yesongx3-wide

Posted in Vote! 2014 | Leave a comment

Map: How Airbnb Is Fueling San Francisco’s Sky-High Rents (Think Progress)

Map: How Airbnb Is Fueling San Francisco’s Sky-High Rents

Skyrocketing rents in San Francisco are forcing radical change to the city’s social fabric, and new research from a community housing group seeks to pin part of the blame on the so-called “sharing economy.” The Anti-Eviction Mapping Project (AEMP) has published a map of Airbnb and VRBO rental listings that illustrates the sites’ huge influence in the city.
The map shows approximate locations of the 6,788 separate vacation rentals listed in San Francisco through the websites Airbnb and VRBO. The 5,503 Airbnb rentals AEMP found represents a jump of more than 10 percent since last June when the group found fewer than 5,000. In 2012, a San Francisco Chronicle investigation found just 1,800 such listings in the city. The map helps to illustrate the huge footprint that vacation rentals now have in the city’s housing market, as the city prepares to start enforcing a new slate of laws for vacation rentals that city activists say are “flawed and unenforceable,” according to The Verge…

Posted in airbnb, Bad Neighbor, business bastards, Gentrifucked, links, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area, Sharing Economy, VRBO | Leave a comment

Anti-Eviction Mapping Project – Vacant Units in San Francisco

Anti-Eviction Mapping Project – Vacant Units in San Francisco.
AMP-airbnbvrbo-map

Posted in airbnb, business bastards, Gentrifucked, links, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area, Sharing Economy, Sharing Economy Bullshit, Tenant Landlord, VRBO | Leave a comment

Why The Sharing Economy Isn’t – Whimsley

Why The Sharing Economy Isn’t – Whimsley.

Interesting website/blog.

Whimsley
…where Tom Slee writes about technology and politics

Airbnb City Maps

Page 2

Posted in airbnb, links, Sharing Economy | Leave a comment

Three Days of the Condo-ers

The article was “Meet The Woman At The Heart Of San Francisco’s Anti-Tech Gentrification Protests” in the Business Insider, on May 25, 2014.

It was a profile of Erin McElroy, the San Francisco activist involved in the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project (among others). The tone of the article (in my opinion) was somewhat condescending to Ms McElroy, and somewhat inflated when speaking of the activists’ actions.

In the three days of comments I’ve re-printed here the main defender of McElroy, and her activities, was Julie Levak-Madding, who runs the VanishingSF page on Facebook. The general run of ‘anti’ comments fluctuated between personal attacks on McElroy and personal attacks on Levak-Madding, and typical ‘free market’ pseudo arguments, with an occasional somewhat thoughtful statement actually concerned with the article’s subject matter.

I try not to read this stuff, as it comes online. I used to actually partake, thinking reason would prevail. But that was a very short-lived theory. Nowadays I tend to ignore the comments, and oftentimes the article itself, because all the biased bullshit ranting (again, in the comments and in the articles themselves) just riles me up. It makes my head hurt, my teeth ache, and my hope for humanity shrivel. But occasionally I run across something like this, that I wasn’t aware of (I had read the article, but not the comments), after the fact, while searching for something else. It is truly a classic example of how the San Francisco Debate runs.

A couple of things come to mind when I read the comments thread on an article like this.

1. Let’s call an Asshole an Asshole. A lot of these commenters have no problem doing so–and being dead wrong doesn’t slow them down one bit. But those on the other side tend to try to reason and discuss, until the tone gets so ugly and hateful and moronic that they eventually have to bow out of the conversation, shaking their heads in dismay. It’s very much like Republicans versus Democrats: the Republicans put up a united front, right or wrong, do or die, putting forward the meanest, most self-serving, horrendous agendas, while the Democrats try to reason, see both sides, and hope to persuade others to their viewpoint, and then squabble internally about the myriad intricacies of the subject matter, while giving the store away in the name of ‘reasonable compromise’ (eg: Jane Kim. She says all the right things to appease the Left and Progressives, up to the point when she votes–against you. But San Francisco wants to hang onto her, because one time, long ago… and maybe someday…).

