San Francisco supportive housing restraining orders

San Francisco supportive housing restraining orders - work in progress. This is not a complete list, just the easiest to find. Some may be buried deeper in the database. Somewhat related are evictions but that usually involved property damage rather than threats to staff like restraining orders

https://www.bluoz.com/blog/2017/11/21/housing-first-evictions/

Tenderloin Housing Clinic

CCH-01-319195 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC INC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS JONES 2001-02-27
CCH-01-319196 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC INC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS JONES 2001-02-27

CCH-16-578076 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. JOHN FRADET 2016-04-19

Crossover example. John Fradet shows up twice here, in 2016, and John Stewart in 2019. This is the restraining order from 2016 THC v Fradet

https://twitter.com/auweia1/status/997075862129274880

CCH-17-580027 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. ARACELIO RIVERA 2017-12-19
CCH-19-581486 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. RODERICK BASS 2019-03-28
CCH-19-581510 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. GARY KING 2019-04-04
CCH-20-582778 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. VILAYKHAM LUVAN 2020-05-12
CCH-20-583079 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. DUSEAN MARSHBURN 2020-08-25
CCH-20-583360 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. STEVE PRICE 2020-12-16
CCH-21-583394 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. TAIULA SHEPHERD 2021-01-13
CCH-21-583533 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. STEVE PRICE 2021-03-12
CCH-21-583632 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. CHRISTOPHER MCNAULTY 2021-04-14
CCH-22-584368 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. RIVELINO RAMOS 2022-01-27
CCH-22-585062 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. MARY ANN HENDRICKSON 2022-10-06
CCH-22-585069 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. MARY ANN HENDRICKSON 2022-10-07
CCH-22-585148 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. WILLIAM MCGEE 2022-11-04
CCH-22-585194 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. LAMARR HATCHER 2022-11-22
CCH-22-585228 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. FINITO MOORE 2022-12-07
CCH-22-585261 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. GLORY COLMOND 2022-12-16
CCH-22-585278 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. CHRISTINA RIZO 2022-12-22
CCH-22-585279 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. JOHN PIRRING 2022-12-22
CCH-22-585291 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. ARIEL BOYLE 2022-12-29
CCH-23-585355 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. RAYMOIN SHAW 2023-01-25
CCH-23-585473 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. PATRICIA FRANTOM 2023-03-13
CCH-23-585671 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. LUCILLE BONNER 2023-05-15
CCH-23-585672 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. MONIQUE NEAL 2023-05-15
CCH-23-585849 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. QUAYSHION DELACY SMITH 2023-07-11
CCH-23-585858 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. IMELDA PENATE 2023-07-12
CCH-23-585974 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. WAHEEMA MANCHESTER 2023-08-16
CCH-23-586160 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. TROY BEMIS 2023-10-05
CCH-24-586658 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. DEREK SIMMONS 2024-03-14
CCH-91-939069 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC DEFENDANT ASSAD VS TREVINO 1991-12-06
CCH-07-566733 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC VS. CARLOS ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ 2007-08-23
CCH-07-566736 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC VS. CARLOS ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ 2007-08-23
CCH-07-566737 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC VS. CARLOS ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ 2007-08-23
CCH-07-566738 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC VS. CARLOS ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ 2007-08-23
CCH-07-566739 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC VS. CARLOS ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ 2007-08-23
CCH-07-566740 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC VS. CARLOS ENRIQUEZ HERNANDEZ 2007-08-23
CCH-15-577557 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC VS. GLEN CRAIG 2015-11-09

This is a sample THC v Craig obtained a few years ago when it was free. Now the court charges 50 cents a page

CCH-17-579098 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. SAMANTHA HELSTROM 2017-03-16
CCH-18-581078 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. XAVIER PITTMAN 2018-10-25
CCH-19-582190 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CINIC, INC. VS. JEROME SEXTION 2019-10-08
CCH-19-582382 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. DANNY HOGGARD 2019-12-05
CCH-20-582590 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. JOE GREEN JR. 2020-02-20
CCH-20-582777 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. SAMUEL FULLWOOD 2020-05-12
CCH-20-582794 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. DUSEAN MARSHBURN 2020-05-19
CCH-20-582795 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. KIMBERLY VILLEGAS 2020-05-19
CCH-20-582863 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. DUSEAN MARSHBURN 2020-06-17
CCH-20-582962 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. JERMAINE REEVES 2020-07-15
CCH-21-583566 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. JERMAINE REEVES 2021-03-23
CCH-21-583753 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. PHILLIP DEATON 2021-06-03
CCH-21-583894 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. CURTIS ASHER 2021-07-29
CCH-21-583897 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. BEATRICE CRAWFORD 2021-07-29
CCH-21-584018 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. RAYMOND MULDOON 2021-09-07
CCH-21-584038 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. MARSHONIE WASHINGTON 2021-09-15
CCH-21-584085 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. RAYMOND MULDOON 2021-09-28
CCH-21-584198 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. MARSHONIE WASHINGTON 2021-11-09
CCH-21-584222 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. TORNADO JACKSON 2021-11-18
CCH-21-584276 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. RICHARD BOLON 2021-12-10
CCH-21-584296 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. TAJ PEGUES 2021-12-16
CCH-21-584297 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. DEALIVINA JOHNSON 2021-12-16
CCH-22-584536 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. TONI ARMIJO 2022-04-01
CCH-22-584558 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. TORNADO JACKSON 2022-04-08
CCH-22-584559 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. VS. RIVELINO RAMOS 2022-04-08

Conard House

CCH-14-575825 CONARD HOUSE INC. PLAINTIFF CONARD HOUSE INC. VS. KELLY FREEMAN 2014-06-04
CCH-14-575915 CONARD HOUSE INC. PLAINTIFF CONARD PLACE INC. VS. JUSTINN ROGERS 2014-06-30
CCH-15-577217 CONARD HOUSE INC. PLAINTIFF CONARD HOUSE INC. VS. RONALD BARNETT 2015-07-27
CCH-15-577251 CONARD HOUSE INC. PLAINTIFF CONARD HOUSE INC. VS. JAMES TAVERAS 2015-08-04
CCH-17-579829 CONARD HOUSE INC. PLAINTIFF CONARD HOUSE INC. VS. JASON MASSEY 2017-10-19
CCH-18-580975 CONARD HOUSE INC. PLAINTIFF CONARD HOUSE INC. VS. TYRONE YOUNGS 2018-09-27
CCH-18-581094 CONARD HOUSE INC. PLAINTIFF CONARD HOUSE INC. VS. KAREEM SIMS 2018-10-31
CCH-22-584551 CONARD HOUSE INC. PLAINTIFF CONCORD HOUSE INC. VS. JERSON CARRANZA 2022-04-06
CCH-07-565987 CONARD HOUSE INCORPORATED PLAINTIFF CONARD HOUSE INCORPORATED VS. ROBERT KENT KULLY 2007-03-01
CCH-17-578954 CONARD HOUSE INCORPORATED PLAINTIFF CONARD HOUSE INCORPORATED VS. MARY WHITMAN 2017-02-01

Caritas Management Corporation. Caritas is a subcrontractor that mostly does management for supportive housing in San Francisco
CCH-06-564356 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. SCOTT ANDREWS TODD 2006-01-17
CCH-06-564825 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. MARGARITA FLORES 2006-05-12
CCH-06-564826 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. MARGARITA FLORES 2006-05-12
CCH-06-565141 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. MARTIN BALTODANO 2006-08-01
CCH-13-575284 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. PHILIP ROBINSON 2013-12-23
CCH-14-575869 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. DONNIS BRAZLEY 2014-06-17
CCH-15-576585 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. VINCENT ALVARADO 2015-01-27
CCH-15-577081 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. ALBERT LEE BROWN JR. 2015-06-15
CCH-15-577095 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. ZORANA BREED 2015-06-22
CCH-16-578236 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. ANGELIQUE JORDAN 2016-06-06
CCH-17-579044 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. WILLIE SPARKS 2017-03-01
CCH-19-581823 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. AMBRIS HOLYFIELD 2019-07-03
CCH-21-583780 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. JOHN MASONE 2021-06-11
CCH-22-584790 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. DONALD ROBERT STALEY 2022-06-27
CCH-22-584805 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. DONALD ROBERT STALEY 2022-07-05
CCH-22-585005 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. AVERY CLARK 2022-09-15
CCH-23-585509 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. RONALD MESINA 2023-03-22
CCH-23-586085 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. GLORIA AGUIRRE 2023-09-12
CCH-23-586094 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. RICHARD EATON 2023-09-14
CCH-23-586281 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. AYER D'ESSARVIARD AATENHEJM 2023-11-15
CCH-23-586331 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. KEVIN WOODSON 2023-12-05
CCH-24-586667 CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. JUAN MARTINEZ 2024-03-15

Homerise, Homerise used to be Community Housing Partnership a few years ago

CCH-23-585391 HOMERISE PLAINTIFF HOMERISE VS. MAURICE PERRYMAN 2023-02-07

Community Housing Partnership

CCH-08-567655 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP PLAINTIFF COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP VS. JOHNNY MONTGOMERY 2008-04-09
CCH-08-567656 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP PLAINTIFF COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP VS. JOHNNY MONTGOMERY 2008-04-09
CCH-13-574674 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP PLAINTIFF COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP VS. KAMILAH JEFFREY 2013-05-30
CCH-19-581965 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP PLAINTIFF COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP VS. ODELL M. EDWARDS, IV 2019-08-09
CCH-19-582361 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP PLAINTIFF COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP VS. ISAAC GARCIA 2019-11-26
CCH-21-583398 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP VS. JUAN CHANG 2021-01-13
CCH-22-584675 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP PLAINTIFF COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP VS. JOHN BONTEMPS 2022-05-20
CCH-22-584676 COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP PLAINTIFF COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP VS. ZAVON JORDAN 2022-05-20

