8 ms·
As a short-term housing operator in the Bay Area, specializing in hosting tech workers, we've witnessed first hand the decline in quality of life and exile of t
by TheSocialAndrew 5y ago
As a short-term housing operator in the Bay Area, specializing in hosting tech workers, we've witnessed first hand the decline in quality of life and exile of the tech traveler.
It started with homeless people camping out in front of our units in SoMa and Mission (often times blocking the entrance/exit because some units had a direct street-level entrance), petty package theft and occasional car break-ins in the building garages.
Police couldn't do anything but take a report.
Then the pandemic started and the vacancy rate skyrocketed. We started getting reports from neighbors or the on-site management that are our guests are dealing drugs out of our units. Except that these units were supposed to be vacant. Our lockboxes were getting broken into, keys taken and people have been living there for several days and in some cases weeks. We often had footage of this.
We would call the police as we arrived at these units for our protection, but they wouldn't be able to arrest anyone because the people in the unit would say "so and so gave me the keys, told me this is their apartment, I don't know anything about that broken lockbox."
This scheme quickly expanded to Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Milpitas and other South Bay cities. We would call the police on a daily basis in the first few months of the pandemic. Sometimes it would take them an hour or two to come, and if the squatters saw our team at the building and got wind of what was going on, they would start packing up their car with our appliances: Apple TV, Nespresso machine, we've even had furniture and major appliances like TVs, washer and dryer rolled out while we were waiting for the police to come.
At most they would temporarily restrain these squatters if they had previous warrants (many of them did, but many others didn't produce an ID.) But even with warrants for their arrest, they would get uncuffed and released within an hour. We thought that at least a warrant would have them appear in front of a judge and we'd not have to encounter them again in a few days at another building, but the pandemic gave them a free pass.
The officers were very candid in saying that if it was up to them, they would book them, but they have instructions not to bring anyone in for non-violent crime. Theft is not prosecuted.
This is how it goes, anyone that has any doubt that crime is not prevented, pursued or prosecuted should go on a ride-along to any of these calls.
- downWidOutaFite 5y agoSFPD are scum, they're refusing to do their jobs as part of a political attack on the DA they don't like.
- gotoeleven 5y agoIf you're a cop, why do your job if the people are just going to be released with no consequences? Police can't do anything if the DA refuses to prosecute.
- muststopmyths 5y agoBecause punishment is not in their purview ?
- Redoubts 5y agoThey could at least do it so they could hammer the news with soundbites for the next election: Police took N reports about crime, showing that set stats are undercounting by M; Police arrested X for QoL crimes, but released all but Y because the DA doesn't care about you, etc...
- long_time_gone 5y agoBecause it is your job? Plenty of people deal with managers who don't heed their advice, they don't get to opt-out of working. Even if a DA refuses to prosecute anyone, police could also still work to prevent crime in the first place, no?
- ransom1538 5y ago"Because it is your job?" Imagine I worked at a pizza shop and was getting $10 per hour to make pizzas. Every pizza I make my boss throws into the dumpster. My boss refuses to talk with me. The boss publicly tweets: he doesn't believe in pizza. This goes on for 12 weeks. It gets pretty hard to go to work and make pizzas.
- muststopmyths 5y agoWell you should quit that job in that case. Unless you are really attached to those sweet pensions, overtime and other union perks that your "pizza shop" job provides. At taxpayer cost.
- simmanian 5y agoIs there an article I can read to understand the reasoning behind not booking anyone for non-violent crime? I'm looking to understand the nuances of the issue instead of taking a political side.
- jfrunyon 5y agoBecause they're not a threat to society, have not been determined to be guilty, and throwing people in jail (only to bond out anyway a couple days later, in most cases - funneling more money to bondsmen) is a great way to (a) spread a pandemic and (b) waste money giving them what they want (shelter, food, healthcare, etc.)?
- kmlx 5y ago> Because they're not a threat to society how are they not a threat to society?
- jfrunyon 5y agoHow are they a threat to society? The threat to society is the scummy speculator hotel owners^W^W "landlords" who have units sitting empty and unattended for months (or years in the case of many places around here) in an attempt to drive up or sustain artificially high rent...
- azinman2 5y agoSorry, what makes them scummy? Because they want random squatters who are stealing stuff and not paying, while dealing drugs to not be in their accommodations that they created? This kind of comment is exactly why “we can’t have nice things” when low-life’s are always defended, while those of us who actually meaningfully contribute to society are burdened to pick up the pieces and put up with illegal behavior.
- kmlx 5y ago> How are they a threat to society? i thought you would offer a different take on these things. not answer with a question. > We started getting reports from neighbors or the on-site management that are our guests are dealing drugs out of our units. > Our lockboxes were getting broken into, keys taken and people have been living there for several days and in some cases weeks > they would start packing up their car with our appliances in civilised societies these kinds of actions would be considered extremely damaging to the fibre of the neighbourhood. people would complain to their elected official if the police refused to intervene. and if the elected official refused to act then he would be recalled.
- wonnage 5y agoYou've basically described running a fancy motel for tech workers. Do you guys not have any form of front desk/building management on site? It seems crazy to run a housing unit with so many people coming in and out otherwise, particularly in those neighborhoods.
