January 30, 2013
What’s The Right Way To Rat Out A Neighbor And Report Illegal Work?
In our inbox this morning:
I have very good sources that tell me my neighbor, a landlord, is in the initial stages of trying to build an illegal apartment in the SFH next door. It will be camouflaged by a permitted "renovation" to this SFH.
The last thing we want is non-permitted gas lines, shoddy electrical work, etc, in a unit attached to ours.
It is zoned for two-family, but he has not gone through the permitting process to create a second unit. What's the best way readers suggest I go about addressing this? Call the owner directly, warn the city. We want to nip it in the bud, as I believe the city won't bother to make him reverse the work once complete.
First Published: January 30, 2013 10:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
I've got no ideas on how to rat that landlord out and it could backfire if that landlord is clever enough to make the floorplan ambiguous enough that it could be interpreted as a single unit with an extra kitchen.
However it is a little bit of a stretch to assume that the work will be shoddy. The landlord did pull permits, right? So the work will be inspected to the extent that any other permitted job is. And if there's concern that pipes and wires will be reconfigured post-inspection, well that happens on jobs that aren't creating an umpermitted in-law unit too. So there's a lot of ratting out to go around.
It sounds like the whistle blower has a problem with the neighboring landlord and is using safety as excuse to escalate their issue.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 30, 2013 10:09 AM
Good God man it's your god given right to make every man, woman and child go through planning and permitting purgatory in SF.
Who do those people think they are? Are they better than the rest of us?
I would dawn my bullet proof vest and walk right up to that owner/landlord and point my finger in his face with proper righteous indignation and say...Get thee to planning purgatory now you scofflaw. Thee must endure the tortures of being raked over the hot coals of the planning and permitting politburo. It is in the interest of the commons to adhere to thee rules of law.
If thee do not comply then thee must endure the public display of being publicly humiliated in the public square.....by being stripped naked.....Oh wait...didn't they just make that illegal?
Posted by: Umustcomply at January 30, 2013 10:49 AM
Two of the most ridiculous comments I have heard in a long time. The first one is, at least, intelligent. But it's not at all unreasonable to assume that the work MAY be shoddy, given the information stated.
The second comment is a waste of time.
As to what to do: The complainant has already stated that the "neighbor" has NOT gone thru the planning process. Contact the Planning and Building dept, with the address, lot and block number. File a complaint about the lack of legal process required. There should be a 311/312 notice that MUST go out to adjacent property owners and renters. Follow up with phone calls, emails and letters. For a small fee, you can also file a Discretionary Review (DR) for further scrutiny.
And MOD: it's not called "ratting out". It's called being responsible.
Posted by: futurist at January 30, 2013 11:16 AM
Filing a complaint with the DBI will at least ensure that permits are pulled and the work is inspected:
Posted by: Michael at January 30, 2013 11:18 AM
What futurist said. And I don't think it is at all unreasonable to assume that since the landlord is going about the remodeling in an illegal way, that they'll also try and cut every possible corner and thereby ensure shoddy work gets done.
I don't have any data to back this up other than experience. The people who think that renting out an unwarranted unit is okay, because their personal greed somehow outweighs the right of tenants and the general public to safe and code-complaint accommodations, can also convince themselves that substandard work is okay. It's the same self-satisfied mindset.
I'd file the complaint form that Michael links to. And by all means drop by socketsite in the future and tell us how long DBI took to send out an inspector.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at January 30, 2013 12:14 PM
There are planning regulations in SF? Who'd a thought?
Posted by: 4Oceans at January 30, 2013 12:43 PM
Expecting a neighbor to comply with the law doesn't make anyone a "rat".
Posted by: Joshua at January 30, 2013 12:50 PM
While agreeing that one should not construct a unit without the necessary permits/planning approval, I think everyone should also note that the supposition that the landlord is building this unit is just a rumor at this time. Neighbors in SF have a bad habit of complaining any time construction is initiated if only because they don't like the noise and/or disruption. I had this problem with a kitchen and bathroom renovation that got so bad that the DBI eventually ignored all future complaints from this neighbor.
If one takes the original e-mail at its' face, the construction of the unit will be camouflaged as a permitted renovation. So at this point, I think the DBI is going to have trouble with a complaint that states that "I think they are planning to build an unpermitted unit" just as they would have trouble with any other unsubstantiated rumor without physical evidence.