Episcopal Community Services

CCH-05-563509 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES VS. ANNA TAPIA 2005-05-20
CCH-06-565420 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES VS. ALEX ANDERSON 2006-10-06
CCH-17-579836 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES VS. JON JON NEWTON 2017-10-23
CCH-24-586666 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES VS. JUAN MARTINEZ 2024-03-15

CCH-13-574489 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO VS. PHILIP GRANADO 2013-03-29
CCH-13-574535 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO VS. PHILIP GRANADO 2013-04-19
CCH-14-575357 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO VS. ANTONIO HARTLEY 2014-01-21
CCH-14-575377 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO VS. EDWARD GATES 2014-01-24
CCH-14-576313 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO VS. DWAYNE GLOVER 2014-10-23
CCH-15-576909 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO VS. LAMAIR MARSHALL 2015-04-30
CCH-16-577769 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO VS. JOSEPH D. DOWELL 2016-01-21
CCH-21-583740 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO VS. JOHN MASONE 2021-05-28

CCH-05-563094 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES,INC. PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES,INC., VS. CEDRIC WASHINGTON 2005-01-14
CCH-05-563095 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES,INC. PLAINTIFF EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES,INC., VS. CEDRIC WASHINGTON 2005-01-14

Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation

CCH-05-563572 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT VS. MACKIE ROBINSON 2005-06-10
CCH-13-574256 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CO. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CO. VS. ERIC REXFORD HENNELL 2013-01-24
CCH-13-574933 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP VS. BRIAN KIRKPATRICK 2013-08-30
CCH-14-575996 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP VS. NATHANIEL WINSOR 2014-07-25
CCH-22-585191 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP VS. TAHA SADDIQ 2022-11-21
CCH-16-578688 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS. ALEXANDER MICHAELS 2016-11-01
CCH-17-579831 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS. TREVOR ARNOLD 2017-10-23
CCH-13-574256 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CO. PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CO. VS. ERIC REXFORD HENNELL 2013-01-24
CCH-06-565023 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MICHAEL S ADAMS 2006-07-05
CCH-06-565069 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. DEMARCUS MARTIN 2006-07-14
CCH-06-565070 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MARTIN DEMARCUS 2006-07-14
CCH-09-569964 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MARCUS JEFFERSON 2009-10-05
CCH-09-569965 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MARCUS JEFFERSON 2009-10-05
CCH-09-570042 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. JOSEF BLOHM 2009-10-23
CCH-09-570043 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. JOSEF BLOHM 2009-10-23
CCH-09-570044 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. JOSEF BLOHM 2009-10-23
CCH-09-570045 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. JOSEF BLOHM 2009-10-23
CCH-09-570046 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. JOSEF BLOHM 2009-10-23
CCH-09-570063 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570064 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570065 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570066 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570067 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570068 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570069 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570070 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570071 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570072 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570074 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570075 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-09-570076 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GERTRUDE DENISE HATCH 2009-10-28
CCH-15-577363 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. WILLIAM ROBERT WAY 2015-09-11
CCH-17-579375 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. LATASHA JONES 2017-06-07
CCH-17-579774 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ROBERT BORREGO 2017-10-04
CCH-18-580198 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. PARIS MARCEL 2018-02-09
CCH-18-580815 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. JOLESA ALEXANDER 2018-08-09
CCH-19-581323 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ANTHONY MARKS 2019-01-30
CCH-19-581422 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. LEONTINE COLLINS 2019-03-08
CCH-19-581573 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. EDWARD OSTROWSKY 2019-04-19
CCH-19-581729 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. CANDACE HENRY 2019-06-04
CCH-19-581730 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. TIMOTHY WATKINS 2019-06-04
CCH-19-581804 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ANNA MILLER 2019-06-27
CCH-19-581896 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. DELCID GUIFARRO 2019-07-23
CCH-19-582031 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. RANDELL EUGENE EVANS JR 2019-08-28
CCH-20-582555 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. TIMOTHY WELLS 2020-02-10
CCH-20-582634 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. TALMESHA BAYLIS 2020-03-04
CCH-20-582742 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. REGINALD BLUNT 2020-04-28
CCH-20-583070 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MELVIN GLAPSIE 2020-08-21
CCH-20-583087 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. JOHN SEARS IV 2020-08-28
CCH-20-583272 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. DEMETRIUS LEROY 2020-11-02
CCH-20-583328 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ANTONIO VAZ 2020-11-30
CCH-21-583426 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MOLIMAU MASAMIAI 2021-01-26
CCH-21-583475 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GBASSIE KAI FULLAH 2021-02-17
CCH-21-583491 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. PEPE MANO JR 2021-02-23
CCH-21-583678 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GBASSIEKAI FULLAH 2021-05-05
CCH-21-583736 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. LATRICE SANKEY 2021-05-28
CCH-21-583871 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MANAR GHASSIB 2021-07-19
CCH-22-584528 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. PARIS MCBRIDE 2022-03-25
CCH-22-584606 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. DAMIEN SMITH 2022-04-25
CCH-22-584611 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ANDREW WHEELER 2022-04-26
CCH-22-584647 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. DOUG BRACY 2022-05-06
CCH-22-585078 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. KEVIN THOMAS 2022-10-11
CCH-22-585091 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. SHEILA OLLISON 2022-10-14
CCH-22-585097 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. AJANAE MALAYAZIAH ADAMS 2022-10-18
CCH-22-585193 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. FREDDIE CERDONA 2022-11-22
CCH-23-585527 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. PATRICIA HUDSON 2023-03-29
CCH-23-586155 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. STEVE DOE 2023-10-04
CCH-23-586401 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GREGORY THOMAS DRISKELL 2023-12-28
CCH-24-586641 TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ZANNA BERGSTROOM 2024-03-12

John Stewart Company. John Stweart ius another subcontractr similiar to Caritas Management Corp that does property management for non profits, like TODCO for example

CCH-06-564656 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. TYRONE STEWART KEMP 2006-03-30
CCH-11-572172 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. STEVEN GLEN HARDY 2011-05-18
CCH-11-572388 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. MARTEZ DRYDEN 2011-07-22
CCH-13-574299 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. MARTINO LANGDONISI 2013-02-06
CCH-13-574575 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. ELIJAH JONES 2013-05-01
CCH-13-574782 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. PARREE FOSTER 2013-07-02
CCH-14-575474 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. JASON BANDARRA 2014-02-25
CCH-14-575728 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. ANDRE FRANKLIN 2014-05-08
CCH-14-575899 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. LISA COOPER 2014-06-25
CCH-14-576127 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. DARRELL PROCTOR 2014-09-02
CCH-15-576878 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. AMEINA ATCHISON 2015-04-21
CCH-15-577448 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. CLAIRE JULIA LAWLER 2015-10-07
CCH-16-578016 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. KENNETH DAVID LAVOIE 2016-03-30
CCH-16-578714 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. LEROY STAPLES 2016-11-08
CCH-17-579782 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. CHARLES ALDWIN BALDWIN 2017-10-05
CCH-17-579837 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. JON JON NEWTON 2017-10-23
CCH-17-579855 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. JERMINE GENOCHIO 2017-10-26
CCH-18-580108 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. MICHAEL LANE 2018-01-18
CCH-18-580618 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. ELVINA VICTORIA ROUSE 2018-06-15
CCH-19-581330 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. EUGENE JONES 2019-02-04
CCH-19-581431 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. EDWARD MINARSCH 2019-03-13
CCH-19-581864 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. JOHN FRADET 2019-07-17
CCH-19-582423 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. JENNIFER OLIVIA PEDERSEN 2019-12-19
CCH-19-582435 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF john stewart company VS. LASHEA RUSSELL 2019-12-24
CCH-20-582776 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY ET AL VS. TERANEQA RILEY 2020-05-11
CCH-20-583162 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. STEPHEN HOBBS 2020-09-24
CCH-21-584005 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. SHAHADA HULL 2021-09-01
CCH-23-585397 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. DANA DERRICK 2023-02-08
CCH-23-585578 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. ALEXANDER UPCHURCH 2023-04-14
CCH-23-585756 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. EMMANUEL UWIMAMA 2023-06-06
CCH-23-585943 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. FLORENTINO SANCHEZ TOBIE 2023-08-09
CCH-97-987612 JOHN STEWART COMPANY, THE PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS BANKS 1997-06-23
CCH-23-586127 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. MARQUISE GLOVER 2023-09-26
CCH-23-586360 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. DANRIDGE BUNDALIAN 2023-12-14
CCH-24-586486 JOHN STEWART COMPANY PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. MATTHEW WHITE 2024-01-25
CCH-89-906653 JOHN STEWART COMPANY DEFENDANT MAXIE VS JOHN STEWART CO 1989-05-24

Posted in 6th street | Leave a comment

Randy Shaw’s Power Plays 1996

This article was originally published in the SF Weekly March 27, 1996. It ios no longer in the archives. Another archive was created on
https://web.archive.org/web/20170522203419/http://archives.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/randy-shaws-power-plays/Content?oid=2132967&showFullText=true

This is a 3rd backup archive

Randy Shaw's Power Plays
Sixteen years ago, Randy Shaw started a housing clinic with $50 and a good idea: educating tenants. Now he's got more than $900,000 a year to spend -- and clout to match.
By Ellen McGarrahan
Wednesday, Mar 27 1996

It's a scene out of an activist's handbook.
Upstairs at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC), early afternoon. A meeting of the ombudspersons -- tenants of SRO hotels who are paid $115 a month to monitor hotel conditions for the THC. The housing clinic's founder and executive director, Randy Shaw, is sitting at the head of the table, and from outside the windows it is possible to hear the shouts and brakes of the traffic passing through the Tenderloin on the pavement below.

