Some People Really Need To Get Their Priorities Checked

I was at a gathering of attorneys the other day. Since a number of them were either tenants' rights attorneys or sympathetic to tenants right, the topic turned that way when someone brought up an interesting quirk of San Francisco law.

Under San Francisco's Housing Code, specifically section 701, states that landlords have to provide heat to the tenants so that the temperature of the unit reaches 68F. However, a quirk of the law is that the landlord must only provide the heat for 13 hours during the day. The ordinance further states that those hours 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 3p.m. to 10 p.m.

Apparently, San Francisco does not require heat at night. Because, I guess, someone decided that tenants don't need heat after 10 p.m. at night. Or maybe someone believes that its warmer during those late night hours? If so, perhaps they should tell that to the homeless on the streets.

Now, to further muddy the water, there is a state law called the Uniform Housing Code. Under the UHC, a landlord has the duty to provide heat 24 hours a day such that a residential unit is heated to 70F. Somehow, San Francisco and other municipalities have rules which contravene this. On at least one occasion, the local rule was struct down by the appellate court, yet San Francisco's rule remains in effect.

Heat, especially in San Francisco where it can get pretty cold at virtually any time of the year, is an important topic. In my time as a tenants' rights attorney, I've seen more than one landlord let the heating unit "mysteriously" stop working and expect the tenant to provide the heat with a space heater (something which is verboten under both San Francisco and California law).

So where is this all going? Well at this little confab that I was at, this topic came up. And I was gobsmacked to hear this as the first comment was "Should we really be advocating for this? I mean, asking for more heat for tenants is not an evironmentally sound thing especially with global warming."

And what was worse, a fair number of the people were taking her position. This is lunacy. People need heat. They may not need to be heated to 90F or whatnot, but when its cold, they need heat. And the idea that we need to put something ahead of people without adequate heat is absurd. The priority needs to be people, not something as amorphous as "environmentally sound".

Looks Like Local 250 A Didn't Get the Mesage.

It seems that the leadership and the rank and file of the Local 250 A did not get the message. Apparently not content to have theirheadshanded to them at the ballot box, they seem to be hankering to be reminded again that they are not the only people in the City and County of San Francisco.

What's going on, you ask?

MUNI drivers typically get a bonus of a few thousand dollars every December. The money cones from a trust fund that the SFMTA funds. There's only one problem: SFMTA is broke, hence all the cutbacks.

You would think that with the City in crisis, the SFMTA with no money, and the riders not getting rides, that the vastly overpaid membership of Local 250 A would forgo their bonus.

Well, they won't.

Standing on the provisions of the City Charter, the leadership of Local 250 A is demanding the bonus.

Something comes to mind about pigs and troughs whenever I think of Local 250 A. Another charter amendment looks to be necessary. How about something simple like no bonus if the city agency is in the red.

Voting Matters - San Francisco Judicial Election

Now, in California, we have a weird little system. Some states do it all by appointment. Some do it all by election. We combine the worst of both and have judges come up for rentention elections, but sometimes they get opposed. That is what is going on here.

Normally, this is not a big deal. But the San Francisco Superior Court judges have been acting in a particularly arrogant fashion this year. First, there was Judge Ernest Goldsmith comments from earlier this year that put a chill on people challenging his seat. Then, when a challenger did appear, but to Judge Richard Ulmer, the other judges started to organize to support Ulmer. And they apparently were not being shy about it. Judge Campos decided he would sent out endorsements supporting Ulmer on Superior Court letterhead to members of the DCCC.

Now I have some problems with Nava. He is playing the race and sex card. He says he is trying to downplay it in interviews, but he is running as the gay latino. And that is just as bad as what the Superior Court judges are doing in opposing him. Last year, it was Mellon being targeted in a similar case of race politics. Unfortunately, we got Sandoval on the bench.

Ulmer is a bit on the conservative side. Reports from the tenants' attorneys seem to say he is pro-landlord. But is this enough to vote against him? Objectively, you cannot say that Judge Ulmer has done anything wrong.

So what to do here? I think the Judges need to be reminded that they need to focus more on doing their jobs than banding together to protect their jobs. Yeah, I'm a bit about punishing incumbents this year, but in reality, I do not think that Nava will be much different from Ulmer. He will just have different prejudices. This is really about whether the judges should weigh in on judicial retention elections. Vote Nava. I'm sure litigants will regret it just as much as if we keep Ullmer.

Voting Matters - San Francisco Proposition Voting

Proposition AA - Increasing the San Francisco registration fee for automobiles. Basically, the City wants you to approve an increase in the vehicle registration fee which was authorized by the Sacramento. On the up side, the money is supposed to only be used for "capital projects" and not just for administration of other transportation programs. Furthermore, it specifically states that the money is not supposed to be used outside of San Francisco. That's all well and good. The City believes that it is going raise $5 million. Fine. But you know what, I still do not approve of this measure. Why? The City has a lot of money troubles. And the temptation is going to be there to "borrow" or "borrow against" this money. The City needs to start making some hard decisions. Feeding it more money is not the answer, especially with all the Muni cutbacks. Vote No on AA.

Proposition A - Bonds to retrofit buildings leased for low income people. I'm generally against the City expending any money or taking on any other debts. This time, I think its a good idea. We live in earthquake country. We're going to have one. Might as well do what we can to make sure that the damage is minimized. Vote yes on A.

Proposition B -  Reforming San Francisco's Benefits and Pension System. This needs to happen. The current system is unsustainable. Basically, the way it is now, if you work for San Francisco, you do not have to contribute to your own healthcare and you don't have to contribute towards your own pension. Pretty sweet deal for everyone but the people who aren't on the City's payroll. As it stands right now, out of every $ 8 you pay in taxes and fees to the City, $1 goes directly to the pensions and benefits for the city workers. That's 12.5% of the entire budget of San Francisco. It will save the City $120 million. The only people lined up to oppose this are the unions, who think that they need to be special and not have to contribute to their own pensions or health care. They're not. They need to contribute, just like everyone else. Everyone needs to contribute or we're going to have bigger problems. Vote yes on B.

Proposition C - Requiring the Mayor to attend at least one Board of Supervisors meeting a month. You know, as much as I dislike Chris Daly, I think he has a point on this one here. Its irrelevant if the mayor and Board of Supervisors hate each other's guts. Part of the job is showing up and our mayor has been, well, a little preoccupied to show up a lot lately (unless of course there is a Giants game involved). The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has to show up once a week, the President of the United States has to show up at least one day a year (although, G-d knows President Obama will try and claim a golf conflict should let him out in 2011), so I don't see why the mayor can't be required to show up for a Board of Supervisors meeting. Let's get our disagreements out in the open and where people can be pressed to explain their position instead of the insanity that is the war of press releases that we get here. Vote YES on C.

