1:40 PM: A man reportedly shot another man at Commer Ct and Garlington, leaving him with life threatening injuries. The suspect is described as a black male, aged 16-18, height 5'5, weight 140, short hair, wearing a blue hoodie and, blue jeans.

Friday, 3/19/10

1:45 AM: A woman was waiting for Muni at McAllister and Fillmore when she was reportedly approached by three men, two of whom "brandished handguns" while the third took her cell phone. They fled on foot, but were arrested.

4:23 AM: A man was walking at Beach and Cervantes when two men and a woman reportedly approached him, one of whom had a handgun and demanded his property. After taking his wallet and cell phone, they fled in a waiting car. No one's been arrested.

View SF Appeal Crime Blotter Friday March 19 in a larger map

While we've been unable to confirm with the US Park Police that enforcement has been stepped up, readers continue to report seeing more officers than usual (we can speculate: warm weather?) ticketing folks who are breaking the Ocean Beach booze laws. Which are, according to Golden Gate National Recreation Area Law Enforcement Specialist Marybeth G. McFarland, that you're not allowed to drink booze on the beach, or have any open containers of alcohol.

Why? Because, she says, quoting the regulation to us (we've pasted the entire rule below, and you can read all the Golden Gate National Recreation Area rules and regs here), there's a "history of aberrant behavior directly attributed to the use of alcohol which has led to assaults, unruly crowds, disorderly conduct, and vandalism to both public and private property." You could apply that to the whole planet, right? She just chuckled politely at that one.

McFarland hastens to add that "all glass containers are prohibited on the beach, because they break and people have gotten hurt." So remember that before you try that half-and-half peach schnapps and peach Faygo trick (my high school boyfriend's beverage of choice!).

The penalty if you get caught? McFarland says it's a $100 ticket (plus $25.00 processing fee) and if you're under $21, $200 (plus the $25 fee). Worth the risk? That's for you to decide.

36 CFR §2.35 -ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES and CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

(a)(3)(i) The following public use areas, portions of public use areas, and/or public facilities within the park are closed to consumption of alcoholic beverages, and/or to the possession of a bottle, can or other receptacle containing an alcoholic beverage that is open, or has been opened, or whose seal has been broken or the contents of which have been partially removed:

Special prohibitions at Ocean Beach, Sutro Baths, Merrie Way, Navy Memorial, and Battery Chamberlin are required due to the history of aberrant behavior directly attributed to the use of alcohol which has led to assaults, unruly crowds, disorderly conduct, and vandalism to both public and private property. Prohibition at Fort Point NHS, Muir Woods NM and Alcatraz Island is intended to reduce conflict between users and enhance visitor safety.

For example, a reader sent in this picture of two US Park Police saying that he observed two different groups of people getting ticketed for booze offenses yesterday. According to the National Parks Service, the possession and/or consumption of alcohol is not allowed on Ocean Beach, including the walkway that runs up to the Cliff House.

But I've drank on the beach tons of times! You're saying, right? Yeah, us too. But it looks like the Park cops are cracking down, if our reader's account is any indication.

We've placed numerous calls to the US Park Police to see if we can confirm any stepped up enforcement, as well as to get a better idea of the fine structure for Ocean Beach alcohol offenses, but haven't been able to get a call back from them.

When we do, we'll be sure to update -- but until then, hooky players/funemployees, if you're headed to Ocean Beach, best to forgo the liquor.

Update: US Park Police spokesperson Sgt. Thomas Hart didn't have any info on any booze enforcement specifics, but referred us to someone who might, as well as to someone with more info on how much a ticket for a booze offense might be. We're following up on that now, more soon on those fronts.

However, he did offer a response to Xenu's comment wondering if the Park PD stopped patrolling after 10 PM, saying "the US Park Police is a 24-7 operation like any police force, and the Ocean Beach area is always manned and patrolled." So keep your bottle at home, Xenu!