The meeting of a dozen people is just getting under way, and everybody watches Shaw as he speaks. At the moment, he's not talking about hotel conditions at all. He's indicating a pile of ballot initiative signature forms in the middle of the table.

"Wayne brought in 27 signatures for the living wage measure," Shaw is saying, talking about the upcoming initiative that, if it qualifies for the ballot, will ask Californians to raise the minimum wage. "The mayor has just supported it strongly. With the volunteer effort it's hard to get the signatures -- when it's rainy, when it's stormy. We have until the middle of April."

We. In political activism, that's the crucial word. And make no mistake about it: This is activism, grass roots down so deep you can smell the new-mown hay. "It's an example of moving ahead with an agenda," Shaw will say later, describing a tactic he recommends in his book, The Activist's Handbook, which is being published by the University of California Press in June. "That's an example of a progressive constituency moving forward."

It's also an example of how Shaw is able to marshal people and resources paid for in part with public money to his own political ends -- and an insight into why, over the years, Shaw has been extraordinarily successful at moving his agenda forward through the sometimes labyrinthine realms of San Francisco politics.

Over the last decade and a half, Shaw has built the nonprofit Tenderloin Housing Clinic from a shoestring legal outfit into an efficient organization with annual revenues of more than $900,000. Using a combination of public and private financing, Shaw has built an empire and consolidated enough power to influence city boards and to sway voters at the ballot box. What started as a $50 good idea at Hastings law school has become a perpetual-motion legal machine, one that has placed Shaw at the center of homelessness issues in San Francisco. And along the way, Shaw has become one of the unelected power players in City Hall, parlaying his reputation as a savvy and effective left-wing activist into true political clout.

But if Shaw and his Tenderloin Housing Clinic have become essential to San Francisco's anti-poverty programs, not everyone is a fan. Some residents in the SRO hotels say he isn't doing enough to improve housing conditions there, despite the THC's sizable city contract. Attorneys who represent some of the hotel owners the THC sues complain that Shaw is using the resources and the political weight of his clinic to make money rather than to right wrongs. And twice in recent years, state computers in Sacramento have flagged the Tenderloin Housing Clinic's annual returns, noting "common errors and omissions" in the financial reports, according to documents on file at the California Department of Justice.

It is perhaps the nature of activists to be alternately revered and feared. And there is no question that Shaw and his Tenderloin Housing Clinic are effective. The long list of successful lawsuits alone attests to that. But effective to what end -- everyone's? Or Shaw's own?

In 1980, a group of first-year students at Hastings College of the Law had a bright idea. Disturbed by the loss of low-income housing in the Tenderloin due to Hastings' expansion, the students got together and incorporated as the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, intending to provide free assistance to Tenderloin residents.

"We were familiar with the problems Hastings had caused," attorney Guy Campisano, one of the original THC incorporators, explains. "We were very upset about it, and we wanted to do something in that community to help atone for the displacement."

The THC started with $50 and a basic premise: to help people help themselves. The first-year law students weren't lawyers yet, Campisano says, so they couldn't give legal advice, but they could and did -- with some training, he says, from the San Francisco Tenants' Union -- point people toward other resources that might help them defend themselves against evictions or get necessary repairs made.

"When we formed this group our idea was to make it self-perpetuating, getting new people involved in it," Campisano says. "We didn't view this as something we would do and stay with for a long period of time. We wanted to get a legacy going."

Eventually, Campisano and some other students moved on to other things. But Randy Shaw, one of the THC's original founders, stayed with it -- and lit it up.

By 1982, Shaw had started working full time for the clinic, on a $12,000 grant from the Berkeley Law Foundation, and in 1983, when he was 27, he won his first major public-interest lawsuit, one that challenged rules in residential hotels that banned daytime visitors. Since then, Shaw and other THC attorneys have gone to court on behalf of thousands of tenants, suing for, among other things, wrongful eviction, breach of habitability, and discrimination. The THC has taken on class-action cases, too -- suing on behalf of tenants charged an unlawful and unrefundable $100 "key deposit," for example, and on behalf of residents of a Tenderloin hotel who found their rooms too unsanitary and dangerous to live in. And the THC has litigated against city departments and contested laws passed by the Board of Supervisors, suing to force the building inspectors to hold prompt hearings on code violations, for example, and to bar the ability of landlords to pass through tax increases caused by bond measures to their tenants.

After 10 years of fighting for tenants in court, the THC branched out. In 1989, Shaw proposed a program -- paid for by the city but run through the THC -- that would serve as a go-between for welfare recipients and hotel owners. Called the Modified Payments Program (MPP), it authorizes the THC to act as a tenant broker for residential hotel owners. "The landlord is guaranteed their rent payment, and folks who are very, very low-income are guaranteed housing," explains Maggie Donohue, program administrator for the Department of Social Services.

The MPP has become the Tenderloin Housing Clinic's biggest project. In six years, it has grown from $102,000 to $458,000, and now constitutes about half of the THC's annual expenditures. Shaw himself receives 43.5 percent of his annual $65,000 salary from the hotel program, and the clinic's legal staff is partially funded by a federal Community Development Block Grant, which pays $87,450 a year to the Tenderloin Housing Clinic.

In fact, Shaw says, "all the employees of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, every employee, gets some kind of city money. They're all listed."

But while public funds make up a large portion of the THC's monies, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic has found another way to earn revenue: lawsuits.

Antoinetta Stadlman has lived in the Baldwin House hotel since 1991. By 1995, she was fed up with its condition. Clued in by a newspaper article to a law that allows neighbors to lodge nuisance claims against property owners who allow illegal or disturbing activities to continue unabated, Stadlman and 14 other tenants took Baldwin House owner Nick Patel to small-claims court and won $5,000 each, the maximum allowable under the law.

Patel appealed the decision to Superior Court. In Superior Court, unlike small-claims court, lawyers are more or less required. Stadlman called around. A private lawyer said he'd take the case -- for $25,000, or 30 percent of the overall settlement. Stadlman thought that was too expensive, so she asked the Tenderloin Housing Clinic for help.

"Randy said he'd do it," Stadlman says. But not for free.
Specifically, Stadlman says, Shaw offered her a contingency-fee arrangement: We handle the suit for you, and we get 25 percent of the settlement, up to $20,000. And Stadlman is grateful for that -- "They gave me a $5,000 break," she says, comparing the THC's contingency rate to the private lawyer's. But still, she decided to continue looking for a lawyer who would take the case for free.

Shaw says the fees were necessary because of the amount of work the case demanded. Generally, when a lawyer takes a case on a contingency basis, he must win the case (or win a settlement) in order to be paid. If the lawyer loses, then neither the lawyer nor the law firm gets any money.

It might come as a surprise that a nonprofit legal organization, with lawyers paid for partly with public funds, can earn money for its work. But under federal tax laws and the rules regulating charitable trusts in the state of California, there are no prohibitions on the amounts or kinds of fees that nonprofit organizations, including law firms, can charge to their clients, as long as the organization is doing the charitable work it was incorporated to do. In fact, there's no law that says a nonprofit can't make money.

And going to court on behalf of low-income people has been lucrative indeed for the Tenderloin Housing Clinic.

A window on the financial workings of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic is provided by the annual documents that the clinic and every other tax-exempt nonprofit charity or educational foundation must file with the Internal Revenue Service. The document is called a Form 990. It is a public record, and must be made available for inspection to any member of the public who asks to see it. Shaw, when first asked for the documents, is reluctant to provide them, snapping, "Go get everything from the city," into the telephone. "I'm not going to do your work for you," he says, but relents when it is pointed out to him that federal law requires that the 990s be made available on request. The THC's 990s are also, however, on file at the California Department of Justice, which is where the SF Weekly obtained them.

The 990s show that from 1985 to 1990, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic revenues grew exponentially -- almost all through lawsuit money. In 1985, which is the first year for which the THC's 990s are available at the Department of Justice in Sacramento, the organization received $66,000 in government grants and $18,000 in "program service revenue," which included "court awards, statutory fees, etc." according the 1985 filing. By 1989, business at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic had boomed -- 990 forms for that year show $126,179 in government grants and $495,678 in "Program service revenue -- proceeds form [sic] litigation; Attorney Fees."

Fueled with this explosion of lawsuit revenue, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic was sufficiently flush in 1990 to invest in a $163,500 option to purchase 126 Hyde St., where its offices are now located. In recent years, attorney's fees and court settlements have accounted for one-third of the THC's revenues, according to disclosures the THC makes to the IRS, to the San Francisco Department of Social Services, and to the Mayor's Office of Community Development.