Proposition D - Noncitizen Voting In School Board Elections. Didn't we vote this down a few years ago? Oh, that's right, we did. And the reason remains the same: voting is a right of citizenship. The point of being a citizen is you get to have a say in your government. Not letting other people have a say in your government. Vote NO on D.

Proposition E - Election Day Registration. If it weren't for the fact that it would cost so damn much, I'd say yes. But changing things when the economy and the budget is this mucked up is just asking for trouble. Vote NO on Prop E.

Proposition F -  Health Service Board election reform. I cannot say it any better than the Chronicle, so here is what they say, 

This may not be the most riveting issue on the ballot, or even result in much of a savings, but it's an example of one of the little efficiencies that can add up. 

 Vote YES on Prop F.

Proposition G - Reforming the MUNI Pay System. Umm... how to put this? Vote yes. Vote Yes! VOTE YES! Muni reform needs to start with this. End the free ride for the Muni workers. Start putting the priority of Muni back to the citizens of this city and not with the operators union. Vote YES on G!

Proposition H - Prohibiting elected officials from sitting on political party committiees. Huh? So we're trying to take the politicians out of the elected officials? Puh-lease. This one is needless regulation. And I almost think its a violation of a politicos rights (I think I could make the argument, have to look at a few cases). So anyways. Vote NO on Prop H.

Proposition I - Saturday Voting. On the one hand, it won't cost any money, so it says. And it will allegedly make it easier to vote. Or it will just confuse people as to when election day is. If you can't be bothered to vote on the day you are supposed to, who says that an alternate extra day is going to help? Vote NO on Prop I.

Proposition J - Hotel Tax Increase. Bad economy, people have less money to spend. We want to make it more expensive to visit here than anywhere else in the country? At least whoever comes up with these schemes is consistent. They want to make it more expensive for the locals and the tourists. Who do they want to live and visit here? Ummm.... let's shoot this one down.  Vote NO on Prop J.

Proposition K - Hotel Tax Reform. Did you know that there is a different tax paid on a room when it is booked direct as opposed to through a third party? Neither did I. Problem is, this is a thorny question that is being litigated. It would probably be better to figure out what the law actually means before we go about changing it. Vote NO on Prop K.

Proposition L - Civil Sidewalks. Vote Yes on this. Its a law that has been tested and used effectively in other cities. Is there a problem? Some say no. But I'll tell you, I see a bunch of people when I go out in parts of the city. Is it going to penalize the homeless. It could. But at the same time, there is a problem and there is no effective solution other than this at this time. Vote YES on Prop L.

Proposition M - Community Foot Patrols. How it got this name, I am not sure. The intent of this proposition is nothing more than to kill Prop L. All it really does is require a "written community policing policy." Whooped-di-doo. Its real intent is found later in the proposition where it specifically nullifies Prop L if it passes. Vote NO on Prop L. 


Proposition N - Real Property Transfer Tax. It increases the real property transfer tax for property in San Francisco that is worth $5 million or more. Once again, I know that the city is broke. And it wants to raise money. The problem is, this will work to kill development deals. Those put people to work. This is not just about Sea Cliff houses. Its going to affect everyone. Its going to affect the rents that get charged to both residents and small businesses. Vote NO on Prop N. 

Voting Matters - Governor of California (Could We Have A Worse Set of Choices?)

so it's that time of the year again. Ballots have been printed, debates have been had,and now tomorrow all you have to do is go on down to your polling station hold your nose and make some choices.

I'm really not kidding about that last part. This year in California we've been offered probably the weakest selection of candidates that it has been my misfortune to ever have to vote on. Think I'm making this up? We've managed to outdo the absurd removal of Gray Davis, where among the slate of candidates we had a porn star and former child actor, by  the two parties giving us a retread and a dilettante.

Going with the theory that it's age before beauty, will start off with Jerry Brown. What can we say that hasn't been said about Jerry Brown? He's been governor once before. He's run unsuccessfully for president of the United States. He was the mayor of Oakland, more on that later. And now he's the Attorney General of California. We know an awful lot about Mr. Brown.he has an awful long record, which is something that is unusual in this election cycle where everyone seems to want to not have a record.

With the state that California is in right now a priority for any voter has to be how is this person going to handle the economy and more specifically, whether they can do to help create jobs. Over Mr. Brown's website, he states that his plan is going to include a number of things. First, he wants to stimulate clean energy jobs. How did he want to do this? he wants to increase California's electrical generation capacity by at least 12,000 MW, in addition to that he wants to build 8000 MW worth of large-scale renewable and necessary transmission warnings. Furthermore he wants to reduce peak energy demand to develop energy storage systems along with those who want to increase the efficiency of buildings and appliances while at the same time developing more combined heating and power projects. And of course to ensure all this goes smoothly, he wants to appoint a "Clean Energy Jobs Czar".

Along with his proposed clean energy initiatives, Mr. Brown wants to encourage business startups. (Where have I heard that before?) To do this, essentially he wants to embark on a massive infrastructure upgrade. he also wants to create what he calls "strike teams" which will focus on job retention and creation. we hope that these teams will do is coordinate between worker training program tax incentives and other programs to help, I suppose match entrepreneurs and job seekers with each other as well as applicable incentives which may help them create new jobs in the state. he also promises to make a priority and increased manufacturing jobs also delivering quote targeted workforce training programs". Finally, like any good candidate, he promises to invest in education.

Now the question really is, how is in the pay for office? He is talking about a lot of money to be invested in "green jobs". when president Obama proposed the same thing, people started looking at this. Some studies have shown that to create one green job, you need to spend $30,000 of taxpayer money. in Spain, where they've done a similar plan of subsidizing renewable energy sources, they found that the cost of exit significantly higher end effects the economy number of ways. First, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Second, not only do the citizens have to pay for it as part of their taxes, they also end up paying higher energy costs because it's more expensive to generate.great, so not only is it going to cost us a lot of money or each new job that Mr. Brown wants to create with his renewable energy incentives, but were also pay more for the electricity that were already using. Already, this sounds like a great plan.

While Mr. Brown says that he wants to cut down on the bureaucratic red tape that businesses have to go through California, at the same time he proposes creating a new bureaucratic position, "Clean Energy Jobs Czar". how many government positions in the executive that report directly to the governor do you think come without a staff? If you can name one you get the no prize.

In what passes for his plan to deal with the budget, Mr. Brown said 11 same things that we heard from Gov. Schwarzenegger when he took office. This includes cracking down on those who aren't paying their taxes, making sure that we get all the federal money that's available, adopting a pay-as-you-go type of financing for state projects, and tearing up the "credit cards", while creating a rainy day fund. Tom, history Brown watched any of his own political ads? Play something about insanity being defined as doing the same thing over and over?

