April 12, 2010
Infinity Owners Association To "G": Give Us An "F"-ing Break
It’s not our usual fare, but considering the Defendant’s public persona (not to mention cover stories and sundry press releases concerning his Infinity penthouse pad), we’re running the story.
Citing "excessive late-night and early-morning noise…including loud music vibrating the ceiling and the sound of loud footsteps and high heel shoes," complaints "regarding cigar debris being thrown and dropped from the Defendant’s balcony," and a verbal assault on the building’s lobby ambassador, the Infinity Owners Association is now suing Gurbaksh Chahal (a.k.a. "G"), owner of Infinity Tower I Penthouse #37B.
Apparently a disciplinary hearing this past December which resulted in a fine and three month suspension from using the building’s fitness center didn’t do the trick ("Defendant has continued to use the facility").
The full legal filing by way of a plugged-in tipster:
∙ Infinity Penthouse Unit 37B: Before And After (And The Budget) [SocketSite]
∙ Infinity Owners Association Versus Gurbaksh Chahal ("G") [scribd.com]
First Published: April 12, 2010 9:15 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Party on, G - don't mind the haters.
You should make the girls take the heels off before they get out of the bed, though.
Posted by: Jeff at April 12, 2010 9:25 AM
Article quote, in reference to not being in the penthouse; "Besides, it'd suck being on the 36th floor". No kidding. Especially if the people upstairs are ashing their cigars on your eye from the balcony above as alleged in the suit. What a disaster. This is why NYC has coop's.
Posted by: eddy at April 12, 2010 9:33 AM
The neighbors downstairs can hear high heels through concrete floors? How thick, or thin, is that concrete? One of the benefits of concrete is the sound insulation - or should be. Doesn't solve the problem of rudeness though.
Posted by: CameronRex at April 12, 2010 9:37 AM
That high heel noise issue could be easily solved by throwing a few more exotic animal skin rugs on the floor.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at April 12, 2010 9:44 AM
I live at the Infinity and was wondering who was enough of a douche to cause the HOA to sue them.
Hope they throw the book at him.
Posted by: Mikey at April 12, 2010 9:47 AM
Where were the reality show cameras for these juicy incidents??? CameronRex: The post tension concrete slabs at The Infinity are approx 8 inches thick. Even with sound attenuating underlayment you can hear the 'clickety-clack' of heels and hard soled shoes above you. That is why the CC&R's require 80% coverage of hard surface flooring with carpets.
If I remember correctly, G's units was customized with some type of marble tile flooring which may transfer more sound than softer product like wood or engineered wood. Anyway you slice it, this story is only gonna get better. Grab your popcorn and take a seat...
Posted by: killbotkondo at April 12, 2010 9:54 AM
G is my hero, very few men will get to live their lives like he did/does. Oh well, gotta go! My baby needs a diaper change...
Posted by: emasculated_breeder at April 12, 2010 10:04 AM
I'm not sure who is at fault here, but sometimes its not the person being accused of wrong-doing. You could just have a jerky neighbor(s) with no-life complaining.
I also highly doubt that a cigar ember burned his neighbors eye.
As for the high heel noise, so what. If his floors are covered with the required amount of carpet, then thats not his problem. That is one of the reasons why people pay more to be on higher floors, because that is life in a condo, you can expect these types of things.
What a waste of HOA money. If they don't like him there, buy him out.
Posted by: SFRE at April 12, 2010 10:22 AM
Apparently a disciplinary hearing this past December which resulted in a fine and three month suspension from using the building’s fitness center ("Defendant has continued to use the facility") didn’t do the trick.
They really expected this guy to obey the ruling? Please. When someone (male) gets that amount of money, they think they are above the rules, I'm sure evolutionary psychology offers an explanation. This kinda reminds me of Oracle's Larry Ellison violating the jet flight curfew at SJC airport in 2000 or so by repeatedly landing his private Gulfstream V jet there after hours. Ellison fought the curfew policy in federal court and won! He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at April 12, 2010 10:29 AM
If he's making that kinda noise during quiet hours, than he doesn't have a leg to stand on. But during normal daytime, people have to expect some noise like footsteps, etc. It's all a matter of being reasonable. The trick, of course, is that one person's reasonableness can be different from another's. Hence CC&R's tend to be very specific, and anal, about defining noise, quiet hours, etc.
Posted by: 45yo hipster at April 12, 2010 10:30 AM
"This is why NYC has coop's."
You are so right. I'm surprised there isn't more comment about this on SocketSite. I know of only a couple of co-ops here, one in Lafayette Park and the other one around the block. It makes a difference.
Posted by: Happy in SF at April 12, 2010 10:43 AM
I read the complaint. That guy has wild parties that rage on until 4AM. I wanna be him. Seriously. But not his neighbor. That would suck!!
His neighbor should just sell his apartment (36B) to G, who can then keep it as a noise buffer. Problem solved!
Security should also be trained to bow down to him and comply with his every whim when commanded.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at April 12, 2010 10:49 AM
Condo CC&R's should be able to deal with this. NYC style Co-ops seem endlessly personality driven, and often anal retentive to an extreme. Yikes!
Posted by: 45yo hipster at April 12, 2010 10:50 AM
"If they don't like him there, buy him out."