In public-interest law, the ability of the winning side to force the losers to pay up is an important tool -- allowing, as it does, those who might not otherwise be able to go to court to have their costs covered. Organizations from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to the Legal Services Corp. use court-awarded attorney's fees to fund their work. So does the Tenderloin Housing Clinic.

But unlike the ACLU or Legal Services, the THC also files suits on a contingency basis, which means that the plaintiffs in the suits share their monetary settlements or awards with the THC if the suit is successful. The ACLU doesn't do contingency-fee work on principle, Public Information Director Elaine Elinson says.

"The ACLU doesn't charge anybody for doing any legal work," she says. "We would never charge the person."

And Legal Services organizations, funded through the federal government, are barred by law from entering into contingency-fee arrangements.

The THC, on the other hand, uses the contingency-fee arrangement in its cases, even where it is also awarded attorney's fees.

For a peek at how the THC has handled at least one fee arrangement, consider the case that Roy Frye, a Tenderloin resident, brought in 1993 against the landlord of the building where he lived. The building, Frye said, was in terrible condition -- peeling paint, non-working elevators, roaches everywhere. The Tenderloin Housing Clinic handled the case, won a $516,246.67 judgment for Frye and his 14 co-plaintiffs, and was awarded $96,000 in attorney's fees by Judge Thomas Mellon, according to San Francisco Superior Court files.

Frye's perception is that the Tenderloin Housing Clinic handled the case for free, because he didn't pay any money up front. "We signed a contingency agreement on an individual basis," he says. "I believe it was 33 percent. It was the legal fees that the attorneys charge on handling a case like this, none of us putting up any money. I think it went up to about 40 percent if the case went to trial, which it did."

But while Frye is happy with the way the Tenderloin Housing Clinic handled his case, he is mistaken about one thing -- according to the rules of the California Bar Association, handling a case on a contingency basis is not the same thing as handling it for free.

On the forms that the THC files with the IRS, the clinic describes itself "as the city's chief provider of free legal services to tenants." And in fact, that's a large part of the THC's local reputation -- as a place where people have their housing problems solved for free. But by 1993, the Tender-loin Housing Clinic had stopped applying for one grant that required it to prove its main purpose was to provide free legal services.

The grant was from the California Bar Association's Legal Services Trust Fund program. In order to qualify for that money, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic "had to convince us that their primary services and function were providing free legal services," according to Bar Association staffer Judy Garlow, who directs the trust fund program. The THC did convince the Bar Association that it met that requirement, she says, but then the THC stopped applying for it. The reason? "The burden of trying to continue to establish that for us wasn't worth the amount of the grant," Garlow says. Shaw concurs:After weighing "the amount of money versus the amount of time spent preparing the statements for the trust fund," he says the THC decided not to continue to apply.

Now, it is entirely legal for the Tenderloin Housing Clinic to work on a contingency-fee basis, as long as the money is earned doing work in accordance with its stated charitable purpose. At the IRS, Public Information Officer Analisa Collins-Sears says federal 501(c)(3) guidelines regulating the activities of nonprofits don't prohibit work on a contingency-fee basis, but that "it depends on how everything is set up in the tax-exempt group."

And the IRS doesn't really monitor how the money earned from fees is put to work, Collins-Sears says, as long as the majority of the charitable organization's work continues to be in accord with its incorporated purpose. This has enabled Shaw, with his publicly funded staff and his clinic's tax-exempt status, to plow the revenues generated from legal work back into his clinic for bankrolling his political work -- like supporting ballot initiatives, as Shaw states in his new book.

"I had learned in 1991 that 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations are permitted to spend money on ballot initiatives, and I could not think of a better use of Clinic funds than to spend them on an initiative that would lower rents," he writes. "The Tenderloin Housing Clinic generates unrestricted funds by representing tenants in lawsuits against landlords, so we had the money to spend." The THC has paid for pollsters and campaign advertising in initiatives, according to his book.

And in politics, perhaps even more than elsewhere, money to spend means one thing: clout.

Andrew Zacks is an attorney in private practice who has faced the Tenderloin Housing Clinic in court frequently. Zacks' clients are hotel owners, who in San Francisco are not a politically endearing lot. Zacks and Shaw have often battled over the San Francisco Hotel Conversion Ordinance, which prohibits hotel owners from renting residential rooms to tourists. It's a law that the THC essentially wrote.

In 1979, San Francisco first looked around and noticed that residential hotel rooms were disappearing. Some 6,000 rooms had been taken off the market or demolished by landlords who saw better business opportunities than renting to the down and out. Concerned that this housing resource for low-income people was disappearing, the city passed an ordinance that barred hotel owners from converting residential rooms to tourist use. The new law slowed the shrinkage of the housing stock, but not hugely so: Over the next eight years, another 8,161 residential hotel rooms disappeared. In 1994, there were 13,951 occupied residential hotel rooms, 1,777 occupied tourist rooms in residential hotels, and 5,072 vacant rooms in San Francisco, according to housing inspector Rosemary Bosque.

In 1990, the Hotel Conversion Ordinance (HCO) was substantially amended. The new version of the law added something: It allowed nonprofits that have "the preservation or improvement of housing as a stated purpose in its articles of incorporation" to become parties to the action. This meant that people who didn't live in hotels but who wanted to sue hotel owners for violating the conversion ordinance could haul the landlords into court. The Tenderloin Housing Clinic was eligible to sue under the new ordinance. The THC also wrote the new law.

"They were working on the political side of things to get it written and adopted," says Department of Building Inspection Public Information Officer Peter Burns. "I know they were involved in it."

Or, as hotel lawyer Zacks puts it: "It was created by Randy for Randy."
"Oh sure, absolutely," Shaw says, when asked if the THC helped revise the HCO ordinance. The changes, he says, "preserved the central thrust but increased enforceability because never until then did nonprofits have the right to initiate civil litigation."

Shaw says the HCO is an essential piece of legislation. Look around, he argues -- San Francisco's residential hotel stock is the most plentiful in the nation, thanks to his enforcement of the conversion law.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any city has been as successful as we have in preserving our residential hotels," he says. "I don't think any city has been as successful as we have because we have this ordinance and because we've spent 15 years enforcing it."

But Zacks sees things differently. The HCO, as written, is a boon for the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, he says. Zacks says it allows Shaw to bring suit almost whenever he pleases, and to settle for as much money as he wants to, regardless of whether the hotel owners in question are operating in bad faith or not.

"We settle with him, and he comes back six months, a year later and sues again," Zacks says.

Since 1990, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic has been a plaintiff in over 20 lawsuits brought against hotel owners for violating the statute. A review of the court documents shows that some of the cases have been brought against the same group of hotel owners, which Shaw attributes to continued law violations and Zacks chalks up to THC harassment.

And going up against the Tenderloin Housing Clinic is difficult, Zacks says, since its lawyers are publicly funded and private law firms are not, despite what Zacks sees as similarities in the way they conduct business.

"We believe he's not really a nonprofit," Zacks says.
"Without the hotel ordinance, without zoning laws, we'd be in the same situation as New York City," Shaw responds, "where you have massive numbers of homeless adults who simply have no place to live."

Of course, what the Hotel Conversion Ordinance bans is illegal conversion of hotel rooms to tourist use from residential use. Legal conversion of the rooms is possible, and in fact, Giampaolo Boschetti, who owns 126 Hyde St., where the Tenderloin Housing Clinic's offices are, and with whom the THC entered into an option to buy the building, owns and runs a tourist hotel, the Hotel Verona, in the heart of the Tenderloin. The hotel was once a home for homeless and mentally ill adults, according to documents on file at the Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Department of Building Inspection.

The Hotel Verona is right around the corner from the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. When Boschetti bought it in mid-1986, he renamed it and opened its doors to tourists. Under previous owners, the hotel was called the Hotel Burbank, and a newspaper article contained in the hotel's file at the Department of Building Inspection says this: "Resident/patients of the Hotel Burbank, a mental health facility for San Francisco's homeless and disabled, are up in arms about their treatment." A 1985 inspection report notes the newspaper story and says its complaints are groundless as to the building conditions, but does not dispute the characterization of the Hotel Burbank as a facility for the homeless.

But even if it was housing the homeless as "resident/patients," the Burbank was never officially designated as a residential hotel. According to city files, when the time came for hotel rooms to be labeled residential or tourist, the Burbank was designated a residential hotel, but it successfully appealed that decision in an administrative hearing and won tourist hotel status in 1982. This, despite the fact that the Burbank listed three apartments in addition to 62 guest rooms on city registers for years. When Boschetti bought it, he was able to open it as a tourist operation, even if the year before it was housing the homeless.

Boschetti won't comment about his connection with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. "I am the owner of the building that they are in. I think there is kind of a conflict of interest here," he says. "I, you know, I have someone here in my office right now. Can I call you back?"

And though Shaw has battled tourist hotel conversion since the beginning of his career, he won't comment on Boschetti, although he takes time out to praise the hotel owner as a good landlord.

The rewriting of the Hotel Conversion Ordinance to suit the Tenderloin Housing Clinic's agenda isn't the only example of Shaw's political clout. Over the years, he has come to rank with S.F.'s pre-eminent unelected powerhouses -- pushing through ballot initiatives, lobbying with THC funds, organizing hotel residents around political causes, and even substantially reorganizing part of city government in the way that he thought best.

