Serial evictors named in mapping project

|
(65)
Eeeek! A lot of people have been evicted since 1997.

The San Francisco Anti-Eviction Mapping Project – the same tenant advocates who produced this time-lapse of Ellis Act evictions – have published a new interactive data visualization, displaying locations of properties where seniors and disabled tenants were ousted by no fault of their own.

Showing data over the last three years, the map plots locations of where tenants were evicted under the Ellis Act, and displays the identities of the responsible landlords for each affected unit.

“Waiting lists for public senior housing take years. Often senior and/or disabled tenants are forced to leave San Francisco altogether, or end up on the street homeless,” Anti-Eviction Mapping Project organizers wrote in a statement accompanying the interactive map. “If dispossessed from the city, they often lose access to vital city-subsidized healthcare and community support that they had been reliant upon.”

At today’s (Tue/26) Board of Supervisor’s Meeting, legislation seeking to assist seniors affected by Ellis Act evictions won preliminary approval by the full board. Called the Ellis Act Displaced Emergency Assistance Ordinance, it prioritizes evicted seniors when they seek to access affordable housing programs administered by the city.

“We need this measure to keep residents who have no other means of permanent housing from becoming homeless,” said Board President David Chiu, who cosponsored the legislation along with Sups. David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar and London Breed.

The Anti-Eviction Mapping Project also released a time-lapse plotting the total number of no-fault evictions from 1997 to 2013. A counter that starts when you hit the play button breaks down the number of units where evictions were carried out under the Ellis Act, via owner move-in evictions, and through demolition.

The grand total for that timeframe is 11,766 no-fault evictions. That's counting units, not individual tenants. Owner move-in evictions made up the lion's share, with 6,952 units affected. Watch the visualization here.

Meanwhile, tenant advocates who are developing these data-driven presentations are also conducting a survey to gather information for another mapping project in the works.

Comments

is no relevance to listing the names of the property owners who evicted. Indeed, that might be seen as very hostile behavior.

Many owners use a trust to take ownership of properties to avoid people finding out who owns the property, and such vendetta-style strategies will only encourage more anonymity.

But yes, the city should be helping these tenants rather than it being pushed onto a very small number of property owners.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 5:42 pm

Legality has nothing to do with right or wrong. If you buy someones home and evict them for the sake of making more money, you are doing no favors to anybody but yourself.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 6:28 pm

That is why judges decide these things and not you, or me.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 6:41 pm

Legality is all that matters - this is cornerstone of the society

Posted by Guest on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 6:53 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 7:26 am

Owners can't move into their own property?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 6:56 pm

so-called OMI's are limited to one property every three years. Not very helpful if you have a dozen of them.

And if the tenant is old or disabled or sick, then you cannot do it.

Which just leaves Ellis.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 7:25 am

Only 1% of the claimed "owner move ins" are actually that. I have been an investigator for 45 years. You find these millionaires from Belmont claiming they are moving into a 2 bd flat in the mission."

Posted by Paul Kangas on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 8:13 pm

You are an "investigator" of what, exactly?

45 years? Rent control is only 34 years old.

Keep those lies coming, and I'll shoot them all down.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 6:58 am

Greedy property thieves are the GREEDIEST of all. It's NOT your home, it's your temporary rental , you thieving pigs. You don't OWN it !!!

Posted by Guest on Dec. 06, 2013 @ 5:44 am

You brain dead imbecile, when you BUY a home it's YOURS. Not the squatter in it who can legally be ELLIS ACTED ! The ellis act is the cure for your DELUSION !

Posted by Guest on Dec. 06, 2013 @ 5:53 am

Yes, on moral basis, these evictions are illegal.
As a senior facing eviction, because my landlord is raising my rent from $1,200. /mo. to $3,000.
I have lived in SF since 1960 & always paid my rent.
I have lived in Cuba, where evictions almost never happen. Rent is very low. Everyone is guaranteed housing, jobs, health care and education thru medical school. Yes, some drunks refuse to pay rent. I talked to a few.
Social workers put them into jobs they can handle.
I visited numerous homes in Cuba where people were living without paying rent. I traveled on my own, so I was not on a tour of nice places.
I went to the deepest ghettos I could find in Havana.
Yes, there is some minor crime in Cuba.
There are places where it is not safe for foreigners to be after dark.
That is where I went.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 8:00 pm

You are just a greedy property coveter. BUY your own instead of stealing someone else's you thief !

Posted by Guest on Dec. 06, 2013 @ 5:46 am

Oh and you can not live in Havana if they tell you not to. YOU HAVE TO LIVE WHERE THEY MAKE YOU IDIOT.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 06, 2013 @ 5:48 am

How about Oakland?

Everybody wants to live in Oakland.

Either Oakland or Aspen.

Posted by Larry Burg on Dec. 06, 2013 @ 7:26 pm

housing isn't a solution to the fact THE CITY ISN'T BUILDING ENOUGH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Posted by The Goebblin Love Child of Smaug on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 6:04 pm

And subsidies means that I pay for your home.

So we don't build enough because we cannot convince the voters to pay billions more in tax to build enough affordable homes for everyone.

That will not change, and some people who currently live in SF may not be able to in the future.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 6:45 pm

And it is just too bad that they cannot afford living where they want. I'd like to live in a place overlooking Central Park in Manhattan but I cannot.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 6:56 pm

or are you just switching it up from Mission Local, John?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 7:17 pm

Aspen.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 7:17 pm

no doubt people will stop talking about it.

Until then, the existence of places like Aspen, and there are dozens more like that, demonstrate that a town can function perfectly well even when only a small percentage of Americans can afford to live there.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 7:28 am

Monaco.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 7:46 am

paid support staff commute in from France, which effectively surrounds Monaco.