"He who has the gold, makes the rules."
C'mon, guys. It's easy to spout hackneyed catch phrases to diminish these types of issues. Especially when you're not the person living below. Having money shouldn't give people carte blanche to ruin quality of life for others - this is not feudal Europe. Everybody signs the same contracts when they move into condos, and they're expected to abide by those rules.
I've been in this situation before, and it's not pleasant to be laying awake in bed at 3am on a Tuesday, stressing about the big meeting you have in 4 hours, while Johnny Frathouse and Kenny Kegstand have a full-on rager going on upstairs, completely oblivious of those who live in the real world. Not fun.
...that said, I would LOVE to have been at some of these parties...
Posted by: Legacy Dude at April 12, 2010 11:03 AM
What a g-bag.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 12, 2010 11:15 AM
Can we blame the entertainment commission when someone gets shot and falls off the balcony at one of his douche parties? I hope so.
Posted by: stucco-sux at April 12, 2010 11:15 AM
The last time I saw "G" he was working out in our gym sans shirt...
Posted by: Infinity Resident at April 12, 2010 11:16 AM
why not get 45yo hipster to remodel the unit for him. put in some cheap insulation, etc. he's good at that stuff.
Posted by: new2SF at April 12, 2010 11:17 AM
I live in the Infinity. I believe the stories in the complaint. For the first couple months of living there, I'd be in the gym when he'd show up with a loud boom box, not giving a **it about anyone else. It took him about 2 months to stop that behavior (numerous people confronted him, including security). I believe this guy is full of himself, despite his attempt at creating an image on Secret Million. I feel sorry for those who have to live below him.
Posted by: TypeA at April 12, 2010 11:21 AM
@45yo Hipster: With a Co-op you can mitigate against the Guido's ever getting inside your building in the first place.
Now the Infinity HOA gets to spend the next few years explaining why they knew the sounds were from "high heel shoes" (by the end of the first day's cross-examination over just that piece of testimony, the other owner will be cross-eyed and babbling while the men on the jury will have been given several belly-laughing moments). What a nightmare to have to live near such a guy and now deal with his endlessly-bankrolled legal dream-team.
Infinity will be begging to go co-op soon, and the complaining owners will be at risk for thousands of dollars in counter-suits for libel and slander (it sounds unrealistic only if you've never been Alice pushed through the Looking Glass which is our courts; defendant didn't give everyone the finger without his attorneys mapping out strategies months ago).
Posted by: Happy in SF at April 12, 2010 11:23 AM
Condo CC&R's should be able to deal with this.
Well, they are dealing with it (G didn't respond to their request for alternative dispute resolution within the prescribed time period). I think the coop folks are arguing an ounce of prevention... At any rate, it looks like the owner of 36B paid ~6.6 million for her place (about $325k less than "G"). Lots of money on either side. Looking over the SF Luxe pictures, it appears "G" may need some more rugs to hit the 80% coverage required by the CC&Rs.
Posted by: EBGuy at April 12, 2010 11:28 AM
G is an extreme case, but I have to say the only disappointing thing about living at the Infinity is the general boorishness of many of the residents (speeding in the garage, acting like a**holes in the gym, leaving their crap in the hallways, frosty attitudes, etc.)
I've lived in other buildings in SF and this place is the worst for generally rude behavior.
Posted by: Mikey at April 12, 2010 11:55 AM
LOL, it's f-ing funny. A real life soap! They can always shoot him if the court fails to rein him in.
Posted by: Fish at April 12, 2010 11:56 AM
@Sydney - I believe he is Sikh, not Hindu. Just reminds us that no religion or race has a monopoly on being jerks.
I hope this hurts G's wallet -- not to be confused with his new venture, wwww.gwallet.com.
Posted by: what? at April 12, 2010 12:01 PM
can someone explain how a coop would have prevented this?
would it have denied his ability to buy the unit in the first place? on what grounds?
or is there some economic incentive for good behavior that doesn't exist with hoa's?
oh and in related news, last year when i was "admiring" G's unit from a couple blocks away you could see that he'd installed speakers on his patio... can't imagine the hoa permits that.
Posted by: wah-wah-wah at April 12, 2010 12:41 PM
seems like most people are on G's side!?? i don't get it.
How would you like to live right beneath him if even HALF what is alleged is true?
Posted by: seriously at April 12, 2010 1:02 PM
damn it feels good to be a gangsta'.
Posted by: EH at April 12, 2010 1:07 PM
@Cameronrex: "The neighbors downstairs can hear high heels through concrete floors? How thick, or thin, is that concrete? One of the benefits of concrete is the sound insulation - or should be."
You would think. I also lived in a highrise condo bldg with concrete floors/ceilings. Every now and then his bed would be jumping of the floor for half an hour late at night ... especially when his wife was out of town!
Posted by: Solis at April 12, 2010 1:08 PM
My neighbor above ... that is
Posted by: Solis at April 12, 2010 1:10 PM
@wah-wah-wah: The members of a co-op can vote on the admission of any potential new members. One famous example from NY around 1984 involved Richard Nixon; the co-op voted to deny him because they didn't want to deal with his security detail, sightseers and newsmen.