Finally! Someone has put to video just how horrible, disgusting and dangerous the Oakland Airport is! In this new, brilliant, award-worthy advertisement for the San Francisco International Airport, we're presented with a completely realistic and unbiased look at what it's like to fly into both OAK and SFO. Let's compare:

Oakland:

Our haggard traveler is flying what I assume to be Oakland Sucks Air. He's stuck in coach but has managed somehow to fall asleep. As the plane descends into the depths of hell Oakland, a flight attendant throws a newspaper in his face and tells him to get the hell up. As he makes his way of that death trap, Dockers guy is met with lines of gross, bitchy people, vending machines, a destroyed suitcase at the baggage claim, a raped teddy bear and signs warning that we're all going to fall and die at any moment. It's the "bad airport" and it fucking sucks.

San Francisco:

"Mr. O'Keefe" has been upgraded to first class, complete with a relaxation cocoon and eye-mask. He's awoken by the same flight attendant who got the hell away from Oakland Sucks Air and she's in a much better mood. San Francisco International Airport is clean, empty and features accomplished pilots and local celebrities strolling along, waving hello. There are arcade games, aquariums and GUCCI!

That slutty stewardess has made it down to baggage claim to check on Mr. O'Keefe and, what's this? Intact luggage. Thumbs up! And with that, she's off on her scooter to show us the way home. I guess Mr. O'Keefe took convenient BART back to his condo because now, a smart-looking blonde is trying to hail a cab.

Try no more, honey. Mayor Gavin Newsom's got this. Yeah, you guys. Gavin hails your taxi at SFO. He opens the door, introduces himself as if that's necessary and thanks this grateful traveler for choosing SFO over that dump across the Bay. Roll credits!

Hold on, I need to sit down after my standing ovation.

Like most Americans, I'm always down to shit on Oakland. I'm glad we've made it official. According to the Chronicle's City Insider, this ad is aimed at travelers from Australia and New Zealand. I didn't even know you could fly from Sydney to Oakland. How embarrassing!

I applaud SFO and the savvy genius behind this YouTube masterpiece. My only complaint?

I'm not in it.

8:44 AM: An undescribed victim was at Oakdale and Baldwin when they reportedly heard gunshots, and realized they'd been shot. The victim's injuries are said to be non life threatening, and no one's been arrested.

1 PM: Three men went into a business on the 2300 block of Market, and it's reported that while one man distracted the store's employee, the other two stole merchandise. No arrests.

4:35 PM: A driver going north on 3rd street reportedly struck a pedestrian who was walking east on Revere. The victim's injuries are said to be life threatening. A look at this intersection on google street view shows that there's a stop light and crosswalk at this intersection, and we've contacted SFPD for more details on this incident, we'll update when we have them.

10:35 PM: Two men reportedly pushed a woman talking on her iPhone to the ground at Haight and Steiner, then stole her phone. They fled on foot, and no one's been arrested.

11:50 PM: A man reportedly stole a Muni rider's iPhone, then hopped off at 19th and Judah. No one's been arrested.

Thursday, 3/18/10

12:50 AM: Two men were reportedly fighting on the 2200 block of Polk, and one hit the other with a baseball bat. The guy who got hit is not suffering life threatening injuries, and no one's been arrested.

View SF Appeal Crime Blotter Thursday March 18 in a larger map

No, that's not some strange alien being on Lincoln Park Golf Course. That's Indy, the new "mascot" for the upcoming Extreme Mammals: the Biggest, Smallest, and Most Amazing Mammals of All Time exhibition at that Academy of Sciences. The Academy has a Photoshop contest going on, asking people to show Indy in and around San Francisco. So of course I made sure she made her way to some key Richmond District landmarks.

Do your friends and family routinely accuse you of being juvenile with a penchant for bad potty jokes? Then you won't want to miss tonight's double feature at the 4-Star which includes "Monsturd" and "Retardead", two highly cultish (and gross) monster flicks. Top that off with Meshugga Beach Party playing live and you're guaranteed an unforgettable evening.

Much to my delight, little bits of history about Sutro Baths and the Cliff House continue to cross my inbox. This week I learned about the Cliff House Sky Tram. Yes, you read that right. There used to be a tram that took you across the cliffs. Check out the photos and video. It looks like some kind of antiquated Epcot Center ride.