- pvarangot 5y agoI lived in a shared house in the Mission and the neighborhood is still safe enough so that you don't need that. We literally buzzed in anyone that dare ring and friends are still there and still do and never in the two years I lived there, one pandemic one not, we had issues with people wandering in unchecked and doing nasty stuff inside. The Bay Area insecurity thing is blown out of proportion. I'm in Noe Valley now and my drunk condo neighbor forgot the garage door open and it took like four or five hours for someone to actually take something from inside and it was a guy that was clearly not doing well, he wasn't even wearing shoes. So in my experience so far bros in finance just out of college renting a 3 million condo are more at fault for stuff getting stolen from my property than the cops, the homeless and politicians.
- slices 5y ago> my drunk condo neighbor forgot the garage door open and it took like four or five hours for someone to actually take something from inside In most of the US, including many moderate size cities, a garage left open for 4-5 hours would not have anything stolen from it.
- pvarangot 5y agoYeah I'm not saying San Francisco doesn't have an issue with the mentally ill and antisocial chaps stealing from everyone, I'm just saying that my direct experience doesn't match what one would expect when reading headlines or outraged people on online forums. I lived in Argentina before and I was home invaded at gunpoint once, mugged on the street once, and fended off muggers on the street countless times, so maybe I'm just not a good reference because Mission St. between 16th and 24th was the safest place I lived in my life until I moved to Noe Valley.
- pvarangot 5y agoDid you try lowering rent? Because I moved out a similar place mostly because they wouldn't lower rent and everything else got cheaper.
- orasis 5y agoI simply can’t fathom how tax payers allow this to happen. Is someone from the Midwest I cannot understand the mindset that says this type of thing is OK? I guess the Bay Area selects against people that think like me so it becomes a self reinforcing problem??
- WalterBright 5y ago> I simply can’t fathom how tax payers allow this to happen. There are a lot of voters who are not taxpayers.
- adamrezich 5y agowhile true, the bigger problem is the "two-party system." Democrats get voted in and do nothing or make things worse, but when election time comes around again, people'll keep voting Democrat again and again, because they're most certainly not going to vote Republican, and we've somehow been brainwashed into thinking that those are the only two options for any elected position. with no viable competition, corruption spreads and entrenches itself, and the whole region generally decays over time. that it's the Democratic Party we're talking about here is irrelevant—this is just a natural consequence of the two-party system.
- lupire 5y agoThere is a specific District Attorney in SF who is extremely anti-law enforcement and campaigned on it explicitly, and fulfilled his promise. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin
- jedberg 5y agoThat may be generally true, but not in SF. We have open primaries. Most elections are two Democrats against each other. Sometimes it's even a Democrat vs. a Green.
- olivermarks 5y agoI'm a bay area registered Democrat and strongly agree - no electable opposition party = political atrophy and the corruption we are seeing more and more of
- bsder 5y agoOr, you could, like, lower the rent so someone is willing to live there? But, see, your financing would require you to cough up cash if the basis changes. And everything related to housing has become a Ponzi scheme to extract money from the people trying to simply find somewhere to live. In this case, you have chosen to prefer to leave the rent high and let squatters break into your units rather than drop the rent and have residents. I believe we refer to this as "the hand of the free market".
- TheSocialAndrew 5y agoShort-term housing is different, if you lower rates below a certain threshold you are competing with local motels but you are offering a residential space governed by a different set of laws. In other words, low-cost short-term housing attracts people that can book a stay for one month that will continue to occupy the space and stop paying until the eviction is processed. Eviction is a 3 to 6 month process in most counties in California, and it typically costs $10k-$15k. That was before the pandemic, evictions were completely suspended since. Short-term housing / corporate housing does not require proof of income, credit check, etc. That would create a barrier of entry that would deter the majority of the clients; they would flock to the first available Airbnb. These travelers are typically staying for a couple of months and don't want to go through the hassle of lease approvals, agreements, credit checks, etc. Many of them are foreign and unable to provide the documentation necessary for a typical lease agreement. You do make a valid point, however. Rent should be driven down as the market dictates. For long-term rentals (your typical 1 or 2 year lease agreement with the building) there is another reason why rent does not drop significantly: most of the large rental buildings are owned by banks. There are clauses where if the rent per unit drops under a certain amount, the interest rates increase. There are several other clauses that disincentivize rent decreases. In addition, not every investor in a real estate investment trust has the same terms. When things go south (rent drops, operating costs increase, rate of evictions increases), investors that hold a fraction of the REIT will be the ones taking that loss, while institutional investors that provided the majority of the loan are protected. Thus it's in the interest of the more powerful investors or lenders to keep the rent where it is, and let the smaller investors take the loss. We as property managers, whether long term or short term, can only fluctuate the rent within a certain margin. It's easy to oversimplify as "why can't you just drop the price", but there are bigger players that hold the cards, and they decide what the rent is, and if units are to remain vacant, who will be taking that loss. And it's the new guy that just entered an REIT with a mere $100k.
- jedberg 5y agoIn other countries, like South Africa, private security is a big industry. Since everyone knows the police are easily bribed, buildings hire private security. I stayed at an AirBnB in an apartment building, and they had 24 hour, onsite, heavily armed security. Who also helped us with our bags! I suspect SF may move towards this model soon. You can already see it around Union Square. They are hiring off duty cops to monitor the stores.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago1 off duty isn't going to be able to stop these flash mob breakins. I imagine they could be very effectual in apartment building and such though.
- vmception 5y agoI try to tell people that California is not “a market based economy” right now But honestly even that euphemism is an insult to state capital systems that incorporate marxist ideology, as those systems tax lower and have better private property assurances