Posted by: Guest666 at January 30, 2013 1:05 PM
Use the DBI link and either file an anonymous complaint online or over the phone. DBI will send an inspector out within a couple of days; if it's above-board, they'll clear the complaint and move along.
It happened to us when we remodeled our house back in 2004 -- a neighbor complained that we were illegally running a business out of our garage (um, no, that was the asbestos-removal company removing the furnace and ductwork). DBI inspector came out, checked plans and permits, and abated the complaint that day.
Posted by: Cath at January 30, 2013 1:21 PM
Yes indeed, there are reasons for building codes and compliance...look no further than the 200+ lives lost in the club fires last weekend.
Posted by: Reasons at January 30, 2013 1:35 PM
Expecting a neighbor to comply with the law doesn't make anyone a "rat".
Neither does ratting someone out ("to inform the authorities about someone"), but it does make for good alliteration with "right" and should not be confused with being a ratfink.
Posted by: SocketSite at January 30, 2013 1:54 PM
I'm with Guest666. Sounds like all there is at this point is a rumour, but the only facts on hand are that the work is being done with a permit.
I suggest checking what permits have been pulled on the property. You can find existing permits here:
If you see work going on that is not within the scope of the work then file a complaint. If you file complaints before there is any violation, then they might not take further complaints seriously.
You might also want to contact the owner directly, and inform them about the rumor and tell them that if it turns out to be true you would report the violation, but it can get a little gnarly if you personally contact them.
As MoD pointed out, if they have permits, the inspector is going to inspect everything.
If they intend to run illegal gas lines / electrical / plumbin it will be after the existing permits are completed, but it also possible they will do the work to code, but just not as a legal unit. You can get very close to a legal unit and still keep everything within code. Almost the only thing they can't do is add a separate entrance and full kitchen.
Here's two useful links to let you know the process and what is / isn't allowed (assuming it's an expansion downward):
Posted by: lyqwyd at January 30, 2013 2:00 PM
Folks, the creation of an unpermitted apartment is just a rumor right now. And it is pretty easy to design an ambiguous floorplan that could go either way.
Permits were pulled so DBI has already reviewed this project. Don't you think that DBI would have have flagged a planning violation if the plans indicated conclusively that a new unit was being created?
Of course it is possible that the project sponsor builds something other than what the blueprints submitted to DBI indicate. In that case of course they are violating the process and they can expect to be fined.
And if being cost sensitive drives people to cut corners that could create a safety problem, then every project in the city falls into this category and requires more scrutiny.
I do not believe that there are any additional safety risks here above the risks of any permitted and inspected project. The original poster's cited concern about safety sounds so much like a "think of the children!" cry when they're really concerned about something much less severe. Kind of like the NIMBYs who complain of loss of light and air when they're really concerned about losing a view or having a harder time finding street parking.
Safety is important but in this situation any claim of a safety problem is pure speculation.
If this landlord is cheating and using an ambiguous floorplan then the only reliable way to nail him/her is to wait until after the illegal unit is actually occupied and then bust them. It would be a lot easier to prove that the residents are unrelated and paying rent separately.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 30, 2013 2:01 PM
informing the authorities = RAT where i grew up. sounds like the person has beef with the landlord and this is that person's attempt at payback.
Posted by: oscar at January 30, 2013 2:36 PM
You have be really self-aware and take a hard look at what you really want. Is this fellow's work lessening the value of your property, or are you just a whiny statist lefty who believes all regulations must be obeyed? If you're the former then rat on the guy; if you're the latter, you'll get the blowback that you deserve.
Posted by: unwarrantedinlaw at January 30, 2013 2:36 PM
I encourage people who are reasonable to take a gander at the MLS and look at all the buildings that are for sale with blatantly illegal (and yes, mostly disclosed as illegal, or "unwarranted" to use the preferred real estate euphemism) units and garage conversions that are for sale. This is a problem of epidemic proportions, and it's only getting worse, although I don't have year-over-year data to back that up at hand.
What that tells me is that waiting until the illegal unit is actually occupied and the slumlord is reaping ill-gotten gains is too late to serve as an effective deterrent.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at January 30, 2013 3:58 PM
I agree with the commenters that say to lodge a complaint with DBI, but my next thought is "don't hold your breath."
