Posted by narnia, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2008 at 6:37 am
Did you read the article? the tenants were put in serious danger repeatedly and harassed to no end. Nobody forced the landlords to buy any building. Their conduct is criminal and repeated. No bail is the appropriate response.
Posted by jOHN, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2008 at 10:27 am
Where has it said no bail?
Most Landlord and tenants have a very good relationship and there are legal ways to evicted which they were doing by saying they were getting out of the rental business and then they started to rent the apartments to others which they can not do. They thought they were above the law and from what I understand they are not hurting for money.
Posted by Sue, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2008 at 11:49 am
Walter, they POSTED bail and are out awaiting trial.
What a horror story. I've been a landlord and found that when I treated my tenants fairly and with respect that they paid their rent on time (sometimes early!) and left their units in good shape when they moved out. It's a two-way street.
Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The opposition to the eviction notice was an act of agression. The law allowing a tenant to resist eviction should, in equity, require a posting of bond to ensure the land owner against loss in the event the eviction is deemed legal. Since landlords are denied equitable justice I see nothing wrong with retaliation.
Posted by jOHN, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Walter, You can not evict someone in San Francisco because you want to rent to someone willing to pay higher rent! That is what they were trying to do. They were saying that they were getting out of the rental business and once the apartment was vacant they were renting to others. They were upset because this did not work on all of the tenants when it was discovered what was happening.
When you buy a building in San Francisco this is all laid out before you close as far as what the rents are and who the tenants are etc. If this building was bought with no tenants it would have sold for 3 times what they paid but they bought it for what it was worth with the tenants and the history not as a vacant building. Thus they knew what the current income of the building was and what the expenses were. They tried to go around the law and in turn ended up in jail and I would hope in the end will loose the building and the wifes realtor license.
How can anyone in their right mind believe that it is OK to place anyone in an unsafe position by removing the support beams within a building or sawing threw their floor from below or breaking into their home and assulting them when they return home finding them illegally in their home?
After 23 year I was evicted this month by an owner move in eviction not because I had done anything wrong, other then have the least expensive rent in the building. I am currently staying with friends until I can find something and that is not easy in San Francisco unless you make a decent amount of money. Sure the landlord does own the building but it was my home. I am very lucky in that I have family and friends willing to help me during the transition but believe me I will be watching to make sure the owner does move in. It has been very stressful but there has been no harassment or danger to my life.
Posted by Hulkamania, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2008 at 8:20 pm
"The opposition to the eviction notice was an act of agression."
You got that one wrong Walter. The tenant exercised his legal rights and won. The owner retaliated by cutting beams, and illegally entering units to steal and damage personal property.
If I was one of the tenants I'd wait until the criminal actions are completed and then take them to the cleaners in civil court. Who knows, I might end up geting the building to satisfy the civil judgment.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2008 at 6:14 am
A law that converts an at will contract to an unlimited contract based on owner's intention is on the face unfair unless it is countered by a law that requires equivalent commitment by the tenant. I am talking equity, the AK47 is what put the landlord in jail. Rent control and ancillary adjuncts has a 5000 years history of failure, but keep trying, perhaps this time...
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2008 at 12:17 pm
When the Manor Lord rode rough shod through the tenant fields and exercised droit de signor, I suspect that the folk who questioned the practice were also derided as ignorant. I am aware of what tenant law can do to the landlord, and of what such disproportionate crap has done to the inner cities around the world. There are times, Ceteris Paribus, when the law is an ass. There are times when some folk look on all laws, plastic bag laws included, as descendent from the mount. The holocaust was legal.
Posted by narnia, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2008 at 6:41 pm
this case is not a matter of opinion on laws but one of criminal conduct by a couple who happens to be landlords. It's unbelievable that you think that such extreme criminal acts ((attempting to collapse an inhabited structure would qualify as attempted bodily harm or if it had succeeded pre-meditated murder), are warranted in any circumstances.
I am hoping that you realize how shocking your words are.
Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Whatever you think of rent control, it is the law in San Francisco. It is factored into the price of every renter occupied building. If you want to overturn rent control, go to your local SF supervisor and he will laugh in your face. But you don't torment your renters because you want to evade the law. If you don't agree with the law, don't buy a rent controlled building. There are plenty of other investments, like rentals in lively Palo Alto.
Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2008 at 4:23 am
The Law is the true embodiment of everything that's excellent?
In my youth, Jim Crow was the law, and I opposed Jim Crow too. If you can look at today's public office holders and find that they have some unique gift other than "The Power" check your vision.
In the case in point, a family's dreams are held hostage to someone playing the "Now I've Got You, you SOB" [Games People Play] where he can walk away any time with no penalty. This chicken "Simon Sez" justice should make the judicious grieve even as the groundlings roar.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2008 at 10:56 am
The holocaust was legal under the law then in effect in Germany. I cited it as an example of a law I did not respect. The "good" Germans were just following orders. And, Narnia, even outrageous, deranged people deserve justice.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Walter raises a good point.
Just because something is the law, people can make up their own minds as to whether it is ethical or whether they should ignore it. From smoking legislation to bicycle helmets, we have laws that some disregard. Now when it comes to something much bigger like the holocaust the water gets murkier when we look at the details. For many of every day Germans they were deceived and did not know what was going on. For many German soldiers, they also may have had their suspicions, but unless they first hand witnessed the outrage, then to a large extent they were also deceived. For many of the regular soldiers who did know, there was probably very little they could do to prevent it and they had to follow orders or pay the consequences. Did this make it right for them to do what they did, just because they were following orders or felt there was nothing they could do to stop it?
Today, suicide bombers are doing horrific things for causes they believe in. Does it make it right? How does a woman leave her children and go out and blow herself up for a "Cause"? She has been deceived and is not using the ethical criteria we here are able to use.
I am not trying to excuse any of these people from their horrific behavior, but their motivation for doing these things must be something that is far beyond our own understanding.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2008 at 1:43 pm
In cowboy movies, there was a saying "You can't take the law into your own hands." Tim Holt to the contrary not withstanding, you cannot let the law out of your own hands. I will grant that, as part of my compact with civilization I accept some laws with which I disagree, but as the end of an old joke goes, "I ain't gonna fight him, I just want him to know I ain't a cow."
Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2008 at 11:19 pm
One of the reasons for local government is that they can enact different laws and empirically test how this affects their localities. SF and NY have rent control. There are arguably problems with it but there are plenty of other places who do not have rent control and have similar problems. It's a political choice.
California has Proposition 13 which pretty much destroyed its tax base. It's a political choice. I don't hear the locals whining about it.
Posted by trudy, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Walter, I usually disagree with you, but I don't usually think you're nuts.
I had a tenant from hell once, but I can't imagine that I would have kicked him in the chest. That can cause someone's heart to stop.
And there is no indication that these renters were tenants from hell. They were abiding by their leases which the landlords knew about when they bought the building. If the landlords decided they made a mistake buying the building, they should sell it.
And, civil disobedience? A long tradition. So is taking the legal consequences of breaking the law. Remember Ms Lillian Carter going to jail?
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2008 at 1:38 am
I have no problem with punishing wrongdoers, but I do have problems with the imequities of most tenant-landlord law. I know what it is like when positions ar reversed; I will not register Republican [except to vote for Shirley Temple] because of the inequities in the Uniform Commercial Code, largely a Republican construct. Add a requirement that an at-will tenant may not move out until a new tenant is ready to move in and we move toward equity.
Politicians usually ensure themselves of Paul's vote by robbing Peter.
Posted by SlightlyLeftOfMao, a resident of another community, on Apr 30, 2008 at 2:00 pm
POWER TO THE PEOPLE! I SAY WE TAKE ALL LANDLORDS, SLIT THEIR THROATS, AND TOSS THEM OUT INTO THE STREET WHERE THEIR OFFSPRING CAN EAT THEIR ROTTING FLESH TO KEEP FROM STARVING! But . . . that's just my opinion . . .
Posted by Antonin S., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Mr. Wallis, do you have any understanding of what you are writing about?
The UC has nothing to do with landlord-tenant law. The UCC is not the product of the Republicans. The UCC is a model uniform code that does not have the force of law. Each state separately adopted and modified the UCC.
Posted by Rubbish Reporting, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Reading the commentary on this, its pretty clear why the country is having the financial problems that it is. It seems you actually believe everything read verbatim even when it comes from a tabloid like the Chron. Oh well ... you can continue living the fantasy that everything will go back the way it was.