You want scary? We've got an eviction map

|
(205)

You want to see something frightening on a lovely afternoon? Check out this amazing interactive map of Ellis Act evictions in San Francisco put together by Brian Whitty.

It's stunning: Between 1997 and 2013, it seems as if most of the Mission, Noe Valley, North Beach, the Marina, and Potrero Hill was evicted. Hundreds and hundreds of apartments turned into TICs, which now want to convert to condos. Hundreds and hundreds of tenants, who once had rent-controlled apartments, losing their homes -- and given the price of housing, losing their ability to live in San Francisco.

Each little red flag is a human tragedy. Each one represents a transforming city that no longer has room for the middle class, much less poor people. It makes we want to cry. Or throw up. Or something.

Comments

i.e. shelter, to be a parasitic activity.

If you can afford to buy a home, most people do.

If you cannot afford a home, then you borrow one from someone whom can and, not surprisingly, pay a rent for the use of their home.

Is the car rental business parasitic too?

If there were not people willing to invest capital and take risks in the rental market, there would be far fewer homes for people like you, and rents would be much higher.

Be careful whom you hate.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 3:28 am

You're just upset your cash cow isn't paying. The expectation of landlords is to buy a house and let the tenants pay the mortgage and upkeep with rent.

They do this as an investment for themselves, not to enrich a community, and complain when the property actually costs them money.

The fact that 75% of San Franciscans are renters says two things, rental property is making landlord money and the control of non-owner occupied housing is raising housing costs.

Homes are a families largest investment and for a big portion of the population that home will be a contributing factor to their retirement.

The city government is doing its citizens a great disservice by allowing foreign investors, investment companies, and losers like you who think they are doing something for anyone but themselves to monopolize real estate in this city. And you call it a "risky investment".

Do everyone a favor and sell your "risky investment" . So someone who cares about their community can move in.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 7:25 am

"The fact that 75% of San Franciscans are renters says two things..."

No, it only says one thing:

There is are groups (e.g., the SFTU) which work tirelessly to deny homeownership opportunities to San Franciscans (e.g., via the condo conversion lottery).

They do it partly out of misguided idealism but mostly out of self-interest (preserving their own cheap rent and their political power base (i.e., a renting majority)).

Key phrase to listen for: "preserving the rental stock."

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2013 @ 3:39 pm

You're just upset your cash cow isn't paying. The expectation of landlords is to buy a house and let the tenants pay the mortgage and upkeep with rent.

They do this as an investment for themselves, not to enrich a community, and complain when the property actually costs them money.

The fact that 75% of San Franciscans are renters says two things, rental property is making landlord money and the control of non-owner occupied housing is raising housing costs.

Homes are a families largest investment and for a big portion of the population that home will be a contributing factor to their retirement.

The city government is doing its citizens a great disservice by allowing foreign investors, investment companies, and losers like you who think they are doing something for anyone but themselves to monopolize real estate in this city. And you call it a "risky investment".

Do everyone a favor and sell your "risky investment" . So someone who cares about their community can move in.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 7:27 am

building has been Ellis'ed and TIC'ed?

You may hate landlords, although most of it is just envy. But you need them more than they need you.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 8:09 am

So I guess by your thinking I also need Carl's Jr. more than it needs me... nope! A service provider needs a customer and housing is a service dear sir. Not only do the landlords need tenants to occupy their place for the rent, they also need them here in the city to do all the menial shit jobs most others won't want to do. You expect people to bus in for hours just to serve food, trim hedges,or pick up trash?

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 7:53 pm

who are willing to pay top dollar.

The question is whether there will ever be enough rentals. And as long as rent control is here, that seems doubtful.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2013 @ 7:54 am

Speculating on a home that is already built doesn't do anyone else any good except for the speculators. Trying to get a free ride on someone else's hard work is not really economically productive activity either.

The one time your theory might make some sense is when someone invests in building new housing. The rest of the time it is bunk.

Posted by glenparkdaddy on May. 03, 2013 @ 9:41 pm

Because that would be speculation? So would buying a pre-owned car? Really?

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2013 @ 10:54 pm

No one is forcing you to rent from the alleged "leeches" you greedy tenant who does not want to pay what a property is really worth.

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2013 @ 1:20 am

what's good for the goose: how 'bout all the rent control subsidy gets factored in and split the difference...

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

This is the stupidist comment I have ever read...

Posted by Richmondman on May. 10, 2013 @ 8:43 am

Could you imagine if landlords were made whole by the city paying for their losses from forced sububstidising of teants via rent control, as emminant domain laws should require. RENT CONTROL WOULD END.