The major problem with Brown, if you're talking in very broad terms. He's talking in idealistic ways about how he wants to help California. Make no doubt about it, I truly believe this is a man who sees himself as being the one to help the state at this time. The problem I have with them is his inability to articulate his position on certain issues. First and foremost, what is he going to do about taxation and how does he view that when it comes to dealing with jobs in growing the economy California. The reason I ask this question first, is that he wants to spend a lot of money to make his vision of the future happened. Right now renewable energy costs a lot to get started. When you've got more than 10% (its actually 12.4%) of Californians out of work or underemployed, you have to start at the base and the basics in this case is job creation.

Second, what is he going to do to make sure that people are actually able to live in this state. The state has one of the highest standards of living, and because no one seems to be willing to allow the market to fail and readjust downward, we're stuck with the high cost of living. One of the ways that we alleviate this  is Proposition 13. Position 13 passed during jury Brown's first term as governor of the state of California, and he fought against its passage. Once passed, he later professed to be "born again supporter" of Prop 13. now the unions, and some educational advocates, claimed the Prop 13  harmed our state schools. Why? Simple proposition 13 limited the amount that real property taxes could be increased in the state. The way that while schools in the public school system are financed is through the collection of property taxes. Without the ability for the local city and municipal governments to raise the taxes at their whim, and to whatever level they wanted, it hurt the school's ability to get new funds. on the right, Prop 13 is seen as a bulwark against out-of-control government taxation that is essentially unaccountable to the electorate. Now in San Francisco, Proposition 13 is unpopular. Why? Because were very liberal and a majority of the people within the city are renters, and renters don't pay property tax. but in other parts of the state the majority of the people are property owners in the 1970s property tax rates skyrocketed making homeownership almost unaffordable. It's something to consider. Backspace, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Brown is heavily dependent on the union's, including the SEIU and the teachers union, or very hostile to Proposition 13.

When asked about Proposition 13 and other tax raises Mr. Brown has been very evasive about this. His answer seems to revolve around the evolving the power to tax and local levels. And how is he going to convince the state legislature to give up the power to tax or in the alternative to not tax is much. one thing that will grant him, is that he does have a history of frugality. The problem is is that enough especially in light of his performance as mayor of Oakland?

On the flipside, we've got Meg Whitman. Her first strike against her, in the state, is that she's a Republican. Say what you want about California this is a blue state. Her background, as you probably have heard by now if you've watched any television show in the state, is that she was one of the people who helped get eBay to where it is today. She made a lot of money doing it such creative lot of jobs at the company by helping guide from small startup to the behemoth that is now. For a time, she also sat on the Board of Directors for Goldman Sachs.

Let's talk about the Goldman Sachs connection per minute, because that kind of important in choosing who you want to lead your state. Another bit allegations that she did some pretty illegal things there. according to California Watch,

Whitman's relationship with the giant Wall Street firm -- an investor, corporate director and recipient of old insider stock deals and campaign donations -- could pose conflicts of interest if the Republican front runner is elected governor of California, critics say.

[...]

Whitman left the board [of Goldman Sachs] in 2002 after she was targeted in a congressional probe of bond underwriters and "spinning" -- a financial maneuver, now banned, in which Goldman and other firms allegedly traded access to hot IPOs for bond business. Whitman later settled a shareholder lawsuit related to the prophets she and other execs made from buying the IPOs.

[...]

With golden active on so many state issues, Whitman could face "a pile of potential conflicts of interest" if elected governor, said Doug Heller, spokesman for consumer watchdog of Santa Monica.

[...]

Whitman's campaign attorney said it was "plainly ridiculous" to hold Whitman responsible for problems Wall Street because she spent 15 months Goldman's board.

Basically, Whitman took advantage of the system as it existed at that time. The system did not make illegal the things that she knew about or participated in with Goldman Sachs, and it appears that no insider trading was ever proven. When ever there is money and where ever there is access, there is always going to be the implication that improper things are going on but the rest of the public does not have access to. yes, she did apparently settle a shareholders suit. However, that the civil litigation matter does not necessarily make her criminal nor make what she did wrong. It simply represents the fact that she chose to settle rather than go to costly litigation. (Yeah, it's a little inside baseball, but there it is.)

Now, let's look at what Ms. Whitman wants to do as governor. Just like with Jerry Brown, let's look at what she wants to do about the economy and in particular about jobs. According to her website, her plan had a number of components. First she wants to eliminate the small business start up tax, including apparently, eliminating the LLC filing fee. this she believes will make it easier to start new businesses in California. Second, she wants to eliminate the factory tax. third two wants to increase the research and development tax credit. Fourth she wants to eliminate the estate tax and capital gains. Fifth she wants to promote investments that are cultural industry. Apparently she wants to do this by providing a tax credit to encourage investment in our conservation technology so that we can reduce the consumption of water.

Wow, she really is noticed. Compared to Jerry Brown checks the list out what she wants to do what she wants to eliminate.

Next up, we have what she wants to do about the budget. Like Mr. Brown, Ms. Whitman wants to do something about the spending going on in Sacramento. Ms. Whitman's plan appears to be threefold. First she wants a strict spending cap. The spending cap is going to be based on the state's gross domestic product. All happened, according to her plan is that spending can't increase unless the state's economy is growing. Second, she wants to uphold the two thirds majority rule when it comes to passing the budget for the state. There she wants to turn the legislature into a part-time legislature, similar to what they do in Texas. This would take a constitutional amendment and could not be done something to passing a bill. It would require a vote by the citizens of the state of California.

In looking at what she wants to do, it appears that she has some laudable goals. Imposing some sort of fiscal discipline on the state is needed. However the question arises as to how he'd deal with expenditures that are going to be necessary when the unexpected happens. adopting the spending cap that she wants to use, unless certain safeguards are built in, it's going to make it very hard for the state to do things especially if the economy suddenly goes south again (of course, that'll require the economy to go up and grow instead of getting worse).

California has very difficult choice. Our economy sucks. Were losing jobs. We have a lot of projects that need to be done. Jerry Brown offers experience. Meg Whitman offers an outsiders perspective. Both of these have their advantages and disadvantages.

Some argue, that electing Whitman would merely be a continuation of Schwarzenegger's policies towards California. While some of what Gov. Schwarzenegger has done has not worked out, and his many campaign promises that were unfulfilled, this might not be a bad thing. The problem we have right now in the state is that we have been unable because of our unwillingness to effect change tour budget in the way that we do things. When I look at Jerry Brown, when I listen to what he says, I see a man who wants to to continue along the same path he is gone before. I respect Mr. Brown but I think given the results of his tenure in Oakland that his solutions are not necessarily the ones that we need nor can we afford at this time.

