Drawing the Crisis: Karlie Cheang and Jack Delacruz on the eviction epidemic

I just laughed so hard; my coffee came up through my nose, at that!

Really? Some renter is complaining about 120 days notice of eviction? Normally only 30 days notice is given, so this seems like an extremely generous homeowner.

Right Greg. I was referring to Lee’s veto.

You really aren’t that bright are you?

Ha. Nobody’s ever called me a right winger.

Which of these sounds more right wing:
1) Disagreeing with Halprin’s decision, while recognizing that he was a human being with friends and family who mourn his passing.
2) Cheering the death of a stranger based on political differences, seeing it as some kind of cosmic punishment for immoral behavior.

Your helping people for a living and being on Team Liberal does not get you off the hook for taking a page from the Westboro Baptist playbook. Progressives do not take victory laps when people die.

That is true. However those who took out liar loans have only themselves to blame. No doc Interest-only 125% LTV neg-am loans? The correlation between subsequent default and IQ is a near perfect inverse correlation.

To be fair to Greg’s healing powers, he helped me get over my outrage over the cops killing young black males by explaining to me that they could only have met such a premature end if they were bad people who somehow deserved to die young.

He calls it the Halprin Syndrome and I believe he may be in line for a Nobel Prize for Medicine.

No, actually, I didn’t. If “karma” was an actual thing, Cheney would have been killed years ago.

Yeah, I do agree with you that a lot of people lost their jobs as a kind of “ripple effect” because of the crash.

secret Cancer therapy – it allows the Cancer cooties to evaporate upward into the Ether.

Actually no. If you look at the ripple effect including layoffs because of the resulting lousy economy, etc, this went way beyond those who were irresponsible in borrowing.

And while many, maybe most, who were irresponsible with their mortgages, some were coaxed into these loans. I know – when I was bidding on a house in SF in days of mortgage ‘prequalification’ the bank kept telling me that I could afford almost double the price that I wanted to spend and they spent a lot of effort trying to upsale me. I really had to stand firm and be rude to get them to stop.

Can’t you see that Greg is just trying to ‘help’ you the same way he helps others? Lets just hope he reads charts better than chat boards.

Hmmm. No mentioned made of killing him.

You say that as though its a ‘good’ thing. Maybe he’s suffering greatly (as he oughta).

And I work at night a lot. Some people have two jobs you Union ass sniffer.

I’m fucking outraged. Take good hard look at what you wrote.

Greg and Pete presumably believe that Woods, Grant and Nieto all deserved to die young because of some alleged misdeeds of theirs.

And if the cops who killed them live to be 100 then clearly they had right on their side.

In your dreams, perhaps. But regardless the fact is that US tax policy was highly influenced by them and remains so to this day. The fact that you conveniently believe they are “discredited” is therefore irrelevant.

Um, most people who got hosed in 2008 did so because they took out loans that they couldn’t afford to pay back.

Then how do you explain Dick Cheney still being alive?

Laffer’s theories are so discredited that they’re regarded as laughable.

Evidently they were not “fully insured” then, were they?

Do your due diligence when buying insurance.

So you don’t sympathize with those fully-insured people who had to declare bankruptcy because of expensive health issues and fraudulent insurance practices? You don’t sympathize with those who did nothing wrong but were trounced in the 2008 global economic meltdown?

So poverty is a product of bad luck … but cancer is a product of being a bad person.

Man, there’s such a weird brew of cognitive biases in your commenting output here.

If Greg really believes in karma then it follows that Nieto, Grant and Woods all deserved it, because of some prior bad acts.

I don’t think Greg wants to go there.

I am talking about financial issues. Obviously anyone can be killed in an attack by the kind of terrorists that you usually sympathize with

It is not immoral to want to decide who you share your home with

Every high tax nation I have studied or otherwise know about has a fairly consistent tax structure. Most are still progressive but, in general, if the highest rates of tax are higher, then the lower rates are also higher. Look at the US before Reagan, for instance, or the UK rates before tHatcher.

No, once you leave the US it is very difficult for the US government to apply leverage. Many nations do not have an extradition treaty with the US, and many more do not recognize US court judgements. In theory US citizens are taxable wherever they are. In practice it can be very hard to collect. You can’t send in the CIA every time.

