Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evicted in San Francisco

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 257 posts

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#21

Post by cperciva »

ominous_prime wrote: post #9
cperciva wrote: post #3

Inge has an amalgam of health issues, the most serious of which is her high glucose levels. She has to take daily insulin shots, which must be chilled on ice. That might have been good advice 30 years ago, but it certainly isn't now. Modern insulin preparations should be kept at room temperature while in use for up to 30 days -- keeping it refrigerated while in use is contraindicated due to the potential for thermal…

Might still be better than the large temp fluctuation of a car interior though.

Maybe, but I doubt it. If she were in Texas, sure, but not in San Francisco.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#22

Post by Crito »

kohanz wrote: post #4

Call me cold, but after reading this I come away with almost no sympathy for the evicted senior citizen. She comes across as very entitled.

I have little sympathy for her, or the new owners (who failed to report the illegal situation to the city immediately after becoming owners of the property).

My main take-away from all of this is that being evicted in SF is quite the feat, right up there with climbing Mount Everest or swimming the English channel. We should commend her for accomplishing something so difficult, despite all the people who told her it could not be done (read: tried to help her).

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#23

Post by jedmeyers »

pyrrhotech wrote: post #13

Another whine story. I do feel sorry for those people that legitimately deserve it. You know, women in the middle east who are beaten or stoned to death for not wearing berkas, or orphans in Africa dealing with genocidal warlords. But this lady could live perfectly fine on her social security if she would move to somewhere she could afford. Living in San Francisco is something a whole lot of people want to do. That's…

It looks like the Entitled do not consider it to be a privilege. To them once you rented a place somewhere for x years, you are entitled to live at that place indefinitely.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#24

Post by wmf »

steven777400 wrote: post #10

We don't have a strong enough social welfare net (or enough resources there-in) to care for folks that need care; but, we're not comfortable letting them starve on the streets either. The result? Essentially innocent people, like the property owner, get "stuck" with "it's your problem now" where various agencies give contradictory mandates, backed with fines. How was property owner supposed to respond when told he mu…

How was property owner supposed to respond when told he must get rid of the illegal dwelling, but also told he can't evict the tenant?

Clearly he should have moved out of the house and let her live there.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#25

Post by jack-r-abbit »

steven777400 wrote: post #10

We don't have a strong enough social welfare net (or enough resources there-in) to care for folks that need care; but, we're not comfortable letting them starve on the streets either. The result? Essentially innocent people, like the property owner, get "stuck" with "it's your problem now" where various agencies give contradictory mandates, backed with fines. How was property owner supposed to respond when told he mu…

My thoughts too. As soon as the DBI saw that the unit was illegal, I would have assumed the occupants would have been removed almost immediately. It should not have taken that long for the owner to be able to do what he was legally required to do. But instead he was legally prevented from doing what he was legally required to do. Makes no sense.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#26

Post by iopq »

Crito wrote: post #22
kohanz wrote: post #4

Call me cold, but after reading this I come away with almost no sympathy for the evicted senior citizen. She comes across as very entitled.

I have little sympathy for her, or the new owners (who failed to report the illegal situation to the city immediately after becoming owners of the property). My main take-away from all of this is that being evicted in SF is quite the feat, right up there with climbing Mount Everest or swimming the English channel. We should commend her for accomplishing something so difficult, despite all the people who told her it c…

Why, because they were nice enough to still let her stay there? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's illegal so they should kick her out immediately.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#27

Post by Guvante »

raldi wrote: post #16
jseliger wrote: post #11

Nonetheless, it’s a good time to be a Bornstein in San Francisco: in the past year alone, Ellis Act evictions have risen 170%; since 1997, there have been 3,811, and that number is constantly rising. The obvious solution to rapidly rising prices is to increase supply, as described here ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO ) or here ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francis... ). I've posted both…

> that number is constantly rising That's a lie: http://infogr.am/ellis-act-evictions

Not surprising the the housing market crash reduced the eviction rate.

While I don't know if I disagree with the law, it is hard to see it being used outside of sale opportunities.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#28

Post by fishtoaster »

pyrrhotech wrote: post #13

Another whine story. I do feel sorry for those people that legitimately deserve it. You know, women in the middle east who are beaten or stoned to death for not wearing berkas, or orphans in Africa dealing with genocidal warlords. But this lady could live perfectly fine on her social security if she would move to somewhere she could afford. Living in San Francisco is something a whole lot of people want to do. That's…

It sounds like she moved there when it was cheap. Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? Housing isn't widgets: it's not easy to move to a cheaper type if your current type gets expensive. There isn't an easy answer to this sort of problem, but to imply that she should simply "move somewhere else" is simplistic in the extreme.

Reminds me of panel 3 in http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1992-03-01/

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#29

Post by selmnoo »

steven777400 wrote: post #10

We don't have a strong enough social welfare net (or enough resources there-in) to care for folks that need care; but, we're not comfortable letting them starve on the streets either. The result? Essentially innocent people, like the property owner, get "stuck" with "it's your problem now" where various agencies give contradictory mandates, backed with fines. How was property owner supposed to respond when told he mu…

It's too bad that we're focusing on this kind of event, because it gives people a false impression of the reality on the ground. The fact is that right now there are whole families that are being displaced out of their homes and communities with absolutely no fallback net. And as we all know, it's hardest to bounce back when you're down low.

I lived through troubled times a few years back, but I always knew in the back of my mind that no matter what, I'll never be homeless -- a nice big paycheck from daddy was only an asking away - at the cost of only a little momentary humiliation that I was the only person not 'made' in my family. It's tough to even imagine what happens to families who're not well-networked or financially secure to begin with. There is a problem right now, as much as this particular story may hint otherwise.

Post reply on HN