I used to walk my dog occasionally with the then-president of one of the co-ops around Lafayette Park, he said they reviewed all financial statements of any potential members, asked around, investigated personal recommendations, etc. It struck me as clubby and exclusionary at the time, but I was young and idealistic back then.
Posted by: Happy in SF at April 12, 2010 1:34 PM
^ but I was young and idealistic back then...and now clubby, elitist and a republican!
Posted by: 45yo hipster at April 12, 2010 1:44 PM
Problem with co-ops a la New York is that the decisions are dominated by busybody old ladies who want more of their own ilk in the building (e.g. ethnics bad, young people bad because they might make walk through the halls once in a while, people with kids bad because kids make noise, etc.). Basically is sort of country clubby.
Posted by: anon at April 12, 2010 1:50 PM
"I've lived in other buildings in SF and this place is the worst for generally rude behavior."
Gangsters in the penthouse (and the gym), floods in the basement, windows leaking at the seams and people are surprized the Tower II was forced to have a buy one get one free sale? But, let's not forget, it was the fastest selling fire sale in the history of ...
Wonder what spin the sales office shills will put on this one. Perhaps how great it is to live in a building with Russian hookers snorting blow in the elevators? This should be good.
Posted by: huh? at April 12, 2010 1:52 PM
Its pretty sad that G has decided to opt for litigation instead of just being a decent neighbor. What a prick. I have such a short temper that I probably would have dropped a weight on his boombox.
Posted by: grumpy at April 12, 2010 1:53 PM
Give it a rest. I was talking about the people that live there, not the building. And since the building is almost sold out, you won't have the sales office shills to kick around much longer.
Posted by: Mikey at April 12, 2010 2:09 PM
Posted by: John at April 12, 2010 2:18 PM
Posted by: Rincon Hill Billy at April 12, 2010 2:19 PM
seems like most people are on G's side!?? i don't get it. How would you like to live right beneath him if even HALF what is alleged is true?
Speaking for myself, not on Gurbaksh Chahal's side, but merely noting, ruefully, that it's difficult to reign in obnoxious behavior, in this culture, when the person (or corporation for that matter) behaving badly is very rich and willing to spend the money to defend themselves even if they're in the wrong.
Whoever's heading up the HOA should have known how this was going to turn out earlier on in the process. How ill-mannered, self-centered rich people react to being told to change their behavior is not exactly a secret.
And any lawyer engaged in civil litigation will tell you "justice has a price"; civil litigation is expensive and if this case actually makes it to trial, you can bet that each party will have spent upwards of $50,000 in legal costs related to discovery, etc. before it even got there. And whoever decides that they need to cut their losses and stop spending money to keep the case going ("let's just settle this thing now") is the party that's going to lose. If I had to place a wager, I'd bet the HOA gives in first, just out of economic necessity, unless they've got a great insurance policy. And then "G" is going to go back to his wild party-throwing ways, and his neighbors are going to feel worse, because they went through all of the approved channels, came up with less than they wanted, and didn't lay a glove on the target of their anger.
So I'm not defending G, far from it. I'm willing to accept the characterization of him as a world-class douchebag, just based on this complaint and the other things we're read about him here on socketsite over the years. But we live in a highly stratified, unequal society and you'd think the people running the HOA for a luxury condo building would know how the types of people that buy units there operate. Not that I approve of it.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at April 12, 2010 2:38 PM
Another tough thing about co-ops is that it can be impossible to sell your unit because the buyers have to be approved by the co-op, no matter how much money they have, how famous they are or who they know.
A friend in NYC took over a year to sell his place when the market was on fire because the co-op kept rejecting buyers for no reason other than to wield power.
Posted by: anon at April 12, 2010 2:46 PM
@huh? - did you sleep in today? Why did it take you 30+ posts in an Infinity thread before you weighed in with your silly stuff? I expect better from you.
Wow, hard to believe that G (or anyone) could be such an inconsiderate loser. Regardless of the legal outcome, he is well on his way to alienating all of his neighbors as I'm sure this info will soon be widely circulated. Even if he is allowed to use the gym again, he is not going to feel welcome there.
Posted by: willy at April 12, 2010 2:52 PM
Whom ever the tipster is- thank you ! this is a nerd gone wild- just a matter of time- maybe the HOA will stuff him into one of the gyms lockers. He is sooo douchey- and embarrassing.
Posted by: thank u at April 12, 2010 2:53 PM
Of course everyone HE asks will tell him that he is right and the HOA and his neighbors are wrong.
Posted by: StockBoySF at April 12, 2010 3:10 PM
Money can't buy taste or class. Perfect example.
Posted by: astral at April 12, 2010 3:12 PM
If one of G's neighbors decided put their unit up for sale, would he/she be required to disclose this mess to any potential buyers?
Posted by: dakota at April 12, 2010 3:19 PM
Doesn't look like the Santana Row place has sold yet... the McAfee-Minor Effect?
Posted by: EBGuy at April 12, 2010 3:20 PM
"Defendant verbally abused the lobby ambassador by using profanity and taking her key fob..He then is reported to have cursed and used degradfing language to the employee when he threw the key fob at her"
Sounds like Russel Crowe throwing the telephone at the hotel clerk in Manhattan. Another jerk.
BTW huh, where can I find these Russian hookers?
