7 ms·

San Francisco Is Burning

62 points by awiesenhofer 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 9y ago
The article really buries the lede: > The numbers cited by Campos and others—45 fires in two years—also weren’t necessarily as suspicious as they seemed. It turns out that 25 fires a year is about average for the Mission.
- azernik 9y ago
  It's more than buries the lede. It starts with a cold open, which is plays up and up... and it turns out it was a borderline entrapment scheme, where a criminal on a plea deal offered to burn the place down while wearing a wire. So, a big fat pile of nothing, plus a narration of the (very real) inter-ethnic and inter-class tensions in the Mission intended to make the story sound more plausible. Also, can I just add how irresponsible David Campos's role has been in all this? > “I’m not saying there is arson,” he said. “The fire department tells me there isn’t. They haven’t found evidence of arson.” > “Have you come across any clues?” I asked. > “Nothing’s come up,” he said. > “Are there rumors?” > “There are comments,” he said. “Like with that fire that happened at the car-repair place.” > He meant the Rolling Stock tire-shop fire of November 8, 2015. It destroyed the shop and two adjacent apartment buildings, displacing 21 people. Fire investigators ruled this one an accident as well, most likely started by an electrical fault or, again, discarded smoking materials. > “The owner [James Albera] was sort of, ‘Hey! Now I guess we can go and build condos,’ ” Campos continued. “It was an odd comment that fed into the speculation.” > Later, I found Albera’s verbatim comments to the media: “It’s terrible. It’s been in the family since 1960.” And then, when asked what he planned to do next: “I’d like to go residential, with stores on the bottom.” > I e-mailed Albera several times to ask him about what Campos told me. Personally, I didn’t find his response to the fire suspicious. Even so, he didn’t reply.
  - Shalomboy 9y ago
    For what it's worth, the reporter is the a fairly popular author; he wrote "The Psychopath Test" and "So You've Been Publicly Shamed." He writes the you've shown to serve an argument he's making in his books. I wouldn't be surprised if this article is actually a chapter or a passage from an upcoming book of his. He isn't following proper journalistic writing standards, but he also isn't trying to be a journalist. GQ probably wanted to drive readership to their site and their July 2017 issue, so they asked if Ronson had anything in the works and paid him for the rights to publish an excerpt from his manuscript.
    - azernik 9y ago
      My thought was actually that the editor had reordered intermediate material in order to make things look worse than the author did :-D
FeepingCreature 9y ago
> Gideon sighs. “Violation of civil rights. Habitability. It’s all bullshit. They’d shit on the floor and take a picture of it. I had a guy who glued bologna sandwiches to his wall and sued me because his room had roaches.” > “I’d close my eyes, and my mind wouldn’t stop all night long. I don’t mean not sleeping. I mean not sleeping. You go to bed and you’re up all night. And then, the next day, you go to work…” > I think Gideon’s answer to that last question reveals some narcissism > I appreciate Gideon’s candor, but our conversation demonstrates just how contemptuous San Francisco entrepreneurs can feel about the residents who aren’t rich or hipsters or tech workers. This bit stood out to me because it's like... you're asking for empathy in the same breath as showing very little yourself. It shouldn't be this hard for this reporter to see how a guy can be without much empathy for people he dislikes. After all, he's doing it right there.
- rayiner 9y ago
  The reporter is being extremely disingenuous. There is a huge difference between "residents who aren't rich or hipsters or tech workers" and the kind of residents that end up at places like Gideon's. My wife's uncle is a landlord. One of his tenants let her dog shit and piss all over the floor all the time. To the point where he had to cut out the lower part of the drywall because of all the dog piss that had soaked into the wall from the floor. My wife could still smell it even after it was renovated.
- IsaacL 9y ago
  Yup, that was exactly my thought. And it sounds like the root of the issue is the rent controls - intended to protect tenants - lead in practice to an incredibly messed-up relationship between landlord and tenants. Not mentioned in the article is whether Gideon tried to find another buyer. Given the previous owner sold the place for just $10k, he was probably desperate to get rid of it. Gideon realised he'd been the rube that bought a massive liability, and I'm guessing he found it impossible to find another buyer. (If he could have sold it, he'd have done that rather than try and burn it down).
