Endorsement Interviews: David Chiu


Board President and mayoral candidate David Chiu could well be the person most directly hurt by Mayor Ed Lee's decision to run for a full term. It's ironic, since Chiu supported Lee -- on the basis that the former city administrator would not be a candidate in November. And he has the inside story on why Lee is in the race: According to Chiu, Lee told him that he didn't really want to run, but "was having trouble saying no to Willie Brown and Rose Pak."

Chiu has been in the center of the current board, moving away from progressives on some key issues -- but he's talking very much a progressive line in his campaign. He's promising business tax reforms, transit justice, affordable housing and new revenue. Audio and video after the jump.

Chiu by endorsements2011


Very interesting to hear about Chiu's comments on Ed Lee. "If there's even a 2% chance in a bone in your body that you're gonna run - you've got to let me know". He's lied to, then the Ed Lee for Mayor campaign copies his platform.

The guy has every right to be upset but he seems restrained - not just with Ed Lee - but in the day to day, to some's chagrin, especially when it comes to progressive issues. But that's why I support him - he is progressive and collaborative in his language and actions as well. He keeps a calm tone, that allows everyone to come to the table without alienating those who might disagree.

I don't get the hesitation over replacing the city payroll tax. Even Green candidate Terry 'tax the rich' Baum is advocating for replacing the payroll tax with the gross receipts tax. Keeping Twitter and other companies in Mid Market was the right decision.

My only real concern over Chiu is that he can move legislation along so quickly, and think so far ahead, that it unfortunately doesn't get communicated effectively with voters and draws the ire of some - even if he's making the right decision. Case in pt: Parkmerced. After hearing him speak on it, it makes sense. The units are apparently deteriorating (someone's gotta have pictures and proof of this right?), which will need to be rebuilt - and he even went out of his way to put in 17 pgs in protections? Multi-million dollar protection fund?

He's getting things done. Oh wait - that's Ed Lee's new motto.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 10:41 pm

You've got the Parkmerced issue dead wrong.

The nonsense about the old units there deteriorating is nothing but a bunch of lies stirred up by Wall Street developers. And the raft of 'amendments' that Chiu added to the deal are an unenforceable joke and he knows it. He put those amendments on at the last minute so that the Supes who voted for this travesty could cover their own asses for screwing an entire neighborhood and rent control law.

Chiu did exactly the same snake-in-the-grass maneuver with Lennar corporation's Bayview Hunters Point Shipyard toxic condo developments. His betrayal in that case will likely sicken and kill hundreds, potentially even thousands of people.

Chiu is a complete slime ball.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 10:55 pm


Posted by Guest on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 10:54 pm

If you don't take Chiu's word, maybe you'll trust Greg Dewar's (the biggest Wall Street lobbyist I know right): http://www.gregdewar.com/2011/05/news_flash_park_merced_as_is_s.html

Though he differs on Chiu on some issues, he doesnt seem to differ from Chiu here.

I quote:

"After much talk, hearings, discussions, screaming, and caterwauling, the Board of Supervisors gave preliminary approval to a plan to transform Park Merced, an aging post-war, suburban style development into something from the 21st century.

Depiste expanding rental opportunities, offering to pay for Muni improvements, building facilities, reducing car dependence, and using earth-friendly building techniques to reduce carbon emissions, predictably, the "change nothing" crowd, in concert with the left-leaning supervisors, voted against it (but it passed anyway.)

Ironic. Despite all these things San Francisco allegedly values, 5 Supervisors voted "no" anyway. I guess being a "progressive" in San Francisco means that it's better to talk big in campaign junk mail vs. doing something in the real world. Mindblowing.

However, let's put aside the bizarro politics for a moment for now and talk about something we can all factually determine about Park Merced, as is. It sucks.

It really really sucks.


I'll say it before and I'll say it again: Park Merced has sucked for decades and will continue to do so unless it is substantially redeveloped/rebuilt. Anyone thinking this place is some sort of rent-contorlled Shangri-La is either an idiot or delusional. Pick one, I don't care.

In my entire adult life I can't remember a time when people didn't find these units to be overpriced, easily damaged, and had problems with deposits, repairs, etc. Many people I grew up with went to San Francisco State in the mid 80s and would end up renting a place there since it was near the school, and back then it sucked too. In the ensuing decades, every so often I'd know someone who'd move there, only to move out within a year or so because of all sorts of problems. (You'd think that someone who's worked at SFSU for 20 years would know this already, but I suppose not.)