2. There is no point in arguing evolution with creationists. There is no point in discussing San Francisco’s problems with people who don’t care about San Francisco, and don’t care about the welfare of others, who only care about ‘the market’ and ‘this is how capitalism works’ and ‘if you don’t like it leave’, and ‘stop your whining and get a better job’. There is no point in arguing with someone who is making gobs of money off our backs, or receiving company perks as a god-given right that as a side-effect harm and devastate others not so fortunate as themselves. Maybe–maybe, you can persuade someone who actually does live here (and is making gobs of money off our backs, or riding a google bus, or airbnb’ing a spare room just to make rent) that what’s happening in San Francisco is not just, and that something needs to be done. I’m sure they’re out there. But they’re usually not to be found in the comments section on the internet (and I know that there are probably many who ride a tech shuttle bus, or feel they are forced into using airbnb in order to survive, and some landlords, who are on ‘our’ side–but many more are not, and they are generally louder, and more vigorous, defending their actions, their profits, and their perks).

I guess the lesson to be learned is: spend your efforts and your energy where it might actually do some good. And, obviously, the internet comments section is not the place. Unless you want to while away some hours like I have, doing a postmortem.

I’ve ‘striked out’ comments that are just mean or idiotic, or off-track (but still legible, if you want). This includes many of Julie Levak-Madding‘s responses to comments that were mean or idiotic, or off-track, even though she was nearly the lone sane voice in a wilderness of internet trolls. And I’ve made bold some of the remarks that I responded to–from here in the comfort of postmortem land.

So if you missed it back in May, as I did, here’s another chance. San Francisco debate at its finest.

COMMENTS… Continue reading

Posted in Bullshit Statistics, Bullshit Tech Journalism, crackpot, Eviction, Gentrifucked, internet crazy, please die (gently) in your sleep, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area, This is why we need more Liberal Arts programs | Leave a comment

A Lively Comment Section

From 48 Hills

Facing the eviction threat: Tenants push back and slow Ellis evictions in 2014 ~ Part 1 of 2

and…

Facing the evictions: A tenant agenda for 2015 ~ Part 2 of 2

and then, in the comment section…

whoisgussdolan

Dear Jim,
We prefer the term ‘crackpot’ here. ‘Insane’ is way too technical, and I’m not sure you’re qualified to make such a diagnosis–especially considering how you totally missed the point of the blog post you are referring to.
Sincerely,
Guss.

Posted in crackpot, Eviction, Gentrifucked, internet crazy, SF Bay Area, Tenant Landlord | Leave a comment

10 Years of Ellis Act ‘Notice of Withdrawal of Units from Rent or Lease’ filings in San Francisco

This is only a partial list.
Records were retrieved from CRIIS database by downloading ‘NOTICE’ filings for each month, then examining ‘NAME’ field for text like “WITHDRAWAL RENTAL UNT FRM RNT OR LEASE”. This filing is required prior to an Ellis Act eviction where the property owner is stating that they no longer intend to be in the “landlord business”.
Since the wording varies greatly, and there is no official phrase specified for the filing, a number of records are assumed to have been missed.

These are ‘properties’ removed from the rental market, not units. The number of units involved per property can usually be found by clicking the SF Planning APN link (this page will also contain a link to CRIIS website for all documents filed pertaining to this APN).

A filing does not mean the actual eviction of tenants was eventually carried out–the filing could have been rescinded (but most likely was not; and evicted they most likely were). [added] Or… Under threat of eviction, the tenants ‘voluntarily’ moved out; under threat of eviction, the tenants accepted a buy-out and ‘voluntarily’ moved out. Just to name 2 alternate scenarios.

This is all ‘to the best of my knowledge’.

Here are a few sample records.

Each has a top row of “Document Link”, “APN Link” (both links to CRIIS), Recording Date, Document ID, Document Type, “E” for Grantee, and text from NAME field

The 2nd line, if available, has “Street Address”, “APN Link” (link to SF Planning website)
[added] Note: an APN of “9999-999″ = APN not found

The next line will have the names involved in the record (the owners) (linked to their records on CRIIS)

This sample has a complete record:

Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 03/17/2005 H920815-00 NOTICE E WITHDRAWAL OF RNTL UNTS FRM RNT OR LSE
[936 to 936 GREEN ST; ] 0120-027
SCHAUPP CHARLOTTE R

This record states “NO ADDR” for address. If you click the APN link to SF Planning website you will probably get a pop-up message which states the APN no longer exists, has been subdivided, and offers you a choice of new APNs to select. This happens when a multi-unit property has been split into single units and sold off, usually as TICs (all with new, unique, APNs).

Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 07/18/2005 H991180-00 NOTICE E WITHDRAWAL OF RSDNTL UNTS FRM RNT OR LSE
[NO ADDR] 3727-059
BERMEJO CANDY ZACZEK MICHAEL

This record shown no address, no APN link. If you click on other links (documents, names) you might be able to figure out the property address (sometimes not; in that case you need to examine the paper document).

Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 08/17/2005 I010780-00 NOTICE E WITHDRAWAL OF RNTL UNTS FRM RNT OR LSE
CHU OTT PAK-ANG

The sample below is an LLC owner record. If you click the “CLAY INVESTMENTS LLC” link you will be on a CRIIS page with 1 record showing (the WITHDRAWAL OF RNTL UNTS record). But search CRIIS for “CLAY INVESTMENT LLC” (not InvestmentS), and you will find many more records for this company (but not the “WITHDRAWAL OF RNTL UNTS” record). This happens so often in these records that I have come to believe these ‘typos’ are intentional, in order to make it harder for anyone to follow the convoluted machinations of some of these speculators.

Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 10/07/2005 I049470-00 NOTICE E WITHDRAWAL OF RNTL UNTS FRM RNT OR LSE
[223 to 225 09TH ST; ] 3729-079
CLAY INVESTMENTS LLC

 

[added] Note: When clicking on an APN and the SF Planning website shows a pop-up box saying “APN not found”, and then offers a list of APNs to choose, if the record here shows an actual address you can replace the APN with the address on the SF Planning website and usually it will now return the results you are looking for.

The complete file can be found here. (500k+)

Each person/company named in these records has stated that they no longer intend to be in the ‘landlord’ business. And for doing so they have been allowed to evict all tenants from a property with no ‘just cause’. For many of these, if you examine all related records, you will see that they did indeed, over the years, sell off all of the properties that they own, and have purchased no more ‘tenant/rental’ properties since.

For some others, when you examine the records, you will see that they purchased more properties since the ‘WITHDRAWAL’ filing, and if you follow up on those properties you will see that some of them were multi-unit buildings which most likely were apartments rented to tenants. More follow up will show that many of these properties were later sold as individual units (again, this is how it appears from reading just these records; there is no way to know for sure by just examining these online records). So, in a sense, it is true that these landlords got out of the landlord business–they switched to the property flipping business, buying ‘landlord-owned, tenant-occupied’ properties, getting the tenants to leave, one way or another (many times through ‘Owner Move-in’ evictions, the “NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY” filings), then subdividing and selling the individual units. I’m not sure this is a behavior that the Ellis Act intended (then again, maybe they planned on this from the very beginning–the built-in loopholes).

It’s easy enough to find property owners in this list that match the scenario above, and under closer examination would be found to be breaking the spirit, if not the letter of the law. More likely candidates for a higher success rate (of weaselly speculator antics) would be to examine the LLCs involved, and who is behind them (a good place to start is corporationwikiand bizapedia), and you are likely to find many more individuals who have claimed to be leaving the landlord business, yet continue to buy tenant occupied properties over and over again, under different corporate names (a common practice for speculators is to create a new LLC for each property acquired; after the property is purchased, Ellis Acted, evicted, remodeled, then subdivided and sold, the LLC is dissolved).

No-one has the time to run down all these names and transactions thoroughly. But for now, just browsing the list and clicking on some of the links gives you a rough idea of how the Ellis Act is working out for San Francisco speculators. You can find out more about evictions in general and some of these ‘repeat no longer landlords’ at the Anti Eviction Mapping website (and links to more resources on that website).

Again, here’s a link to the complete document.

*Note: Similar names will show up in some CRIIS records. They are not necessarily the same person. Identical names, for that matter, can actually be a different person (but most likely are not). These links are just pointers to public records available to all. They need to be examined in more detail to provide proof of what they appear to be saying.

Posted in Ellis Act Evictions, Eviction, Gentrifucked, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area, Tenant Landlord, Vote! 2015 | 1 Comment

Vote for Ed Lee 2015

edlee2015-1

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee as a keynote speaker in 2011 at an Oracle event in the Moscone Center–Oracle by Larry Ellison, the man who said “This whole issue of privacy is utterly fascinating to me. Who’s ever heard of this information being misused by the government? In what way?” With friends like this, who needs voters?