It was within the first year of founding the Tenderloin Housing Clinic as a student volunteer, back in 1980, that Shaw first launched himself into political activism, helping the North of Market Planning Coalition to organize against a proposal to build luxury hotels in the Tenderloin.

Since then, Shaw has used the combined weight of the clinic's courtroom activities and his organizing capabilities to shape city law. The THC bankrolled and pushed successful local ballot measures: The first, which tightened rent control laws, was on the ballot as Proposition H in 1992; the second, Proposition G, created a brand-new city department, the Department of Building Inspection, and passed in 1994.

"I am a big believer in nonprofit advocacy organizations' spending money on ballot measures," Shaw writes in The Activist's Handbook. "With funding so precious," he continues, later on the same page, "nonprofit social change advocacy organizations should participate in and be counted upon to help fund initiative campaigns seeking to benefit their constituencies. Staff of nonprofit advocacy groups often tell me that spending money directly on ballot measures is too 'controversial' or 'political.' Unfortunately, an organization that fears controversy or politics is not likely to achieve social change."

Prop. G was bitterly contested on both sides.
In 1994, it was Prop. G that removed the old Bureau of Building Inspection from under the Department of Public Works and created it as its own separate entity. Prop. G gave the new Department of Building Inspection the power to set policy and to act as a board of appeals for building permits. Written into the initiative was the provision that two of the new commission members be a residential builder and a representative of a nonprofit housing developer.

The two dominant forces backing the proposition were an unlikely pair -- Shaw and a man named Joe O'Donoghue, the head of the Residential Builders Association. "They're on the side of God and the angels," Shaw says.

The Prop. G campaign, built on an unlikely alliance, spawned unlikely opposition -- the San Francisco League of Neighborhoods lined up with the Chamber of Commerce against it. And it was the most controversial item on the ballot that year. The fight over Prop. G spilled past the election season, when a member of the newly created Building Inspection Commission, longtime THC employee Jamie Sanbonmatsu, used his new office to request a city investigation of one of the most vocal Prop. G opponents, Timothy Gillespie.

"My objection to Prop. G was that it appeared to be a proposition that was manufactured by a coalition of special interests," says Gillespie, who heads the Public Access Project.

Gillespie raised questions about the financing of Prop. G, which was bankrolled by the Residential Builders Association and the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. After he wrote on Public Access Project letterhead requesting city documents, Sanbonmatsu, on Building Inspection Commission letterhead, asked the city attorney to investigate Gillespie for a "failure to comply with lobbyist registration laws."

"In recent days, he has been going through the Tenderloin Housing Clinic contracts at the Department of Social Services," Sanbonmatsu complained in his letter.

The city attorney looked into the matter and said Gillespie wasn't a lobbyist.

In a letter to the Building Inspection Commission president, Gillespie called Sanbonmatsu's letter "an odious attempt to silence my criticisms of the commission."

In addition to supporting ballot initiatives, Shaw has also thrown his weight behind Mayor Willie Brown. In his office at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, campaign posters for Brown litter the floor. During the election in 1995, Shaw's picture appeared in a campaign flier endorsing Brown. The flier, titled "Willie Brown's Bill of Tenant Rights," gave Brown rave reviews, and Shaw was identified as "executive director, Tenderloin Housing Clinic." Since the articles of incorporation of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic expressly prohibit the organization from involvement in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate, and since federal nonprofits are barred by law from participating in campaigns, some people took note after the election.

IRS spokeswoman Analisa Collins-Sears says indeed, the endorsement could be improper.

"If they use their title they're implying indirectly that the organization is supporting a candidate," she says. "You could possibly put your organization in jeopardy because the organization is definitely not supposed to do this."

Shaw says people knew it was just his personal endorsement: "It's very common."

But of course, lawsuits and political work aren't the only calling cards the Tenderloin Housing Clinic has. A large part of the clinic's public standing, and the thing that it is perhaps most widely known for, is its MPP contract.

The MPP was Shaw's idea -- a program administered by the Tenderloin Housing Clinic that serves as a go-between among the city, the owners of residential hotels, and the hotel residents. Under MPP, the THC negotiates a lower-than-market rental rate for residential hotel rooms with hotel owners. People sign up with the THC for the MPP, and their checks are sent to the THC office, which then pays their rent directly to the hotel owners. The poor get housing, the hotels get tenants, and the THC gets a cut of the action to cover administrative costs. But not every low-income person residing in the hotels under the MPP program believes it does much to improve his living conditions.

Shaw is known as an expert on homelessness and housing issues because of his involvement with conditions in residential hotels. In 1982, when the THC was still tiny, Shaw led a wintertime crusade to get more heat into the SROs. Philosophically, the MPP is descended from that activist tradition. The program accounts for almost half of the THC's expenditures and gives Shaw a platform to talk from on hotel issues.

The way the MPP works, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic can refuse to send welfare recipients to hotels that receive a "poor" rating from the Department of Public Health or the Department of Building Inspection. The idea is to force hotel owners and managers to keep their hotels in better condition or to risk losing a valuable source of income for their rooms.

Shaw says the MPP has vastly improved the quality of the hotels. "You should have seen the hotels in the '80s," he says.

But sometimes -- as in the case of the Baldwin House, for example, where Wayne Hobby and Antoinetta Stadlman live -- that isn't the case. As recently as 1994, the Baldwin House was a success story for the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, a hotel considered so safe and sound that the clinic's application for a federal housing grant showcased it. The Baldwin House had services for its tenants in the lobby, including job counseling and treatment programs, and, Stadlman says, "it was the best hotel the Tenderloin Housing Clinic had."

But then things went downhill, and the MPP and the THC were powerless to stop the slide. These days, Stadlman says, "sometimes when you go out there's blood smeared all over the hallways from knife fights." For the last year and a half, the Baldwin House has been off the MPP, but conditions haven't improved.

Shaw says it's not his fault -- that the Tenderloin Housing Clinic is doing what it can, but that there's a limit to what is possible.

Shaw says the MPP doesn't provide enough of a stick to prod hotel owners into improving hotel conditions: "Obviously not. ... That's why we needed the Department of Building Inspection, that's why we put Prop. G. on the ballot," he says. "That situation's being addressed."

But some of the people in the hotels want him to do more.
"Randy says if we get too hard on these hotels they're going to shut down and there's not going to be anyplace to put people," says Tom Mangold, who lives in the Columbia Hotel and works as an ombudsman for the THC. "I say bullshit, because we have to live in these conditions."

And longtime housing advocate Calvin Welch, a strong Shaw supporter, says that the complaints of people in the hotels do have some merit.

"The [complaints] involving the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, I, too, have heard those complaints and I am not going to tell you that they are baseless. I think there are some very legitimate concerns," Welch says. "I think the basic reason for this is the declining level of support. I mean, nonprofits can only exist through public funding."

The financial statements of the THC, however, seem to contradict Welch's statement -- the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, at least, does not exist only through public funding. Between 1990 and 1993, according to the financial information the Tenderloin Housing Clinic files with the IRS, government grants provided $1.9 million for the THC. During that same time period its lawsuit revenues totaled another $1.1 million.

But if the clinic has been assiduous in obtaining public funding and lawsuit revenues, it has not taken the same amount of care filling out its required reports, according to letters on file at the California Department of Justice.

In 1993 and in 1994, the THC received letters from the Attorney General's Office about "possible reporting errors" on its 990 forms and on the CT-2 forms nonprofits must file with the state.

The letters are routine, generated when computer checks of the 990 and CT-2 forms flag something that seems unusual, says Larry Campbell, registrar of the Office of Charitable Trusts in the Department of Justice.

The computer check is "in no way an audit," Campbell emphasizes. But, he adds, the letters don't go out all that often. "Ten percent or less of all reports we receive are getting these," Campbell says. "This organization was in the top 10 percent of organizations seeming inconsistent."

Among the inconsistencies the Department of Justice computer spotted in the THC's financial returns: discrepancies in the amount of public funding reported on the 990s and CT-2s, a higher-than-normal rate of compensation for the THC as a whole, and an "unreliable" summary of securities activity, according to the documents.

In 1994, for example, the THC reported owning $82,000 in securities at the beginning of the year and $0 at the end of the year, but did not report if the securities were sold. A net return of $862 on the securities was reported, however. And it simply did not answer some of the questions -- which have boxes for "yes" and "no" -- on the form. According to Campbell, all lines on all forms are supposed to be filled out in order to provide an accurate picture of an organization's financial transactions and status. Kind of in the same way that the Hotel Conversion Ordinance requires hotels to keep logs of all rooms, with no omissions or late additions -- it's so you can tell who's renting to residents and who to tourists.

Reviewing the reports, Campbell says, "This looks like it's strangely prepared."

And are all those blanks ordinary? "That's kind of an unusual case," Campbell says.

As for salaries, the THC spends more than $500,000 a year on salaries. And even its own board has a question about one of the numbers on the financial forms -- about $50,000 in 1993 and 1994 for "fund raising."

At its meeting on Dec. 5, 1995, according to meeting minutes contained in the THC's file at the Mayor's Office of Community Development, the board was wanting "clarification" as to what, exactly, that expenditure was. The minutes state, "We will seek clarification of the meaning the terms [sic] 'fund raising' and 'memo' as used in the financial report."

Shaw, when asked, says the Tenderloin Housing Clinic doesn't do any fund-raising, but that putting money into a "fund raising" category on a financial return is a standard accounting practice. The IRS, however, disagrees -- "We would expect it to be used for what they're saying they're using it for," says Public Information Officer Collins-Sears. "You should be spending it on fund-raising if you list it."