We are still wrangling over a neighboring house that was bought by a contractor who started to gut and remodel the whole thing (including the foundation) with minimal permits. After 2 complaints they did file permits, but they lied on the plans, saying the 10 foot addition they added was "existing." The DBI inspector was useless - never got into the site to see the illegal work they were doing, and even after we showed proof of the deception to the DBI folks - including the head of building inspection - they took no action!! And these are not NIMBY issues - they actually took down the neighbors fence and built an unpermitted addition over the property line! In the end the only way we got them to change was to appeal their permits so that they had to stop all work, and they had to negotiate with the neighbors. But this took a tremendous amount of work, and it's still not over.
And on top of it all, I'm positive they will turn the ground floor into an illegal inlaw, but have no idea how to stop that in advance.
Posted by: kddid at January 30, 2013 4:18 PM
The problem may be of epidemic proportions, but I don't believe it is getting worse. It's just with the heightened litigation surrounding undisclosed issues you are seeing much more disclosure of illegal (unwarranted) additions or remodels. If I look around my neighborhood, I see a variety of "renovations" that span much of the last 50 years with the majority of those "renovations" being illegal. I would guess that most of those in my neighborhood were undertaken in the 50 & 60's rather than the last decade.
Posted by: Guest666 at January 30, 2013 4:54 PM
For those of you that think permitted work means its automatically safer or actually competently inspected, think again. Arbitrary incompetence at DBI reins supreme. Sure it's probably better than no inspections, but not by much. Most builders spend way too much time playing cat and mouse with DBI, jumping through obscure hoops, than focusing on building quality. And even with inspectins, there is almost always unprmitted work to avoid clusterf*cks such as DBI and planning contradicting each other, etc.
So unless you really have a strong reason to believe they are creating a dangerous situation, I'd let laying dogs sleep. IMO snitching is only for obvious and flagrant situations; or join the merriment and try your hand at extortion;) Not that this city doesn't do this...condo bypass fees, anyone?
Posted by: 48yo hipster at January 30, 2013 5:27 PM
I totally understand the desire not to want to have unsafe work done, fire safety is a huge issue, but I'm sure the owner doesn't really want to lose their investment to fire so I seriously doubt the work will be shoddy.
Doing work without permits doesn't mean anyone is trying to do something unsafely.
Case in point, when we did renovations on our house with OTC permits, we met our neighbors next door who had started interior renovations without permits. They did this because they discovered their house had had un-permitted work done to it in the past by the previous owners. They didn't want their renovations to get delayed by having to remove the previous owner's work so they did the work they wanted without permits so as not to invite scrutiny and to keep everything on schedule, delays are super expensive. Since they were living there, they had no desire to have anything done shoddily.
Since we did all our work with permits and were subject to inspections, we gave them plenty of warning as to when our inspections were scheduled so they could prepare as needed.
A different neighbor (not sure which) decided to rat them out so in the end they did have to get a permit for their work but fortunately were able to get an exclusion for the previous owner's work. Personally, I thought it was kind of scummy of the neighbor.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: geekgrrl at January 30, 2013 6:20 PM
The word "report" serves the same alliterative purpose, without any pejorative connotation.
Posted by: Joshua at January 30, 2013 11:11 PM
oscar, where did you grow up? ("informing the authorities = RAT")
reporting crimes and violations is called responsible citizenship where I grew up
let's not perpetuate the thug culture!
Posted by: asiagoSF at January 31, 2013 7:25 AM
Sure you can choose to trust the wisdom of your neighbor and his instinct for self-preservation.
A few caveats:
- Someone who wants to save money by skipping permits and safety inspections is also likely to take other shortcuts.
- If you trust the neighbor for the simple fact that he has a vested interest in doing things right, is he doing the work for a resale? These days of multiple overbids, some giddy buyers will forgo contingencies and will not even have an inspection. It's the perfect environment for crooks.
- There are many different standards of work, yet only one standard of inspection: by the book. There are too many hacks out there who think what they are doing is correct.
It's a pain to have to comply to rules, we get it. And things could be streamlined a bit. But people, like companies, are not set up to self-regulate. That didn't work out for Countrywide or AIG, etc...
You often understand the real consequences of your actions only when it's too late. Like the case of 149 Mangels. If you can't afford to properly fix the property you just bought, then you couldn't afford that property in the first place period.
Posted by: lol at January 31, 2013 8:00 AM
Sheepel.....Bhaaaaaa Building inspection department personal in SF are incompetent at best and corrupt at worst.