Posted in Mayor Ed Lee, Vote! 2015 | Leave a comment

Can you pick which apartment the Owner is moving into?

On 12/24/2014 two NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY records were filed for an ‘Owner Move-in’ eviction for 1441 to 1449 STEVENSON ST.
(Owner = STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS, Address = 1441 to 1449 STEVENSON ST;
Owner = STEVENSON STREETS PARTNERS LP, Address = 1441 to 1449 STEVENSON ST)

1441 to 1449 STEVENSON ST is this close to the intended condo development at 16th and Mission:
walkingmap

Here are some screengrabs of the property from Google maps (September, 2014) (can you guess which boarded-up burned-out apartments the owners are moving into?)…

prop1

prop2

prop3

Here’s some of the history…

On 12/06/2002 the property was purchased by STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS, from KAILATH SARAH, KAILATH THOMAS, VERKAMP THOMAS P.
On 07/21/2014 the DEED was transferred from STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS to STEVENSON PLAZA LLC.
On the same day (07/21/2014) a DEED OF TRUST was filed, from STEVENSON PLAZA LLC, to STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS.
On 12/24/2014 a NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY was filed by STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS.
And another, on the same day, NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY was filed by STEVENSON STREETS PARTNERS LP.

Note: “STEVENSON STREETS PARTNERS LP” is a typo. The actual name is “STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS LP”.
This kind of typo/mis-spelling is found on many documents in the CRIIS documents, and makes it difficult to retrieve all pertinent records.
Makes you wonder if the typo is intentional, sometimes.

————————————————–

Search CRIIS for STEVENSON STREET* and you get this (partial listing):
(“R” before name indicates Grantor/From (Seller, if applicable), “E” indicates Grantee/To (Buyer, if applicable))

2014 J910175-00 07/21/2014     DEED OF TRUST 3532-025 1441--1449 STEVENSON ST 
2014 J910175-00 07/21/2014     DEED OF TRUST R STEVENSON PLAZA LLC 
				             E STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS 
2014 J910174-00 07/21/2014     DEED 3532-025 1441--1449 STEVENSON ST 
2014 J910174-00 07/21/2014     DEED R STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS 
			            E STEVENSON PLAZA LLC 
2004 H649160-01 01/28/2004 I562 0508 DEED OF TRUST 3532-025 1441--1449 STEVENSON ST 
2004 H649160-01 01/28/2004 I562 0508 DEED OF TRUST R STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS 
					           E PAUL V KAILATH IRREVOC TR 
2003 H587332-01 11/13/2003 I513 0953 DEED OF TRUST 3532-025 1441--1449 STEVENSON ST 
2003 H587332-01 11/13/2003 I513 0953 DEED OF TRUST R STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS 
					           E PRIYA S KAILATH IRREVOCABLE TRUST 
2002 H305958-00 12/06/2002 I278 0673 DEED 3532-025 1441--1449 STEVENSON ST 
2002 H305958-00 12/06/2002 I278 0673 DEED R KAILATH SARAH 
				          R KAILATH THOMAS 
				          R VERKAMP THOMAS P 
				          E STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS 
2002 H305960-01 12/06/2002 I278 0675 DEED OF TRUST 3532-025 1441--1449 STEVENSON ST 
2002 H305960-01 12/06/2002 I278 0675 DEED OF TRUST R STEVENSON STREET PRTNERS 
				          E SPARKS ADAM 
and (as noted above):
2014 J998468-00 12/24/2014     NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY 3532-025 1441--1449 STEVENSON ST 
2014 J998468-00 12/24/2014     NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY R STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS 
								      E SFCC-RENT BOARD 
2014 J998469-00 12/24/2014     NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY 3532-025 1441--1449 STEVENSON ST 
2014 J998469-00 12/24/2014     NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY R STEVENSON STREETS PARTNERS LP 
								      E SFCC-RENT BOARD 

————————————————–

From the CA SOS website:

STEVENSON PLAZA LLC:
Entity Name: STEVENSON PLAZA, LLC
Entity Number: 201419010365
Date Filed: 07/09/2014
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 1499 OLD BAYSHORE HWY ROOM 203
Entity City, State, Zip: BURLINGAME CA 94010
Agent for Service of Process: IRENE Y FUJII
Agent Address: 1528 S EL CAMINO REAL STE 306
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN MATEO CA 94402