Posted by: really? at April 12, 2010 3:23 PM
Not sure who you'd rather be neighbors with?
grrr @the palms
Posted by: Paulie D at April 12, 2010 3:28 PM
> A friend in NYC took over a year to sell his place when the
> market was on fire because the co-op kept rejecting buyers
> for no reason other than to wield power.
Most of the time the reason is that they “didn’t like the potential buyers” not that they were trying to “wield power”.
If you went to Andover, Princeton, and HBS and your Uncle (who is on the co-op board) helped you get in to a co-op full of WASPs like you don’t be surprised when the board does not want the Indian guy who went to SJSU to move in to your unit.
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at April 12, 2010 3:30 PM
@dakota: yes, it does have to be disclosed to potential buyers. That is another reason for his 649 neighbors to give him the cold shoulder.
Posted by: willy at April 12, 2010 3:30 PM
Money can't buy taste or class. Perfect example.
best post of the thread so far :)
do we know if the owner below [Removed by Editor] bought before or after him? if after, wow, bad call.
Posted by: tony at April 12, 2010 3:34 PM
Editor who I love :) If you are going to edit that term from my post (your site, your call, no worries) ya might want to check the 5-10 prior uses in this thread; assumed it was fair game given a) it's true and b) it's in common use already on your site. Apologies.
[Editor’s Note: No need to apologize, and we didn’t mean to single you out, it was simply an attempt to shift the focus onto the incident over the individual. But remember, just because someone else does it first doesn’t (necessarily) make it right. Cheers.]
Posted by: tony at April 12, 2010 4:01 PM
"But we live in a highly stratified, unequal society..."
That's a rather cynical view and I'm not sure if I want to read a book written by Mickey Mous. I happened to have been involved in a few litigation and I usually come out with confidence that our legal/court system works. If HOA has all ducks in a row, they should get the injunction and G should get the book if he violates the order. Then the Infinity residents should get some relief while the litigation continues.
Posted by: Fish at April 12, 2010 4:33 PM
I heard that in order to get into a NYC co-op, you have to prove that you were an Andrea Doria survivor. Or be the only child of Frank and Estelle Costanza.
Posted by: joh at April 12, 2010 4:44 PM
^ I'm with the fishter on this one.
And remember, people in glass houses should not throw rocks! Even though the douche in question like to party, I'm sure he likes his quiet once in awhile too. I'd find that time, get a low bass speaker, put it up to the ceiling and bass hump the shit out of him. If he stalls the HOA, might as well get even with him, essentially he could not stop you either.
Posted by: 45yo hipster at April 12, 2010 4:45 PM
I had similar sound issues with a neighbor. But in my case it was just a rental full of twenty-somethings, with 8 being the typical semi-permanent population. Being a douche is an equal opportunity available to all price ranges, but my story would never get to 53 posts.
It didn't quiet down until a drunk girl did a 40 foot swan dive off the back stairs at 3 AM.
Posted by: redseca2 at April 12, 2010 4:48 PM
"I'd find that time, get a low bass speaker, put it up to the ceiling"...
That was my first thought, but I guess I would wait to see how things go in court....
Actually, I have done something similar.
It sounds like some people have never lived in an apartment/condo, and can't comprehend how it would feel to be the guy below. And there is no way the other owners are going to cave in, after the kind of money they have already shelled out to buy there.
Posted by: J at April 12, 2010 4:50 PM
I wonder who the realtor is for the person below. If they bought after I bet they are getting a lot of heat.
Posted by: Reader at April 12, 2010 5:25 PM
There are 2 7 year old kids that live above me and all I hear is foot stomping everyday, can I sue them too?
Posted by: montananewsom at April 12, 2010 5:25 PM
So what if a Millionaire boy toy walks around his pad in high heels. This is San Francisco.
Posted by: Carlitos Way at April 12, 2010 5:58 PM
> I had similar sound issues with a neighbor. But in my
> case it was just a rental full of twenty-somethings, with
> 8 being the typical semi-permanent population.
A great way to quiet down a loud party in your building is to flip the main breaker for the unit and kill the lights and stereo. Most twenty-something SF trustifarians will have no clue how to get the power back on and most of the guests will leave as they sit around calling PG&E in the dark on their iPhones.
Many PG&E main breakers are inside elect. boxes with a metal lock tab at the bottom. If you kill the power “and” lock the box closed you will virtually guarantee that the party will not start back up again. I’m sure that there is a law against this, so I am just guessing that this would work…
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at April 12, 2010 6:58 PM
get a low bass speaker, put it up to the ceiling and bass hump the shit out of him.
Best time: 7AM. Leave for the day. Come back late. Very late.
People, get used to it. This is a glass box for chrissake.
To go high enough the building has to be built light and the concrete has to be super compressed and thin. High rise living is considered in many parts of the world as big inconvenience. Paying $800 to $1000/sf for that kind of life makes you the butt of the joke.
Posted by: lol at April 12, 2010 9:37 PM
Wow, the issue isn't with the construction of the high-rise. The issue is that there is an inconsiderate, selfish loser that is playing loud music with stomping high heels to 4 AM, flicking ashes in his neighbor's eye and threatening the staff of the building.