Laffer’s theories are well known, of course. I am just helping you to understand the reasons behind them. 40% is a reasonable sweet spot for income taxes, but it could be much less if we introduce a VAT or a flat tax

Yeah, those people killed in the Paris attack should have planned right. The people who were killed in Fukushma didn’t plan right. The fully-insured people who had to declare bankruptcy because of expensive health issues and fraudulent insurance practices didn’t plan right. Those people who did nothing wrong but were trounced in the 2008 global economic meltdown didn’t plan correctly.

Enough of your libertarian nonsense.

The law, as they say, is an ass. He was using the law to do something immoral, and deep down inside I think he understood that.

Just because you work in healthcare doesn’t mean you help people. there are plenty of quacks out there selling nutritional supplements that do no good, or fake quackery types of alternative medicine that do more harm than good.

And your conscience cannot be clear if you gloat about the death of someone merely because they hold a different political opinion.

Halprin wanted to control who lived in his home. That is perfectly natural. So natural that the law gives property owners an absolute unfettered right to do that. The issue of it being good or bad is entirely subjective

“First, there just aren’t that many rich people to make that much
difference. In the past, and in other nations that still try this,
higher tax rates on the rich means higher tax rates on everyone.”

Not necessarily.

“Second, the rich typically have plenty of options about where they domicile themselves, and their assets, and what to invest in.”

Governments have just as many options to counteract that. They could make life very uncomfortable for someone who leaves the country to evade taxes… IF they want to.

“Third, after-tax gains and profits are what motivate. If you tax me
more, I may just decide its not worth building a new plant or hiring
more workers.”

After-tax gains will increase with increasing demand. If working class people and retirees have more money to spend, someone will see the opportunity for profit and step in.

There is a vast amount of speculation there. For instance, plenty of poor parents lose kids as well. Like Woods the other day. Was that karma too> Because he committed crimes? I’ll bet you don’t think so.

Being a bad person may effect your health, but only because you feel guilt or shame. Many people who do bad things have no conscience. Many live long lives. Some saints die young

You really are stretching this.

There is ultimately no such thing as luck. :Luck” is what happens when you don’t plan right.

No, it is a myth that you can all somehow miraculously rich by taxing the rich. For several reasons.

First, there just aren’t that many rich people to make that much difference. In the past, and in other nations that still try this, higher tax rates on the rich means higher tax rates on everyone.

Second, the rich typically have plenty of options about where they domicile themselves, and their assets, and what to invest in. Different nations compete for HNWI’s and if the US raises tax es without everywhere else raising taxes, then we lose out.

Third, after-tax gains and profits are what motivate. If you tax me more, I may just decide its not worth building a new plant or hiring more workers.

And so on

No, sometimes you end up poor by pure lousy luck.

Maybe not in the literal sense that everything will necessarily come back to you in perfect justice, and there’s an intelligent force out there making sure that it happens. But there is something to the idea that the things you do to others eventually come around, sometimes in unexpected ways.

One interesting example… I was in Stanford’s museum not too long ago. Leland Stanford was of course a vile robber barron who ruined the lives of many people in order to enrich himself and accumulate power. The museum actually has some of the political cartoons of the era comparing him to things like a grotesque octopus choking people with its tentacles. But he was also a devoted father, and the thing he loved the most in life was his only son, by all accounts a handsome and intelligent boy. Stanford did his best to shield his family from the attacks in the press, and at one point he decided to send his son out of the country for a few months to get him out of that toxic environment (an environment that Leland Standford brought upon himself, of course). Well the son caught pneumonia and died on that trip, and Leland Stanford died a rich, but broken and depressed man.

I don’t believe that some god-like being intervened to kill the thing that Leland Stanford loved the most in his life, but clearly this was an example of karma. Had he been less of a greedy robber barron, it wouldn’t have happened.

Disease is another way… one of the right wing trolls expressed the idea that the activists “hounded Halperin to an early grave.” I tend to think he brought it on himself. Either way, there is the recognition that his *choice* (and it was clearly a choice) to evict a bunch of people so that he could live posh may have affected his health. And it was a choice. Perhaps his heirs will learn from his mistake and make choices that they can feel better about themselves for making.

If you end up poor then, by definition, you did not do “everything right”. You might have done a lot of things right, but did at least one thing wrong.

Disagree. The suggested castration was clearly intended to be metaphorical and not literal.

Your mendacious gloating over the death of someone purely for holding a different political outlook, on the other hand, is repugnant.

I help people for a living. I don’t buy properties to evict perfectly good tenants who pay their rent for years and cause no trouble. My conscience is clear.