wheaties 9y ago
Let's see... Can't increase supply because NYMBY? Check. Can't increase rent because rent control? Check. Removing tenants next to impossible? Ok, this is true anywhere. Gee, I wonder why the incentives are all screwed up?
- throwmeaway22 9y ago
  > Gee, I wonder why the incentives are all screwed up? Just a guess, but maybe it's all the douchebag millennials who programmatically remove other's choices.
  - anthonybullard 9y ago
    Wait, are there millennials on the board of governors? Because they are the ones who have actually removed people's choices - i.e., the choice to build something on their property. Which is the true cause of individual renter's choice being whittled down. Apartments don't get built for free, nor do they get maintained for free. And because of rent control and unreasonable tenant protections, landlords - who either bought, built, or inherited these properties - have an incentive to not maintain properties inhabited by long time tenants and create an atmosphere that makes them want to leave. The ones that are able to do that are probably pocketing a lot of (economic) rents, while the ones who try to do the right thing by their tenants end up on a sinking financial ship. You can talk all you want about "millennials", but tech workers need a place to live. They make a lot of money - and largely put a lot of it in the local economy since many of them are at a stage of life where conspicuous consumption makes sense for them. But because of Local and state politics, not one city will let anyone build enough of it. So if someone can't build a 400 unit tower in the mission, guess what? They'll find a way to get occupy 400 single family homes. No one wins really. Except some longstanding homeowners that get an underfed windfall in home value without paying any increased property tax, some unscrupulous landlords, developers with political connections, and some grandstanding politicians. Meanwhile, tech people drawn from all over the world come here to be vilified as colonizers, low-income people are left in the streets or pushed to the farthest reaches of the Bay (or out of state completely), and principled landlords are left with a money hole they can't withstand.
- 9y ago
ubertaco 9y ago
As a software developer from the southeast, my two visits to San Francisco taught me one thing: you couldn't pay me enough to live there. It's overcrowded, it's overly-expensive, and it's jam-packed with two kinds of people: naive overpaid tech-startup people who are convinced their selfie app will be the one that saves the world, and the most aggressive homeless people I've ever met -- that is, the world that needs more than a selfie app to save them, but who are effectively "pigeons" (to borrow this landlord's crass terminology) in the eyes of the self-styled superheroes on their way to an overpriced bistro or a meeting about how to reinvent the bus system but with a prohibitively-high price tag. The city reeks of marijuana smoke, and spending more than 20 minutes at Fisherman's Wharf left me lightheaded. You may scream loudly about your right to smoke this medicinal herb, but what of my right not to be compelled to feel its effects just because I dared to walk down a public avenue? It's nigh-impossible to get around any way other than just walking for miles -- including to overpriced grocery stores and back -- or paying for another app startup's glorified taxi service, gallantly offering highly-priced "solutions" to a problem they helped create. This may be an unfair criticism, though; my own hometown has notoriously-bad public transit. It's a hard problem to solve, just made harder by the sheer crowded density of San Francisco. There are no trees, except in tiny parks. At least one of those few parks is comprised of artificial turf (the plasticky kind), and would take about 1 full minute to leisurely stroll from end to end. If you combined all the parks, you might get something roughly the size of New York's Central Park. Maybe. The city has decided that the natural ecosystem which it boasts so loudly about protecting has no place within its boundaries. And so, you have nothing but cement, asphalt, and concrete as far as the eye can see. As much as people talk about the "Bible belt" and how it's so hard to be left-leaning or atheist there (because you're considered "odd"), it's much harder to be right-leaning or Christian in San Francisco, where the assumption is that people of that ilk are knuckle-dragging trogdolytes to be scorned or ignored until the commonly-shared blue-tinted dream vision of history renders such people somehow obsolete. It's an attitude of "we respect all people, just...not you." There's lots of talk to be found on street signs and in meeting rooms about celebrating cultural diversity and indigenous peoples, but in practice the people who are celebrated are rich CEOs or incoming tech workers riding in on H1Bs to displace the "indigenous" people of the area, crowding them out and motivating the kind of hostility mentioned in this article. My business travel to San Francisco felt like I was walking into a foreign country; one that was on the decline, one that had some deep-rooted enmity for my own homeland (the "rest of the country"), like you might find between India and Pakistan.