Posted by: willy at April 12, 2010 10:00 PM
Wow, I cannot believe not one person has mentioned that ‘Mr. G’ and the lady below him must have been on some serious illegal stuff at the time they decided to pay 6MM + to live at the Infinity. The views aren’t that great or the neighbors that you share walls with. I would never ever, even if I had 99MM to burn… Sorry!
At this very moment, I am sitting in a 10 day rental on the shores of the Pacific Ocean in Kauai that is for sale at 2.2MM which I would take over both of their units any day even with a spiral staircase into G's unit. Buy this, and rent at the Millennium Tower if you really want SF :-) Mahalo
Posted by: Oakland Chap at April 13, 2010 12:57 AM
Just have him tested for blow.....but not by the SF lab.
Posted by: Dani at April 13, 2010 1:49 AM
Wouldn't worry about superior views (there aren't any) or $99M (not gunna happen). You are destined to be a renter. Long live cheap insults of assets that you will never acquire.
Note: it's not a noise complaint from one resident. It's a complaint from many, a few of whom have more blind than the boy; as they are tired of living with children trying to recreate an ongoing rave with 2nd-tier hookers and poor taste in music.
The heals make sense as they allow him to meet the height requirement--and it had nothing to do with him taking off his sportsbra at the gym. LA beckons. Let him lose it all there, while LA won't know the difference. This city is not for him.
Posted by: Tasteless at April 13, 2010 8:03 AM
Someone's feelings are hurt
Posted by: J at April 13, 2010 9:03 AM
I can't help but chime in on the construction side. I'm are truly astonished that you could spend so much on interior design and they didn't even paint the walls. Even a simple off white would have made the furniture and art less jarring.
You can also do an install on that marble that would have dampened the sound so virtually no clicky clicky. Granted you would lose an inch or 3 in ceiling height.
If I were that interior design company, I would hide that sample section.
Posted by: Ryan at April 13, 2010 9:05 AM
Why don't his downstairs neighbors just call the cops on his a** if has such loud parties? Can't he be cited (and eventually hauled in) for noise disturbance?
Posted by: EC at April 13, 2010 10:51 AM
'Tasteless' bought somewhere (possibly the Infinity) between years 2005 - 2008 and is down 30% and counting. It hurts...
Posted by: Oakland Chap at April 13, 2010 10:56 AM
"LA beckons. Let him lose it all there, while LA won't know the difference."
Really? I used to own a condo on the Wilshire Corridor and we had plenty of "celebs" in the building, but never any of the problems described above. This behavior might be more appropriate for one of the "luxury" towers in Vegas, since they are all pretty much without any occupancy, nobody will hear or care about the noise and hookers. (It might even help the sales)
Posted by: anonandon at April 13, 2010 11:01 AM
"The design was 'frat house bordello,' " Parsons said. Whoops, sorry, that's Nicholas Cage's place. Another favorite quote from that article: "This is a microcosm of what's going on in our state," Baker said. "We've seen as many as 13 loans on a house." When people keep borrowing, he said, it has "a snowball effect." The final loans often are taken out to meet expenses, he said. "It's a survival tactic." Thankfully, that doesn't happen in Ess Eff.
@EC - read the lawsuit. The police were called a couple of times (at 4:00 AM).
Posted by: EBGuy at April 13, 2010 11:26 AM
If I'm not mistaken, new co-ops were banned [in SF] in the 1960's as they are inherit-ally discriminatory. Anyway, they are basically the same thing as a TIC: A business partnership which owns an apartment building.
Posted by: Mystery Realtor at April 13, 2010 11:34 AM
I have to make the somewhat ironic observation, that after 70 posts, this very thread is now part of the "G" PR machine. :)
Posted by: Kurt Brown at April 13, 2010 12:16 PM
Mystery Realtor wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, new co-ops were banned [in SF] in the 1960's as they are inheritally discriminatory.
Hmmm…I'm not going to claim any special knowledge of how to do history research on municipal legislation in The City, but I hadn't heard this and would be surprised if it were true. Care to provide a pointer so I can read up on it? Not a challenge, you've just made me curious.
And with a similar caveat, everything I've read about co-ops has indicated that the probability of a applicant getting rejected (as alluded to by joh, FormerAptBroker, anon, etc., above) is inversely proportional to the up-front work done by the buyer's agent: If you as a buyer have a good agent, and they make sure you're prepared, you're going to get approved. A good agent will also actively discourage buyers from making offers on co-op units where the board is highly likely to reject an applicant.
I don't think a co-op would be "inherently discriminatory" nowadays. Doesn't everyone, including TICs and co-ops, have to adhere to the Federal Fair Housing Act?
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at April 13, 2010 2:01 PM
@ebguy, yeah, i read the complaint after the comment.
Posted by: ec at April 13, 2010 2:09 PM
"Tasteless" bought in 2009 and is up 18% (all three projects; I was part of the negotiations) That said, Is anything from Oakland factual or relevant? Am hoping that Tasteless buys the bridge after evicting "gEE" then Oakland will have to stay put or drive around. Ooops.. Rent-a-car. Walk?
LA Beckons = loud without substance.
"celebrities" welcome.. Which includes "gEE" after her pays the $10k still owed to the homeless after his TV embarassment.