DBI is a self perpetuating money machine for civil service employment. It's not about protecting the public it's about keeping their jobs.
Posted by: Umustcomply at January 31, 2013 8:36 AM
Wow, I had to double check the URL when I read the Umustcomply post. I really thought I had unknowingly jumped into the comments section of sfgate.com
Posted by: lol at January 31, 2013 8:48 AM
lol - In this case the owner did pull permits.
But in general I agree you cannot rely that an owner is looking out for their own best interest when doing unpermitted work. DIY work is especially susceptible to shoddy results when naive owners get in over their heads. Anyone with a credit card can shop for tools and building materials but using them properly requires a lot more knowledge and skill.
In the case referenced by this article the owner might be creating a new apartment on the sly, but he's doing it with DBI oversight. It is a planning issue, not a building code problem.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 31, 2013 9:26 AM
Remarking that "DIY work is especially susceptible to shoddy results when naive owners get in over their heads" is tacitly granting the benefit of the doubt to the owner/flipper/illegal unit constructor. In my experience, this charity isn't at all deserved, because it doesn't recognize the underlying motivation of untrammeled greed.
I'd love to see a study (hah!), but I'd bet a significant amount that most of these people are doing the work with the express intention of doing what is cheapest, even if they know what they are doing. Then they sell it to some sucker who doesn't know what he's in for and doesn't discount the selling price to account for the fact that he will probably have to correct illegal work.
And when they produce something that they know ahead of time will result in something either unsafe or will only temporarily hide a major problem (e.g., interior water intrusion that only produces visible evidence during a major rainstorm), they self-justify it by denigrating the personnel at DBI(e.g., "…building inspection department personal in SF are incompetent…" or by telling themselves that because they are an objectivist or libertarian, they get to decide what laws they will or will not adhere to, and anyone who disagrees is "just a whiny statist lefty".
People who think like this are immune to reason, you have to hit them in the pocketbook to effect their behavior. I wish the Board of Supervisors would take the necessary steps, but of course they need money for their re-election campaigns, so they won't crack down.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at January 31, 2013 11:25 AM
Oh I don't doubt that there are people who are criminally underbuilding in order to save cash but in my experience that happens more often with professional contractors than DIYers. Even with inspections.
I've been involved in a fair share of DIY projects with friends as both a peer reviewer and a helper. In none of those cases were my friends trying to cut corners on materials and methods. Quite the opposite: usually they wanted higher quality results. One guy in particular has a habit of over-engineering to the point where he's paying 1.5-2X more on materials and time. I whine about the extra work but at least extra beer is supplied in return. And yes, we're adhering to code. About half the projects are permitted and that half are the largest of the projects. So about 80% of the work total was done with inspections.
Maybe my experience is colored since this group of friends has a lot of relevant professional engineering and construction experience. I know for sure that not all DIYers are so diligent as just visiting a few open houses will reveal. Aside from the homeowners who get over their head there's another menace of willful but incompetent idiots who just assume that they know what to do and go through the motions without ever learning the building code or checking that their work is correct. If it looks right, it must be so, right? I call that Cargo Cult Construction.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 31, 2013 12:36 PM
Golden Rule Answer: Muster your courage to do the right thing and speak with the owner directly about what he is doing. If his work will negatively impact you, try to work out a mutually agreeable solution. Invoking the City is a last-resort and will only create permanent ill-will. Life is long and who needs enemies in close proximity.
Posted by: Rome is Burning at January 31, 2013 6:06 PM
I would not hesitate FIRST to talk to the neighbor proposing to do the work; and I would ask them upfront to make sure and apply for a PERMIT.
Because if they don't, I will report the project.
ALL renovations, per the regulations stated, need a permit. Some permits are simple, Some are complex.Some are over the counter. Some are not. That's the way it is. Deal with it.
And those who do not secure permits, claiming simple "diy" work are called cheaters, sliders and sneaky.
DIY, in my book, generally means shoddy, cheap, poorly designed and poorly executed work.
Posted by: futurist at January 31, 2013 7:15 PM
What Rome is Burning said. They are your neighbors fercrissakes! You should be neighborly to them. Step back a second and think about whether anything they are doing will really affect your quality of life. If it won't, just offer to give them a hand with their illegal renovation. If it will, then man up and say something to them directly. Unless they are some kind of violent asshole, there is no harm in having a civil conversation.
