— By Kevin Montgomery (@kevinmonty) |
In “17 Reasons Why You Should Never Trust An Anarchist” news, we feel obligated to post an update and partial retraction of our previous story on the 17 Reasons Building.
A few days after we published, an artist in the building sent us this note:
I have a studio in the building above thrift town…
the building did sell. they did change the locks, though most everyone got new keys. the people circulating that letter were living in the space as well…which is against the lease, and I believe that is why they are being evicted. I don't have any info on what the future will bring but just giving you some more info…
This, of course, directly contradicts the story we were told by other tenants, never mind the fairly incendiary tone of the letter anonymously circulated around the neighborhood. Fortunately, the building's new owner wrote to us today to clear up the situation:
Open letter to the Mission and San Francisco from the owner of 2102 Mission Street
Neighbors:
I’m Rick Holman. I am a fifth-generation San Franciscan and I have recently purchased the Redlick Building at 2101-2125 Mission Street (you may know it as the 17 Reasons Building.). We’re pleased to own this well-known San Francisco building. We plan to maintain it as it is: bustling with unique, San Francisco and Mission-oriented businesses. However, I’ve been distressed by some rumors that are being spread. I’d like to set the record straight.
We have no intention to tear down the building, convert the building to lofts or condos, or otherwise change its fundamental character or use. Some have pointed to the soils testing currently underway as evidence that we’re about to convert the building to condos. The soil is being tested to better understand the Building’s significant seismic issues. We intend to address the issues once we fully understand them. We want the tenants and visitors to be safe when they’re in the Building. Also, there is no intention to build an underground parking structure. The Building sits on Mission Creek, making the construction of an underground parking garage at the site nearly impossible.
Let’s be clear: we didn’t buy the Redlick Building to leave it completely alone – that would be a disservice to our tenants. We are making positive changes. The Building was porous; there were many ways for unwelcome visitors to get inside. Locks and doors didn’t close correctly, and the parking lot gate was broken and would not close. So the faulty door has been fixed. The numerous broken locks have been replaced with locks that are the same as the ones on the Mission Street doors. We have distributed more than 70 new keys to our tenants, free of charge. The Building now has security personnel in the Building to discourage the unwelcome visitors. We’ve replaced over 100 burned-out lights in stairwells and hallways, cleaned the storefront windows and cleaned out drains. We have started the process of investing a significant amount of money in improving the Building elevators and HVAC system – money we want to spend to make this Building better.
We have heard we replaced the management of the Building. T and Aldo are still here, and Julio has joined the management crew. I am also here almost every day. There are now twice as many people in the Building to assist the tenants combining the old with new energy.
There are rumors that we are planning to evict all of our tenants. This is completely untrue. Let’s be clear: I have indeed initiated one eviction, for a group of people illegally occupying one of the units. (This is the first eviction process I have ever engaged in, by the way.) But we are already in conversation or negotiation with many of the other tenants regarding the extension of their leases and tenancies. The ground floor retail tenants, Thrift Town, Fabric Outlet and A&A Bargains, are important Mission District businesses. We hope that they remain tenants here for many years to come.
I regret that some have chosen to spread unfounded rumors about the future of the Redlick Building. However, we’re confident that the changes we’re making will provide a better, safer, and more positive experience for our tenants and visitors.
Thank you for taking the time to read this note.
Rick Holman
Mission Street SF LLC
So there it is, a ITW is being evicted for living in their office some nebulous, undisclosed reason, and the building isn't going to be razed as they claimed. Good news all around!
(And, for what it's worth, I apologize for taking them seriously. I had felt the letter was very drastic and paranoid sounding, but the tenant I spoke to the longest seemed very calm, collected, and honest. Despite my attempts to reach out to other organizations in the building to verify the claims, I failed to successful reach anyone and decided to publish the story anyway. That was a mistake, which I regret. I will do better next time.)
Comments (41)
I hope this is true, because I’m stoked that Discount Fabric will stay in place. I’m also pleased that ITW are turning out to be a bunch of whiny liars. I read some of the discussion on anarchistnews.org or whatever, and those “anti-art” kids aren’t worth my sympathy. I’m sorry you got evicted for breaching the terms of the lease, boo-hoo.
