Posts Tagged ‘rent’
Surprise! The Evil New Corporate Boat House at Stow Lake Charges 26% Less for Row Boats Than the Old “Local” Boat HouseWednesday, November 12th, 2014
Here you go, here’s the former “Save Stow Lake” website – this is where the “evil” language comes from.
One problem is that old vendor, the entity that the Save Stow Lake people wanted to “save,” charged too much money, starting about five or six years ago. For example, the old vendor would charge $19 per hour for some pretty busted up row boats.
The current rate is back down to $14 per hour:
And this is the cafe seating area, which doesn’t seem to get used too much. (The worry some people had was that this would become a high-end destination restaurant with concomitant traffic and parking hassles.)
Rec and Park has a lot of issues, IMO, and I’m unafraid to criticize it, certainly. But I didn’t see what the big beef was about putting the boat house contract out for bid. And of course, I still don’t.
I mean, extremely. There’s no way they’d be hanging about the Western Addition like this, without a clue whether their next step is to the north, south, east, or west, but for Airbnb, or something like Airbnb.
Of course, some welcome this development and others don’t.
No matter, it’s an ongoing revolution
ATTENTION RESIDENTS OF THE NEW “NEMA” BUILDING: A Massive Rent Increase is Coming Your Way – ‘Cause No Rent ControlTuesday, November 4th, 2014
But don’t take my word for it, listen to one of your neighbors at 8 Tenth Street, 94103, via the Yelp:
“Please read this if you are considering any non-rent control building in San Francisco. I wish someone had told me this when I moved to the city and chose Nema. Please consider this advice.
If you have visited Nema, you probably can tell that the management, amenities and staff are outstanding. You may also notice that everyone living in the building has just moved from another city or state. Here’s why:
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you rent in a non-rent control building, unless you can sign a multi-year lease. Could you afford a double digit rent increase? 50% rent increase? Is your income doubling next year? It seems far away now, but you will probably want to renew your lease. Now is the time to make a good decision about housing, not next year because you will be paying much more then.”
So basically, buildings built AFTER rent control came to San Francisco in 1979 don’t have no rent control. (The relevant date is printed on your landlord’s Occupancy Permit, but if your crib went up in 1980 or later, don’t even bother checking.)
That means that your friends renting units in older buildings will face a maximum annual rent increase limited to 60% of a certain Cost of Living Index dealing with the Bay Area. That means one-something percent per year.
OTOH, if you moved into the NeMA at $1950 per month last year (as some did, 2nd or 3rd floor, lousy view* – Unit 324, for example**) and your lease is coming up, consider that there are no units available now for less than $2800 (I’m srsly – some studios go for $4000+)
Are you, the NeMA renter, looking at a 40% rent increase soon?
If not this year, what about the next year too? How long will it take to have a 40% increase for your unit, you know, cumulatively?
Sooner than you think Auslander.
Sooner than you think, Outlander.
Why don’t websites aimed at tourists and newcomers tell you this? Well, because they’re on the take from … The NEMA!
I assign this story to the San Francisco Chronicle – this one writes itself. (This would be a good CW Nevius, I’m seriously.)
*Compared with the rest of the units in the Nema.
**This was not a BMR (Below Market Rate) unit reserved for those people making less than $38,000 per year, no no. Those places went for around $950 per month. I’m talking about market rate units back when market rate was $1950 per month for the least desirable apartments at NeMA – that was all the way back in 2013.
Shocking: The Term “New Market” Has Become Normalized Already – Here’s “NEMA” Right Next to SOMA No Big DealTuesday, November 4th, 2014
I give up, NEMA is here to stay. All it took was one little weather station high (nine stories) above Mid Market:
How should the NEMA people celebrate this climate-related milestone? What would they say?
WEATHER, NOT PLEATHER
FORECASTS, NOT WHORECASTS
CLIMATE SAVVY, NOT SHABBY
You get the idea. (Like similarly, I could almost write one of Frank Chu’s signs after seeing so many over the years.)