Halperin didn’t have to do the shitty thing he did. He had gobs of money. He could have bought many properties. He didn’t have to evict 5 families just so he could live posh. This idea you right wingers have that someone has a god-given right to cause whatever harm to others so that they can luxuriate in the style of their choosing is immoral and swinish. The fact that Halperin is dead does not excuse him being a dick in life.

I see what there is. I know many examples of people who did everything right and still didn’t achieve financial security in their old age.

Not on everyone. Just the rich. That, and different spending priorities -less on jails and war, more on healthcare and pensions.

Where did I say I wished death on anyone for merely holding a different political outlook?
It’s true that I don’t respect the convention of “thou shalt not speak ill of the dead.” I think it’s stupid. If someone was an asshole in life, their death does not negate the fact that they were an asshole. But all you eviction apologists are reading in to my words things that are not there.

Hiker behaves the same way on a number of other local sites, getting personal very quickly with anyone who he disagrees with.

And his stalking is even more malicious.

His point was that wishing death on someone for merely holding a different political outlook from yourself is not an attitude befitting a healthcare “professional” whose primary duty is to do no harm and treat everyone equally.

Everyone can have a great pension by higher taxes on everyone?

Delusional.

Disagree. You see what you want to see.

If you are smart and work hard, and still fail, then there is a question mark over your judgement or attitude.

Wealthy parasites? Envy will consume your soul

Except there is no evidence that it’s true – there are many counter-examples. It’s more a matter of confirmation bias. When a bad guy dies young, you notice. When he doesn’t, you don’t.

And in this case notions of “good ” or “evil” are very subjective anyway. Greg’s reflection on this are in very bad taste.

“nothing is guaranteed, because you’re subject to the whims of the stock market or whatever you’ve invested in.”

— like SF rental property?!

Yes, retirements can be ‘disrupted’, and the beneficiary can be a poor, sickly widow or some wanna-be artistes past their prime. Or neither or both!

All that said, everyone and everything has its own Karma. “Good” deeds have ‘evil’ consequences – its inescapable (like the upper middle class renter that passes her apt on to her child, who then feels no compunction to strive or earn and becomes a burden rather than a blessing. But they also have ‘good’ results (less costs for housing and more spending in other econ sectors). Or stability for current residents – but marginalization for future residents or difficulty for those seeking temp or mid-length rentals.

IN this instance, Greg is calling Halprins death “karma”. But that would also apply to the “disabled” tenant’s eviction struggle. Even if the eviction was only delayed (or rescinded). Nothing lasts forever – even ‘great deals’ on rent (or lucrative business opportunities).

Its called “cause & effect” in science. Or, “reap what you sow” in Shakespearean. Or “what goes around comes around”. Its a pretty universal phenomena. And value and judgement-free!

Rubbish. I see many smart and hardworking people who work their asses off and still struggle. Even if you manage to eek out “success,” you’re only one medical emergency or financial catastrophe from ruin. And I see many wealthy parasites who do nothing but reap the benefits from their social privilege living the good life.

The worst part is that it doesn’t have to be that way.

Did you really need 3 posts to express one tantrum, the sum total of which could have just been uttered in the words “I hate you?”

Looking at the time stamp, I see that all three were written at 3AM. That tells me one of two things. Either you’re not really a local and you’re just trolling. Or you came home after a massive drinking binge and staggered down into your mother’s basement, yelling, “Gimme the keyboard! *hic* I can type! I’ll show ’em all!!! *hic* ”

Either way… not good.

Looking at your posts, it seems you have a lot of anger management issues. It’s not good to be constantly mean and hateful. It leads to disease.

I seem to recall a particular post from a couple days ago, by one “CleanuptheHaight,” about wishing Ed Lee would cut off Aaron Peskin’s testicles. Doesn’t get much uglier than that.

And you’re in healthcare you say? That’s fucking shocking. You’re a capital A Asshole.

If I were you I’d lobby Tim to take that one down. It really makes you look like a monster.

That might be the ugliest post I’ve ever seen on here. And that’s saying something.

Only you would call such a sane, well spoken, and polite poster a “troll”.

Idiot smh

Once again hiker is talking straight out his ass. You have no idea what Halprin knew or what he was thinking.

I’d be upset if I were this woman. She really doesn’t come out well in these comics.