In a way, what you think of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic -- and in San Francisco, many people have many opinions -- depends on what you think of the work the THC does.

There are those in San Francisco who applaud Randy Shaw.
"He is opinionated, he makes mistakes, but net-net, after it's all said and done, this city is a better place for the vast majority of its residents because of Randy Shaw," says Calvin Welch. "And I respect the hell out of him for it."

Indeed, around San Francisco, Shaw is something of a sacrament. Ask enough questions about him, and word filters back to the small, wood-floored office that is command central for the rolling tactical operations of the THC. Call someone to ask about the THC, and they instantly want to know "the angle" on the story: Is it good? Is it bad?

Randy Shaw has a phrase for what he does. He calls it "proactive agenda-setting." It's what The Activist's Handbook is all about -- taking the initiative, forcing the world around to one's own point of view. And over the last 15 years, that is exactly what the Tenderloin Housing Clinic has done: It has written laws, enforced them, created city agencies and social services programs, and provided revenue for itself while maintaining an activist stance.

But if Shaw has spent the better part of the last two decades peeling up society's floorboards and looking underneath, he rejects the same kind of scrutiny directed at himself or his housing clinic. When SF Weekly first called him for this story, he said he would not agree to be interviewed because "we've decided we can't trust the Weekly." Later he agreed to several interviews.

Trust, of course, is part of what activism is based on: You trust yourself against your enemies. Trust is sometimes predicated on fear. The premise behind the idea of a nonprofit is slightly different than trust; it's charity -- the notion that it is possible to work for a larger good. If scrutinizing the workings of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic seems unnecessary, given the work that the clinic has set itself toward doing, it isn't: Tax-exempt, funded in part with public money, the clinic is a public beneficiary, and scrutiny is part of the territory.

And as more and more social services are delivered through nonprofits rather than by the government, organizations like Shaw's are being pushed to the front lines of society. It's a system that allows someone who's smart about it to create his or her own kingdom. Even though sometimes, in kingdoms, what's important is simply what the king wants.

Research assistance provided by Liza Goodwin.

Tags: Feature, Randy Shaw, San Francisco, Andrew Zacks, Hotel Conversion Ordinance

Posted in 6th street | Leave a comment

The Tenderloin downzone doom loop

The Tenderloin downzone doom loop started in the 1980's with the goal of preserving housing for low income tenants, but over time has become corrupted and completely skewed from it's original intent. This centers on two laws from that era, the SRO Demolition Ordinance and a planning commission code limiting height in the Tenderloin area. Both of these are linked here

In 2011, the writer of these two laws, Randy Shaw, spoke at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and bragged about downzoning the Tenderloin. This was followed by H Brown saying that Randy Shaw has displaced the original working poor in Tenderloin SROs and replaced them with addicts. This is because Randy Shaw and other non profits contract with the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing which has a policy of prioritizing addicts for these SROs. Randy Shaw admits this in his own blog and also admits developing this policy prioritizing addicts. This means that the intent was not to preserve low income housing as has been claimed , but to replace low income working people with hardcore drug addicts from around the country

This large scale replacement of low income people with hard core drug addicts is now described in a lawsuit involving the Granada hotel at 1000 Sutter charging there is a long term business plan to replace low income tenants with more profitable supportive housing tenants which are all primarily hardcore substance abusers, which has been the primary stated mission of supportive housing non profits since at least 2001

This has resulted in a containment zone as described by former police chief George Gascon io 2010

In 2010, Gascon said that supportive housing clients made up 4000 out of 20,000 SRO rooms. In 2024, that number is now over 13,000

This has resulted in maps like this which is causing the destruction of downtown. The highest vacancies in San Francisco are now in the Mid Market area, in the middle of these maps. Vacancies are now at 45% according to research

Further reading on the decades long eviction cycle in the Tenderloin known as The Churn

Post script. Jennifer Friedenbach, head of the Coalition on Homelessness admits that the UN Plaza night drug market exists because of nearby supportive housing residents

Posted in 6th street | Leave a comment

Los Angeles Sheriff Alex Villanueva public forum July 21, 2021

On July 21, 2021, LA county Sheriff Villanueva held a publuc forum Q&A abd presser originally posted on Instagram here

This has now been re-upped to youtube and a transcript made

Ok folks were going to give a good chance for people to catch, join on board and we’re gonna improvise Facebook as our Facebook and iPad is not been very friendly today so we’ll convert and we’ll save the image and we’ll save it with our social media

We’re up to 846 live over there okay so that numbers get real so we’re good to start right good morning everyone, thanks for signing in and tuning in, so we have the quite a bit information to discuss and work in a focus on the homeless but before we start with that are crime stats for this for the week. We have a 56% increase in criminal homicide. We have a 10% increase in aggravated assault and a 29% increase grand theft auto and a 9% increase in arson but according to our politicians everything is okay. The state of California were model of national criminal justice reform. Okay, given that on the CCW front where at the 1213 issued another 241 in the hopper and go to our website get information on that and an unrelated note, crimes of violence with guns with firearms up 50% was corresponding with an increase in the homicide is that number remains fairly consistent. So now let’s go and let's talk about Venice, the boardwalk.

We did some assessments and will continue with that process. Now we had an interruption while we let the, the city of LA Mr. Bonins a fearless group out there on the boardwalk do their thing and there's some shuffling around. We have a map here. This map shows pretty much all the contacts we made the outreach we did. The outreach process is not over. That's ongoing but we did an assessment, we came up with some interesting numbers for the boardwalk and it turns out that it's 70% male, 29% female and a 1% transgender that's on the boardwalk and then we got that 57% whites we get 24% black, we have 13% Hispanic, and other comes out to 4% so those are the numbers on the board in terms of demographics but the really interesting piece of the puzzle here is where they come from for the people we could identify their place of origin. We have 33 contacts are in California and then we have from Illinois, Louisiana we got three individuals from Mexico. We got three from Michigan. Of those seven from Illinois. We got to three from Ohio, three from Texas, we got Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia. We get one fellow from Germany one from Iraq, we got Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee. I think I know the Tennessee fellow, Washington and Wisconsin. So there you have it folks and that is the 23 states and based on our governor's proclamation the other day that the California dream is alive and well and he's inviting everyone to California to share in the California dream. I don’t know if know he's pining for the other 20 – 26 states to come join us here but since LA County has half of the state’s entire homeless population were not in a position to have all these people show up however governor if you wish to have them in your vineyards in your property in your mansion, by all means you have the freedom to invite them there but here in LA County were were pretty much full and we got our hands full with the problem right now. Okay. We also located four missing persons let me see what else do we have. We also came across 40 individual self identified as nomadic travelers. Isn’t that special? Allright so that's what we got on the boardwalk. That's 250 people that we interviewed and we’re back out there and were going to try to find shelter to try to them on their feet and on their way and clean up the messes out there. There’s now a significant group that has shifted onto the sand itself and there’s is problems. We’re also getting a lot more images from tourists who are posting on YouTube about the horrors of Venice and it’s really not improving our tourism industry. I hope Mayor, you’re taking note of this and councilman Bonin you’re taking note of this since between the two of you are singularly responsible as architects of failure. But at the rate we're going, the we might have someone joining the ranks of the architects of failure and that would be our governor Gavin Newsom. And why do I say that? Because while he's announcing a $12 billion proposal and that total billion dollar proposal looks suspiciously identical to the six and half billion dollars we already spent in the last 10 years to address the homeless crisis here in LA County and it grew from 39,000 over 80,000 I believe that the last count is 82,000 and change. So if it more than doubled in size and he spent six and half billion dollars, where did that money go? Why on earth would we then volunteer to spend another 12 billion on top of that, where is that money going to go? For one it’s not going to help by inviting homeless from other states to come here to enjoy the California dream for sure and let’s just say this if his service providers, consultants, all these different agencies are receiving the money they're paying salaries or paying employee benefits they’re paying for an army of people around there with clipboards, it’s not getting to the people to need help. What I needed to hear from the governor and from the board supervisors is a plan to create residential psychiatric treatment facilities that has stepped down capacity from those that are most gravely disabled that are a threat to themselves to others and then those that can be a medium level of treatment and obviously let lower level of safeguards and those can be treated in an outpatient basis and community basis. We need to have all these levels of treatment. We have those in the county jail. We don’t want to use a county jail for that purpose. But nowhere in your proposal are you advocating to building state facilities that provides for those it have severe mental illness. Know you're going to throw more money after the money you already misspent so that's not going to help the problem governor, you're actually compounding the problem. And you already said by your words and your actions that hey everyone come to California and you're gonna get free stuff, and maybe even free housing, permanent housing, no less. And that's really not we need to hear Los Angeles County. In fact governor if you spoke to people here in Los Angeles County and the homeless industrial complex, the so-called experts that are experts at spending money and seen the problem get worse know-how about the real people on the street about the people of the residence themselves. Heck some of the homeless themselves are saying ‘hey, we can't survive in this’. Let’s listen to the business owners. Let’s listen to the people out of state, out of country who are not using LA as a place to engage in tourism and commerce, yeah that's a big problem. All those boarded up businesses, they’re boarded up for a reason and we’re past the blame the pandemic on everything now.