On the flip side, when I look at Meg Whitman, I see a business woman who has engaged in sharp practices as shown a willingness to initiate attacks on her opposition. While this sounds bad, I'm not necessarily sure that it is.while there are some questions as to whether or not she would have an actual conflict of interest with Wall Street, in particular Goldman Sachs, this is not the same as the type of baggage that Mr. Brown carries with him marked with tags from the SEIU.

If I could, I would send these two choices back and tell the respective parties to put up serious candidates. To me a serious candidate would be someone who has both ideals and is willing to lay out the plan what he wants to do going forward. Both Ms. Whitman and Mr. Brown only to fill half of my requirements as a voter. Because Mr. Brown is so dependent in what he does tell me he wants to do on things, such as green jobs, which studies have shown have the opposite effect of the helping create jobs, but I have to say that we should give Meg Whitman the vote.

You have no idea how much it hurts me to say vote for a Republican here.

What the Hell?

Apparently someone is under the impression that poor people do not drive cars. Why do I say this? Because according to San Francisco this must be the case.

This little topic came to me while reading about the current brou-ha-ha going on over the proposed affordable housing project here in San Francisco. Over at Ocean and Phelan Ave, near the San Francisco City College, there is a proposed apartment complex intended as affordable housing (how its going to remain that way I'm curious since it won't be covered by the Rent Ordinance, but thats another topic). The complex will have 71 unit. It will also have five regular parking spaces, one car share spot, and one handicap spot.

For a minimum of 71 people.

Let's think about how this would affect nearly any neighborhood in San Francisco. It would not be good. Yet, the Planning Commission seems ready to let it through.

Why? Because San Francisco believes that poor people will not have cars because... well they are poor. Also because there is this belief that people will ride Muni. This ignores reality.

A good part of why it is believed that the poor won't have cars is that they can't afford car insurance. Has anyone noticed that there is a problem with uninsured drivers in this state? Well there is. According to L.A. Business Journal, its bad and getting worse. As of last year, it was almost 20 percent, and given the economy its expected to rise.

Yet the hope of many in the transit community is that people will abandon their cars and rely exclusively on transit. Yet they fail to explain how this hope will translate into reality, especially in light of recent cuts to Muni and both BART and Muni operated severely into the red?

What sort of fantasy are we living in here? Oh wait. Its not a fantasy. Its Monday in San Francisco.

Do People Not See That We Have A Problem?

I have to admit upfront. I do subscribe to the broken window theory on policing. Either you treat all crimes as important or no crime is important.

That's why I am troubled with the attitude that San Francisco is taking to crime. First, it was announced earlier this summer that, because of perceived racism, Muni was ending its program to crack down on fare jumpers. And before you start to protest, getting on any Muni vehicle and not paying is a crime. You are stealing. It really is that simple.

Then today, there was the announcement by the SFPD that they wanted to embark on a new program. Basically, they have decided that property crimes really are not to be prioritized by the police department. In fact, they will be so de-prioritized that they will no longer be responded to by sworn peace officers (i.e. police with badges). Instead, reports, and investigations apparently, will be done by a civilian investigator.

The idea behind this is that there are cases that happened too long ago, or for property that was taken a while. Also, its to improve "customer service".

Here I thought the goal of policing was the prevention of crime or arresting those who commit it.

The message this sends is that there are crimes which matter, and rate a police officer, and there are crimes which do not matter, so you get a civilian. Now, this is not the first time this program has been tried. In fact, they use it in the United Kingdom. There the program was sold originally as a way of freeing up sworn officers for "important" cases. This was five years ago. As with most things when a government program starts, it did not stop there. Seen as a way to balance their books, the civilian investigators are being used more and more on serious crimes, such as rape and murder.

Try and convince me that in a town like San Francisco, where our elected officials are desperate for ways to cut on essential services in order to keep their own pet projects afloat, that there will not be pressure to use the cheaper civilian investigators more and more. Go on. I dare you. Because, its just never happened before, right?

Now Chief Gascón argues that there is nothing to worry about. For these types of crimes he is promising to use them, there is little danger that anyone will notice any difference. In fact, he opined, when questioned about this, that people would be better served because they would a more certain (and possibly quicker) response time.

Intrestingly, Chief Gascon made the state that, "There's nothing magic about having a police officer testify in court." I beg to differ, but there is. Police officers go through a lot of training. They typically have a college degree, followed by the police academy. Then they serve two years as probationary officers. In order to testify about certain topics, they need to have certain, specialized training. And lets face it, a sworn officer impresses a jury in most cases. They know how to testify. They do it regularly as part of their job. They do the rest of things required for successful prosecutions as part of their job.

It is promised that these civilian investigators will have the same training. But somehow, they're going to cost less. Now, how is this going to happen?

This just does not make any sense. Somehow, we are going to have better policing, at a lower price, with no downside by using unsworn civilians. This seems like fiscal dreams.

But back to my initial point, how is this going to be seen by the people it affects the most? If you know that the crime you intend to commit is not going to get a police response, would that make you more or less likely to take the risk?

San Francisco Housing Authority - The Other San Francisco Disaster

Alright. Maybe that's a little unfair. In that it implies that there are only two San Francisco disasters going on. Our Board of Supervisors and Mayor, when he is not campaigning (and by the way, when was the last time he wasn't?), seem to create a new one with each meeting.

But anyway....

San Francisco Housing Authority are the mandarins who are charged with providing and maintaining public housing in the city and county. Only, they are not very good at it. However, they're not quite as good as Muni is at running up a deficit. They've only managed to run up a $ 2.2 million one. That's chump change to SFMTA.*

Small favors I guess.

Why is this? A large part of it has to do with the fact that SFHA, apparently, simply does not collect the rent. Because, apparently, the SFHA thinks it has something else to do on the first of the month when it comes time to collect the rent. According to today's SFGate, SFHA has failed to collect at least $1.1 million in rent. There are, at least, 1,100 tenants who are behind in their rent. Basically, that means that 1 in 6 tenants of SFHA are simply not paying their rent. There is one person who owed $28,000 according to a report from last year. No word yet on whether they have collected.

Does anyone out there know what happens when people don't pay their rent? In case you don't, I do. There are two options. First is an unlawful detainer. An unlawful detainer is fancy lawyer talk for an eviction. The second option is sue for the rent, but not evict.

If I am being honest, there is a third option. It is apparently the SFHA's preferred one: ignore the situation. I suppose that is the easiest for the SFHA. In my experience, the people who work for SFHA are one step above slumlords. Its not they are trying to gouge the tenants in order to profit. Rather, the people who work there are trying to do as little as possible to earn their city salary. If the SFHA actually depended on being efficient to meet their budget, then they might actually have taken steps to get ahead of this problem years ago. However, since the head of the SFHA, as well as the rest of his staff, gets paid no matter how bad a job they do, then its real easy not to be proactive.