Those of you in Pac Heights should check out John Campbell's Irish Bakery, a Richmond favorite that just opened a second location on Fillmore and Filbert. To-die-for scones, Belfast Bap sandwiches (good hangover relief) and other delicious treats.

Got some old electronics gathering dust? Throw them in the car and bring them to Ocean Beach on Saturday for free e-waste recycling. Tvs, monitors, cell phones, VCRs - they'll take it.

The new "Remembering Playland" documentary premiered this week at the Balboa Theater. Every show sold out and in addition to great stories about the historic amusement park, the audience was given a special San Francisco treat that originated at Playland. Do you know what It is? Just announced this morning - more shows added at the Balboa on March 27 & April 3.

Have a great weekend everyone!

Sarah B.
Richmondsfblog.com | Follow us on: Twitter | Facebook

4:53 PM: Two men were reportedly fighting on the 700 block of Polk, and one allegedly stabbed the other, and was arrested. The victim's injuries are said to be non life threatening.

5:54 PM: Oh RAD it's my train! The N Judah was stopped at 22nd and Judah when a man reportedly grabbed a woman's purse then hopped off. No one's been arrested.

7:50 PM: Three men reportedly ganged up on a fourth in UN Plaza and allegedly stabbed him repeatedly. No one's been arrested, and his injuries are not life threatening, says the SFPD.

8:30 PM: Two men reportedly punched and robbed an undescribed victim riding the 24 bus at Divisadero and Oak. No one's been arrested.

Wednesday, 3/17/10

12:26 AM: A man reportedly robbed a woman at knifepoint at 5th and Stevenson. No one's been arrested.

2 AM: Two suspects reportedly robbed a victim at gunpoint at 16th and Castro. No arrests have been made.

View SF Appeal Crime Blotter Wednesday March 17 in a larger map

Dave's here to answer your questions every Wednesday, so send them to him at tenant@sfappeal.com

I vacated my San Francisco, CA apartment over a year ago (I know!) when I was laid off, and never received my deposit. I completed my lease term and left the apartment in excellent condition. Upon moving out, I received an invoice from the landlord stating that I was owed my deposit plus interest. Well, it never came. I sent over a demand letter asking for my deposit to be mailed by a certain date, and just yesterday I received an email from the landlord stating that the property in which I rented a unit has been given to a receiver. I'm assuming this means that the property is now in foreclosure, yes? Anyway, the landlord went on to say that many others that were living in the building have already sued him for their deposits; they've all won, but weren't able to collect because the property no longer makes any money for him. He personally has filed for bankruptcy.

What am I to do at this point? I think the amount in question is too small to take to an attorney's office (it's just over $2K), but I don't think the San Francisco Tenants Union or even small claims can help me out with this one.

I have read various answers online - folks have said, "No, you cannot sue, that's out of the question!" and someone else said, "The person or company that owns your building must return your security deposit to you. The law is quite clear on this point. On sale of the building, whether an ordinary sale or a foreclosure sale, your security deposit must either be transferred to the new owner or returned to you. And it's the responsibility of the new owner to collect the security deposit from your former landlord. If the lender didn't get the security deposit you paid, it's not your problem. The lender still has to return it to you. If it's not returned to you within three weeks after you move, you can sue the lender in Small Claims Court, just as you would any landlord, to recover the money." (This was taken from Tenants and Foreclosure in California, by Patrick Killelea). Yet another said, "Sue him anyway in small claims, and try to put a lien on his property. There are other ways to collect!"

That guilty "I know" means you've been reading my columns. Once again, dear readers, if you don't get your security deposit back twenty-one days after you move out and you can prove you deserve it, you gotta sue. Case in point, if this smug sleazeball wasn't bankrupt a year ago, you'd have a judgment against him. Maybe you could have collected it, maybe not. At the very least you might be on his list of creditors for $6,000.00 rather than in limbo with a smaller chance of collecting $2,000.00!

But all is not lost. First, you need to figure out if the landlord is in foreclosure, if he filed for bankruptcy, or more interesting, if the bank now owns the property. Or even more interesting, is the landlord simply a lying sack of shit? What? You didn't consider that possibility? Well, dear readers, that's lesson two for today. Why would you believe anything that comes out of the landlord's mouth (or ip address) without checking it out?