But from what I read here, there is no real reason to care what they do.
Posted by: Jack at January 31, 2013 7:36 PM
Hey Jack: What's with this "man up" kind of talk? Who says that?
Guess what? This is San Francisco. We all live in close proximity and what they may be doing "illegally" does, in fact, affect all of us.
Houses burn down. Crappy additions get put up that deprives others of open space, light and fresh air in rear yards. Illegal units can cram in more people to a neighborhood with more cars, less parking.
Yea, lots of reasons to care what they do.
How long have you lived here?
Posted by: futurist at January 31, 2013 8:56 PM
Here is a crazy idea, try talking to your neighbor about it. Open communication is always the best first step, and is a "neighborly" thing to do.
Posted by: Matt S at January 31, 2013 9:50 PM
FWIW, the notion that if you pull a permit you will only do work that is up to code and legal is simply wrong. I've seen plenty of rehab projects that were dressed up for inspection, and converted after sign off from DBI - for example, a "powder room" with a disallowed shower stall hidden behind a wall of sheet rock. Inspector signs off, contractor knocks down the sheet rock, and *voila* we have an illegal full bath, with the appearance of being permitted and approved by the city.
And as for "just offer to give them a hand with their illegal renovation" as my teenager would say, ROTFLMFAO. Yeah, that should reassure the OP that the wiring and gas lines will be done correctly and there will be no safety issues.
Posted by: NoeMom at February 1, 2013 10:12 AM
Couple of things on this.
The owner obtained permits for the work. If they want to convert the space to a legal unit later, and get the proper permits to do so, good for them and good for the city, we need the extra housing. If they create an illegal unit out of the space, then report them. Doing anything now, while PERMITTED work is in progress seems counterproductive and not neighborly.
DBI and Planning is a huge bureaucracy. Many things take forever to do and have no basis in any way.
Many "renovations" that require a permit in SF do not require one in other jurisdictions, thus increasing the number of "unpermitted" renovations. example: why do I need to obtain a permit to replace a kitchen cabinet (let's say wall cabinet w/o any electrical or plumbing work)? In SF you do. There are many other similar wrongheaded requirements.
Posted by: Sid1200 at February 1, 2013 10:28 AM
The only reason I can see for require permits for wall cabinet installation is to check that the top rail is properly anchored into the wall. I could see one of the "willful idiots" I described earlier going to Ikea for cabinets and then using shallow unanchored screws into sheetrock to attach the top rail. The cabinets might not fall before the handyman has left the scene. They might wait until after being loaded up with China, bottles of olive oil, puts and pans, etc. which would make a delightful cacophonous mess once gravity whispers the word.
A great example of a job that is easy for someone of limited experience to do right, yet can be done terribly wrong by a fool
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at February 1, 2013 11:16 AM
@TMOD: You're right. Like trip-wire cabinetry, sometimes trees are dangerous too. Most kids can climb them, but sometimes a few kids fall, once gravity whispers the word.
We should require everyone to get a permit before planting a tree, right? So that the city can inspect the tree and make sure it is safe?
Oh wait, we already do.
Posted by: soccermom at February 1, 2013 12:25 PM
There are many mistakes that can be made in life and in construction, however it does not mean that every step should be checked.
Either way the inspector will not check to see if the screws are screwed into studs, it will not happen.
Posted by: sid1200 at February 1, 2013 12:51 PM
Pulling permits and then buildling something different is an especially risky thing to, since the DBI will have your plans on file for all the world to see.
When you sell that building, as part of the disclosures you have to check a box indicating that you were aware that unpermitted work was done; if you choose to hide this at selling time, it is a simple matter for the eventual buyer to prove otherwise using the DBIs records. That would be a relatively straightforward lawsuit, or at a minimum cost you $$$ to settle longer after you though you had sold the property...
If you really want to do unpermitted work, you might be better off doing it without filing anything at all with the city. Then you might at least plausibly claim that 'it was that way when I bought it'...
Posted by: around1905 at February 1, 2013 1:44 PM
"If you really want to do unpermitted work, you might be better off doing it without filing anything at all with the city. Then you might at least plausibly claim that 'it was that way when I bought it'..."
... which also has its perils. Suppose a homeowner hires a contractor to do unpermitted work, sells then house claiming that no such work was done, then the house burns down after sold. The new owner could investigate and find out the truth whether by interviewing neighbors or perhaps forensic evidence of parts or materials that were only manufactured after you bought the house.