Yeah, I know. SFHA won the prestigious "Most Improved" Award from HUD. If the agency wasn't so horribly mismanaged, it wouldn't need to win the award. And the fact that it has decreased the uncollected rent by $1.9 million should not be taken as a measure of success. It should be taken as a measure of failure because three years later, they still haven't gotten the rest of the problem under control. Either you are doing your job, or you are not. And there is no reason that SFHA cannot be doing its job. The people who manage and operate it allow it to underperform. And not just when it comes to collecting the rent either.

So back the question of what will they do? More than likely, they are going to unleash the landlord attorneys that the SFHA contracts with to begin eviction proceedings. The problem is, the people that they are going after the poor. Its not like they are going to get a whole lot of blood out of those stones. Losing their SFHA housing, a lot of them are suddenly going to find themselves.... well homeless.

And as we all know, San Francisco has been doing such a bang up job with homelessness. So of course, SFHA wants to contribute more to that project.

My suggestion? SFHA should just forgive all unpaid rent under $5,000.00. The likelihood of recovering it from their tenants is really, really low. The only thing that it will do is just flood the San Francisco courts with a boatload of unlawful detainer cases. The SFHA will spend a dollar to recover a nickel, and a whole lot of people will end up homeless. However, the flip side of the forgiveness program is that starting, say August 1, SFHA will rigorously collect the rent which is owed. If the rent is late, because SFHA has allowed its tenants to get out of the habit, they will be immediately brought in for counselling to see what is going on. If its late a second month, the three day notice goes out and unlawful detainer to follow.

Would you guess this proposal comes from someone who spends a large part of their practice representing tenants? Well, it does.

The final part of the plan? Fire the head of the SFHA and his staff. Hire new people who are given strict metrics by which to judge their performance. The fact that City and County of San Francisco has allowed this to go on for this long is ridiculous.

People need an affordable place to live, even when they are poor. But conversely, being poor should never be an excuse for people not honoring their end of the bargain. Too often, we here in San Francisco only subscribe to the first sentence.

* Of course, I would be remiss by not stating that SFMTA hasn't gone bankrupt yet. SFHA was all but bankrupt a few years ago because it had managed to perform so poorly that it lost a series of employment sexual harassment suits and a negligence suit because the maintenance of one of the buildings was so bad that a grandmother and her grandchildren died.

Never missing a chance to miss a chance

What is it with the current Board of Supervisors? Only one of them seems to be willing to tackle the fiscal problem the city is facing a meaningful way, and even then I get the feeling it's only halfhearted and to get some attention in the press.

What am I talking about? Apparently, not content to tax us in a variety of ways to the point of insanity, the city of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors has decided on a new 90 day trial plan with a new fee for many of us. What is that you may ask? It's parking on Sunday.

In a way, this is just like Spirit Airlines and their recent decision to tack on a fee for all luggage carry-on or loaded on their flights.

Whenever someone government says that taxes temporary, I think we need to look at their definition of temporary versus our definition of temporary. Governments never like to give up sources of revenue. There is always some pet project that can be trotted out they can justify the continuation of a tax.

In the people we elect a government, as well as the bureaucrats which they appoint, are not the only ones to blame. We enable this habit. We rubberstamp the spending by continuing to return the same people office over and over again. Voters have a memory the most major-league closers would kill for. If it didn't happen in the last few news cycles, barely remember it happened at all.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors is apparently going to authorize this new parking meter extension to Sunday's, saying that polygamy for 90 days in the know about with the program. Right... what you want to bet this is the 90 days or a Board of Supervisors is going to look at the pile of money that they've made from you dropping coins into the meters and the meter maids issuing tickets and say to themselves "this is a lot of moneyh, we could do something with this".

But is it really going to bring down the deficit that this government in San Francisco is running right now? Can act as a Band-Aid. It's going to make people think that we've solved our fiscal problems. But the only to really solve the problems is to get back to living within our means. If that means cutting some programs and we need to do that. Otherwise we're just to be raising and raising and raising more and more fees and taxes in the city.

At some point, enough has to be enough. Why don't we start now?

We are definitely not getting what we paid for

If you've been reading my blog for any amount of time over the last couple months, he may have noticed that I am very upset over the state of Muni, and specifically with how much everyone involved in it is getting paid. Well, it looks like this problem is not just restricted to Muni. It looks like just about everybody involved in San Francisco government is getting paid way too much money.

The San Francisco Chronicle today released an article detailing just how many people in city government makeover hundred thousand dollars a year. That's not hundred thousand dollars a year with over time, that's $100,000 a year as your base salary for a city employee. In case you didn't read the article, let me just summarize it for you: 1 in 3 city employees makes over hundred thousand dollars a year.

In many cases, now paid by the city and County of San Francisco to its employees are higher than those of other surrounding municipalities. What is interesting to me, is that not only is it higher than surrounding municipalities, that is in-line or higher than the private sector for similar jobs. Are we getting our value for paying the people who serve us as city employees? Or to put it another way, if this employee unions are going to insist be paid private sector wages, then why are we going to expect private sector results from our employees?

I think it's clear, we are not getting our money's worth. Muni is a travesty. the San Francisco public schools are rapidly heading towards travesty. Homelessness is still a rampant problem in the city. But hey, our Muni workers get treated like kings for failing to do their jobs well and the head of the ethics commission can walk away with $140,000 in compensation for doing... what?

I understand that people should be paid what they're worth. However, the problem is I don't think that the people of the city of San Francisco are getting what they paid for. If you want to be paid top dollar, he has to show that you were top dollar. If you can get paid more than people in the private sector, significantly more in one of the factors of the benefits and pensions are things that no private employer can match these days, then why aren't the city streets paved properly? And why aren't the homeless in doubt with an effective efficient manner? And why can't the buses run close to being on time in the city?

If you're getting paid like Barry Zito, then you damn well better pitch like Tim Lincecum.

First, let's fix the Muni travesty. Then the rest of the city government.

Muni Operators Just Don't Get It

So the Muni mess here in San Francisco just keeps on going.

Yesterday, it was announced that Board of Supervisors, including Supervisor Elsbernd, denied a petition by some transit activists to delay the proposed cuts to the Muni system. The petition was brought on the grounds that the MTA officials decided on the cuts with out going through the proper procedure. The Board of Supervisors reasoning was that the MTA had declared an emergency and that allows them to just chuck a, rather onerous, process.

So nice to see that the Supes want to see things done the right way each time. Apparently, all you need to do is cry emergency, even if it is a self-inflicted one, and you get to screw the citizens of San Francisco.

Good job guys. Way to keep the pressure on Muni management to make some changes.

