Thursday, April 15, 2021
News + Politics Deal to replace art space with luxury condos has...

Deal to replace art space with luxury condos has a glitch

-

There are also tenants living in the building — and they don’t want to leave

Jade Miller and John Kitchen tell reporters that they are fighting their eviction
Jade Miller and John Kitchen tell reporters that they are fighting their eviction

By Tim Redmond

JULY 22, 2015 – A deal between two art-space operators and a developer who wants to turn an entire block in the Mission into condos has run into an unexpected glitch:

There are people living in the building, and they aren’t willing to leave.

The building at 2050 Bryant has been at the heart of debates over the future of the Mission since developer Nick Podell bought the property (and everything around it) and decided to evict everyone and build luxury housing.

Opponents call it the Beast on Bryant, and argue that the last thing the neighborhood needs is more high-end housing – and that the city’s commitment to preserving blue-collar jobs and community art space is in the balance.

But Podell has cut deals with some of the industrial tenants and with the owners of InnerMission, which used to be Cell Space; he promised InnerMission that he would help find a new place for the operation, and would subsidize the rent for five years.

That caused the two InnerMission owners, Mike Gaines and Eric Reid, to drop their opposition to the project.

But apparently nobody was paying much attention to the fact that the arts space was also a living space, and had been a living space since at least 2002. Evicting commercial tenants is one thing; throwing out residents is another. The rules are very different – and the current tenants are not ready to move.

That creates a dilemma for Gaines and Reid: They have been accepting rent from their tenants, which makes them the landlord – and now they and the developer are proceeding with an eviction action.

It won’t be easy – in San Francisco, tenants can only be evicted for “just cause” – and while the building will eventually be demolished, the project approvals don’t go before the Planning Commission until September, and the process could drag out much longer.

“We weren’t part of the agreement,” Jade Miller, who has lived in the building for about two months, told me.

Under city law, anyone living in a place for 30 days is legally a tenant with rent-control and eviction protections.

Reid told me that he had allowed the tenants to live in the space with the express understanding that they would have to leave at the end of June, when the commercial lease InnerMission had expired.

He said he had given them “a roof over their heads” because he thought it was a temporary situation, and that the handful of tenants were just there while they found another place to live.

It was, he said, “a mistake.”

And yet the building that has been described largely as a production, distribution, and repair space with arts tenants was also for a long time a living space.

“The building’s owner knows there are people here,” Tommi Avicolli Mecca, a tenant advocate with the Housing Rights Committee, said.

And the rules for evictions of residential tenants are different than the rules for commercial spaces, which can be evicted for any reason when a lease runs out.

At a press conference this morning, tenants said they see this as a battle for the future of the Mission, and that they would like to see some version of the old Cell Space remain in the property.

They also said that they were under the impression they could stay until the very end: “We were told we could be there until they come to knock it down,” Miller said.

Reid and Gaines posted a letter in the window urging reporters to ignore the press conference.   “We were fooled by these imposters once we opened our doors and hearts to them out of good community will,” it stated. “They are attempting to hijack the space to serve their own agenda.”

A letter from the InnerMission owners tells reporters to ignore the plight of the tenants
A letter from the InnerMission owners tells reporters to ignore the plight of the tenants

Although Reid and Gaines say all the tenants are short-timers, one – John Kitchen, who goes by the name Johnny Knuckles – has been living in the building for nine months. And legally it doesn’t matter: After 30 days, a tenant is a tenant.

Reid told me that InnerMission still has a lot of valuable stuff in the building, and was planning to move it out slowly over the next few months. “But now we are forced to do this eviction,” he said, “and we all have to go now.”

The landlord’s eviction notice names InnerMission as well as the residential tenants, who say they were never served with the notice.

Reid also told me that he offered the tenants thousands of dollars to move out – but Mecca said that buyout offer was never registered with the city, as the law now requires.

This is all, of course, part of a much-larger issue: Should valuable PDR space in the Mission be turned into more high-end housing (which does nothing to help the current housing crisis?) Is this project a good idea in the first place — even if the developer has cut deals with some of the previous tenants?

Why should an entire city block on Bryant Street become housing for the rich — and how wil that impact the rest of the neighborhood?

The Planning Commission hearing on the developer’s permit is in September.

I ran into Jon Youtt, who built and operated Cell Space (as a nonprofit) for many years at the press conference. He told me that the place had always been live-work space for artists, and that the previous owner knew that and approved of it.

The pending evictions, he said, were frustrating: “They are pitting artists against artists. If the developer wants the tenants out, he should be responsible instead of making InnerMission do his dirty work.”

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.

32 COMMENTS

  1. In other words, you are a common tax cheat. You benefit from San Francisco and you refuse to pay your fair share. And you are racist as well. Scumlord doesn’t begin to describe you.

  2. I deny that I am denying anything.

    But civil disobedience against unjust laws has a long and proud history among us progressives

  3. How incredibly selfish. Instead of housing for a few hundred people, including 44 BMR units, we have a couple squatters taking up a full city block. Shame.

  4. Ah yes, $am. He’s lurking around here somewhere, but hard to spot because he hasn’t used any of his favorite terms.

  5. Nice denial of what I wrote. Oh that’s right, you didn’t deny anything. Again, you game the system and then have the audacity to complain about others gaming the system. Crawl back into your cave.