While the current owners deserve some praise for getting the asbestos out and at least trying to make the place look nice, even now you can do a Google Search for "Park Merced Sucks" and you'll find a long list of blogs, Facebook pages and more decrying the decaying apartment blocks and bungalows.

The point is simply this: If we leave Park Merced to continue to be what it is, it is going to fall apart soon anyway and all that housing will simply go off the market, rent control or not. Good luck getting anyone to pour more money to "save" these decaying, cheaply built blocks - no sane owner would bother to do so, laws and "rights" be damned because it's a money pit. They'll just let it rot and collect the rent."

Posted by Guest on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 11:50 pm

rational landlord in SF would do - invest nothing in a rent-controlled building, collect the rents, passthru every possible increase and let the place decline.

Many of the tenants there are older and, given some more time and some more decay, the place will free up, whereupon the redevelopment options will become compelling.

Those guys have billions - they can play the long game. Rent control is ultimately a self-defeating policy.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 6:11 am

Greg Dewar gets paid by corporations to write hit pieces like the one you just posted. During the fight over Prop H in 2008 (which would have given San Francisco a 100% clean energy mandate, but lost due to a $10 million PG&E campaign against it) Dewar relentlessly attacked Prop H, and when I challenged him as being a paid shill for PG&E, he even admitted it.

That's what this hit piece on Parkmerced is all about. It dutifully contains -every- talking point that the developers seeking to demolish Parkmerced used in the nearly endless hearings over its fate, and every single one of those talking points is a lie.

For example, the project isn't 'green' at all. It is standard issue these days for developers to pretend that their project is a 'green' project to make it easier to shove down a community's throat. As a matter of course, they dress up their megaprojects with a few fake bells and whistles to make them appear to be environmental (some of which they never intend to build) and then hammer that propaganda relentlessly.

The Parkmerced project is another such case and is the polar -opposite- of 'green'. Because it relies on demolition of the existing units, instead of using the orders of magnitude environmentally superior strategy of retrofitting them, it actually dramatically -increases- the greenhouse gas emissions at Parkmerced for the next 25 years! (Long after we will have already reached all of the most dangerous climate tipping points.) And because the project will also add 5,000 more parking spaces to the project area, while only giving a pitiful pittance to transit, after that 25 years, the greenhouse gas emissions will inevitably just keep going up.

So the proposed Parkmerced project is, in reality, an environmental nightmare.

And another blatant developer lie in the piece by Dewar, is this supposed 'Parkmerced sucks' nonsense.

Parkmerced is a beautiful community, deeply loved by almost all of its residents full of gorgeous garden apartments. It is like a little Mayberry in the middle of our city, and Fortress is seeking to destroy it and all of its garden apartments for profit.

Parkmerced's residents love their neighborhood so much that when the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter in an auditorium near the neighborhood, they packed that auditorium with over 200 of their number to oppose the project, and literally took over the hearing agenda.

That's the actual -truth- about Parkmerced.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 9:49 am

Eric, I don't know Greg Dewar (or much about him), but you mention that he's paid by corporations. Does someone pay you or an organization you're affiliated with? Just curious. You need to pay the bills somehow, and it seems to be part of your job description to post extensively on the various blogs, so I assume you're messaging for some organization. I could be wrong.

Posted by The Commish on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 10:35 am

Yes, I get paid (less than $20k a year) as the coordinator of the nonprofit Our City. See http://our-city.org

Our City is a 501c4 nonprofit which only receives donations from individuals, and has never taken any corporate funding, nor even any grant funding.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 11:20 am

Ah, all of this suddenly makes a lot of sense. Is your group one of the ones which has been opposing efforts to improve the streetscape on lower polk? The ones who protested the church @ polk and bush?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 11:48 am

No, it isn't.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 11:59 am

Thanks for the response, Eric.

Posted by The Commish on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 1:47 pm

I couldn't find a statement anywhere on the website that says the corporation only accepts contributions from individuals. Perhaps I missed it?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 4:12 pm

It's not on the web page, but it is both our practice, and a fact. We have not accepted any donations other than those from small individual donors averaging around $30 per donation. A lot of small donor grassroots organizations likewise do not mention such things on their web sites.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 5:36 pm

"Parkmerced is a beautiful community, deeply loved by almost all of its residents full of gorgeous garden apartments."

Check out the facebook group: Parkmerced Sucks... a..