As this is going on, Muni management is trying to negotiate a new contract with operators union. Now, I have grave doubts about Muni management's ability to negotiate anything in the City's favor. After all, they've been the one handling this for years and look where its gotten us.

The Muni operator unions, the Transport Workers Union, are refusing to budge on their contract demands. According to the Chronicle, they claim that they are being "scapegoated in the mass media for the financial mess." My response to them: don't worry, you're just the first up for this; the management is next and they know.

The Transport Workers Union seems to have a little problem with reality. They seem to see nothing wrong the fact that they want to protect contract guarrantees that allow:

• 36 full time employees work only one run (not route, but a run through a route) per day.
• Free gym memberships for the employees.
• $2 per hour premiums for employees who are transferred from a shift or to a different division.
• While at the same time giving employees a 50 cent per hour pay increase for remaining in a division for more than 5 years
• 8 percent premiums for working after 6 p.m.

So, let's get this straight. Muni is supposed to be unable to transfer people to meet the systems needs without paying a tax in the form of higher wages. Also, after a certain amount of time working in the same division, without determining whether the operator is good at their job or not, they get a $.50/hr increase. This is kind of insane!

And perhaps my favorite part about the Muni-TWU negotiations: the TWU won't give a counter-offer to Muni. Why? First, the membership can't even get its act together to vote on what counter-offer to make. Second, the poor head of the TWU needed some time off because of stress. Where does Irwin Lum go to de-stress? Apparently Paris, France.

Muni is Ridiculous

Let's see if I have this straight. Muni seems incapable of getting its act together enough so that it runs somewhat on time. Note, that's not 100% on time. Its not even 95% on time. These incompetents, management and rank-and-file, more than a decade after it was mandated and being provided with every advantage have proved incapable of coming close to the voter mandated minimum for on-time of 85% of the time.

In case your wondering, currently Muni is currently only able to be on time 73% of the time during its most recent quarter. In fact, since 2005, Muni has not managed to do better than 73% (go to page 4).

Among the things that Muni has been able to increase over the past decade include how much we have to pay for their deficient, rude service. Consider this, in 2000, fares on the city's buses and trains cost $1.00. Fast passes cost $35.00. I guess, in light of the people who run the system, we should be glad that it took as long as it did (8 years) to double the fares. Not only have they doubled the charges for fares, Muni has also managed to hit its goal for each of the past 5 quarters in making sure that all parking meters are working within 48 hours of them being reported out of service.

In addition to the rising fares, we are treated to rising operator absences over the past five years. In 2008, we had operators failing to show for work when scheduled (or as Muni likes to call it "Unscheduled Absences") 11% of the time. In 2009, that rose to 14% (check out page 13). Good job Muni.

And then do I have to mention how Muni has gone and cut its service by 10%, effective May 1? (Somehow in government spending 10% cuts equals a 25% increase in fees to the citizens.)

So let's see. Double your fares. Fail to be on-time. Allow unscheduled absences to increase. Cut service.

And now, Muni's latest solution? Let's hit San Franciscans a little harder by extending parking meter hours to include Sundays and evening hours. And to what end?

Nathaniel Ford, executive director of the MTA (which Muni is a part of), says "If you look ahead to year two you have ... some light at the end of the tunnel." Based on what?

Its like the MTA and Muni people live in a fantasy land. The light at the end of the tunnel is because the Govenor has signed a new tax which will help fund local transit agencies like Muni. The problem is, this is the same as giving crack to crack addict. Muni has demonstrated that they are unable to govern their finances effectively. Every time we consent to giving them more money, they manage to waste it in new and interesting ways.

This has got to end. At what point do we admit that simply throwing money at the problem is not the solution?

Mr. Daly: Shut The Hell Up

Mr. Daly,

Please don't take this the wrong way. I love the fact that you have stood up for tenants rights in this city. But by and large, your actions, your policies (other than the aforementioned one), and your means make me think you are nothing more than, and I use a technical term, Douche Bag.

You clearly have no interest left in serving this city of ours. It seems that as you count the days until you are termed out of office, that you are more interested in making it harder, if not impossible for the San Francisco Police Department to evolve as it tries to police this city. It seems that you want to applaud people who assaulted an off-duty guard and handcuffed him to a flagpole, rather than letting the investigative process take place to determine who did what, and if any laws were broken.

Basically, like most days, you are speaking out of your ass. Please shut up and let the grown-ups do their jobs.

I know this will be hard. I mean in just a few months, you will be termed out and no one, except your wife and your kids, will have to pay attention to your antics anymore. And then they can listen to your poor vocabulary, which you cover for by using expletives on a regular basis.

If you had any honor left in you, which I doubt after the sheer number of vitriolic, baseless attacks that you have lobbed during your years in San Francisco government, you would resign and go live in the suburbs. There, you can alternatively ignore the problems of San Franciscans and propose unworkable/unfeasible solutions while pontificating on human rights, without my taxes going to pay for your pied-à-terre. And you could let us try and elect someone interested in solving the problems the city faces, rather than advancing himself.

Sincerely,

Angrybell

Here's Half the Solution...

Or at least a start.

With the Muni drivers refusing to compromise it looks like the only to change the situation is to change the rules. The rules, in this case the City Charter, has a provisions which makes the Muni operators salaries determined by a formula. The formula is to take the two highest paid agenecies in the country, average them, and that is the salary for the Muni employees.

It does not take into account anything else. Just what other employees, in the two highest paid systems are being paid.

This is like paying Eguenio Velez the same as Manny Ramirez-type money. And quite frankly, calling the Muni drivers Velez does a disservice to that goof of a ball-player.

So with it in mind that Muni employees won't forgo an increase at the trough, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd is proposing to abolish that provision (it would also eliminate a trust fund that pays operators an additional benefit of $3,000.00 per year) with a ballot measure.

Now, I have not seen the final proposed ballot measure. Hopefully, Supervisor Elsbernd's proposal is going to have the effect he is trumpeting, and not some ineffective piece of political propoganda for someone who wants to get a ticket punch on his political CV as he tries to move up in the Democratic ranks. However, if it is what it says it is, I would urge people to sign the peittion to get it on the ballott and voted on by the people. Its the electorate's fault that its on the City's Charter in the first place, we should do the right thing and get it off.

Otherwise, we can just continue to watch the drivers get paid more and more to run few and fewer lines and see our fares go higher and higher.

Next target: the MTA board and Muni execs. Getting the employees costs under control is only half the problem.

The MUNI Drivers Need A Dose of Reality

Seriously.

I'm very serious.

These drivers are pampered failures.

The city is in a budget crisis, just like everyone else. We have MUNI that is bloated and ineffecient. An organization that seems incapable of EVER meeting its own goals. Listening to the malarkey from the MUNI employees' union, and I feel the same way about them that I do the Marjor League Baseball Players Association: that I want them busted like the air-traffic controllers were back in the early 1980's.