Sad to have your home destroyed but it is a nice consolation to be able to sue for damages.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at February 1, 2013 2:38 PM
Wow. Ditto what Jack said. I can't believe the person that posted this (a) is seriously afraid that her neighbor adding an illegal unit will cause her house to fall in, flood or catch fire and (b) if she truly is worried (which seems a bit insane), why she would even consider going to the City with a complaint rather than just talking to her neighbor?
I know my neighbor is building an illegal unit next door. I could care less.
Posted by: NoeNut at February 1, 2013 8:13 PM
I hope the concerned neighbor has everything up to code in their place. In fact maybe they should have their neighbors contractor who is apparently doing work WITH permits, go through their house or better yet call DBI to have them come out and confirm that there is nothing illegal or unsafe at their home.
Remember no matter who did the illegal work you, the current owner is responsible for fixing it and making it code compliant. We wouldn't want those 30 year old non permitted replacement copper pipes to leak.....
Posted by: Good Neighbor at February 1, 2013 9:13 PM
it sounds like the underlying concern is the neighbor not wanting a second living unit built next door. They will be SOL if it's already zoned for multi. Go ahead and report the Landlord. The conversion will happen anyway. with permits.
Posted by: justforkicks at February 2, 2013 7:44 AM
Does NOT matter if the zoning is multi-family. That requires off-street parking for each unit.
And guess what? no off-street parking means the existing parking spaces get even more in demand for those who already live in the neighborhood
Posted by: futurist at February 4, 2013 2:01 PM
For those of you that think permitted work means its automatically safer or actually competently inspected, think again. Arbitrary incompetence at DBI reins supreme.
48yo hipster is right. When DBI came to inspect the work at my place, they didn't do jack. The plumbing inspector didn't even want to come up. He was willing to sign off on the permit on his car parked outside. The only reason he came in is because that's where the permit was.
When the electrical inspector came by, he was a little peeved that the drywall was up, but when my electrician explained that we didn't take down existing drywall (only added a few outlets), he said fine and didn't even try to look or ask any questions.
When the building inspector came by, he took a look, didn't even look at how cabinets were mounted, and signed off on the permit right away. He was in and out in about 2 minutes.
Don't get me started on the conflicting info about code I received from various inspectors.
The only reason I can see for require permits for wall cabinet installation is to check that the top rail is properly anchored into the wall.
Perhaps DBI should require permits for wall mounted shelves as well. I added some open shelves to a section of wall without wall cabinets. I asked DBI about it, they said no permit required. I asked how that was different from cabinets. It just is.
I understand that the line has to be drawn somewhere, but some of the rules are totally arbitrary. Couple that with inspectors who really don't give a shit and you end up with a bureaucracy that is frustrating as hell, except to those who can profit off of it (licensed contractors and such).
Posted by: joh at February 4, 2013 3:07 PM
Bad construction should be reported. But I have an issue with being a "rat," which this person is.
He's got his and he wants the drawbridge pulled up right away. This is conservatism at its zenith.
SF has become a very conservative city...."DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING!" Make the rules of compliance nearly impossible and voila, you've got. I promise you, this city will be rich only in another generation. As your rent-controlled apartment tenant dies or is paid off, only the very wealthy will be able to afford housing. When the demand is 2x the supply, what do you think happens. I have made peace with this reality. I became exhausted being an angry, angry progressive.
Posted by: Chris McMahon at February 5, 2013 3:18 PM
Bad construction should be reported. But I have an issue with being a "rat," which this person is.
He's got his and he wants the drawbridge pulled up right away. This is conservatism at its zenith.
SF has become a very conservative city...."DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING!" Make the rules of compliance nearly impossible and voila, you've got. I promise you, this city will be rich only in another generation. As your rent-controlled apartment tenant dies or is paid off, only the very wealthy will be able to afford housing. When the demand is 2x the supply, what do you think happens? I have made peace with this reality. I became exhausted being an angry, angry progressive.
Posted by: Chris McMahon at February 5, 2013 3:22 PM
the home at 106 se. third st. cape coral fl. has built an addition on their back side of home with electric. might be growing weed.pretty sure they didn't get permits.??? concerned citizen.
Posted by: john wilson at September 17, 2013 9:57 AM