Posted by: WilfredB at April 13, 2010 3:16 PM
"I’m sure that there is a law against this, so I am just guessing that this would work…"
FormerAptBroker, Gotta figure that it would be tough to find a jury who would ever convict for doing something like that to a numbskull like this.
Just remember to turn the power back on before the caviar in the fridge gets too warm!
BTW, I was looking for apartments right after the woman got killed by the dog in Pac Heights, and made the mistake of looking at HER apartment. As I realized where I was (the new carpet right outside was the final clue), and as I was walking out, I noticed the door to the apartment down the hall had been kicked in. The only thing holding it shut was the chain latch.
I asked the manager if that was the apartment of the dog owners and she said yes, and I asked her how come she hadn't repaired the door. She said "We repaired it the first couple of nights, but the neighbors just keep kicking it in. Every night it gets kicked in. The neighbors want them OUT" The police did nothing. The other tenants were trying to force the dog owners out and no one would do anything to save them.
Could you imagine what a jury would do to them if the dog owners dared to try to prosecute someone for kicking in their door? No jury would convict. The police wouldn't even *show up*, stake out the place (the neighbors were kicking in their door every night) or anything.
I suspect the police would have about the same level of sympathy for this clown.
Posted by: tipster at April 13, 2010 3:23 PM
Man, what's with all the LA hate? SF seems to have its own celebrities like this G guy and Evan Williams and several other douchey folks. Best I can tell there are plenty of nouveau riche in both cities with money to burn. Just because some of those rich people in one city happened by cheer luck to gain their fortune by acting and some of the rich people in the other city happened by sheer luck to have their crappy technology adopted over all other crappy technologies (e.g. Twitter) doesn't really seem to give one a superior claim over the other.
Posted by: anon at April 13, 2010 3:30 PM
i'm willing to give him a break he was 26 when he bought this place. a 26 year old guy from a humble working class background is not going to have the most refined taste and while he is a douchebag i have to admit i might be a jerk too if i was that young and had $250 million.most young guys would be partying with model types everynight and not going to the symphony.
Posted by: meep at April 13, 2010 8:19 PM
Wrt shutting off the main circuit breaker AND locking that box. I'd be damn careful, that could lead to a lawsuit. Turning it off and letting the imnicile find it and turn it back on, maybe ok. Maybe.
Certainly a landlord like myself would not even think of doing something like that. And I doubt that option is available in a high rise.
But someone asked why they don't just call the cops. The cops will show up, and ask the guy to turn it down. Repeated calls to the police could lead to something...I think. Even "SF's retards...err..finest" could site him if multiple complaints are made. I would hope. Anybody with experience calling the cops on nuisances?
Posted by: 45yo hipster at April 13, 2010 10:00 PM
Is every single person on this post serious? Do you all have this much time in your life to go out of your way to sit there and type about how much you don't approve about someones way of life, or if there are women in high heels or cigar ashes falling from one balcony to another. Let the parties involved deal with and find something more important to use your time with like your own lives. I'm not saying anything done was right and we can all come up with whatever we THINK "G" is doing at his penthouse but like I said, who are we to make any judgements or comments about an individual we don't even know. I'm planning to move into this building or the Millenium towers in SF but HE does not have anything to do with my decision, although I wouldn't mind being invited to one of those parties. I've read all the comments above and some of them are ridiculous, like people just really talking so low of someone they don't even know, I think you should really look in the mirror and re-evaluate who the "loser" or "douchebag" really is.
Posted by: Are you serious at April 13, 2010 10:19 PM
Posted by: tipster at April 13, 2010 10:48 PM
oh my god, are you guys serious, Co-op?!?!
You must have never lived in a nyc co-op. If you had, you would never want such a curse on yourself. I'll just list a tiny few problems with coops.
1. The board must approve of your pet and will ask to interview your pet. I kid you not.
2. If you have visitors planning to stay overnight, you need to provide them with advance notice and approval
3. If the managing company goes under and they are 50% owner of the coop, the rest of you are royally screwed.
4. If you want to sell your share of the coop when you leave and find a buyer....the coop has to approve the sale.
5. You never own the coop. You own shares of the building. And if you think HOAs are high wait till you see coop fees. Part of it goes into the mortgage of the building.
Read horror stories of coops in NYC during the 80s and then think about how lucky there are very very few coops in SF.
Posted by: val88 at April 14, 2010 12:45 AM
I currently live in a co-op in NYC (but moving back to SF, hence my presence on SocketSite). Just like condos, co-ops come in a variety of size/type/personalities that appeal to different folks. Not all co-ops have the problems you list above. For example, our co-op does not have an underlying mortgage, and we have lower fees accordingly. HOA fees in SF are indeed usually lower than in NYC, but this is most true for the small 2-4 unit buildings which are more prevalent in SF -- the price differential decreases when looking at larger buildings or new construction. Furthermore, each co-op has differing rules. Our interview did not include our pet, and in fact, was a rubber-stamp meet and greet. We do not need to give advance notice of overnight visitors. Yes, co-ops could reject a sale, but that's more likely to happen in certain types of co-ops than others. Our co-op has never not approved a sale. I'm not sure why horror stories of co-ops in NYC during the 80s would be greatly relevant to SF thirty years later.