Get the block and lot numbers for the building. Check out the Parcel Information link for the San Francisco Assessor-Recorder's office. Check the disclaimer and fill in the address. Remember that if your building has a series of addresses use the first one. As I was checking the viability of the link, once again I realized that this is one of the squirreliest websites run by the City. Everyone should write a letter to Phil Ting and tell him to fix it.

When and if you find the block and lot number, go to the Recorded Document Search By Year Menu, also part of the Assessor-Recorder's site. Use the block and lot search rather than the address search. I've found that to be more precise. You won't be able to see the documents but you should be able to tell if the building is in foreclosure. Check for Notice of Default, or look and the grantor/grantee in the latest deed. If you want to see the documents, you have to go to City Hall.

Next you have to know if the landlord declared bankruptcy. You will have to either visit the U.S. Bankruptcy Court or for online information subscribe to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. You will have to pay small fees for either means of access.

In a nutshell, if the landlord has filed for bankruptcy, there may be a stay on any lawsuits, meaning you can't file one against him. You should, whatever the status of the case, contact the trustee and demand to be included in the list of creditors. Civil Code §1950.5(d) is clear, "Any security shall be held by the landlord for the tenant who is party to the lease or agreement. The claim of a tenant to the security shall be prior to the claim of any creditor of the landlord." Here is where you have the, not ironic, luck of the Irish. The landlord admitted, in writing, to owing you the money.

If the landlord is in foreclosure and still owns the property, but not in bankruptcy, SUE HIM NOW.

If the building has been sold at a Trustee Sale, SUE THE NEW OWNER NOW! Civil Code §1950.5(h) provides for the transfer of security deposits to a new owner and refund to the tenant, if applicable. Civil Code §1950.5(j) states in part, "In the event of noncompliance with subdivision (h), the landlord's successors in interest shall be jointly and severally liable with the landlord for repayment of the security [...]"

Today is the day to think green, that is, about getting your money back. You don't need a leprechaun for this. You may need a few shots of Jameson. But what you really need are the guts and persistence to stand up for your rights.

Dave Crow is an attorney who specializes in San Francisco landlord tenant law. However, the opinions expressed in these articles are those of the author, do not constitute legal advice, and the information is general in nature. Consult the advice of an attorney for any specific problem. You understand that no attorney-client relationship will exist with Dave Crow or his firm, Crow & Rose unless they have agreed to represent you. You should not respond to this site with any information that you believe is highly confidential.

Monday, 3/15/10

6:30 PM: In an incident the SFPD is calling "Terrorist Threats," some jackass allegedly called the JCC and said a bunch of stupid shit, including a reported threat to come shoot up the place. More on the story here, no arrests have been made.

8:30 PM: What a crazy time on the 1000 block of Polk Street! Two men in their mid 20s reportedly argued with their roommate, punching him and setting a fire in their apartment's kitchen. One of the suspects then reportedly cut himself on the arm when the victim threatened to call the police, allegedly assaulted the victim again. then fled on foot. No one's been arrested.

Tuesday, 3/16/10

1:06 AM: 4 men reportedly were in the process of stealing a car from the 400 block of Stoneridge when the car's owner confronted them. The alleged would be car thieves reportedly took off in a green vehicle (the color, not the environmental value judgment), then came back and shot at the almost-stolen car's owner, then drove off. No one's been arrested.

View SF Appeal Crime Blotter Tuesday March 16 in a larger map

It seems like the 38 has had this problem for a while. A few months ago a woman on crutches was exiting in the back and the bus started to take off with her only halfway out. It was pretty terrifying.

So, is this a usual thing on the 38, and we're demonstrating NY Timesesque cluelessness? That would be so embarrassing!

We've asked the SF MTA if they're aware of an incident like the one reported by this SFist reader, and when we hear back from them we'll update this piece. Update: SF MTA spokesperson Judson True informs us that, regretfully, there's not enough information in the SFist commenter's account for them to follow up.

Until then, have you, yourself heard of or witnessed any driving with the door open issues on the 38? Let's hear it.