Krystal Marty: I lived there about 10 years ago and I developed asthma from this place. The mold problem was very bad and unhealthy, all they did was paint over it every time, it was ridiculous. This place sux ballz! Dont live here and the people who do need to file a lawsuit and go to the department of public health!

Raymond Covarrubias: For 3 years a 5 foot long crack would open in our living room ceiling (over our couches) during the rainy season. We'd always call it in and have to wait 3 months or so until it stopped raining for them to fix it. They never actually fixed the building, but rather just patched and re-painted the ceiling - this happened every year like clockwork. I'm so glad I live in the Richmond now. Wish I had moved sooner.

Brendan McHugh: oh and apparentley if a window in your apt. on the 10th floor is cracked from the outside the best way to avoid getting charged $1135 for the replacement is by filing a police report for vandalism....WTF? That doesn't make any fucking sense! And I love that I was told about this protocol AFTER i was charged that sum!

Rachel Michelle Komjathy: Our sink has broken 5 times
my roommates door doesn't shut
our window in the kitchen wont shut
our doorbell is broken.
.our toilet wont stop running
... the water goes cold spontaneously
kitchen light doesn't work.
cant touch the walls without scratching themfloors scratch ridiculously and then you're supposed to pay for it
heater only heats up the stairs
door to water heater doesn't shut
doorbell doesn't work
walls are paper thinin the closets,
we can't move the hangers, they just make awful black marks front door
lock has fallen off
fire alarm goes off when there is a slight bit of smoke from the kitchen
no lights in closet
... 80 dollars an hour for a plumber when this shit is MADE to break
to be able to DO laundry you have to spend too much money to buy the card, and then put MORE money on the card (cheaper to go to a laundromat)
sink in the bathroom has never drained quickly ( in other words, NOT OUR FAULT!)
promised free internet, where the fuck is it?
In conclusion, fuck Parkmerced. NEVER AGAIN! (once our lease is up)

Andi Carey: mold everywhere it is not even healthy!

Sara Taboada: i love how parkmerced just paints over mold instead of cleaning it up.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 1:16 am

Interestingly enough 'guest' I do not base my public policy positions on FaceBook groups. I actually talked to the people in the neighborhood and helped them organize. There's this little thing called 'real life' that is pretty important in such matters.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 7:57 am

Yea I know. You can't believe EVERYTHING on the Internet! Darn those corporate lobbyists pretending to be college students on facebook

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 10:49 am

that is pretty funny Eric. I am quite confident that the life you lead does not in any way reflect 'real life' for anyone but an extremely tiny subsect of the Socialist labor party of San Francisco. Namely, you, Marc Salomon, and his majesty Pat Monk RN

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 9:13 am


1.5 stars. 149 reviews.

9/13/2011 Hopefully they are serious about improving the quality of these homes, but I feel that in order to make these decent homes they would need to complete demolish them and redo them. why?

1) there are no vents/fans in the kitchen, which makes for an incredibly smoky, smelly house when cooking.

2) no garbage disposals in the sinks.

3) horrible plumbing system

4) most importantly, MOLD. and the mold has NOT BEEN REMOVED. when my roommates and I moved out, we took down pictures and posters that had been taped to the walls.. well, the tape took off some paint, and guess what was under that paint. yep, mold. parkmerced does not remove the mold, they just paint over it with more chemicals. disgusting.

you guys will also need to do some serious retraining or rehiring with the maintenance staff. so, good luck, but I have my serious doubts these homes will ever be anywhere near livable conditions.

8/11/2010 No point in discussing whats ok, because the parts that suck are bad enough. I have an antique stove that I have asked for repairs on several times. They come, tell me its fixed, and it's still the same. MOLD MOLD MOLD!!!! Enough said.

7/18/2010 They have a huge mold problem, so ask PM to give you a de-humidifier (for free too). They tried to ask us for it back because other residents need it, but after a 3 minute rant about how we are residents in need of it still and that I could call health officials if they want me to, they let us keep it and have not bothered us about it since (we've had it for almost a year now).

7/3/2010 AAAAAAAHHHHH! Where do I begin???

1. Lived there as a Freshman in the towers- our ceiling caved in from water damage! We were on floor 8 of 12!! Took 3 months to get fixed- and even then, they didn't fix it they just painted over it so it was bound to happen again to the next residents.