Posted by: StinkyDingo at April 14, 2010 7:36 AM
"Is every single person on this post serious? Do you all have this much time in your life to go out of your way to sit there and type about how much you don't approve about someones way of life, or if there are women in high heels or cigar ashes falling from one balcony to another."
Most are not commenting on his lifestyle.. given that a few of us party (and live) with prettier (non-professional) women and have much better parties--the beef is NOISE and a high school level rave environment on a 24 hour rotating basis.
Solution (given that we do know him): He will be having equally noisy parties in LA and LV-- if you were cool (and knew "girls"), he might invite you. Meanwhile, we aren't about to allow a hook-up club and latin disco in the best building in SF. We will keep it real--with or without 'em.
Posted by: fewer outsiders at April 14, 2010 7:47 AM
Now does Oprah know how big of a d-Bag some of her guests are?
Posted by: J at April 14, 2010 8:04 AM
If I'd had his kind of money when I was 26 ... noise complaints would've been the least of it!!
Anyone can incur the wrath of their neighbors by having frequent loud parties. Multi-millions not required.
I do not understand the bring-your-own-loud-music to the gym concept, though.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at April 14, 2010 8:05 AM
"I do not understand the bring-your-own-loud-music to the gym concept, though."
Yeah, seems silly, hope he doesn't get an entourage too. Except maybe that would help him burn through the cash sooner, ALA MC Hammer.
If I was planning to have parties, I wouldn't buy a condo! He could get an island and have no restrictions.
Posted by: J at April 14, 2010 8:38 AM
I don't think its possible to burn through that much money in a lifetime. MC Hammer never had hundreds of millions.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at April 14, 2010 9:11 AM
Stinkydingo- one question: did you need to get your co-op's approval for your alias name on socket site? I could imagine a stuffy-ass upper east side co-op complaining that 'stinky dingo' effects the prestige of their building! LOL.
Are you serious poster- some of us are financially independent and basically out of the rat race, so yes, socket site is a fun place to spend time. Besides being a terrific and entertaining time waster, for those of us with investment properties in SF, there is plenty of quality information, including this post.
Your acusation that somehow we are losers for posting here had me ROFL in a big way. For what does that make you, oh wise one who "read every post?!!" (insert foot in mouth here.)
Posted by: 45yo hipster at April 14, 2010 9:26 AM
are you serious,
he got drunk swore and threw something at the lobby attendant.he has $250 million and he does that to a working class person just doing their job.
yep that's a douchebag and if you think he can do that and win in this lawsuit you need to look at a map,your in san francisco.
Posted by: meep at April 14, 2010 9:44 AM
^ money can buy you everything except class
Posted by: diemos at April 14, 2010 9:49 AM
"I do not understand the bring-your-own-loud-music to the gym concept, though."
Almost everything I can see about the guy is a child who is starving for attention. Parents probably never paid him much attention and I doubt he got much from anyone else growing up either.
So he uses his money to get attention, any way he can. Half of the fun for him of throwing these parties is the fact that he rankles a big chunk of the building and they notice him. He LIKES keeping people up: it assures him that they notice him. The garish decorations get him lots of press and people notice him.
The lawsuit will be fun for him. It means his strategy worked. His money serves no better purpose, in his mind. What good is having all that money if you can't make up for lost parental attention?
Posted by: tipster at April 14, 2010 9:59 AM
"Money can't buy taste or class. Perfect example"
So true. And I think the bulk of his angst comes from the fact that he will never be "one of them." Sorry, money doesn't buy you full membership into the blue blood club.
He mistreats staff because they are a painful reminder of his working class roots. He hates his neighbors because they were "born into it" and he had to suffer to get it. This guy needs to spend some of his fortune on therapy. Learn to love yourself - history and all - and you will find peace with all around you...even your neighbors at Infinity.
For the record, he was a cheapskate on Secret Millionaire.
Posted by: rags to riches at April 14, 2010 10:06 AM
"The board must approve of your pet and will ask to interview your pet. I kid you not."
This is a common requirement for co-ops (common, which doesn't mean every co-op requires it). I've definitely seen it with respect to some SF co-ops. I believe at one co-op featured on SocketSite required approval of pets.
Posted by: sfrenegade at April 14, 2010 11:15 AM
Tipster/rags- yeah, bring on the psychotherapy!
But did he really come from a working class background, and make the money himself? If so, then he's clearly expressing insecurity against the monied sophisticates, and needs to show that he can break down their door and invade their elite existence.
If his parents made the dough, than tipsters theory of childhood neglect, coupled with vast infusions of inadequacy, would explain his rouge and childish behavior. At any rate this guy is clearly a blowhard, and the HOA and the police should put him in line immediately WRT clearly excessive noise, lawsuit or no lawsuit.
Posted by: 45yo hipster at April 14, 2010 12:11 PM
At least 59 friggin' pages of CC&Rs, right down to pets and antennas. That's 50 more than my CC&Rs. That alone would make me never buy into this place. You're at the mercy of whatever busybodies happen to take over the HOA. "G" has the money to fight them (even when they seem to be in the right!) but most people would just have to bow down.
Posted by: A.T. at April 14, 2010 12:15 PM
Sheesh, relax. You make it sound more like a gulag than a nice condo development (which it is). I've lived here for almost 2 years and I don't feel like I'm at the mercy of/or bowing down to - the HOA.