J-dawg 9y ago
> This man, let’s call him Frank, was in trouble for some financial infraction. Frank cut a deal with the authorities. They’d go easy on him if he’d wear a wire and lure Gideon into plotting to burn down his building. Is it common practice to take someone who is in trouble for an unrelated crime, and use it to coerce them into being what amounts to an unpaid undercover police officer? I mean, I understand the idea of arresting someone from a criminal gang and then getting them to wear a wire to catch the big boss. But the way this is written it sounds like the two men didn't know each other. Am I missing something here? Because that sounds incredibly unethical and I'm surprised if it's legal.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Yes, I feel like that is, in fact, pretty common.
  - J-dawg 9y ago
    OK, I feel very naive now! I am quite shocked by this. Is this a thing throughout the USA? I'm pretty sure I've never heard of anything remotely like this in the UK (maybe being naive again, please correct me if I'm wrong.) The US plea-bargain system seems to have so much potential for abuse. EDIT: So many questions are coming to mind now. Like, why would the police entrust something like this to an untrained, highly stressed, and unreliable person when they could just use a plain-clothes officer? Wouldn't it be very embarrassing for the police if the undercover guy freaked out and ruined the investigation? Is their plea-bargain dependent on the success of the other sting? So staying out of jail could be dependent on their acting ability? Because if so that's absolutely insane.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      I don't know the first thing about law enforcement in the UK, so I have no idea. But yes, I don't think this would be unusual anywhere in the US. You aren't wrong in saying that the plea bargain system is ripe for abuse, not just in that way but in the more prosaic way that it makes it possible for prosecutors to railroad defendants into confessing to things they didn't do. > Like, why would the police entrust something like this to an untrained, highly stressed, and unreliable person when they could just use a plain-clothes officer? How many undercover gigs can you do before people start to catch on? Also, whoever you want to target may already know the informant and have some implicit level of trust in them.
timwaagh 9y ago
such brutal criminality. landlording has always been shady business, especially when the rent is low, however this is pure insanity. SRO is not very different from the rooms i rent out. it is perfectly possible to do this well and make a lot more than the price you bought it for. you mainly need to keep a cool head. let's hope sf landlords get their sanity back.
gwbas1c 9y ago
I lived in San Francisco for a year. The first week in, I realized what a mistake it was. The problem is that city laws unreasonably favor the tenants, putting an unreasonable amount of pressure on landlords. It was so bad that my landlord couldn't afford to fix problems in her building; nor could she evict a problem tenant who threatened us all. When we (the tenants) tried to work with the city to stop the aggressive tenant's behavior, the judge just threw it out. (This tenant was mentally ill and needed to live in a home with proper supervision.) Ultimately, all of us left, except the family who lived there for 20 years and paid almost nothing for rent. * I don't have a lot of love for landlords; but San Francisco treats tenant protection as a win-lose negotiation. It puts landlords in a clear loosing situation of the negotiation, and then drags down anyone who wants a safe "no frills" apartment at a good price. * San Francisco's rent control is unreasonable. If you live in a rent-controlled building for more than a few years, you can effectively live there for free. The landlord then can't keep up the building, because the rent for the open apartments needs to stay low to compete with luxury apartments without rent control. That's partly why San Francisco tenant protection puts landlords on the loosing side and drags down everyone else.