2. STUPIDLY moved back a year later to a renovated apartment. Bought a parking space for $100 effing dollars a month and got my car towed from it. I raised hell in the office and they offered to pay the tow fee, BUT WOULD NOT GIVE ME A RIDE TO GET IT, because you know, THEY TOWED MY CAR!! The tow place was downtown and not accessible by MUNI. Jesus, I had to take an effing cab, while there are 5+ stupid Parkmerced PTCruisers sitting outside.

3. (The Kicker) We soon found out our apartment was infested with MICE!! Took 5 months of meetings/legal battles/etc to finally threaten them with enough evidence to let us out of our lease. Because trust me- we would have won in court since I saved every chewed item/mouse dropping in ziplocks and photocopied/documented every letter and call to them. It was awful. I was paying close to $850 for a SHARED room while I had to stay at my bf's for 4 months since... you know- there were mice we SAW and HEARD IN THE WALLS!!!!

Posted by Corporate Developer Lies! on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 10:37 pm

It is easy for paid hacks to manufacture such online commentary.

For the real story of Parkmerced see:


Look at the photo album 'Homes and Gardens to be Demolished'

to see these supposedly deteriorating homes...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 8:54 am

Capital can't not be deployed and with finance and insurance on the skids, real estate is the only vector for profitable investment. This means that the determinant of investment is not need for the product produced, rather need to turn a profit. Thus, perfectly good housing will be demolished and built irrespective of the consequences that public policy is supposed to balance. This is complete regulatory capture.

The urban fabric is a playground for investment, successful neighborhoods or sustainable development or any other environmental or livability concerns be damned. The needs of fly by night developers to turn a buck are sacrosanct. Real estate development is the only high profit industry that cannot, by definition, be outsourced, although those Irish immigrant construction workers show that cheap labor can be sure be insourced.

Not only do we get to see our communities destroyed, we see downward pressure on what were good paying if temporary jobs and an influx of turnkey residents seeking a vibrant bedroom community occupying our neighborhoods.

And progressives have nothing to say about this destruction of functioning communities, they've all been bought out with affordable housing crumbs.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 7:37 am


Tell that to those who have made seven times their money in the gold market in the last seven years.

Or who have tripled their money on Apple in almost no time at all.

Then there are hedge funds, FX, derivatives, agriculturals, timber, emerging markets, MLP's and so on. They've all been on fire. Something is always going up at any point in time.

You've got a fairly narrow definition of investment possibilities there.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 10:58 am

All of the other investment opportunities that you cite would not be there without the key underpinning of capital periodically destroying and rebuilding real estate on a massive scale worldwide.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 11:30 am

That makes no sense.

RE is regarded as a distinct asset class because historically it's returns are un-correlated to the returns of the other asset classes cited. That would not be true if your premise was correct.

Indeed, many regard RE as an imperfect investible asset class precisely because it can be relatively illiquid and harder to hedge via derivatives.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 4:44 pm

I'm not referring specifically to gold per se, but to the entire global neo-capitalist economy. Without the huge real estate device I refer to, to serve as one of its core debt/money pumps, it wouldn't stay afloat (afterwhich people wouldn't be buying shares of anything, because there wouldn't be a global market to buy them in).

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

Isn't that odd?

I mean, the guy brags about founding this big company that manages campaigns across the country for everyone form the Republican National Committee to both sides on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository (he was on both sides in that one under different names) ... Such a successful company but he didn't hire them to work on his campaign? Trying to hide something?

Thanks for making certain Chiu continues to 'own' his Parkmerced vote. The units they're tearing down are in much better shape then the towers they're leaving and plan to duplicate.

Sorry to see Greg Dewar out there with the developer hordes but a guy's gotta pay his rent I guess.

Adachi for Mayor!

Avalos for Mayor!

Tony Hall for Mayor!

Terry Baum for Mayor!

Go giants!


Posted by h. brown on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 11:05 am


He doesn't like to admit it but Eric works for a shell front funded by PG&E. Ironic, no?

What's your real name by the way, 'Commish'?

Just asking.

Go Giants!


Posted by h. brown on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 11:08 am

I have never received a penny from PG&E or anyone even remotely connected to PG&E.

In fact I despise PG&E, and anyone who has followed my career knows that my number one job right now (and over the last 7 years in fact) is to put PG&E out of business.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 11:34 am

My real name is "The Commissioner."