That’s right. To have that kind of security in retirement, you need to accumulate $2-3 million. Very few ever manage that, and even then nothing is guaranteed, because you’re subject to the whims of the stock market or whatever you’ve invested in.

Or, you could just do what they used to and give everyone a decent pension through taxes or employer contributions. It would be so easy to do, but instead we fund massive accumulation of wealth into the hands of a few individuals and make the rest fight for the few crumbs left over, pitting one group of workers against another to the amusement of the ruling class.

Speaking of Creativity Explored, nice to see you joining us!

I know karma right? Like Ted Gullicksen dying when Prop G was on the ballot?

“But who’s hogging that time?”

I’m willing to leave it up to the politburo to have the final say, but for my 2 cents, I don’t know, three months off a year, guaranteed pension at 80% of salary after whatever it is, 30 years of work or so. You know how many millions is would take in the bank to get a guaranteed 80% or your working income, plus health care, till you die? We’re talking not just tech salary here but tech executive, financier, lawyer, bank executive salary there.

How catty.

If a landlord rerents within two years, he is liable to the evicted tenant. A sale has nothing to do with a rerental.

If you really believe in a silly superstition like karma, your attitude here seems contrary to your beliefs

There is no such thing as karma

There is no such thing as Karma,

You can tell yourself that you’re awesome and successful and then cheer on the Internet when a stranger dies young.

If you believe so strongly in karma, you might want to rethink this thing you’re doing here.

The provision of housing, especially in a city with short supply like SF, is a very noble and honorable occupation. I am proud of the fact that I have housed over 100 hundred people. How many have you housed?

And sure I made some money out of it. Nothing wrong with that. After all, housing is a valuable commodity. But I also had to raise capital, take risks, deal with tenants and repairs, learn the law and meet any unknown cost and liabilities. Why shouldn’t that be rewarded?

You have this weird idea that those who create most of the jobs, products, services and prosperity in this nation are somehow subsidized by those who do not. The reality is that it is the exact opposite.

People don’t have to “work themselves to death” to succeed. They don’t have to succeed at all – that is a choice and an aspiration. Even in the US you can choose an easy job and just sit and wait to retire, like many city workers do.

There is a choice. Work hard and succeed. Or do just enough and get by.

Everyone has a choice. Poor people succeed all the time and rich folks fail. What is worse than either is not even trying or, worse, trying to confiscate the success of others

Yes, you can be a parasitic landlord, or a CEO who makes 100 times their average workers, and live in a great city, dick around with art or (conservative) activism or drug habits, while your tenants and/or employees pay your way and build your equity for you.

People live where they live for a variety of reasons. Ironically, I’ve been lucky enough to have a work-life balance as good or better than most Europeans. I’ve still considered leaving for a number of reasons, but family circumstances make that not feasible at this time.

But I’m not talking about myself. I’m talking about the situation for most people. People shouldn’t have to work themselves to death to “succeed.” And even people who do work that way are struggling. The janitor or teacher doing it probably don’t have much choice in the matter. The Google lawyer probably does, so I’m less sympathetic to their plight.

The people who work 60 hours a week want to. Either they want the overtime pay or (and this may come as a shock to you) they actually want to succeed.

You have chosen to live a country (we know you were born elsewhere) where the American Dream can come to those who who work hard and smart.

In Europe you could sit back in some “35 hour a week” job where you can’t be fired and count the days down to retirement. The US is not like that. You presumably chose the latter for a reason. What was it if all you really wanted was a safe easy life working part time?

If Halprin had wanted that “easier life” he could have stopped the eviction. Evidently he believed in his heart that the building needed to be liberated from a group of entitled tenants who wanted a perpetual handout. This will take some more time to resolve but his legacy will be ensured when the last self-serving holdout leaves.

Your point about free time is well taken. I’ve been fortunate to structure my own life to have a good work-life balance, but this is a huge problem in America. There are too few protections against time theft by corporations. And it has all sorts of repercussions -it affects people’s health, their ability to be involved in the political process, etc. You can never be free if you have to work 60 hours a week. Free time is an essential aspect of freedom that Americans too often forget about.

But who’s hogging that time? Who’s riding your ass to an early grave? It’s not the poor teacher who’s just trying to get by, or the janitor. Now the Google attorney may be on both ends -he may well have a boss riding his proverbial ass, even as he rides someone else’s. But he has options. He could work less. In fact, if he bought that building, he could probably not work at all at this point. Toward the end, he probably wished he had made better decisions about how to balance his life.

