece suggesting that I’m taking “dirty money,” you should give me a real opportunity to respond before you run the piece.

UH, WHO MADE UP THIS RULE? UH, IF YOU CAN’T STAND THE HEAT, SCOTT WIENER, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN, SCOTT WIENER

As for Tim Redmond’s hit piece on me, I’ll say the following. First, I question why Tim didn’t run the numbers for other Supervisors running for reelection or for the Assembly.

SO THE RULE IS “ANY CRITICISM OF SCOTT WIENER COMMITTED TO WRITING IS A ‘HIT PIECE?’” I THINK NOT. AND IF ATTORNEY SCOTT WIENER EVER GETS ARRESTED FOR LOOTING, HE’LL BE SURE ASK HIS ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT ALL THE OTHER LOOTERS WHO _WEREN’T_ ARRESTED, RIGHT?

Second, my record on rent control is long and pro-renter.

AHAHAHAHAH! SCOTT WIENER IS THE SAN FRANCISCO REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY’S BEST FRIEND. THAT MEANS THAT HE’S DEFINITELY NOT “PRO-RENTER.” IF HE WANTS TO SAY THAT HE DOESN’T WANT TO BAN RENT CONTROL THIS YEAR I’LL BELIEVE HIM. BUT SCOTT WIENER HAS NEVER BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE THE “PRO-RENTER” CANDIDATE IN ANY CONTESTED ELECTION. SO YOUR LAUNDRY LIST IS WORTHLESS, SCOTT WIENER.

As for my campaign donations throughDecember 31, as disclosed on the recent campaign report, 85% of my donations…”

BLAH BLAH BLAH, ALL THAT DOESN’T MATTER. YOU, SCOTT WIENER, ARE THE SAN FRANCISCO REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY’S BEST FRIEND. WOULD ANYONE DENY THIS?

Unfortunately, there’s a troubling trend in some self-described progressive political circles to define who are “real San Franciscans” and who are not.

SCOTT WIENER, THOUGH HE’D LIKE TO DENY THIS, IS A RIGHT-OF-CENTER SAN FRANCISCO POLITICIAN. HE IS CRITICIZING “FOLKS” ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE FOR NOT LIVING UP TO HIS EXPECTATIONS. SO HE’S “TROUBLED” BY THIS. OK FINE. BUT YOU, SCOTT WIENER, ARE THE BEST FRIEND OF THE SAN FRANCISCO REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY, RIGHT? ISN’T THAT “TROUBLING” AS WELL?

As with every elected official, I raise money from a wide array of sources. And, yes, that includes architects, real estate agents, folks in construction, trade unions, and folks who build housing. A number of the realtors who contributed are folks I’ve known for a long time…

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOU GOTTA CAPITALIZE THE “R” IN REALTORS, LIKE DUH, DUDE. SECOND OF ALL, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, THAT’S SCOTT WIENER’S FAVORITEST CRUTCH WORD.

As noted, donors to my campaign, overwhelmingly, are San Francisco residents, and almost half of them live in the district. They include folks who work in real estate and folks who don’t.

OBVIOUSLY, SUPERVISOR SCOTT WIENER IS VERY VERY AFRAID OF BEING VIEWED AS BEING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY. OBVIOUSLY, SUPERVISOR SCOTT WIENER THINKS THAT HE CAN CHANGE PEOPLE’S MINDS ON THIS SITUATION BY USING THE TERM “FOLKS” SEVEN TIMES IN THREE PARAGRAPHS. IS THIS HIS BEST EFFORT?

SCOTT WIENER, IF YOU DON’T LIKE YOUR JOB, IF YOU HAVE SO SO MANY COMPLAINTS, WHY DON’T YOU QUIT?

Here’s What You Should Do When Your Landlord Sends You This Mandatory Tobacco Smoke Disclosure Letter This Month

Monday, November 18th, 2013

Absolutely nothing.

Say it again, y’all: Absolutely nothing.

Background: District One (aka The Richmond, more or less) Supervisor Eric Mar is a bird of another feather – he wasn’t satisfied with issuing edicts from Academia oh no. He descended from the ivory tower to put dreams into action. And his father passed away from lung cancer (AFAIK, pretty sure), so it would make sense that he wanted to do something for San Francisco renters who have to deal with secondhand smoke coming in from other units.

Get all the deets on San Francisco’s 2013 Tobacco Smoke Disclosure Policy as of last year via this excellent article from Christian Watjen right here.

So that’s the background. What’s going on now is that tenants all over the City are getting alarming/confusing letters from landlords. To wit:

Nervous Gay Couple Living With AIDS Get Letter from the Landlord

Now here’s what you’ll get* if your landlord toes the party line of the San Francisco Apartment Association – an excerpt of the pledge they want you to make:

“For purposes of the Tobacco Smoke Disclosure Policy and SF Health Code 19M, I would like to designate my apartment as non-smoking. I verify that neither I nor my guests will ever smoke tobacco within the rental apartment listed below.”

Uh, so why should tenants make this pledge? It’s not explained in this official SFAA letter now is it? And what if Barack Obama or Bill Clinton drops by your pad a few years from now? They puff puff every now and then, right? So what about your signed pledge, what about that?

And here’s what the lawyer(s) of  the SFAA have for you at the bottom of the letter:

“If you do voluntarily decide to designate your apartment as non-smoking, which you are not required to do, the designation is permanent and becomes a consensual change in the terms of your tenancy.”

Oh.