But seriously, what's it to you? In this era of Facebook, Twitter, and Google, I'd rather not bother putting my real name out there. I've already seen posters on this board do research about people and then and try and spin incoherent attacks based on what they found out through internet research. My guess is that when some on this board found out that my job is not community organizer, union organizer, or employee of the CCSF, they'd say I'm therefore part of the evil corporate machine.

I asked Eric what his funding source was because he does use his real name and messaging seems to be part of his job description. It was legit that he provided the information (above). Messaging is not part of my job description.

Posted by The Commish on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

Just FYI. Some more news that the Kronikle did not see as 'fit to print'.
A small victory in the struggle against rapacious speculators, developers, and those few who reap massive profit by preying on the rest of us.
Park Merced is next on the list.
No retreat - No surrender.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 11:28 am

That's awesome news, and I do hope you're right about Park Merced.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 8:40 pm

No brains. All this says is that development of a SINGLE parcel is halted until cleanup is complete. It will happen. So will park Merced.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 8:47 pm

Not correct really.

Lennar recently almost went under financially (and would have done so had the FDIC not bailed it out to the tune of nearly 3 billion dollars).

The market that Lennar operates in is a mess, and Lennar badly needs to get a real project off the ground rapidly.

With the Navy now forced to finish remediation before transferring parcels, -years- are going to be added to the development timeline that Lennar wasn't expecting. This will possibly even kill the project outright, which would be a good result for all concerned.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 9:27 pm

Its fascinating to watch the NIMBYs twist and turn in the wind on Park Merced.
when it comes down to it, the basic undercurrent is the same. Never change anything anywhere ever.
Smart, green people from all over the world would look at Park Merced and see how the redevelopment plans make better use of an under developed site - a basic tenet of green development. Everyone renting there is protected to the extent possible under current laws. The restrictions on booting a rent controlled tenant from Park Merced are greater than those imposed on Sangiacomo for the trinity plaza project.
People bitched and moaned about that too, and yet the RC tenants are sitting happily in their high rise rent controlled apts.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 11:42 am

As I noted previously, a project which dramatically raises greenhouse gas emissions is not 'green' by any stretch of the imagination, and project opponents -support- retrofitting, instead of demolishing. Retrofitting is recognized by designers and engineers worldwide as -the- top of the line approach to green building.

And since the Trinity Plaza deal, new court decisions have thrown such rent control protections on new development completely out the window.

They are very likely to be thrown out in court, and Chiu knows this, and therefore is fully aware that his window-dressing amendments are completely bogus.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 11:58 am

They wont get thrown out in court until someone sues to have them thrown out. It's not like the court will come knocking on their door to get it thrown out. There is virtually nothing that cant be sued and accomplished - so this is really a red herring.

By Eric's logic: if there is a single family home on an acre of land in the middle of a densely populated city, then it is already the greenest use of the site. Demolishing that home, and adding more housing is not green- even though you are increasing the active use of the land because you are using resources to demolish.
Anyone else agree with this?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 12:42 pm

You can rest assured that, if the Parkmerced project is ever built, Fortress Investment (run by former Goldman Sachs executives) will be before a court seeking to invalidate the Parkmerced rent control 'agreement' before the cement is dry on the new towers.

Your second point is a mere shell game.

We are not talking about a single home on an acre of land, we are talking about Parkmerced, which is far more densely built than that.

To repeat, the project as proposed, dramatically increases greenhouse gas emissions, according to the developer's and the Planning Department's -own- analyses.

This is not just logic, it is a fact.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 1:15 pm

So you should oppose something based on your look into the future. You see in your crystal ball, that the developer will sue to invalidate the agreement.

Is there any agreement in the world which cannot be invalidated through the courts? By your logic, there is no agreement which can guarantee anything, because people can just go to court to reverse what they agreed to.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 2:49 pm

Your premise is laughable on its face. There is every expectation that most laws will be upheld in court, so your hypothetical is simply nonsense.

In the case of Parkmerced, developers and owners of other projects have recently achieved court precedent which indicates that the Parkmerced rent control agreement (and even the Trinity agreement) can now be successfully challenged in court. Therefore if we allow the project to proceed and that court challenge indeed happens, the residents at Parkmerced will be screwed.

Hence this flimsy agreement should not be allowed in the first place. This (or changing State law) are the only ways to ensure protection for those tenants.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 3:13 pm

You have no knowledge of future lawsuits, so its your premise which is shaky.
Do you know that the developer of either Park Merced or Trinity will file suit to invalidate their development agreements?