I asked for a clinical study and not the theories of some fake whacked quack.

The simple fact is that some good people die young and some evil folks live to be ancient. And even that assumes that any two people can agree on what is good and evil.

Reality isn’t as convenient as your self-serving fairy tales imply.

Hey, if you would wish death on someone just to stop an eviction, you wouldn’t have any moral issue with lying.

You’re also protesting way too much if I am really off base here, which tells me that I am not. I have a way to resolve this but that will be in a place and time of my choosing.

He said I worked in health care, which I do. I don’t peddle anything though.

I know you’re probably not interested. You’re not the sort to consider ideas that don’t square with your pre-existing biases but you can check out Dr. Mario Martinez, who talks a lot about mind-body connection.

Living a long time isn’t the be all and end all. Most people are more concerned with the quality of their life, and with family, friends, success and achievements, than grimly clinging on to life and becoming a bitter senile old curmudgeon.

The point is that your theory seems to be that evicting people leads to an earlier death. I’d love to see a medical study that confirms this, rather than it just being your wishful thinking.

Of course we know. Marcos outed you here. Don’t you remember publicly scolding him for doing that?

“peddle discounted health products in a mall.”

Ah, Sam. You still have no idea what I do. It must be frustrating.

Yes, they do, and no I’m not OK with that. But the distribution of life expectancy is nothing like the distribution of wealth, no matter how much the rich wish it was. And sometimes a poor teacher can live into their 90s, while a guy like Jobs goes at 58, and all his billions can’t buy him another minute.

Ask yourself why someone would do that. Knowing that he could no longer benefit from the Ellis, he still wanted those he cared about to benefit, by continuing with the eviction and thereby maximizing the property value.

Having come that far, why change?

Wow, Greg, you really should have been a doctor rather than peddle discounted health products in a mall.

It’s really that simple? “Good” people (defined by you, of course) live long and bad people die young?

Whatever happened to “those whom the Gods love die young”? Euripedes, wasn’t it?

If the brother is the executor then you are right. Oftentimes a lawyer or banker is retained for the job or specified in the will. In that case, fiduciary responsibility trumps beneficiary desires. The will trumps everything.

But wait. I thought you whined about our “for money” health system. Doesn’t that buy more time in exchange for money? Suddenly you are OK with that?

Richer folks live longer on average.

SFist boots everyone for everything. I am still posting there.

If you or someone else posted comments that could not be refuted easily, I’d post a lot less.

Wrong. I only say it is a good clean shoot” when it is. That cop in Baltimore who is charged with murder is different.

And a hunter would say a “good clean kill”. Hunters aim to kill; cops aim to stop.

I absolutely agree that public sector workers and civil servants are overpaid, although I make a worthy exception for sworn public safety officers and our military.

That is a special case of the more general meaning of the word.

FYI, 20 of 54 comments are yours. Didn’t you get booted from SFist for overposting?

Right, but if you don’t have the capital, don’t have a profitable idea, don’t take risks, and don’t even put in hard time at a manual labor job, it seems you can do pretty damn well here, as in, out-of-proportion well: live in a great city, dick around with art or activism or your drug habits, or at most put in a few years at a public service job until you retire early on a stress case or on the pension system, and bitch about those who are paying your way the whole time, while they work till the grave or until they hit 70, whichever comes first.

“Halprin continued with the action after he knew he was sick because the financial imperative for an Ellis had not changed.”

You know this? Or are you just making shit up and being your usual troll self?

“Halprin’s squatter tenants really hounded him into an early grave. ”

No one forced him to buy a property with tenants and then proceed to kick people out of their homes. Many times people who commit horrible acts suffer as a result, and it’s not just due to karma. There are actual physical reasons. Deep down inside you know you’re doing wrong. You can tell yourself that you’re awesome and successful, but you know you’re a horrible human being deep down inside. Disease is the body’s response to that internal contradiction. So he brought it upon himself.

I thought appellation had something to do with wine.

Cute dodge. If you’re going to be a hateful person, have some integrity and just own it.

It’s always up to the beneficiaries, the executor often being one of them. In this case it’s the brother. Well the brother and the rest of the the clan may want to rethink what kind of people they want to be toward their fellow humans.

Bullshit. Every time police shoot a civilian you say it’s a “good clean shoot,” like the victim is some sort of hunted animal.