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2013 @ 9:25 am

Or a pin for each $ increase in property taxes from all of the improvements to the properties.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 7:54 pm

Our homes are one of those dote and represent 12 human beings who are elderly and/or disabled. And you dare to say this is not a crisis?? Losing a home after 30 years is not a crisis?? That person must be a greedy landlord!

Posted by Guest victim on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

No one said you must stay in the 7x7 square mile peninsula of San Francisco.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 3:04 pm

God damn. You're just a straight-up evil piece of shit.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 5:14 pm
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

Her startlingly perverse coyness is what inspired the "greasy" in my "greasy, perfidious, and berzerk" summation of her input here. Nobody should make the mistake that marcos has made in thinking her someone who "can be talked to."

"Evil piece of crap" doesn't really do her justice, since a turd has no volition with which to act. A turd cannot be blamed for floating in the punch bowl: the miscreant who puts it there is the one which deserves the full credit. Lucretia is just such a person.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 6:21 pm

I thought by now the misery of being you would have overwhelmed your existence and you would have done everyone a favor by exiting your dingy rent-controlled hovel and plunging off the Golden Gate Bridge. Sadly - the sheer bitterness of your existence seems to be powering you forward rather than shutting you down. It's only a matter of time.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 6:42 pm

is not grounds for being banned here, then the trolls have definitely taken over this site and allowed free reign.

Death wishes to commentators. Lovely.

Posted by Michael W. on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 6:57 pm

Everyone dies. Arthur Evans died and many commenters here wished for it and celebrated it when it happened.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 7:07 pm

but rather a malicious statement intended to do harm. I think it is time for you to be shown the door and I call upon the moderators to take action against you.

Posted by Michael W. on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 7:25 pm

Since there is no logon here it'll be interesting to see how that happens. But someone has to do it!

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 8:08 pm

hilarious. The left crave centralized command and control, even when it is a technological impossibility.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 12:46 am
lol

lol

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 9:14 pm

LOLOLOL

Posted by Tyesha Skittles on May. 01, 2013 @ 10:38 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 10:51 pm

I think that Lucretia, having to be Lucretia is punishment enough. Obviously, she is a wretched and vile thing, her comments come from the depraved mind of someone trapped in a living hell.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 2:19 am
Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 3:29 am

That whiney fucking baby! Lived next door to him for a decade, he complained about EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME. Good riddance.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 9:37 am

If Arthur's only crime was his incessant whining! The "asexual" freakazoid once felt me up in City Hall once as he was clucking his tongue at Campos' win on getting the SFPD to not help deport immigrant youth.

If I'd wanted Arthur dead, I could have easily pushed him back and away from me which would have caused him to fall back down the steps and into a what probably would have ended up as some combination of a subdural hematoma and broken neck.

With power must come responsibility and accountability.

Posted by marcos on May. 01, 2013 @ 10:09 am

What a fantasy. No one wants to feel you up.

Posted by Guest22 on May. 01, 2013 @ 10:42 am

There are literally thousands of random anonymous men that would disagree with you.

Posted by Maldita fondada on May. 01, 2013 @ 6:27 pm

At SFGate, the censorship system is prone to being manipulated by the sort of cretin who lies glibly.

Progressives and liberals are not motivated by hatred and fear; they are far less prone to lie and deceive in order feel like they are winning their points.

Not so the reactionary and semi-reactionary trolls: they have no compunction for truthfullness and so an active system such as the one on that other site effectively skews the debate in a rightward direction.

Many times at SFGate I had comments reported as offensive which were not offensive in the least, but contained some keyword which -- as the reporters well knew -- would trigger the system to act if they claimed it was.

The lawless quality here is refreshingly fair. Lucretia reveals herself and that is good.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 7:21 pm

the freedom you wish him/her to have here to continue posting malicious statements, personal attacks and ad hominems.

Posted by Michael W. on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 7:35 pm

take the plunge.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 8:11 pm

Thanks for being observant and making thoughtful comments.

The right wing types will never accord their opponents the same freedom they get in turn.

If progressive commenters were to go on a "field trip" to a right wing site and start the kind of droning crap these righties do here, they would be banned from such websites in short order.

But one huge advantage progressives have is that we have the facts on our side.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 8:18 pm

If you're going to lie, improve your memory.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 12:44 am

fuckers do on SFGate.

It's forbidden there to make personal attacks if they are constructed in the form of "you are a liar" -- even if that is the most succint and cogent response that can be made -- but it is perfectly allowed to make claims about others such as "you've admitted to trolling right wing sites."

Well perhaps it is a fine thing. After all, I now realize that to a far greater extent than I previously thought, SFGate *is* a right wing site. I have come to understand that their censorship system is set up precisely in order to acheive the results intended.