Why should we be shocked that any possible link to gentrification would send you guys into a frenzy? Weird!
Either way, good job on retracting.
wait a second: so it is better to throw them into the street if they are living there? thats hella messed up.
also, do you have ANY idea how many cultural and artist spaces in the Mission have been evicted as part of its gentrification due to some technicality of breaking the lease (like living there)? Hordes of them. So much so, they have basically all been killed and this place, as far as I can tell, is one of the last remaining, an endangered species about to be made extinct.
where in this letter do they claim it will “be razed”?
kevin, kevin kevin: you are too gullible my friend.
Living in a commercial space violates the planning code. If you want that changed you should be fighting city hall, not a random landlord who has nothing to do with the law.
“violates the planning code..not a random landlord who has nothing to do with the law.”
Uh, except that his WIFE is on Citizen Advisory Committee’s and city planning boards.
This guy and his wife are all up in the ass of The City, yo. Making the plans, getting inside info and then cashing in on buying up properties, evicting folks and raising rents.
Go ahead, start delving into this fool. You’ll see it yourself.
Oh, and fuck the law. When it means putting you in prison or on the street to rot and die or stealing your children from your arms, maybe then you’ll get it, apologist.
I think you’ll find that using a commercial space as a residence was a lease-breaker since long before he or his wife were involved in city government.
So change it. Don’t blame the people who enforce it, that’s completely unethical.
Renters in San Francisco have got to be the most entitled people I have ever come across. Can we not acknowledge that someone else owns the property? The laws in this city are the most renter-friendly ones in country, yet renters here are always whining about their lack of rights. What about the rights of the owner? Should they not be allowed even a smidge of control over their property anymore?
Fact: This is a commercial space.
Fact: Their lease says that you can’t live in the commercial space.
Fact: They violated their agreement with the owner of the building, and got caught.
This is really not just a minor”technicality”. They even responded by trying to create a smear campaign against the owner, rallying up other tenants on false rumors.
San Francisco has an unusually high ratio of renters to owners. People get crazy about gentrification because they don’t have real ownership here.
BINGO and BINGO!
Entitlement Gone Wild!
@ Sarah - Precisely. The sense of entitlement makes me want to puke.
Based on the comments of SF landlords (or wannabe SF landlords) on the internet, one would think that their lot would be better if all of the filthy renters would just move elsewhere and let them enjoy their property ownership in peace.
There was a thread on one of these sites a while back where someone claiming to be a landlord refused to believe that his/her ability to pay property taxes had anything to do with his/her rental income. The landlord signs the property tax check therefore renters should shut the fuck up and do as they are commanded.
That was communicated by a one of the tenants of ITW, whom I spoke to at length. They also discuss this widely on Facebook.
As the original post stated, thus was a group of tenants fears. They chose to lie and fabricate the situation, it was my fault for believing them.
Interesting selectivity Kevin.
As an aside, how have you determined the veracity of the landlord’s claims?
Also, where does it say that they are evicted for living there?
I talked to other tenants in the building (read the blockquote at the beginning of the post for an example), who confirmed that this was a either a complete fabrication on your end, or grossly exaggerated.
It’s not clear what is a fabrication, what claims you verified, and why you state that they are being evicted for living there (which happens to be false).
But what I seem to gather is that you run to publish whatever you half-assedly gather from the very last people you talk to. Is this the first of a series of daily retractions?
I love how the people who fabricated their claims in the first place are the very ones criticizing me for publishing their lies.
*headdesk*
Still not clarifying your statements or answering my questions. Headdesk indeed.
Lesson learned: ignore those whiney losers.
did the tenant quoted above notice that their lease doesnt prohibit residence because the building happens to be zoned residential? come on Kevin, you coulda “cross-checked” that statement for truth pretty easily. selective truth i guess…
Quit lying to the visitors on this blog, Kevin Montgomery. You are playing with peoples lives.
1st, ITW is NOT and never was responsible for the “Anti-Gentrification Block Party.” You were told this straight up and either lied or mis-understood in your first post on this. You were told again after publishing that first post and still REFUSE to correct it. That’s bullshit.