Like I said, it is up to the executor of the estate and not the beneficiaries of his estate.

And the executor has an affirmative fiduciary responsibility to maximize the value of the estate. If the executor stopped the eviction, he could be sued by the estate beneficiaries.

Well perhaps his heirs will think about what kind of people they want to be… because karma.

I used an example to refute your generalization. Many examples would have been sufficient to show that trade-offs in these situations are routine and desirable

That’s gloating and you should be ashamed. I seriously thought you were better than that.

When Gullicksen died I said some good things about him. I didn’t brag about how this was good for landlords.

Comparing tenants to Nazis is a new low even for you.

Is this your blog? Most of comments are yours and you insist upon responding to everyone.

No gloating… it is what it is. Karma is a bitch.

“You don’t harm people to help other people”

There are many situations where exactly that is justified. For instance, we harmed Germans to win WW2.

The question here is which group of people are more important to help? Reasonable people can disagree about that – it is a subjective assessment.

Generally speaking any legal action initiated will persist through a death. The deceased’s estate will typically continue to represent the action. Indeed, the executor of the estate of a deceased has an absolute fiduciary responsibility to maximize the value of that estate. And in this case, that means to continue with the eviction so that the eventual sale will be at a higher price.

Likewise if a tenant sues for wrongful eviction and then dies, I would not expect his or her executor to stop the litigation.

Halprin continued with the action after he knew he was sick because the financial imperative for an Ellis had not changed.

Oh bullshit. He knew that he was dying and yet he chose to focus upon ruing peoples lives evicting people during a housing crisis in his final months.

That proves that the guy was a jerk.

Or, don’t evict people in a housing crisis and then have someone try to change your fucked-up image post mortem by saying that the house was to be donated to the Larkin Street Youth Services. You don’t harm people to help other people. Halprin was an asshole who spent the last months of his life making others miserable by evicting them.

We’ve got a former disgraced housemate from decades gone by who styles himself an artist when at best he’s a craftsperson. He had a piece up at Puerto Alegre for Dia de los Muertos. We saw his name on the price list, looked around the room, and knew immediately that the one piece that looked like it came straight outta Creativity Explored was his. We use the term “Creativity Explored” as Diane Arbus used the word “Untitled” to describe “that kind” of presentation.

So “winning” for you is one eviction stopped? You are just playing defense? No vision for a real victory? You are just hoping to slightly slow down the inevitable gentrification of the city? Is that really the best a self-styled leftist intellectual can come up with? What happened to the great glorious revolution?

And even for that limited goal, you need to rely on a tragic premature death, which you then gloat about?

I’m saying what I said 😉

It was a good clean win.

But since the tenant only “won” this battle because of an untimely death, your cannot gloat about one without the other.

Or are you saying that him living and her moving out was somehow an inferior outcome?

I like to think of it as creative disruption 😉

“Are you seriously cheering that someone died from cancer?”

Did I say that? The teacher was fighting for her home; the speculator was fighting to evict her from her home. I’m very happy she won her battle and he lost his. You read in to my statements what you want to read in, based on your projections. 😉

People invest whatever they have in order to prosper. If you have capital, you use that. If you have a great profitable idea, you use that. If you are a risk taker, you use that. If you have a valuable skill, you use that.

And if you have no skill, idea, capital or ability to take risks, then you just have to put in the time. Sorry.

As for Halprin’s money, it will pass to his family, friends, and next of kin. That’s a form of redistribution as well. Just not to the likes of you.

How charming. But I do think you’re on to something. We’re so concerned about redistributing wealth or who gets to live where, but what we should really be redistributing is something far, far more important, free time. Who’s hogging the free time on this earth and who has to work their asses off to pay for it.

Whether you’re working 60 hours a week as a janitor at a hotel or a lawyer at a high tech firm, someone else is riding your ass to your grave, all while playing the victim and demanding more more more. Worker’s unite! Free time justice now!

Creativity Explored!

I am not aware of any local law that would prevent an owner from selling at any time. Such a provision would surely be challenged in court as it goes against a fundamental property right.

Any restrictions on Ellis or OMI would pass to the new owner. But in that case it would be harder for the evicted tenants to make a claim since they would not be able to show bad intent. And the original owner may be long gone.

It is quite common for a building to be bought, Ellis’ed and then sold all in a short period. Ellis arbitrage is a distinct skillset from remodeling.