SF MTA spokesperson Judson True all but confirms the report, saying that he couldn't comment as "negotiations with Dougherty are ongoing." Since spokespeople are usually happy to tell reporters when they got it wrong, one can only assume that Dougherty's already hit up his corner bodega for empty boxes, and is scanning Craigslist for lodging inside the beltway.

Metro spokespeople seem psyched at the idea of Dougherty leaving Muni for DC, saying they "believe that Dougherty will bring immediate stability."

"Safety has been his mantra," said one, while another says "One of the things that we need to do is make sure the agency lives safety, that we change our culture."

Good luck with that, y'all!

What's the one thing above all else that keeps you away from Sixth Street? The drugs, the violence, the dirt, the six lanes of pedestrian-antagonistic freeway-style traffic?

Er, no. According to NY Times writer Scott James's article entitled "A Neighorhood's Revival Smothered By Parking Rules", it's the lack of parking. Because we would all rush on masse on down to 6th Street if only we had the opportunity to leave our car unattended on the side of the road* for a few hours.

We're not sure why Scott feels entitled to a taxpayer-subsidized parking spot on 6th, or if he really believes that restaurant patrons cannot possibly be expected to ride a bus to this neighborhood like they do to any other in the city. But we can certainly make his complaints look ridiculous by crunching a few numbers, and are only too happy to do so!

There are 71 parking spots on the sides of 6th between Market and Howard. (We counted. You can too!) Scott believes that in order for 6th to turn into a "gourmet ghetto" like the Castro or Marina (an assertion that forced SFist to ask, "does this guy really live here?"), he needs permission to park his car in a spot for over an hour.

So! Seventy-one cars, hanging out for, oh, let's say, 2 hours. And let's guess that there's 2.5 people riding around in each car. So during the dinner rush, let's say 6pm to 10pm, that's around 350 people. The population of San Francisco is 808,976, so, under the awesome new Scott James Rules For Turning 6th Street Into a Parking Lot, that means that .04% of us would be able to drive down to 6th Street and buy a baguette or whatever.

Put another way, if everyone in San Francisco took turns driving down and staying for 2 hours, it would take about 7 years for the entire city to visit 6th Street one time.

Or, of course, Scott could someday deign to get on a bike, bus or train like everybody else.

*Apparently the ginormous parking garage one block away is one block too far.

Photo illustration: Tim Ehhalt

Friend of the Appeal Sally Kuchar sent us a photo she took this morning of a Muni shelter at 16th and Potrero, noting that "somebody completely went to town and wrecked the shit out of this bus stop."

It's been a great source of sadness to me that in my many years in the city, I have never happened upon the going to town part of this situation, and have only seen the shattering aftermath (If I were feeling feisty I'd call that white pile "snow" and watch overly literal commenters freak the fuck out). How much force does it take to bash in one of those glass panels? No reliable sources seem to be able to answer this question (can you?).

The good news is, according to a weekend working MTA spokesperson Judson True, repairs to Muni shelters are the responsibility (workwise and financially) of Clear Channel, which builds and maintains bus shelters, as well as paying us ad money. (Only somewhat related: this (presumably) Clear Channel map of their Muni-related properties is kind of fun!)

So, other than the terrible terrible toll vandalism takes on our society as a whole, nothing's being taken out of our or Muni's pocket over incidents like these. But, still, how much does it cost Clear Channel to fix? True's checking on this for us on Monday.

2:31 PM: MTA spokesperson Kristen Holland, perhaps sensing k2real's contemptuous remarks says that as of 2:10 Muni track repair teams were working on the communications cable in the subway in an effort to mitigate the train control problems that have been plaguing the system all afternoon.

She says all lines continue to move slowly in the subway (is that like slow in the driveway?), and that "the N Judah and the J Church are switching back inbound to outbound at Church and Duboce."

Anyone on the trains that can tell us what it's like out there?

12:41 PM: According to SFMTA spokesperson Kristen Holland, a train control problem between the Church and Van Ness stations has been slowing down all Muni Metro traffic since 12:06 this afternoon. What fun!

We'll tell you more when we hear more, of course.