62 points by awiesenhofer 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

The article really buries the lede: > The numbers cited by Campos and others—45 fires in two years—also weren’t necessarily as suspicious as they seemed. It turns out that 25 fires a year is about average for the Mission.

azernik 9y ago
It's more than buries the lede. It starts with a cold open, which is plays up and up... and it turns out it was a borderline entrapment scheme, where a criminal on a plea deal offered to burn the place down while wearing a wire. So, a big fat pile of nothing, plus a narration of the (very real) inter-ethnic and inter-class tensions in the Mission intended to make the story sound more plausible. Also, can I just add how irresponsible David Campos's role has been in all this? > “I’m not saying there is arson,” he said. “The fire department tells me there isn’t. They haven’t found evidence of arson.” > “Have you come across any clues?” I asked. > “Nothing’s come up,” he said. > “Are there rumors?” > “There are comments,” he said. “Like with that fire that happened at the car-repair place.” > He meant the Rolling Stock tire-shop fire of November 8, 2015. It destroyed the shop and two adjacent apartment buildings, displacing 21 people. Fire investigators ruled this one an accident as well, most likely started by an electrical fault or, again, discarded smoking materials. > “The owner [James Albera] was sort of, ‘Hey! Now I guess we can go and build condos,’ ” Campos continued. “It was an odd comment that fed into the speculation.” > Later, I found Albera’s verbatim comments to the media: “It’s terrible. It’s been in the family since 1960.” And then, when asked what he planned to do next: “I’d like to go residential, with stores on the bottom.” > I e-mailed Albera several times to ask him about what Campos told me. Personally, I didn’t find his response to the fire suspicious. Even so, he didn’t reply.
- Shalomboy 9y ago
  For what it's worth, the reporter is the a fairly popular author; he wrote "The Psychopath Test" and "So You've Been Publicly Shamed." He writes the you've shown to serve an argument he's making in his books. I wouldn't be surprised if this article is actually a chapter or a passage from an upcoming book of his. He isn't following proper journalistic writing standards, but he also isn't trying to be a journalist. GQ probably wanted to drive readership to their site and their July 2017 issue, so they asked if Ronson had anything in the works and paid him for the rights to publish an excerpt from his manuscript.
  - azernik 9y ago
    My thought was actually that the editor had reordered intermediate material in order to make things look worse than the author did :-D

FeepingCreature 9y ago

> Gideon sighs. “Violation of civil rights. Habitability. It’s all bullshit. They’d shit on the floor and take a picture of it. I had a guy who glued bologna sandwiches to his wall and sued me because his room had roaches.” > “I’d close my eyes, and my mind wouldn’t stop all night long. I don’t mean not sleeping. I mean not sleeping. You go to bed and you’re up all night. And then, the next day, you go to work…” > I think Gideon’s answer to that last question reveals some narcissism > I appreciate Gideon’s candor, but our conversation demonstrates just how contemptuous San Francisco entrepreneurs can feel about the residents who aren’t rich or hipsters or tech workers. This bit stood out to me because it's like... you're asking for empathy in the same breath as showing very little yourself. It shouldn't be this hard for this reporter to see how a guy can be without much empathy for people he dislikes. After all, he's doing it right there.

rayiner 9y ago
The reporter is being extremely disingenuous. There is a huge difference between "residents who aren't rich or hipsters or tech workers" and the kind of residents that end up at places like Gideon's. My wife's uncle is a landlord. One of his tenants let her dog shit and piss all over the floor all the time. To the point where he had to cut out the lower part of the drywall because of all the dog piss that had soaked into the wall from the floor. My wife could still smell it even after it was renovated.
IsaacL 9y ago
Yup, that was exactly my thought. And it sounds like the root of the issue is the rent controls - intended to protect tenants - lead in practice to an incredibly messed-up relationship between landlord and tenants. Not mentioned in the article is whether Gideon tried to find another buyer. Given the previous owner sold the place for just $10k, he was probably desperate to get rid of it. Gideon realised he'd been the rube that bought a massive liability, and I'm guessing he found it impossible to find another buyer. (If he could have sold it, he'd have done that rather than try and burn it down).