2nd, ITW has NEVER said they live there, EVER. And nor has Rick Holman said that, among his other lies posted above. That you spout these lies is fucked up and puts people at risk by spreading lies.
YOU ARE CLEARLY LYING BECAUSE I KNOW THE ACTUAL REASON THEY ARE BEING EVICTED - I HAVE SEEN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER. AND IT IS NOT FOR LIVING THERE, YOU FUCK.
You are lying, Kevin., and you are playing with peoples lives.
People who pay their rent, generally keep to themselves and provide for the homeless and ill people on this block - the ones Rick Holman would very much like to sweep away to prison or the grave, just like he did to all the people in South Park when he and Toby Levy moved there is 1985.
So no one is losing their home? Just a commercial entity losing its non-rent-controlled space so it has to move to another? Doesn’t really pull at heart strings, then.
Then cheers to the Class War tearing out your fucking heart!
…or at least catching you in some gang crossfire!
You are just the cutest little spitfire. Go get ‘em, kid!
Slow down there dude https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/04/25/18735835.php
No, YOU SLOW THE FUCK DOWN. You are the one using your blog to throw people in the mud - people who are already under attack from a greedy, aggressive and violent landlord.
And, so what? That means…what? That another group is making a claim? That doesn’t mean shit.
Those people are in solidarity with ITW in their struggle and got that wrong. Check it before fucking people over and making “verified” truth claims.
Neither did the original claim.
entitled much?
You’re cute when your vagina is showing.
You’re cute when you’re being casually misogynist.
Kevmo did the right thing, thanks and keep up the good work!
+1 for responsible and transparent bloggerism.
You’re continuing to report without any modicum of fact checking and doing PR on behalf of moneyed landlords…
But even Rick Holman does not claim that in his letter that the tenants are being evicted for living there, which is even more baseless gossip and fabulation on the part of Kevin.
Why don’t you tell us about this ‘unlawful detainer’ then?
Typically populist minded writer siding with landlord over tenants? How much did Rick Holman pay you, Kevin?
He bought me a PBR
I read the article linked to this and I think that the tenants were expressing an anxiety rather than stating planned and permitted facts. Seems like the statement prepared by the lawyer for Rick Holman is trying to cover its ass without actually making any promises. We will see why the building looks like in 5 years.
While it does sound like the story was a little different than originally posted, I wonder what rents Mr. Holman will be asking for from the current tenants in renegotiations. It could be that he doesn’t have any “intention” of changing the building’s fundamental character or use, but also end up with precisely that result if he’s going to be asking for significantly elevated rents.
Doubtless the letter was written by Holman’s attorney, possibly with input from a PR crony.
And Uptown Almanac bought it hook, line and sinker. If anything, ITW’s letter caused Holman to take pause and go for a stealth approach to avoid more immediate backlash. We will see if Holman’s rosy outlook for the building’s commercial tenants lasts, or if he jacks up rent when he can to unbearable levels to get them out.
I am surprised that this blog is siding with developers without seeking more information, questioning motives or considering the bigger picture. Whether you love or hate their work, ITW is an example of the classic live work space of which there have been hundreds through the decades in San Francisco in buildings just like this. Certainly live work spaces have played a huge role in fostering San Francisco’s creative community. Cool landlords are fine with artists also dwelling in such spaces, while nasty landlords kick such people out.
Again, you ignore the fact that other artistic, like-minded tenants refute ITW’s primary point that the landlord changed the locks on all the tenants w/o providing keys (untrue), implied hostile interactions with other tenants (also untrue), was looking to fundamentally change the building via evictions and other actions (especially untrue, as this was isolated to ITW).
But, you know, I guess exposing those fabrications makes me a downtown crony or whatever.
Kevin I think it’s great you blogged this in the first place and I think it’s also admirable that you updated it with more info as it came. I, for what it’s worth (which isn’t much), don’t associate you with downtown or any other monied interests. I wouldn’t have known about this story without uptown almanac’s writing on it. I also appreciate your blogging in general. I was simply pointing out that Holman may be playing loose with his words and intentions. I noticed that aspect had not been pointed out strongly in the conversation previously, and it seems a rather important piece, so I thought I would highlight it. Keep up the good work.