Okay so we have a bad situation only made worse and now and let this be clear about this, if people want to roll up their sleeves and work collaboratively with the Sheriff's Department to regulate public space, reestablish a sense of order in the community and get shelter for those in need, establish safe campgrounds safe RV areas, the hygiene stations, get the trash removal all that stuff and cleanup the public spaces that belong to everyone count us in, that includes the state, the county, the city, and every place in LA County. That needs to happen and we need to start regulating public space again.
And so if you want to work, yes, we’re more than happy to do that. I understand there was a sighting today, like a Bigfoot sighting. It was a sighting of councilman Bonin on the boardwalk this morning and someone sent me a photo to prove it, so I hope that Mr. Bonin can look at all the empty shells of buildings that used to occupy businesses, residential structures that people are not living in anymore, soak it all in, councilmember because you’re probably one of the main architects of failure in that district. Allright, so we want to work collaboratively and were going to be out there in force. We’re going to be up and down the beach from Malibu all the way down to Marina del Rey and we’ll be working collaboratively with local law enforcement and we want to establish a very visible presence, we want to let people know it is safe to enjoy the beach. We are not going to tolerate any extreme behavior that’s going to jeopardize the residential community, the tourists, the guests from out of other places in LA County from out of state, out of country. No it has to be a safe experience, a pleasant experience for everyone. Ok, so we’re here to do that. Something else that came to my attention. We had again, this again. It's all in the homeless thing. Two days ago our investigators from arson explosive detail, they went to Malibu Lagoon state beach in Malibu to assist the Lost Hills station and California State Parks and they had two fires at the location in three days. Investigators determined the fires were in a transient camp and were human caused, and it’s a big threat. You know what happens if the condition is just right here at the foothills. You're not going improve the situation by allowing these encampments to grow, so we are working actively our host team is working out there to clear out the encampments. They’re a threat to be at the flashpoint of the wildland fires where the urban interface with the wildlands, the foothills. That is our prime area. That is Topanga Canyon, Pacific Palisades, and all around the perimeters of the Malibu area. All of those are high fire danger areas. We have to make sure we clear these encampments. That's a threat to everyone's safety, allright.

So, with that, the last thing I think I need a comment on is apparently the governor, let’s go back to our favor governor here, he's joining with law enforcement leaders and big 13 mayors to discuss state action to fight and prevent crime, signs legislation targeting organized retail threat. Well, here's the problem I have with the situation here. Proposition 47 and district attorneys who pride themselves to being called progressive reform minded that are not enforcing the rule of law and they're not prosecuting theft, are the problem, so you can form all the task force you want with the CHP that has literally nothing to do with retail theft anywhere in the state of California and it’s not going to help the situation. What we need is action, force, rule of law. The laws are already on the book local law enforcement via sheriff departments, police departments, they are the ones that enforce on that theft and if they don't have a district attorney that’s going to actually follow through and do a prosecution out of these, you’re going to have people like I just saw the video this morning at T.J. Maxx. Two gentlemen walked in, gathered up all the clothes they could wrap their arms around and walked out.

In the past, pre-47 in pre-these progressive DAs like George Gascon they’d at least bother to run out. Now they’re not even bothering to run out. They just casually stroll out with all the time in the world, knowing that, hey, as long as they keep the tally under 950 it’s perfectly okay. Then have the folks from alternatives to incarceration. that group of geniuses at the county level. they want to decriminalize a range of crimes they claim targets the poor. Well, I'm sorry, but you can be honorable and respect the rule of law and be poor. In fact that is taught, and poverty has nothing to do with that. It's about just respecting the rights of other people and respecting private property. So, Mr. Governor, I believe he endorsed George Gascon for DA. And I believe he also endorsed the DA from San Francisco and how is that working out with this progressive movement to decriminalize everything? So I think you need to re-think long and hard about your position as governor. How it’s impacting the life and safety everywhere in California because our mom-and-pop stores, they cannot underwrite that type of a loss because were not prosecuting a petty theft. We raise the threshold of petty theft to $950 for 400 that is just, it’s not going to work, right and is leading to a lawless society and were eroding the very fabric of our civil society and that is not working and so I'm really not too sure exactly what you plan doing with either your homeless plan or your response to violent crime and the legislation targeting organized retail theft is, uh, meaningless, in light of prop 47 and DAs refusing to do their job. There's no point to it and local law enforcement understands that.

So, with that said, I think we’re going to go to some questions and let's see what we got to date, ok we got some questions already and also have a very nice card I received. I think I may read it to y'all at the very end, which is very very uplifting. If you have gotten funding increase, why is crime going up? Nope, I don't think you got the memo. We’re getting defunded. We lost another 143 million this fiscal year. Last fiscal year was 145 million. He also froze out 1400 of our position, so no, were actually trending in the wrong direction. We’re being defunded and we have a DA who is not prosecuting. In fact for the first six months of his tenure, 5932 cases from our sheriff department alone. They were present to the DA with all the elements of the crime and all the facts in the DA refused to prosecute citing his new special directives. That is one of the big reasons why crime is increasing and also you have shameless politicians are trying to tell the public not to trust law enforcement and so that has an erosion of public or perceptions of legitimacy of law enforcement so people when you start eroding faith and cut in institutions and that is not going to improve the situation either. Less people are likely to report crime to law enforcement. So okay okay another question. How do you feel about Cecil Rhambo running against you? Like I said before everyone is free to run against me, knock yourself out. This is a free country. However, as I said before it’s goin to take more than buzzwords and soundbites to be an effective candidate or be an effective sheriff. So step up to the plate and explain what you do differently. Okay, now here, when will the DST application open again. Well, it is open. It's open, I believe the first Monday of every month. They allow applicants to apply, they get the first 100 and we have a new classes starting this month in July and we’re going to have two more for the rest of this fiscal year unless we convince the CEO. we need to start hiring more okay? Okay. When will new starter promotions happen? How many? Were going to be doing 100 new starter promotion that is currently working its way through the chiefs of each division, they’re going to be selecting and using the criteria to get those first 100 up and running so that's what's going on right now that. Okay okay, sir, why don't you arrest the clown Newsom, well, no, we don’t arrest anybody that is not committed a crime. Now voters can hold people accountable if they don't do their job. That's very different and that's up to each individual voter to assess that. Are deputy’s going to ever be able to grow facial hair? Are deputies than ever going to be able to grow facial hair? Uh mustaches are alive and well on the department and in fact go all the way back to the last century. So that is, that's true. Beards? No. I'm sorry, unless you have a specific job that requires a different appearance, undercover work, for example, and that's perfectly fine. But no, for line staffing uniform is always going to be with proper grooming. Ok, more CCW's can you make us constitutional carry? We’re not going to go that constitutional carry or shall issue were going to remain good cause but it’s an achievable with good cause, allright right so if you feel you qualify, please submit your application.

Ok we got another. Can you propose LA Metro hospital for temporary housing, mental facilities? There is lots of empty space that are meant to help on site, let alone abandoned buildings. Yes we can do that and this is something I believe that's a state run facility. This is where you had the governor would come very handy to have the governor make it a priority, in fact I wrote a letter to the governor because I wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking them to declare a local state of emergency. All I got was a cheesy answer from the County Counsel saying that maybe I wasn't aware of all the robust plans that the county has to resolve the homeless crisis and I don't I should understand the Boise decision before I do anything and no, I need an answer from the Board of Supervisors themselves, and I provided their response, I sent to the governor with their own letter, we’re going to make that letter public, okay. And, for example, we do have a concept in the Dream Center, which is a privately funded security operation but they do a wonderful job getting people back on their feet. They house homeless veterans, single females, families with children and they do an incredible job out there and they're not at the trough taking tax dollars for it, so, big operation, very commendable, we support them.

Right so and but go back to guineas for guineas for me. There are lots of empty space for mental help on site there's a lot of empty buildings all over the county St. Vincent Medical Center, LA County USC Medical Center. There’s a plan again it’s all privately funded and driven by private dollars at work to take over another big building and we’ll see how that pans out. So there are some efforts but notice how they’re all private ventures and private initiatives. Where's the state government? Where’s the county? Where is the city government? Oh wait, they’ve already said what they want to do they want to double down and repeat the same tragic mistakes of the past, and expect a different result. That's what we got with the county.

Allright that covers that, any updates on jail closures, well, our fearless team of geniuses on the Board of Supervisors voted to close mens central jail with no plan of where to put 4500 inmates, which include violent felons, serial murderers, serial rapists, you name it. And there's a report that's due out to be made public, and we get our hands on it we’ll make it public, but I think the report already exists and it is a public document so all our media resource you should be out there submitting PRA request to the County because remember the county loves to talk about transparency and accountability well now it’s time for the county to be very transparent on their reports and they need to be accountable and how they’re spending the taxpayer dollars. Yes, got time to hold the county accountable.

So let me close with a letter I got, actually a card, is very touching and it said here dear sheriff Villanueva and company. I made this card for you and your officers to simply say thank you for the work you do to protect, serve and keep your community safe. Know that all of your officers and staff will not see this card, but I hope if any do, it will put a smile on their face, knowing that many people, including myself, have a deep appreciation and respect for law enforcement. I know that I cannot alone make a difference with all of the craziness in the world but I hope that making this card can be a way to share my encouragement, support and gratitude for the sacrifice and courage you all make to keep the world a safer place. So thank you for your service. Stay strong and proud and know that you're truly appreciated with love and respect shinny (spell) spots well shinny spots, thank you for this card, words of kind words of encouragement. This is being shared throughout the department infact we’re going to convert this onto email and I make sure every single employee gets it and reads this thing. Thank you for that. You are what makes LA County worth living and worth serving for.