Greg is so vested in his revolution that he doesn’t care if a few of the bourgeoisie have to die. After all, in the Russian revolution, landlords were taken out into the street and shot. Greg would be fine with that here. The left can hate in a way that few others can.

My point was clear all along. There can be no bogus intent with an Ellis eviction because no cause, reason or intent is required.

Obviously there can be technical flaws or a subsequent failure to meet conditions, as with any legal action. But that doesn’t change the statement that Ellis in unfettered.

Ellis isn’t skirting the law. It is the law.

Are you seriously cheering that someone died from cancer?

Okay, your bogus use switches to bogus motive. You’re right, motives of greed and skirting the law are never bogus. They’re very real.

Mention of a two-year period was posted at San Francisco Real Estate Brain. Perhaps they’re wrong.

Yeah, I have never heard of that 2-year rule. I think Ragazzu made it up. Most restrictions expire after 5 years and the rest after 10, except the prohibition on condo conversion which is indefinite at the moment, but moot since there are no lotteries anyway.

I know a guy who Ellis’ed and then left the building empty for 5 years, then rented it out fully again. It is a sad commentary on our rent laws that that was a profitable strategy for him.

Obviously there can be procedural or legal errors in how Ellis is transaceed. My point was that there can be no bogus motive. Even retaliation is not a defense to Ellis

If the owner does not evict all tenants, he does not exit the rental business. That violates the Ellis Act.

After five years, the landlord may re-rent at market price.

The Ellis Act requires a waiting period before sale?

What wonderful news! I was wondering how that case turned out. I had assumed the teacher lost her fight; I am glad to hear that the evictor lost his instead.

And… is Karma a bitch or what! No matter how much money you accumulate, you can’t take it with you. What a wonderful thing it is that the rich cannot redistribute time on earth the same way they’ve redistributed wealth.

“…there can be no bogus use of Ellis.”

Unless:

The landlord evicts certain tenants but not all of them.

The landlord re-rents the building at a higher price than the evicted tenant.

The landlord puts the building on the market before the two-year waiting period expires.

Since Ellis requires no motive, cause or condition, there can be no bogus use of Ellis. An owner has an absolute and unfettered right to exit the rental business for any reason, no reason or even a bad reason. It’s a fundamental property right.

Halprin actually moussed his hair into horns. What was that all about?

Cool. I just get so sick of the demonization of landlords. This (lame) comic even drew Halprin with horns for christ’s sake.

Follow, bend or illegally invoke the Ellis Act?

Steady on there, big boy, I’m on your side. I was just explaining to rent-a-mouth ragazzu that the landlord was totally following the law by kicking these tenants out.

Hopefully probate will ensure that Jack’s battles were not in vain.

Helprin wasn’t getting into the rental business, he was trying to get out of it.

Halprin’s squatter tenants really hounded him into an early grave. I wonder how many elderly landlords have died at least partially due to this as well.

Or get into the rental business and then follow the Ellis Act law.

Your homework assignment for tonight is to discern the difference between appellation and characterization.

Oh boo-fucking-hoo. Don’t get into the rental game if you can’t follow the law.

not winning any debates here with your name calling

http://sfist.com/2015/07/02/jack_halprin_google_lawyer_target_o.php

This blog tried to ensure that Jack Halprin was a household name, so it’s strange that they’d mask his name in the first place. This is the same 48Hills that chuckled at how he was “recently chased home at dawn from his Google Bus Stop”, awarding him a mock award for “Best 100 Yard Dash.” The same comic that obfuscates Jack’s name also depicts him and his brother—who hasn’t done anything wrong—as shadowy horned devils (first and last panels).

Really classy.

Yeah, the first rule of agitprop PR is to pick a ridiculously sympathetic “victim”

Colossal fail here.

I wish I could join your maudlin, sanctimonious eviction porn pity party.

But I can’t. These tenants had a good deal for a long time. Now it’s somebody else’s turn and they should move on thereby retaining a shred of dignity and self-respect, instead of whining like kids with no candy.

You revealed the guy’s name in the final panel despite hiding it throughout…

Also, this comic really doesn’t seem like an example of an unfair eviction. They gave her 120 days notice initially, and that got shot down? And then she got an extra year? Even though she was alcoholic and cheating social security for disability? WTF?

You guys realize that outside this city, people get 30-60 days notice and no relocation assistance, right?

Did the lawyer die? First I heard.

Housing activists are always generous with other people’s property