Do you know that at least two people moved into the NeMA for less than $2k per month? (No, not the Below Market Rent people-some of those are paying high thtee figs, I’m srsly.) Granted, these were studios on low floors, but still, people pay more than that now for bedbug-infested cribs across the street and a bit to the northeast in the actual Tenderloin.
So Nema tenants, brace, brace, brace – your massive rent increase is coming, soon, FYI.
Leaving you with:
Bay Area Bike Share: Just Two Stars on Yelp? – How Much Do Tourists Pay for Their Leisurely Trips Out to Ocean Beach?Friday, October 31st, 2014
The thing about Bay Area Bike Share is that the bikes aren’t good and they cost a lot of money to rent. This is by design. (Part of it has to do with the govmint not wanting to get static from all those companies what rent normal bikes to tourists.)
Now, are there any BABS stations anywhere near the west si-iiiide of town? No, not even close.
So these people, who made it all the way Way Out West, to the farthest reaches of SF County, what are they thinking? Are they thinking, “Hey, we’re paying $28 an hour for our bikes – let’s hang out and have a picnic?” Nope. They’re thinking, “We’re paying $18 to rent these bikes all day long.”
IDK. I’m sure BABS knows, but they’re not saying. Perhaps they go easy on the tourists and give a partial refund when somebody faces a $100 rental bill.
Or maybe the tourists think, “Oh, I got a bike for the next three days and it will cost just $22 – America, What A Country?”
As seen, later on, on the western reaches of JFK Drive, pushing the old ball and chain back up through the miles it will take to get back to the nearest station:
And the workers get paid close to minimum wage? And some out of state company will end up making millions or tens of millions of dollars off of this program? If you approve of BABS, with all its issues, then you’d approve of any possible bike program that could be dreamed up by anybody. I minimize the cost to myself by never ever using it – that way, these people only get my tax money and not any of my after-tax take-home pay.
Why not instead just buy bikes with the same amount of tax money, you know, bikes that are twice as good and ten times cheaper and then simply give them away? I’m srsly.
Oh, you’re happy because more people are riding bikes? Well, walking’s good too, right?
I can understand how this program might benefit a small number of people* on a daily basis, but I don’t think the cost is justified. At all.
This is what I’m talking about:
“Let me start by saying, I had a blast when riding these bikes. We rented 6 bikes and rode them for hours. We were charged $80 per bike, so $160 per credit card as you can only rent 2 bikes per card. They DO NOT explain very clearly that you pay $9 for the day but you have to have it docked every 30 minutes or they charge you more. We called and emailed and explained everything to them (they are used to people complaining about this) they sent us a very mean email telling us that it’s our fault that we didn’t read their deceptive instructions correctly. Then have us 25% back to shut us up. What a Bay Area bike share scam! I give it 1 star as it was a blast of a day but not worth it overall. Will NEVER use again and tell EVERYONE about this horrible experience.”
“Please do yourself a favor and don’t use Bay Area Bike Share. It’s a total rip off. Husband and I paid $68 to ride these heavy, hard to use bikes for 2.5 hours. Also, customer service is a joke. They don’t care one bit, as they are truly scammers. They make it seem like you’re paying $9 for a 24-hour period. NOT TRUE. Completely misleading.”
And here’s a sample from the Yelp posts what got taken down – see if you can get the gist of Yukiko N’s beef against BABS:
“With the help 24 hours , is a place of $9 , to see the credit card debit of after one month and $ 158 in ! Many times , and also contact us by e-mail address , one week Nashinotsubute . When the phone , $ 9 in membership , ridiculous that the use of more than one hour is considered overtime answer ! Absolutely not recommended.”
That’s just a taste. Read on and on to see why the Yelp rating is so so low….
*People who should prolly just buy a bike and learn how to take care of it and then ride it around.
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.
How Mercy High School Makes a Few Extra Bucks: Hosting Lots of Cell Phone Tower Antennas on the RoofThursday, September 11th, 2014
MERCY HIGH SCHOOL (Students: 500; Location: 3250 19TH AVE; Grades: 9 – 12; Girls only)
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…