As a general rule, righties try to get their way by lying and threats, while those driven by Enlightenment goals employ logic and persuasive arguments. When the forum censorship is basically done on an "honor system" basis, the truth loses out.

That's why so much of the comment section is a playground for the glib and fatuous kind of assholes who plague this site -- only more so.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 01, 2013 @ 5:34 am

reasonably complain when they object. Moreover, most of the time when A accuses B of lying, it means little more than A disagrees with B, in which case it is much better and more agreeable to simply say that.

Any political forum is mostly about opinions and values and, while they will differ, neither side is lying - they merely see the world differently.

I haven't spent much time at SFGATE but, from what I do see then, at least by nation standards, it's fairly centrist. You would not expect the newspaper for the most liberal city in the nation to be right-wing, and of course it is not, unless your own viewpoint is very left-wing, which in your case it is.

I do not know why you were banned from SFGATE (nor, for that matter, how they would know if you coined another name there and carried on posting). But you manner here does come across as abusive, insulting and rude.

At a time when the left is, ironically, often accused of intolerance, it behooves you to show a better example. Otherwise you will simply continue to get barred and banned.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 6:06 am

No, fucker. When I accuse you of being a lying piece of human garbage it is because consistently spout lies.

No doubt you have multiple IDs at SFGate and continue to harass and render voiceless anyone making cogent informed comments which conflict your fascist sensibilities.

Eat some feces and die.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 01, 2013 @ 6:33 am

have no influence or credibility?

Posted by anon on May. 01, 2013 @ 8:20 am

That's another thing -- which of course is just one more *example* among many to choose from.

Because the newspaper industry has been so badly weakened by the Internet, many newspapers have been bought up by deep-pocketed right wing oily men such as the Koch brothers and Phillip Anschutz.

The rich wingers do this for the same reason they "give" money to politicians: in order to get far greater rewards back in exchange. That's why newspapers have gotten to be a far less creditable source of information than they used to be -- which wasn't very good even then.

I learned to understand the newspaper industry from reading Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent." Before then, when I dropped a quarter into the Chronicle box, I felt that I was buying a newspaper. Afterwards, I realized that my quarter was defraying some of the costs involved in the Chronicle's selling *me* to their advertisers.

Now with fewer advertising dollars available, the new breed of newspaper owners are themselves directly purchasing the eyeballs of their readers.

Even if San Francisco were the "most liberal city" in the country -- another of your foul lies -- it would have little bearing on the editorial policy of its main newspaper.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 01, 2013 @ 7:00 am

And why isn't your odious little ass there?

Posted by anon on May. 01, 2013 @ 8:21 am

You didn't specify "major" cities, but that doesn't even matter:

Detroit, Oakland CA, Newark NJ, and Washington D.C. are among major cities that can be classifies as more liberal than SF based on voting patterns in national elections.

But why should I even answer your pathetic spew of intellectual filth?

What a moron you are.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 1:56 pm

on the way to one of those socialist nirvana's.

Interesting that your examples are all cities with huge black populations and high crime rates tho, huh?

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2013 @ 10:02 am

Lucretia likes to troll SFBG stories about rent control and evictions. She is similar to hundreds or thousands of small landlords in the city who get hopping mad they lose anywhere from $30-$200,000 of rent income because of SF rental policies. Watching those rent dollars slip through their fingers and straight into the pockets of tenants each year drives a few of these landlords nuts. Anon is another regular poster who gets apolectic over local rent control rules. Most landlords can go with the flow, but others like Lucretia and anon often exhibit signs of severe emotional stress. In some cases 24-hour psychiatric or police surveillence might be necessary to prevent them from hurting themselves or others since these landlords and wanna-be landlords get so worked up over the modest SF rent control rules.

I figure there's no use getting worked up over money issues since the "sides" are all rather predictable. If I'm a landlord I want the higest rent someone is willing to pay me, and if I'm a tenant I want to pay the least possible. If I live on bond interest, I want the hundreds of government agences to increase their debt loads so they can pay me more interest. If I make money from producing goods and services, I want to get the highest price, but if I'm a consumer I want the lowest price. Self-interest and self-preservation are fairly basic human traits regardless of someone's specific life situation.

When the self-interested resort to "malicious statements, personal attacks and ad hominems" it's usually because they've already lost the policy debate.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2013 @ 8:37 pm

it's not OK for landlords to get angry about restricted rent increases?

Nice double standard you got going on there.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2013 @ 10:01 am

Marke when it's one of his endless columns about gayness. He appears to lack the breadth and emotional range to take any criticism of the gay agenda and identity politics.

Other than that, free speech is a progressive value.

Anyway, it's impossible to ban anyone here because there is no registration and IP addresses can be bounced.

Posted by Anon on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 10:05 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.