Today in SFGate, the drivers were quoted as stating that they are unwilling to make any sacrifices in their earnings or hours. What got me the most was the quote, "More and more people are understanding that it's not our fault." Oh really?

At this point, all they were being asked to do was to forgo a pay hike. They would still be among the most highly paid employees of their type in the country. However, the greedy, inefficient union members rejected the proposal, arguing that their sacrifice was not going to completely solve the problem.

Guess what? There is no single solution to the problem. However, their salaries are a major part of the problem. The city, in its infinite wisdom, decided to award them with a pay scale that ensures that they will be paid no less than the average of the top two transit systems in the country. That by itself is not the entire problem. Part of the problem is that they have to be scheduled for full eight hour shifts... even if they are only needed to fill in for a few hours. Furthermore, as Melissa Griffin in the examiner pointed out, there are other built in boondoggles in the MUNI contract. This includes, among other things, :

-Drivers who work after 6 p.m. and before 6 a.m. earn 8 percent more for night duty. (Art.4(4)) Whose Peepaw decided 6 p.m. is nighttime?
- Drivers don’t contribute to their own retirement fund. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency pays the mandatory contribution, to the tune of $9 million a year. (Art 8(4))(The deal drivers just rejected included a provision that they make their own payment for one year.)
- There are severe restrictions on the use of part-time workers. They can’t work on cable cars, they can’t fill in for regular operators [...].

So the MUNI drivers have a sweetheart deal and do not want to give an inch. And what do we get for this sweetheart deal? It looks like an on-time average of less than 70% most years (but thanks to a stellar 77% in 2004, their three year average was 72%). And the trend is to be less on time (i.e. late). As an added bonus, we also get fewer lines and increased fares all around.

What.
A.
Great.
Deal!

Guess what! There is a chance to start making some changes. First, we need to sack MUNI's management, because to be honest, this is a systemic problem. And when I say sack, I mean fire and give no severance to, whoever has a hand in this fiasco. Second, the city needs to tell the union that this is no longer acceptable. It needs to shred that provision in the city charter that allows for this nonsense of not negotiating with the unions and simply giving them an automatic pay raise.

Finally, the city needs to tell the union that the gravy train is over and needs to completely re-negotiate the entire contract. It needs to end the sweetheart deals that the operators get, because we simply cannot afford their inefficiencies any more. If they choose to strike, this city needs to take it and hire scabs until the union wakes up and smells the roses.

Of course, that would mean that Mr. Mayor would have to have some cojones and do something hard, instead of something popular. Too bad he isn't showing much of that lately.

We have come to this?

Its sad. We have gone from:

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. -- George Washington

I desire so to conduct the affairs of this administration that if at the end... I have lost every other friend on earth, I shall at least have one friend left, and that friend shall be down inside of me. -- Abraham Lincoln

I would rather go out of politics feeling that I had done what was right than stay in with the approval of all men, knowing in my heart that I had acted as I ought not to. -- Theodore Roosevelt.

You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play it better than anyone else. -- Dianne Feinstein.

To a boor who proudly states:

For 2010, I vow to use the word "f-" in each of my remaining Board of Supervisors meetings.

Mr. Daly, grow up. There is a difference between being the enfant terrible of politics and being a brat. But what am I saying. This is a man who loves the City of San Francisco so much, he moved out of it while remaining in office. I suppose courtesy is a foreign concept to someone who treats his city in such a way.

Should have been a Muni employee

Seriously.

Yes, I know, lately I have been on an anti-MUNI kick but lets take a look at some things. Today, it was revealed that MUNI employees, as long as they work 2,080 hours in the year receive a bonus of $3,000.00. Based on the number of employees that earn this (about 65%), that works out $18 million.

This bonus, it must be noted, is not based on anything other than the number of total hours which an employee clocked in the year. No requirement that the hours be good. No requirement that something have been achieved during those hours. Its simple, work 2,080 hours, you get a bonus.

You know how many hours you work in a year if you work 50 weeks? That would be 2000. And how many vacation hours do they get? 2 weeks? That would be 80 hours.

By the way, last year MUNI operated at a $70 million deficit. With a little simple math, that means that the bonus system has caused at least 25% of the MUNI budget deficit.

And yet, I don't see anyone at the top of MUNI losing their job for creating a $ 70 million deficit. Nor do I see any hours being cut back for the workers. The only people I see being asked to sacrifice are the users of the system who see their fares go up and their service go down.

Next up, let's look at what MUNI employees make. The entry level, according to the SFGate.com article is: $29.19 per hour. In the course of a standard 50 week work year, assuming that they do 8 hours and no overtime: $58,380.00. Throw in vacation pay, because unlike many workers nowadays, they still get vacation pay, and that's more than $60,000.00 per year, plus an additional $225 per month for their benefits.

As a point of reference, many law firms in this area start their first year attorneys at small/medium-sized firms start somewhere between $57,000.00 and 90,000.00. Add in student loans from seven years of school, and it would have been better to skip education and get a job driving a bus, where standards seem to only be enforced when a rider finally catches you on their cell phone camera acting badly.

How any agency or business can pay bonuses when they are losing money is beyond me. It should be illegal for a municipal, state, or federal agency to issue bonuses when the agency itself is over budget. If a private business did it, they should be (not the employees) taxed prohibitively.

Enough of this rewarding people for just showing up. Showing up is not enough.

I don't think he gets how this works

Now, admittedly, the housing market in San Francisco is out of whack. It's always been expensive, but in the last ten years its been just down right insane. Mrs. Angrybell and I have been continually shocked, stunned and amazed at the stuff people put on the market at outrageous prices.

For example, the house in the Outer Sunset where, hand to G-d, there were holes in the ceiling and a bathtub laid across the hallway downstairs, some unidentifiable substance on the floors and the walls of the upstairs bedrooms. I'm not even going to try and describe the kitchen. Let's put it this way, I've seen tenenments owned by slumlords which had kitchens which were hygenically superior, not to mention functional. And they wanted $800,000.00 for the property.

During the course of all this, I have come to some conclusions. Before I started looking for a home this time around, I was convinced, based on my experience, that there was no profession lower, lazier, and most like locust than social workers. I've worked with a lot of them. I do not have to take my shoes off to count how many I think were actually worth their salaries, or my time to deal with them.

Then I met San Francisco area realtors. I'm not sure what they do these days. In San Franicisco, virtually everything is on multi-listing service (more on that later). Now, its not very accurate, but its accurate enough to give you the price that the various houses are listed at as well their address. In the old days, the multi-listing, or so it has been explained to me, is somethign that was hidden and used only by the professionals.