STEVENSON STREETS PARTNERS LP:
Entity Name: STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Entity Number: 200018800026
Date Filed: 06/29/2000
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 1776 MISSION ST
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
Agent for Service of Process: ALBERT JOSHUA
Agent Address: 1776 MISSION ST
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103

From BIZIPEDIA:

STEVENSON PLAZA LLC: (nothing found)

STEVENSON STREETS PARTNERS:
Company Information
Company Name: STEVENSON STREET PARTNERS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
File Number: 200018800026
Filing State: California (CA)
Filing Status: Active
Filing Date: June 29, 2000
Company Age: 14 Years, 7 Months
Registered Agent: Albert Joshua
1776 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94103
Principal Address: 1776 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94103
Mailing Address: 1776 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94103
Company Contacts
ALBERT JOSHUA, Officer
1776 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94103

————————————————–

And this is what many ‘Owner Move-in’ evictions in San Francisco look like.

Personally, I think it’s highly unlikely that one (let alone two) of the owners are moving into this property.
I think it’s more likely that they intend to get all of the residents out of this property, then (first demolish?) build/convert some new condos or high-rent apartments as the 16th & Mission neighborhood gets more and more expensive and pushes the current residents out.
But that’s just what I think.

Posted in Eviction, Gentrifucked, New SF Tech Class, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, Tenant Landlord, Too Many Luxury Condos | Leave a comment

Intended Owner Move-in Evictions in San Francisco for December 2014 (final)

[added Jan 6 2015]
Regarding “Intended Ellis Act Evictions in San Francisco for…” posts:
My mistake. The “NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY” recording is part of an “Owner Move-in” eviction, not an Ellis Act eviction. The Ellis Act eviction requires a “NOTICE/NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM RENT OR LEASE” filing.
More on Owner Move-in eviction procedures can be found here SF Rent Board.
More on Ellis Act eviction procedures can be found here SF Rent Board.
As far as I can tell, each rental unit where someone is being evicted from a property needs a separate “NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY” filing, whereas (this I know for sure) only a single Ellis Act eviction notice for a property, no matter how many units are involved, is required. One “NOTICE/NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM RENT OR LEASE” filing pertains to all the units within the same property (and all units must be removed from the rental market–or none–as required by the law), but the record posted on the CRIIS website gives no indication of the number of units involved (they are listed on the actual paper form).
Sorry for the confusion/error.

These are “NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY” records recently posted by City Recorder, which is required prior to an ‘Owner Move-in’ Eviction. Dates listed are dates of recording, not necessarily date of filing.
Click on links for CRIIS website owner, records info
Click on APN number (####?-###?) for link to SF Planning Property Map website (from there you can click a link to see all CRIIS records for that property)
Click here to open html file in separate window
*note: if SF Planning site offers multiple APNs, APN listed here has probably been sub-divided
*note: some CRIIS links may show more names than listed here; these are not necessarily involved in intent to evict notice
Names are LAST FIRST MIDDLE (no commas)
Continue reading

Posted in Eviction, Gentrifucked, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area, Tenant Landlord | Leave a comment

San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim Ringtone

San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim Ringtone

janekim-ringtone

“And, of course, I’ve also been an Airbnb user, not here in San Francisco, but I’ve used it in other cities, and it’s been a great way to vacation with groups of friends, when it’s hard to get multiple hotel rooms, but you’re going in large groups.”
“I’ve certainly done it for weddings, and for big musical showcases.”

When asked (via San Francisco Board of Supervisors website) if she could verify that the Airbnb rentals she has used did not involve any tenants having been evicted, or forced out of their apartments, she did not respond.

‘Big musical showcases’ implies New York City, where many Airbnb rentals are illegal. Did Supervisor Jane Kim rent, or stay at, an illegal Airbnb unit in New York City? And if she did, was it while on official business for the City of San Francisco?

Audio track from SF BOS Land Use & Economic Development hearing on ‘home sharing’ starting at approximately 00:50:00.

And if your phone is short on memory, here’s an edited version…

Posted in A Wolf in Supervisor's Clothing, airbnb, Gentrifucked, Giving Democrats a Bad Name, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, ringtone, SF Bay Area, Sharing Economy | 3 Comments