  6. You don’t know low long those rentals are. More than 30 days mean no TOT applies, even if you believe that TOT should otherwise apply to non-hotels

  7. oh look, your comments reveal a non-intersectional racist on top of it. I feel sorry for you. Someday someone will dox you and I will laugh.

  8. This is why you should only rent to people in tech. Take a good look at the picture of these two losers. If anyone that even looks remotely like them wants to fill out an application to rent your space, it goes straight in the garbage. This landlord must be out of his mind.

  9. Regarding tax-cheating – here is what he wrote last year:

    “Yes, I have mostly used CraigsList to find short-term tenants and nobody has ever suggested that Craig should pay the alleged tax on it.
    . . .
    Another odd thing is how the city can claim both that short-term lets are illegal AND that they are taxable It can only be be or the other or else the city is profiting from illegal acts. It’s like requiring hookers and drug dealers to pay a special city tax.”

    https://48hills.org/2014/10/03/seems-like-everyone-airbnb-bill/#comment-1908903475

    And in other comments, I believe that he’s been pretty clear that he isn’t paying taxes on his tourist rentals. I’m too lazy to search.

  10. I think RealFakeSanFranciscan nailed it: “Face it: for rich and poor alike, this city is all about choosing which laws you’re going to ignore, and which you’ll be enraged about other people ignoring.” I would add “because of a lack of leadership and vision.”

  11. Thats true. This is not strictly about RC. This is more generally about tenancy and its complications. These guys were foolish to think they could befriend someone in this manner – specially given the tenor of their whole project and the whole area (the Mission, yes, but SF in general).

    And even if the LL were able to raise the rent to unpayable levels, the laws are such that a smart (and unscrupulous – which is what we have here) tenant can extract months (or even years) of rent-free living – even @ $10 gazillion/mth.

    I’m neither criticizing or condoning their project. Guess the folks who have been there for, what, two months, are ‘folk heroes’. Or, ‘terrorists’!

  12. Rent control isn’t the same as renter’s rights. I guess in a non-RC unit the landlord could raise the rent by $10,000 a month so it would be eviction by rent increase. But even if this place wasn’t rent controlled, wouldn’t the landlord have the same problems?

  13. “tax-cheating scumlord”

    Ok, I suppose I can imagine the ‘slumlord’ (though I really imagine his units as being in pretty good condition). But – “tax-cheating”??

    So G – even though such a situatoin could be exploited in areas w/o RC, one can imagine how much more complicated RC makes this one. It goes to the inherent riskiness of residential renting.

    But this is, essentially, a business dispute (and, yes, shakedown). Yet you can’t imagine why an owner-occupant might hesitate in creating legal new RC apts – even with a 20% ROI? Its just not enuf to cover the risks when its your own home, peace-of-mind, and life’s-savings .

  14. He’s just part of a grand SF tradition. Face it: for rich and poor alike, this city is all about choosing which laws you’re going to ignore, and which you’ll be enraged about other people ignoring.

  15. If the building is not zoned as residential, then it should be relatively easy for the owner to get DBI to agree the unit being lived in is “illegal”, whereupon a just cause eviction can be issued for demolition.

    It’s just appalling that the “tenants” would make an owner go through that after he did them a favor.

  16. If your friends get cheap rent there, it’s OK to break the law. OTOH, turning it into tech offices, or housing that might be filled by tech workers, is eeeeevil.

    Hope that helps.

  17. Poor, beleaguered tourist-renting, tax-cheating scumlord complaining about others supposedly gaming the system like he does.

  18. These tenants are awesome!!!!! The cellspace was one of my first artist sites I came to in SF. Hope the rest of the neighborhood stops by and gives them mad moral support. WOOT. fuck the beast in the mission.

  19. No good deed goes unpunished. The owner does this pair a favor by letting them live there temporarily and they abuse the good will. Sad sick losers.

  20. I can’t feel sorry for the developer. They offered these guys “thousands of dollars”—as in, a month’s rent in SF? Cough up. It’s a lot cheaper than, say, finding unexpected soils when deepening the foundation. They’re planning on selling hundreds of millions dollars’ worth of condos anyway.

Comments are closed.

More by this author

Breed won’t promise to spend real-estate tax money on rent relief

The voters approved Prop. I last fall to support tenants and affordable housing, but the mayor says she will use the money for her own priorities.

Reese Erlich, foreign correspondent and radical reporter, is dead at 73

After a life of progressive politics, ground-breaking journalism, and social activism, a legendary writer loses battle with cancer.

There’s a lot more to the GG Park debate than cars v. bikes

This is part of a huge discussion the city needs to have about transportation -- and equity -- in a post-COVID world.

SF could have affordable Internet for everyone for $35 a resident

Why isn't the Breed Administration moving for municipal broadband? That's The Agenda for April 11-18

A new move to get corporate money out of state political campaigns

AB 20 would ban contributions from corporations to any candidate for state office in CA.

Most read

Radical right group is trying to attack public-sector labor in SF

Anti-union mailers are going to workers home addresses -- but really, this group is looking pretty desperate.

How To Reopen Nightlife: Enough with the boys’ club, make room for women

DJ femmelectric and promoter Alex McGeagh speak about equity, access, and safety for women and nonbinary folks.

Black Freighter Press sails in, boosting writers of color and radical imagination

The revolution will be published, with the help of SF Poet Laureate Tongo Eisen-Martin and Alie Jones' new outlet.

City College students fight back against brutal faculty cuts

Firing teachers could also mean the end of a lot of treasured programs.

You might also likeRELATED