If you’re living in rent-controlled San Francisco, I think you should get some kind of benefit when you change the terms of your tenancy, you know, as a general rule .

And later on, is your landlord going to complain about how you’re violating the terms of your tenancy when you allowed your future bud / date / friend smoke one cigarette to help her get through one of her stressed out moments?

Or your Euro fiance can’t move in with you in 2015 because your “designation is permanent?”

And should we assume second-hand smoke from clove cigarettes and/or the Mary Jane is good for you, since it’s not covered?

Now, IRL, is this issue going to affect you? Prolly not. But I’m just saying.

So, sign your pledge or just ignore it – choose or lose, maybe.

*Assuming that you’re living in a building with fewer than 50 units and you aren’t restricted from smoking now. This is the notification you’ll get otherwise, possibly, and it’s fair enough. And here’s the full rundown from the SFAA. Again, no objections.

All the deets, after the jump

(more…)

Would Christina Olague Have “Saved Rent Control?”

Thursday, November 8th, 2012

No, not at all.

So why did people hold a rally about former Interim Supervisor Christina Olague saving rent control?

On the steps of City Hall:

Click to expand

I know not.

Now, if you wanted to say that renters as a group, overall, would have been better off with a Christina Olague, or a John Rizzo, or a Julian Davis as Supervisor of District Five, well then you might have something…

I s’pose it doesn’t matter now.

 

Hey Feds! Senator Leland Yee is Inviting You All to Our Mayor Election – Why Not Take a Working Vacation in San Francisco?

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011

So what do you think, Federales? You think you could see your way clear to coming to the 415 for the next week or so to investigate electoral corruption in San Francisco? Come on down to work a week in town. I just know that you’ll find something.

But that’s only from nine to five, you dig? After hours, you can visit whichever new or existing Michelin-starred restaurant that you want. And then, just expense it, baby. Easy peasy.

San Francisco wins, you win.

This will be your 11th course at The French Laundry (yes, Pixar used it as a model for the kitchen in Ratatouille) up in Napa: Feuillentine au Caramel. “Intense oozing,” baby. Serving the Commonweal never tasted so good:

Via ulterior epicure

All right, here’s a cheat sheet to get you started:

“More Ed Lee Money Laundering and Voter Fraud Uncovered – Leland Yee Says Enough Is Enough – State & Federal Election Monitors Needed

SAN FRANCISCO – The well documented scene in Chinatown of Ed Lee IE campaign workers filling out ballots for voters and the Go Lorries money laundering scheme may seem tame in comparison to what two local newspapers documented in today’s paper.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that a person known for “strong-arming tenants out of rent-controlled apartments” emailed associates of Archway Property Services directing them to attend a Lee fundraiser and telling them they would be reimbursed for their $500 contribution. Campaign finance laws prohibit money laundering.

Andrew Hawkins, the managing director of Archway Property Services, emailed 16 associates the following: “I expect each and every one of you to be at this event tonight. Bring your check books and write a check for $500.00 for Ed Lee donation. You will be reimbursed right away for you coming.”

In addition, the Epoch Times Chinese newspaper went undercover to find Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC) and Community Tenant Association (CTA) staff also working on the Ed Lee campaign and even having keys to his office on Clay Street. In addition, the paper found various instances of CCDC, CTA, or Ed Lee campaign staff filling out and mailing voters ballots, in clear violation of law. Many of the ballots from these documented locations arrived at the Election’s Office at the same time.

“This is yet further evidence that we need state and federal election monitors now,” said Senator Leland Yee. “San Franciscans cannot afford to just wait out the clock until November 8. There appears to be massive voter fraud that should be immediately investigated to protect the integrity of this election. Either Ed Lee is condoning these illegal tactics or the wool is being pulled over his eyes – not what we need of our Mayor.”

Filling out their ballots

After describing themselves as prospective voters, two Epoch Times reporters were met by a Lee campaign worker who explained that her role with CTA included working on the Lee campaign.

The worker explained that “helping” voters in fact meant to simply have an elderly person sign and date their ballot, and then she or another campaign worker would take it away to fill it out and mail it in.

Using a nonprofit for campaign purposes

At 777 Broadway – a CCDC building – CTA is apparently running an office out of the community room in which they also distribute Ed Lee campaign literature and make announcements for meetings in support of Lee’s mayoral bid. CCDC says that political advertising is not allowed at their buildings.

Coincidental statistics

According to CCDC website, the 777 Broadway building includes 31 studio apartments. According to voter records, there are 33 registered voters of which 31 are vote by mail voters. This equates to nearly 94 percent of the voters being vote by mail. By comparison, the city at large is only 46 percent. And even as early as October 24, 60 percent of the 777 Broadway voters had already cast their ballots, versus only 6 percent for the rest of the city.

Equally troubling is the fact that 19 of the ballots from the building arrived at the Elections Office within a day of each other. In essence, the public is expected to believe that 1/3 of the ballots arrived at virtually the same time in complete coincidence.

A similar phenomenon exists with another CCDC building – 1590 Broadway – in which 20 absentee ballots arrived at the Election’s department on the exact same day, October 24.

More voter and election fraud

Epoch Times spoke to one elderly woman who sad that she was visited by a CTA worker and signed her ballot without filling it out and was told that it would be filled out for her and mailed in. Filling out and mailing in other people’s ballots is a clear violation of elections law.

A number of CTA and CCDC workers were observed “popping in and working alongside other staff” at Lee’s 943 Clay Street campaign office. In fact, one CCDC worker even had keys to the office and was observed opening the door for the undercover reporters.”

See you soon, Feds!