Posted by: sfjhawk at April 14, 2010 3:11 PM
I live in the Infinity and I still see him use the gym ALL the time with his personal trainer and personal assistant. He throws around weights, plays music loudly on his iPad for everyone to hear (he blasts Britney and Justin Timberlake by the way), and he takes off his shirt and checks himself out in the mirrors. He is the definition of douchebag, or in his case G-bag.
Posted by: elle at July 23, 2010 10:51 AM
I'm shocked and dismayed. I actually was just doing a google search on 'G' to gather some facts about an article I am writing and came across this site. I'm embarrassed that I actually spent time admiring this guy after reading the facts about this case. Even if they are exaggerated as was stated by 'G''s attorney, you have to be a real a**h*le to get this many people to complain about you in order to incite a lawsuit by a housing association. After living in a number of apartment buildings and condos, I have to say that one of the things I hate the most in life are inconsiderate neighbors. 'G' carries on about himself like he is this spiritual, family man who cares about the less fortunate, yet he cannot do something so simple as to respect his own neighbors? His behavior must have been really extreme, because I have thrown an occassional loud party in buildings that I have lived in and never once came close to getting a complaint. I think that most people are reasonable and let a little bit of rude behavior go as is the consequence of sharing a building space. Someone has to be a consistent a**h*le to incite such a response from neighbors, and after reading the facts and the comments here, all I can say is that I feel foolish that I ever thought that this guy was actually someone to look up to. Professional success or not, how you treat your own neighbors says so much more about who you are than how much money you have in the bank.
Posted by: ht23 at February 20, 2012 11:03 AM
Looks like this was settled around a year ago.
Posted by: EBGuy at February 20, 2012 11:18 AM
EBGuy- Thanks! Wow-I've been overseas for a long time and very much out of the loop.
I'm still very shocked. I wish sites like these had more visibility. It's always good to get the real scoop on the character of a celebrated anomaly in society.
It's easy to understand a guy like 'G' getting sued over copyright infringement issues or anything business related, but being sued as a result of your neighbors not being able to stand you? That says a hell of a lot about who he really is. I guess I'm just really disappointed that I looked up to this guy for quite some time-read his book, watched the shows, etc. I've threatened to sue (and succeeded) twice over real-estate related breaches of contract and know that the situation has to be really bad to even get to that point. So it is pretty clear to me now that I naively chose the wrong person to look to for inspiration! I guess I'll just have to get over the fact that one of my heros is really a down home, class-less prick. I'm glad that this site ran the story.
Posted by: ht23 at February 20, 2012 12:41 PM
Glad i read the above. I guess I will not be looking at Infinity.
Posted by: Shane Davis at February 20, 2012 11:36 PM
Looks like "G" got himself into some real trouble this time!
"San Francisco man once featured on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" for being a wealthy young entrepreneur was charged Thursday with 47 counts of domestic violence-related crimes, according to court records.
Gurbaksh Chahal, 31, chief executive of online advertising company RadiumOne, is accused of assaulting a girlfriend in his Rincon Hill home on Monday."
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at August 9, 2013 10:04 AM
Yeah saw that today and immediately remembered this thread.
Posted by: Rillion at August 9, 2013 11:29 AM
Saw that too and posted the link on another thread. Earlier. In 1997 I would have posted "first!". Ahem.
Apparently "alleged" extreme douchebaggery can lead to "alleged" domestic violence. Hoocoodanode?
Posted by: lol at August 9, 2013 12:04 PM
I think the question on everybody's mind is... Exactly how much Douche CAN you fit into one bag?
Word is the victim is trying to retract her accusations ... which as our illustrious Sheriff learned last year, won't work.
Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at August 9, 2013 12:29 PM
In the old feudal days the upper class hired jesters from the lower class for their enjoyment.
How the tables have turned. Now the upper crust provides heaps of tacky attention whores.
Posted by: lol at August 9, 2013 12:44 PM
I think he counts as nouveau riche, not upper crust. Same goes for the "attention whores" you see on shows like Real Housewives of …, the Kardashians and people like Halsey Minor.
Upper crust implies that you have political power to go along with your money, the wisdom to put both to good use, and above all, a firm command of the manners expected of someone in your station, like Lord Grantham on Downton Abbey.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at August 9, 2013 5:13 PM
I should have left Halsey Minor out of that last comment about the nouveau riche. Minor's family was rolling in money before he was born, he just managed to make quite a bit of his own. And then blow through it all and wind up bankrupt.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at August 9, 2013 9:23 PM
Yeah right Brahma. Downtown Abbey, not knowing that Minor is from the horsey set, blah blah blah. What a bunch of armchair bs. You rarely know what you're talking about, don't have chips to pull off writer's riffs, and post a ton of judgmental opinions. Who cares?
Posted by: Anon at August 10, 2013 8:35 AM
Thanks for the discouraging words, "Anon".
I did know that Minor is from what you call "the horsey set", I just forgot about it during that last comment. I even said so in another, much earlier thread.
As far as my "judgmental opinions", feel free to ignore them when you see them, that's what I'll do from now on when I see one from you.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at August 10, 2013 1:19 PM