

Google Lawyer evicting third-grade teacher - justizin
http://48hillsonline.org/2014/04/11/google-lawyer-evicting-third-grade-teacher/
This article is apparently about the elementary school teacher who interrupted I&#x2F;O protesting her eviction by Google Lawyer Jack Halprin.
======
dragonwriter
Title (which is the original article headline, but that's still no excuse) is
misleading due to inconsistent capitalization (which is neither standard nor
title case). "Google Lawyer" isn't a proper a name, it should be either
"Google lawyer evicting third-grade teacher" or "Google Lawyer Evicting Third-
Grade Teacher".

It is also misleading guilt-by-association, anyway, since other than the fact
that the landlord works for Google, it has nothing to do with Google, but
treating "Google Lawyer" as if it were a proper name enhances the already-
misleading character.

------
warfangle
Seems to me that real estate law in CA/SF is even more asinine than in NYC.
With that said, these tenants are compensated between $5k and $18k per unit.
Sucks to get evicted, but that sounds like a windfall situation. Guy is
probably going to convert it into a mansion: here in NYC, I'm pretty sure if a
landlord wants to do that kind of conversion they have to wait for your
tenants to move out of their own accord.

These people shouldn't be complaining about Google. They should be complaining
about the Ellis Act.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _With that said, these tenants are compensated between $5k and $18k per
> unit. Sucks to get evicted, but that sounds like a windfall situation._

Depends. If you get kicked out of an affordable place and nothing else
affordable is available, compensation only delays the inevitable by a few
months.

For the most part I'm inclined to agree that, if landlords are being abusive
assholes, it's a problem with the landlords, not with the wealthy tenants or
their employers. Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect major
employers to assist with the needs of their community, regardless of fault or
blame. If Google's policies are indirectly enabling shitty landlords, it would
be neighborly of Google to use their clout to lobby for pro-tenant ordinances,
and maybe politely ask their employees who _are_ landlords not to be dicks.

~~~
warfangle
>Depends. If you get kicked out of an affordable place and nothing else
affordable is available, compensation only delays the inevitable by a few
months.

Maybe if nothing is affordable in a strict 121km^2, a more affordable location
convenient to public transportation in the larger 9,128km^2 metro area should
be looked into. Like Oakland, perhaps?

People get priced out of Manhattan and end up moving to one of the other
boroughs all the time (though now that people are getting priced out of
Williamsburg, they're moving _back_ to portions of Manhattan like the LES). It
sucks, but that's the life of a renter.

> For the most part I'm inclined to agree that, if landlords are being abusive
> assholes, it's a problem with the landlords, not with the wealthy tenants or
> their employers.

Depends. If they're being abusive assholes within the law, it's a problem with
the law. You can't assume - especially with landlords - that economic actors
will choose the path to Nash equilibria. If they're abusive assholes outside
of the law, it's a problem with the landlords. IMHO, an Ellis Act eviction
isn't abusive - just because it's not abusive doesn't mean it's fair, however.
A landlord in Brooklyn recently told his tenants that he was going to do
repairs - and instead of repairing the property, he (allegedly) gutted the
apartment (removed flooring, plumbing fixtures). All to try and force them to
abandon their lease. This was abusive -- and illegal (he's almost definitely
going to jail). But it's also an artifact of the extraordinary tenant rights
we enjoy here in NYC: we cannot be evicted without cause, and even then the
landlord must win an eviction suit in (a very pro-tenant) housing court. If a
landlord wants a tenant out for reasons not valid (e.g., to convert to condos
or a mansion), they can offer to buy the tenant out of their lease. The
tenant, of course, can refuse the buyout until they receive a price they
consider fair. These tenants can be a huge headache for landlords that want to
improve or demolish the property.

Seems to me that the Ellis Act itself is what's abusive here, not landlords
taking advantage of the law.

> Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect major employers to assist
> with the needs of their community

It might not be unreasonable, but it's extraordinarily unlikely. Corporations
are in it for profit. Making sure people have affordable housing in downtown
San Francisco doesn't really enter into it.

> If Google's policies are indirectly enabling shitty landlords

What policy is that? Employing shrewd lawyers? Not being punitive when their
employees take full advantage of the law?

If you think invoking the Ellis Act is being a shitty landlord, you live in a
wonderland of amazing landlords my friend. I'm still trying to get mine to fix
my foyer mailbox after six months of it being broken (thank goodness for PO
boxes).

> it would be neighborly of Google to use their clout to lobby for pro-tenant
> ordinances

Google isn't just neighbors with SF. Google is a global company: its neighbors
are the entire world. That's why its nonprofit arm builds things like Person
Finder, Flu & Dengue Trends, discounted access to its products for non
profits. It also invests in research for renewable energy cheaper than coal
(though was dropped in 2011), seeds plug-in EVs, prediction & prevention of
emerging (climate & disease) threats, uses its information to improve public
services in the developing world, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

They've got bigger fish to fry than doing San Franciscan's civic duty for
them.

------
mullingitover
Ah, the comments section is solid gold. Someone drops the real cause of the
hate: "Since owning property is theft the landlord is not entitled to his
stolen property."

~~~
PhasmaFelis
"The real cause"? Are you suggesting that the protesters don't actually care
about the lack of affordable homes for poor people, they just want any excuse
to promote vague, mustache-twirling socialism?

~~~
mullingitover
I submit that if heavy development of new housing started in SF, arguably the
cure for the city's rental property drought, these same people would be
protesting that as well.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
That's an interesting assertion. I'm sure that _someone_ would protest that,
yes, and they might share some values with the protesters here. I think you're
making the mistake of assuming that anyone who calls themselves progressive,
liberal, left-wing, or a Democrat represents a monolithic bloc with uniform
opinions. "Some A support X, while some A oppose X" does not demonstrate that
all A are confused and inconsistent.

------
justizin
This is background to the elementary school teacher who interrupted I/O today
protesting her eviction by Google Lawyer Jack Halprin.

------
opendais
Does anyone else feel this is something that has nothing to do with Google and
is purely a Landlord/Tenant issue?

Sure, it is a dick move that this lawyer is engaging in...but ultimately it is
a legal one. A legal one the politicians already took steps to remedy.

~~~
warfangle
> purely a Landlord/Tenant issue

Yep.

> Sure, it is a dick move that this lawyer is engaging in...but ultimately it
> is a legal one.

Yep. And an expensive one. SF requires EA evictions to come along with rather
large (for a typical renter) compensatory packages.

Seems like if you don't want to get evicted by an asshole landlord for reasons
other than delinquency and lease violations, don't live in SF -- or buy
instead of rent.

~~~
dragonwriter
> SF requires EA evictions to come along with rather large (for a typical
> renter) compensatory packages.

The accusation here is that this eviction is specifically timed to avoid the
coming increase in those packages. Which should be an obviously anticipated
effect of a large increase -- while it will _discourage_ such evictions once
it goes into effect, it will _encourage_ them in the period between when it is
passed and becomes effective, because anyone who _might_ want to do them in
the near future is incentivized to accelerate them.

~~~
warfangle
Which all points to the EA being the problem and not some random lawyer
employed by an enormously wealthy global corporation.

The reasoning behind the Ellis Act is to allow landlords to quit being
landlords without selling their property to another landlord. What? Huh? Of
COURSE that's going to leave the tenants of their property out in the cold
(well, SF, so uh .. chilliness). And of COURSE if you increase the amount the
tenants must be compensated you'll get a rush of evictions before it takes
effect.

------
gphil
What a mess. The current real estate "system" in SF isn't serving anybody
well.

