August 30, 2013
Can You Name This Burning Man Camp? Oh, Wait...
We're not sure which Burning Man camp this came from, but we thought we’d pass it along.
UPDATE: Our apologies for any confusion, apparently it's not a Burning Man camp at all, but rather the "storage" unit behind the duplex for sale at 2271-2273 15th Street.
First Published: August 30, 2013 10:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
The staging here is fantastic. Each room is like its own dogs playing poker picture. So much to see. It looks like the only thing that was staged was the encampment out back.
Posted by: eddy at August 30, 2013 10:28 AM
Oh my .... this is a heartbeat away from Hoarders...
Posted by: ejay at August 30, 2013 10:35 AM
the REAL San Francisco
Posted by: Joshua at August 30, 2013 10:50 AM
Is that a dog's head mounted on the wall?
Is there a body under the bed covers?
Love the disco ball in the garden.
Posted by: Futurist at August 30, 2013 11:31 AM
This is what open shelving REALLY looks like.
Not "Hoarders" to me. Real life. Likely people who work from home, like to collect things, and have no kids. Oh, like, half of my friends.
If the buyer intends to move into one of the units, I wonder if he/she will decide based on which one would be the worst neighbor. Seems like three pretty different kinds of tenants here.
Posted by: jenofla at August 30, 2013 12:12 PM
Wow! I don't think I could stand any of them as roommates, but I wouldn't be surprised if they'd make good and interesting friends. Plus they might come in handy if I were trying to clear out some space at home.
Posted by: Dan Clark at August 30, 2013 2:55 PM
I'm always stunned at the audacity of someone selling a building with an illegal unit which is tenant-occupied.
First off, isn't that like waving a big flag and saying, "DBI, come get me!"
Secondly, why would ANYONE, EVER, buy such a building, knowing that any time they want to, the tenant in that illegal lower unit can sue the current owner to recover all of the rent they have paid over their entire long tenancy — with interest, probably — as compensation for having been rented an illegal apartment. The financial risk is huge.
Personally, in crazy tenants-write-all-the-rules SF, I couldn't imagine renting an illegal unit, the potential liability is just too great. And that's not even considering a possibility like a fire, where perhaps someone can't escape the unit because it lacks a required second point of egress. What would your liability be then?
Posted by: Dubocian at August 30, 2013 4:14 PM
Dubocian: I always thought that (tenant of an illegal unit having a cause of action to recoup all rent ever paid) was a legal theory that was plausible based on a plain reading of the relevant law, but never actually got played out in practice. Does anyone have a cite on that?
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at August 30, 2013 4:40 PM
This building is owned by protected tenants. All three units including the unwarranted unit have been occupied by tenants who have been there for 10-30 years. They are all over 60 years old. They will live happily on 2271-2271 15th St for decades to come. The real owner who try to sell the building is @#$%&%ed.
Posted by: Tenants rule at August 30, 2013 4:50 PM
I call BS on Illegal units tenants rights conjecture those loops are impossible to negotiate. They will not get back rent because they received shelter for their rent. Ellis the two out (buy with a partner biz or otherwise) move in in a year, and have the current owner give the 3rd 60 day notice that you will not be renting out an illegal unit, pay relo fee, and demo the kitchen in the illegal unit as conditions of sale.
Posted by: GetOffTheIvy at August 30, 2013 5:38 PM
Well, I suppose it might also depend on whether the tenant of the illegal unit can allege that they were unaware if its unwarranted status. It might be tough to say, "I knew it was illegal but I moved in anyway, and now I want all my rent back." But if the tenant didn't sign anything acknowledging the unit's status, then they could claim ignorance and might have a good chance of recovering decades of rent from the new owner for the (alleged) fraud.
If this happened after the sale, and the former owner was nowhere to be found, the new owner would have little to no defense against such a claim, or at least that's how it looks to me.
But yeah, if one was to buy a building with this situation, you'd want to evict that tenant ASAP and demo the illegal kitchen - I think I'd refuse to take any rent from them, don't want to create a case for them ever being MY tenant.
Of course, they are probably pricing it as if it was a legal three unit building... lol
Posted by: Dubocian at August 30, 2013 8:50 PM
Just because you have lived in a building unit, ILLEGAL or not, and just because you are 60 years or older, and just because you have lived there from 10-30 years does not give you any rights to blackmail, extort or threaten the rightful legal owner with any action.
If you are required to move, then just move.
Abolish rent control and see the quality of our old buildings go up, and the rents stabilize.
Posted by: Futurist at August 31, 2013 11:32 AM
Agreed 100%, Futurist. Except that with our crazy laws, tenants DO have those legal rights, even if they don't have them morally.
The inmates run the asylum.
Posted by: Dubocian at August 31, 2013 1:33 PM