In Aspen, the poorer folks live in Carbondale.

In SF, they can live in Oakland.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 8:23 am

Land use entitlements means subsidies for market rate housing developers. Subsidies means that I pay for other people's homes by suffering worse City services and further tax on public infrastructure.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 7:01 pm

So you cannot reasonably argue that a subsidized tenant is really subsidizing a developer. It is of course the other way about.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 7:29 am

San Franciscans subsidize developers in the aggregate. I do not support property tax exemptions for affordable housing.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 7:45 am

Your argument seems to be that they should pay even more. You're entitled to that opinion but, either way, those who pay taxes subsidize those who do not, and not the other way around.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 8:21 am

Developers should pull the full freight of their profitable developments, not leave San Franciscans holding the bag.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 8:34 am

Tens of thousands of city residents pay nothing, and just take.

The city needs the developers more than the developers need the city, and that is reflected in the negotiated deals made.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 8:44 am

Nonsense, developers are net contributors to political campaigns so that they can be net takers of public entitlements.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 9:10 am

They are free to decide where to invest and, insofar as they choose to invest in SF, then they have to put together a plan that will pass the planning process, and pay a variety of fees and taxes.

The amount of those fees and taxes is negotiable and they will typically be the most the city can get AND the least the developer is willing to pay. If there is no agreement, the project doesn't get done. Then, the developer goes elsewhere and the city loses all that money.

That's how the real world works, rather than your fantasy about how it should work. As always noted, the city needs the developers more than the developers need the city, because the investment can go elsewhere if the city's rules and requests are too onerous.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 9:18 am

Developers seek discretionary entitlements from the public all of the time, most election spending is by developers seeking entitlements.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 9:55 am

freeloading welfare recipients than it is equally inappropriate for developers.

Developers fund elections for the same reason that unions do - to ensure their message gets heard, because neither has a vote. That's what the Citiziens United ruling was all about.

But the actual deals for a project are negotiated, and I see no evidence that the city negotiators are any worse than anyone else's.

The simple truth is the city needs these projects or we would all be paying higher taxes.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 10:09 am

If you are saying this, there's almost a 100% chance that that is an untrue statement. So you never received subsidies from your parents to help get through college or rental costs? Fact is subsidies are extremely common that almost everyone is a beneficiary of in some form. All homeowners receive a giant subsidy from the IRS. Farmers - including very wealthy ones - receive huge subsidies in the farm bill. Oil companies in California receive a subsidy in not having to pay a tax in the oil they remove from the ground. Huge corporations receive massive subsidies in not paying the taxes they should be paying in a proper system - one that didn't have huge loopholes that clever tax lawyers know how to create. And the biggest beneficiaries of such corporate loopholes are the corporate execs and large shareholders - the same category of people buying a good percentage of these properties.

So get off this tunnel vision view of the world where you purposely exclude the other 99% of reality that makes your argument silly.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 8:52 pm

Most homeowners do not receive subsidies. At least a third of all US homeowners have no mortgage. Many more pay less in interest than the standard deduction and so do not itemize. And another set of property owners do not live in those properties, and so cannot deduct the interest anyway,

Parents supporting their children does not count as a "subsidy".

And the fact that corporations get some tax breaks doesn't mean they are getting a subsidy. they simply pay less tax than they otherwise might.

None of those situations is remotely like someone paying $500 a month for a flat worth 3K a month, or buying a $750K condo for 250K.

People and entities who pay taxes subsidize the people that do not pay taxes and/or receive some form of welfare, handout or subsidy.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 7:33 am

Eric: Pays virtually no taxes, rails against tax-dodging corporations from his sweet rent-controlled apartment.

Guests: Pay nearly 50% of income in taxes, are blamed for all of society's ills.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 8:00 am

even though the richest 2% pay about 80% of all taxes.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 8:28 am

Not even close to true. Why do you even bother trying to peddle this crap?

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 10:52 pm

And remember to give their source so we can validate them.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 29, 2013 @ 7:35 am

You made the outrageous statement, submit proof for it. A simple web search proves you wrong wrong wrong:

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 2:31 pm

Who do you think pays the most in property taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, corporation taxes, dividend taxes, partnership taxes . .

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 2:58 pm

Most taxes are more regressive than income taxes. Admit it, you are full of BS.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

there are hundreds of the damn things, many of them paid only by the more successful.

Personally I think that sales is one of the fairer taxes because it is the same rate for everyone and because it is very broadly based.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 5:40 pm

2% of the population does not pay 80% of the taxes.

You are full of it. Until you admit your error I will not discuss the matter further with you.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 5:54 pm

How much capital gains tax and estate tax does the bottom 50% pay? And how much do they draw in welfare?

The top 10% in the US are carrying the other 90%

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 6:33 pm

income taxes.

Where is their skin in the game?

Posted by anon on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 2:59 pm

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505

The idea that working class people don't have any skin in the game is fallacious. Pretty much everyone who is not retired, a student, or disabled pays taxes.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

That isn't having skin in the game.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 5:41 pm

When have the 1% sent their children to war? They don't have enough skin in the game. Until I see a few of them actually fight and die for their country I am going to know that they are just manipulating cowards, deserving no respect or loyalty from the people of America who actually do have skin the game: the ones whose skin is really on the line.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 5:57 pm

Gee, I had no idea. I guess that explains why people like money. I'd always wondered about that.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 6:34 pm

Post new comment

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

Also from this author

  • Police provide explanation of Bernal Heights Park shooting at emotional town hall meeting

  • San Francisco's untouchables

    Is San Francisco trying to help the homeless -- or drive them away?

  • Draining the tank

    Students push UC system to divest from fossil fuels, joining an international movement gathering soon in San Francisco