Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Tech Workers Evict Kindergarten Teacher from Mission Apartment for ‘Using Appliances’
No, California does not have its own Onion (although that might not be a bad idea 
).
http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/tech-workers-evict-kindergarten-teacher-mission-apartment-using-appliances
One chilly afternoon in March, Michelle Malliett came home to her Mission district apartment to find a legal notice taped to her door. The notice gave her three days to move out of her two-bedroom apartment, an illegal in-law unit that she shares with her 17-year-old daughter. Her reaction? “I panicked,” she recalls.
Malliett, 49, is a single mother who holds down two part-time jobs, as a teacher’s aide for special-needs kids in the mornings and as a kindergarten teacher in the afternoons. Since 2007, she had been paying $1,700 per month for the lower level of her landlady’s Victorian, but in March the property sold—for $1.3 million—to a couple who work in tech. When Malliett read the notice, she knew that she was in trouble: $1,700 just wouldn’t go far in the modern-day Mission, nor anywhere in the city, even if she had more than three days to find a new home. “I feel like a dog gets more notice to be out of somewhere than I did,” Malliett says. “They treated me like I was a dog.”
Though S.F. has proven to be an inhospitable place for renters the last several years, the circumstances surrounding this eviction are particularly startling. It seems that Malliett’s new landlords—Mathieu Verbeeck, a VP of product development at Mubi, and Catherine Crevels, a marketing manager at Intuit—are testing out a novel strategy for ejecting tenants. They contend that Malliett and her daughter are causing a "nuisance" by living in a unit that lacks the proper permits. The Board of Supervisors has already blocked landlords from evicting tenants of illegal units simply because they are illegal, but here the owners are taking a different approach—one that tenants' rights advocates are concerned will create a worrying precedent.
“This is the first time we’ve seen a tenant accused of nuisance for living in an illegal unit,” says tenant rights attorney Joseph Tobener, whose firm is representing Malliett. And what, pray tell, is the nuisance cited in the legal notice? “Defendant’s usage of gas or electrical appliances is dangerous.” That’s right: Only in San Francisco do you stand to lose your rent-controlled apartment for boiling water.
Malliett, 49, is a single mother who holds down two part-time jobs, as a teacher’s aide for special-needs kids in the mornings and as a kindergarten teacher in the afternoons. Since 2007, she had been paying $1,700 per month for the lower level of her landlady’s Victorian, but in March the property sold—for $1.3 million—to a couple who work in tech. When Malliett read the notice, she knew that she was in trouble: $1,700 just wouldn’t go far in the modern-day Mission, nor anywhere in the city, even if she had more than three days to find a new home. “I feel like a dog gets more notice to be out of somewhere than I did,” Malliett says. “They treated me like I was a dog.”
Though S.F. has proven to be an inhospitable place for renters the last several years, the circumstances surrounding this eviction are particularly startling. It seems that Malliett’s new landlords—Mathieu Verbeeck, a VP of product development at Mubi, and Catherine Crevels, a marketing manager at Intuit—are testing out a novel strategy for ejecting tenants. They contend that Malliett and her daughter are causing a "nuisance" by living in a unit that lacks the proper permits. The Board of Supervisors has already blocked landlords from evicting tenants of illegal units simply because they are illegal, but here the owners are taking a different approach—one that tenants' rights advocates are concerned will create a worrying precedent.
“This is the first time we’ve seen a tenant accused of nuisance for living in an illegal unit,” says tenant rights attorney Joseph Tobener, whose firm is representing Malliett. And what, pray tell, is the nuisance cited in the legal notice? “Defendant’s usage of gas or electrical appliances is dangerous.” That’s right: Only in San Francisco do you stand to lose your rent-controlled apartment for boiling water.
edit: Maybe Ahh-nuld could reprise his role as Kindergarten Cop.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