You cant oppose something because of your personally held belief of what the future will hold.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 3:29 pm

Of course I cannot guarantee that Fortress will go to court to buck the rent control deal; but you likewise cannot guarantee that Fortress will not.

So the obvious correct course is precaution. Simply mandating a retrofit instead of a demolition will fully -guarantee- the tenants that they won't face loss of rent control.

Neither Fortress nor the City has an inherent need for the proposed project to go forward. Therefore placing the tenants at -any- risk is unacceptable.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 9:40 pm

What a simplistic green bubble you live in. Why dont you mandate the builder plant money trees, and open 1k checking accounts for all current tenants. How do you know a "retrofit" of the existing buildings is technically possible? How do you know a "retrofit" of the existing buildings is financially doable?

During a retrofit, its likely that the tenant would need to be out of the unit, would that not trigger fears of loss of rent control?

The city does have an inherent need for housing. The park merced site is the perfect place for urban infill, and what fortress is proposing is a perfectly acceptable solution. The issue of rent control for tenants has been given every possible treatment in the rules governing the development. The existing tenants have as much protection as legally possible.

What you claim is concern for tenants is actually just misplaced NIMBYism. The mantra of progressives in this city (in direct conflict with progressives everywhere else in the country) is build nothing anywhere ever.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 8:12 am

Of course retrofitting is doable in those units.

Affordable? You are claiming that it costs less money to completely demolish units and rebuild them, instead of simply retrofitting? Give me a break.

There are some rare cases when retrofitting is difficult and even expensive, but even in those cases, it is essential.

The global climate crisis is such a dire and terrible and -immediate- emergency, that we absolutely must not demolish and rebuild in any case in which retrofitting can be done instead. We -must- change the way we pursue housing development, because building new, creates far more greenhouse gases.

And the idea that demolition and new construction is 'infill' is patently ridiculous.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 11:17 am

are "substantially rehabilitated". I believe the key test is if the rehabilitation costs more than 70% of the value of the property.

So if Fortress spend, say, 75% of the currently deflated value of Park Merced to rehabilitate the complex, then it will fall out of rent control.

At that point, the tenants who were legally evicted temporarily to perform the work will lose their right to return.

Exclusions from RC according to the Rent Board are:


Other units that are not covered by rent control include:

1. Units or rooms in hospitals, convents, monasteries, extended care facilities, asylums, residential care facilities for the aged, and school dorms.
2. Live/work lofts.
3. Units that have undergone "substantial rehabilitation." The unit must be older than 50 years and be condemned or not qualify for a certificate of occupancy. Landlord must file with the Rent Board.
4. Units or rooms in nonprofit cooperatives, owned and controlled by a majority of the residents.
5. Dwelling units solely owned by a nonprofit benefit corporation, the majority of whose board members are residents of the dwelling unit and where the bylaws require that rent increases be approved by a majority of the residents.
6. Units in project-based, government-assisted or regulated housing (e.g., HUD or SF Housing Authority).

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 11:35 am

You rarely cite sources. On this claim you need to, because after working on these issues in depth you contention strikes me as flatly false.

The law and decision makers know what renovations purposely designed to eliminate rent control are, and make certain that superfluous high cost work is not used in this way.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 11:53 am

Since you've studied these issues "in depth", you'll know that of course.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 12:16 pm

In other words, I just asked you to cite your source, and you just refused, because you in fact, do not have one.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

understand? Or are you just going to ignore that and claim you're right anyway, even though that proves you wrong?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

The average reader is not going to even understand, let alone figure out where to find, your obscure reference. Please cite the link and some of the key text so that they can be properly informed on your claim.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 22, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

If you can't be bothered to go and read it, then that's fine. But claiming to be an expert while not understanding the rent ordinance isn't adding to your credibility here.

Meanwhile, here's something else you dodn't know about rent control. Even if a substantial rehabilitation is not sufficient to trigger exemption from rent control, it will under RB rules allow the landlord to pass thru a considerable rent increase, which in many cases will lead to the tenants having to leave anyway.

I have no view about how "green" your alternative solution is. I also don't care. But on the rent control issues, the tenants are probably screwed every way. They either lose rent control, suffer huge rent increases or live in a decaying, neglected dump.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 6:09 am

So, to boil what you just wrote down into one easy sentence..

You are refusing to simply post the link to the alleged text that you are citing, so that readers will be able to easily check to see if what you are saying is true.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 8:06 am