wheaties 9y ago

Let's see... Can't increase supply because NYMBY? Check. Can't increase rent because rent control? Check. Removing tenants next to impossible? Ok, this is true anywhere. Gee, I wonder why the incentives are all screwed up?

throwmeaway22 9y ago
> Gee, I wonder why the incentives are all screwed up? Just a guess, but maybe it's all the douchebag millennials who programmatically remove other's choices.
- anthonybullard 9y ago
  Wait, are there millennials on the board of governors? Because they are the ones who have actually removed people's choices - i.e., the choice to build something on their property. Which is the true cause of individual renter's choice being whittled down. Apartments don't get built for free, nor do they get maintained for free. And because of rent control and unreasonable tenant protections, landlords - who either bought, built, or inherited these properties - have an incentive to not maintain properties inhabited by long time tenants and create an atmosphere that makes them want to leave. The ones that are able to do that are probably pocketing a lot of (economic) rents, while the ones who try to do the right thing by their tenants end up on a sinking financial ship. You can talk all you want about "millennials", but tech workers need a place to live. They make a lot of money - and largely put a lot of it in the local economy since many of them are at a stage of life where conspicuous consumption makes sense for them. But because of Local and state politics, not one city will let anyone build enough of it. So if someone can't build a 400 unit tower in the mission, guess what? They'll find a way to get occupy 400 single family homes. No one wins really. Except some longstanding homeowners that get an underfed windfall in home value without paying any increased property tax, some unscrupulous landlords, developers with political connections, and some grandstanding politicians. Meanwhile, tech people drawn from all over the world come here to be vilified as colonizers, low-income people are left in the streets or pushed to the farthest reaches of the Bay (or out of state completely), and principled landlords are left with a money hole they can't withstand.
9y ago

ubertaco 9y ago

As a software developer from the southeast, my two visits to San Francisco taught me one thing: you couldn't pay me enough to live there. It's overcrowded, it's overly-expensive, and it's jam-packed with two kinds of people: naive overpaid tech-startup people who are convinced their selfie app will be the one that saves the world, and the most aggressive homeless people I've ever met -- that is, the world that needs more than a selfie app to save them, but who are effectively "pigeons" (to borrow this landlord's crass terminology) in the eyes of the self-styled superheroes on their way to an overpriced bistro or a meeting about how to reinvent the bus system but with a prohibitively-high price tag. The city reeks of marijuana smoke, and spending more than 20 minutes at Fisherman's Wharf left me lightheaded. You may scream loudly about your right to smoke this medicinal herb, but what of my right not to be compelled to feel its effects just because I dared to walk down a public avenue? It's nigh-impossible to get around any way other than just walking for miles -- including to overpriced grocery stores and back -- or paying for another app startup's glorified taxi service, gallantly offering highly-priced "solutions" to a problem they helped create. This may be an unfair criticism, though; my own hometown has notoriously-bad public transit. It's a hard problem to solve, just made harder by the sheer crowded density of San Francisco. There are no trees, except in tiny parks. At least one of those few parks is comprised of artificial turf (the plasticky kind), and would take about 1 full minute to leisurely stroll from end to end. If you combined all the parks, you might get something roughly the size of New York's Central Park. Maybe. The city has decided that the natural ecosystem which it boasts so loudly about protecting has no place within its boundaries. And so, you have nothing but cement, asphalt, and concrete as far as the eye can see. As much as people talk about the "Bible belt" and how it's so hard to be left-leaning or atheist there (because you're considered "odd"), it's much harder to be right-leaning or Christian in San Francisco, where the assumption is that people of that ilk are knuckle-dragging trogdolytes to be scorned or ignored until the commonly-shared blue-tinted dream vision of history renders such people somehow obsolete. It's an attitude of "we respect all people, just...not you." There's lots of talk to be found on street signs and in meeting rooms about celebrating cultural diversity and indigenous peoples, but in practice the people who are celebrated are rich CEOs or incoming tech workers riding in on H1Bs to displace the "indigenous" people of the area, crowding them out and motivating the kind of hostility mentioned in this article. My business travel to San Francisco felt like I was walking into a foreign country; one that was on the decline, one that had some deep-rooted enmity for my own homeland (the "rest of the country"), like you might find between India and Pakistan.