At the open houses, most times the agents know almost nothing beyond the number of bedrooms and bathrooms that are on the property. Ask them a question about things like, when was the roof done, what kind of heat, or if there is hardwood under the carpet, and the answer I usually get is "I don't know." Occasionally, they'll know if there are hardwood floors.

Lately, especially in houses in the Sunset, the open houses I am going are in a condition that would not pass my inspection for cleanliness, much less Mrs. Angrybell's. My grandmother would have had a coniption fit. I mean seriously, how hard is it to get the broken bathtub out of the hallway before the open house starts? In most cases, the person is looking at asking for more than half a million dollars. Would it kill them to do a litty tyding?

Now, let's go back to the MLS. In theory, it should be a good thing. The only problem is, it seems as if no one seems to be bothered to be accurate. I truly believe that among realtor agents in San Francisco, truth is something that they unnacustomed to. Yes, I know they are supposed to advertise the good aspects of the property, but I am sure that there are ways of doing that without outright lies.

Lies? Pretty strong word. Possibly even actionable. Then again, I'm not sure how else to describe some of the malarky that is posted on the MLS. For example, there is a house in the Sunset. It is listed in the $800K as a 3 bedroom and 2 bath. Of course, what they are doing is counting the "finished" basement room as a bedroom, and a semi-function bathroom that you can use if you are willing to brave the spiders and darkness. Neither of them, if you press the agent representing the seller are legal (meaning the work was done without permits). And this is not the only one.

If the agents were honest, properties like this would be advertised as what they are: 2 bedrooms and 1 bath. Its simple, if there is no permit, then it is not legal. If it is not legal, then when you buy the place, and should you ever need to have work done with a permit and an inspectors shows up, then you could get tagged. Yes, DBI has a lot other things to do, but they're not above tagging things if they see it.

By the way, I'd like to know why out City Attorney, current or past, has never investigated this. It would seem like this is a fraud being perpetrated. It also serves to bolster the prices of properties, becaues the agents tell people "Oh its a 3 and 2, you should bid high for it."

Fracking malarky.

So back to those I to the locusts, I mean agents. Not only do they decieve people willfully with their advertisements, they also can't be bothered to get good pictures up on the MLS. They can't bebothered to fill oout the basic information much of the time. How hard is it to get the estimated square footage? I mean really, would it take you away from sipping lattes and doing... what do they do again? ... to pull out a tape measure and get the information?

And the buyer's agents... well they seem as useless as the seller agents. I've worked with a fair number. Simple things like getting comparables out of them is like pulling teeth. To make it worse, they don't seem to know how to do it right. When I worked with an agent back east, I asked for comps on a property and he produced comparable pieces of property (as in the comparable stats were based on properties with the same/similar floor plan, same number of bedrooms and bathrooms, roughly the same square footage and usually in the same neighborhood or close to the neighborhood). When I ask here, I get comps for a Sunset property or a Westwood Park property that include sales in Presidio Heights.

Then there is my favorite part. They only show the most expensive properties they can find. I've gone through a number of agents for the simple fact that after three tries, they cannot or will not show properties to me that are in the price range I've specified. (Remember, I've also been looking on the MLS so I know that price range is good and I'm not being unreasonable for the type of property I am looking for).

So that brings us to the title. Not only are the agents useless, people have bought into this mindset. Such as the person I am dealing with now. Their house has been on the property for a long time. In San Francisco, properties move fairly quickly. This one has been for almost a football season (regular not inclusing post-season). That's a long time in San Francisco. The place is a bit of a mess. Most of the appliances do not work. There is disgusting carpets (I think they had a pet. Pet probably died to get away from this place because they would not keep it up. Or maybe because they took as good a care of the pet as they did the house.) The house also has a significant amount of damage that will need to be done. The number has 4 zeroes attached to it. However, it is in a good location. Not a perfect one, but close enough to being very good.

Since the property has not moved in a long time, they have dropped their price. This sort of indicates that no one has been willing to pay this person price. The last price drop brought the property into our range.

So we think... let's take a look at it. So we do. And we run the numbers. And figure that we could do it. So we put in an offer for a little less than the asking price. Not a lot less, but a little less because lets face it, there is a major job that needs to be done and will require permits to be done. For the sake of this, we'll use round numbers which are clearly fake, but will be in proprtion. Our offer was at 89,000. The list was at 99,000 (with the original list at 125,000). We expected a counter.

We got a counter.

Their counter?

$120,000.

Huh? They set their price at 99,000, after the market told them that no one would buy the property at a higher level. From what we know, there is no one else bidding on the property.

I hope this nimrod likes his dump. Because no one is buying it.

Bottom line: I hate buying a house.

Schadenfreude - Is It Really Wrong?

Because right now, I'm really doing schadenfreude kick.

Why?

Because Frank Lembi is having more than a little trouble. The owner of CitiApartments is not having the best of years. Not only are the banks taking over some of his buildings, the city continuing its case against his company for the way it treats the tenants of the buildings, and a new set of lawsuits has been filed because apparently CitiApartments has been failing to return rent deposits (what could be called: stealing).

By the way, I think it should be pointed out that the name CitiApartments apparently is no more. CitiAparmtents has now morphed itself into FirstApartments. Not content to have one new name, they apparently have another name: Urban Pioneer Properties.

Its a new name, but its the same company. Same management.

But now, in addition to all and having to change the letterhead, Mr. Lembi is facing possible criminal charges.

Apparently Mr. Lembi has written a couple of bad checks. The total of those bad checks? $298,500. To a casino.

A court in Nevada has apparently issued a warrant for his arrest. Darn shame it happened to such a nice guy.

Too bad this isn't 40 years ago when the mob still ran the casinos. Then justice might have been more fun in this case.

Alright, enough of the schadenfreude.

The Hypocrite Skates By...And San Francisco Gets...?

But somehow, did we expect anything else from the enfant terrible of San Francisco politics? I mean he is going to be termed out, so that he can abandon San Francisco for the suburbs. Yes, that's right, Chris Daly was cleared by the San Francisco City Attorney's Office yesterday when it issued a report on its investigation about the supervisor. Essentially, it states that Daly really does live in the city and not the suburbs where he and his wife and children live in one of two properties they purchased earlier this year.

If its true, I guess he just doesn't like being around his family. I can't think of a reason that I would spend at least 5 of 7 days a week in an apartment with people other than my wife and children.

But this is Chris Daly.

But I still don't believe it.

Mr. Daly clearly does not want to be in San Francisco. He is clearly just marking time, improving his credentials before he makes his next run for some other office. But that's not what we should have as a supervisor. We have too many problems in this city that need to be addressed by someone willing to stay and work, not jsut use the office as a stepping stone to a higher level of government. In any event, if Mr. Daly had any honor, he would resign. However, when was the last time any politician demonstrated that?