J-dawg 9y ago

> This man, let’s call him Frank, was in trouble for some financial infraction. Frank cut a deal with the authorities. They’d go easy on him if he’d wear a wire and lure Gideon into plotting to burn down his building. Is it common practice to take someone who is in trouble for an unrelated crime, and use it to coerce them into being what amounts to an unpaid undercover police officer? I mean, I understand the idea of arresting someone from a criminal gang and then getting them to wear a wire to catch the big boss. But the way this is written it sounds like the two men didn't know each other. Am I missing something here? Because that sounds incredibly unethical and I'm surprised if it's legal.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
emodendroket 9y ago
Yes, I feel like that is, in fact, pretty common.
- J-dawg 9y ago
  OK, I feel very naive now! I am quite shocked by this. Is this a thing throughout the USA? I'm pretty sure I've never heard of anything remotely like this in the UK (maybe being naive again, please correct me if I'm wrong.) The US plea-bargain system seems to have so much potential for abuse. EDIT: So many questions are coming to mind now. Like, why would the police entrust something like this to an untrained, highly stressed, and unreliable person when they could just use a plain-clothes officer? Wouldn't it be very embarrassing for the police if the undercover guy freaked out and ruined the investigation? Is their plea-bargain dependent on the success of the other sting? So staying out of jail could be dependent on their acting ability? Because if so that's absolutely insane.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I don't know the first thing about law enforcement in the UK, so I have no idea. But yes, I don't think this would be unusual anywhere in the US. You aren't wrong in saying that the plea bargain system is ripe for abuse, not just in that way but in the more prosaic way that it makes it possible for prosecutors to railroad defendants into confessing to things they didn't do. > Like, why would the police entrust something like this to an untrained, highly stressed, and unreliable person when they could just use a plain-clothes officer? How many undercover gigs can you do before people start to catch on? Also, whoever you want to target may already know the informant and have some implicit level of trust in them.

timwaagh 9y ago

such brutal criminality. landlording has always been shady business, especially when the rent is low, however this is pure insanity. SRO is not very different from the rooms i rent out. it is perfectly possible to do this well and make a lot more than the price you bought it for. you mainly need to keep a cool head. let's hope sf landlords get their sanity back.

gwbas1c 9y ago

I lived in San Francisco for a year. The first week in, I realized what a mistake it was. The problem is that city laws unreasonably favor the tenants, putting an unreasonable amount of pressure on landlords. It was so bad that my landlord couldn't afford to fix problems in her building; nor could she evict a problem tenant who threatened us all. When we (the tenants) tried to work with the city to stop the aggressive tenant's behavior, the judge just threw it out. (This tenant was mentally ill and needed to live in a home with proper supervision.) Ultimately, all of us left, except the family who lived there for 20 years and paid almost nothing for rent. * I don't have a lot of love for landlords; but San Francisco treats tenant protection as a win-lose negotiation. It puts landlords in a clear loosing situation of the negotiation, and then drags down anyone who wants a safe "no frills" apartment at a good price. * San Francisco's rent control is unreasonable. If you live in a rent-controlled building for more than a few years, you can effectively live there for free. The landlord then can't keep up the building, because the rent for the open apartments needs to stay low to compete with luxury apartments without rent control. That's partly why San Francisco tenant protection puts landlords on the loosing side and drags down everyone else.