And let me transition real quick to Spanish

Spanish cut

Allright everyone stay safe and remember please get vaccinated. The only reason this Delta variant is running amok is because we get 40% of our population is not vaccinated, get the vaccination as soon as you can. This put this thing behind this once and for all so we don’t have to go through all the inconveniences of masking in mandates and all that stuff from the department of public health that can't seem to get it right. Right. All right everyone please** stay safe out there and will see you next time

Posted in 6th street | Leave a comment

Brigitte Dollarhide

Brigitte Dollarhide is 76 Years old (born in 1944) and is a body builder in Texas

on Facebook

received_2974935692585265.jpeg[1]_proc|

May 24, 2021

|Screenshot 2021-04-24 054531-mom 4.24.21.a|Screenshot 2021-04-24 055202-mom 4.23.21b|

Earlier in 2021

brigitte dollarhide training video 2021c| |brigitte dollarhide training video 1a|brigitte dollarhide 2021a|brigitte dollarhide gtraining video1b|mom at 15 |mom2021b
|123_1008.jpeg[1]_proc| 20210401_041010[1]_proc|

Posted in misc | Leave a comment

link dump

1.How Federal Intervention Can Ease California’s Homeless Crisis
2.Drugs Zombies, Tent Cities and Medieval Diseases : The Battle for Los Angeles
3.HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN
4.Another Voice – Mental Health Myths
5.California Doctors Drafting Policies To Help Tackle Homelessness
6.Drug overdose mortality among residents of single room occupancy buildings in San Francisco, California, 2010-2017
7.Sacramento-Violent, Drug-addicted Transients from Out of Town Make Up the Majority of Homeless
8.San Francisco Methamphetamine Task Force 2019
9.Daphne Bramham: Decriminalization is no silver bullet, says Portugal's drug czar
10.Sacramento Battles Over Homeless Shelters
11.Vice-The Crystal Meth Epidemic Plaguing Fresno
12.San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless
13.Stanford professor who changed America with just one study was also a liar
14.Kennedy's vision for mental health never realized
15.Crisis Grows in Calif. Mental Hospitals (1979)
16.Toronto neighborhood under siege from safe injection site
17.ARSON, SOCIALISM, PRONOUNS AND A TENT = THE NEW(SOM) CALIFORNIA!
18.Jim Hartman: Tough love approach needed toward homelessness
19.Modern ‘Asylums’ Would Be a Compassionate Answer for Mentally Ill Homeless People
20.Sobriety first, housing plus (Marina Times)
21.'Housing First' approach won't solve homelessness crisis
22.Progressives just won’t admit the truth about opioids and the homeless
23.California can’t solve homelessness by ignoring mental health: Susan Shelley
24.Who Has Profited From The Homeless Crisis Financially and Politically?
25.Gooood Times: California's homeless industrial complex is rolling in the dough
26.State Policy/Court Orders Keep Mentally Ill Homeless on the Streets of California
27.Housing First and Homelessness: The Rhetoric and the Reality
28.Coronavirus Rent Strikes Are On The Fast Track To Obliterating Property Rights
29.Homelessness and Covid-19: Assessing the Response and Planning for the Reopening
30.Rampant Drug Dealing in San Francisco Requires Federal Intervention
31.Prelude to a SFPD Shooting - Tenderloin 5150 incident
32.The Progressive Destruction of Venice Beach, Proxy for the Nation
33.The “Housing First” Approach Has Failed: Time to Reform Federal Policy and Make it Work for Homeless Americans
34.Auditor slams state mental-health system, revives Laura’s Law
35.Housing First: Homing in on the problem
36.San Francisco’s Deathly Compassion - Erica Sandberg
37.A First-Amendment Case for Freedom from the Woke Religion
38.PJ O’Rourke: This is why millennials adore socialism
39.The Harm in “Harm Reduction”
40.Emptying mental hospitals was a joint decision
41.Canada shows 'safe injection sites' aren't safe, effective or wise, says Christopher F. Rufo
42.Lab Coat Tyranny California is using “public health” as a rationale to push progressive political goals. Christopher F. Rufo
43.The Medical Slave State
44.The Battle for California Is the Battle for America
45.San Francisco’s Quality-of-Life Toll (2019)
46.The Cult Dynamics of Wokeness
47.One-Party Democrat Rule Is Killing California, And It’s Coming For The Country
48.Winston84 - list of politically censored websites
49.The Great Reset for Dummies
50.They cant cancel all of us (Spiked June 2020)
51.How America’s Cities Became Bastions of Progressive Politics
52.How Marxists Exploit Race
53.Four Stages of Marxist Takeover: The Accuracy of Yuri Bezmenov
54.The New Untouchables (chris rufo dec3 2020)
55.The Democratic Party’s San Francisco Problem (Hoover November 2020)
56.Soviet Politics, American Style (NYT Dec 2020)
57.The year Big Tech became the Ministry of Truth (Spiked - Dec 2020)
58.Vancouver study finds supportive-housing policies fail to curb drug use (Straight 2015)
59.Antifa AARs, Adapting and Evolving Tactics, Eviction Occupations Spreading (Erin Smith-Jan 2021)
60.The Five Crises of the American Regime (Lind-Tabletmag-Jan 2021)
61. The Real History of Antifa (Kyle Shideler-American Mind)
62.I Now Better Understand the ‘Good German’
63.Wokeness at Noon (LawLiberty dec 2020)
64.Woke Capitalism’s US Social Credit System
65.Parler and the Problem of Escaping Internet Censorship
66.Why Conservatives Can’t Just “Build Their Own Google”(Greenfield, Frontpagemag, December 2020
67.Every video of democrat violence archived here
68.This Is How Conservatives Get Erased From the Internet
69.California’s Internet Censorship Office is Watching What You Say
70.The Liberal-Left Has Gone Fully Illiberal
71.declassified link dump jan 2021
72.A Journey Through Oligarch Valley (Yashsa Levine 2013)
73.How Big Government And Big Tech Conspire Against Voters (jan 2021)
74.Extraction Intensifies (SF local Jan 2021)
75.Crime And Punishment? Not So Much In California (Hoover Jan 2021)
76.San Francisco’s “Progressive” Drug Policies Kill Hundreds Annually (Hoover Jan 2021)
77.“Multiracial Whiteness”(Powerline blog Jan 2021)
78.San Fran is crawling with drugs. DA shows more concern for dealers
79.To Brin, or Not to Brin (cancel culture essay Jan 2021)
80.Beware the proliferation of preferred pronouns (Spiked Jan 2021)
81.The New National American Elite (Tablet Jan 2021)
82.Biden's Culture War Aggression (substack Jan 2021)
83.Journalists Mobilize Against Free Speech (Tablet Jan 2021)
84.The dystopian reality of Big Tech (Spiked Jan 2021)
85.How to Deprogram Us (AmGreatness Jan 2021)
86.The billionaire takeover of civil society (Spiked Jan 2021)
87.The Greatest Threat to The United States? Corporate Fascism (Redstate Jan 2021)
88.The self-demolition of San Francisco (Medium Jan 2021)
89.Beating Back Cancel Culture: A Case Study from the Field of Artificial Intelligence (Quillette Jan 2021)
90.The Thirty Tyrants (Tabletmag Feb 2021)
91.The Consequences of California’s Centrally Planned Compassion (California Globe Feb 2021)
92.‘Systemic racism’ is a conspiracy theory (Spiked Feb 2021)
93.The Emergent Urban Anti-progressivism (National Review Feb 2021)
94.There are no socialist success stories: John Stossel (OC Register Feb 2021)
95.California is collapsing (Unheard Feb 2021)
96.Our Illiberal Moment (National Review Feb 2021)
97.The Origin and True Agenda of ‘Anti-Racist’ Politics (AMGreatness Feb 2021)
98.A Modest Proposal For Republicans: Use The Word Class (Substack Feb 2021)
99.How the IMD Exclusion Connects to Our Homeless Crisis (Accoglienza: lessons for America - Feb 2021)
100.The Evolutionary Advantages of Playing Victim (Quillette Feb 2021)
101.11 Warning Signs of Gaslighting (Psychology Today 2017)
102.A New Crime Wave—and What to Do About It (City Journal Feb 2021)
103.Here’s What Happens When Social Workers, Not Police, Respond To Mental Health Crises (Civil Beat Mar 2021)
104.We didn’t start this culture war (Spiked Mar 2021)
105.The Spectre of Totalitarianism (The Critic Mar 2021)
106.International Fact-Checking Network: New Worldwide Ministry of Truth? (Activist Post 2017)
107.Klaus Schwab & His Great Fascist Reset (Off Guardian Oct 2020)
108.Hitting Woke Herd Immunity? (AM Greatness Mar 2021)
109.Only In San Francisco: $61,000 Tents And $350,000 Public Toilets (Hoover Mar 2021)
110.Encountering Thomas Sowell (LawLiberty Mar 2021)
111.Making Americans Your Enemies (American Mind Mar 2021)
112.The tyranny of lived experience (Spiked Mar 2021)
113.The Invisible Asylum (Rufo - City Journal - Winter 2021)
114.Why America’s Elites Want to End the Middle Class (Ed Ring - AM Greatness Apr 2021)
115.The Alarming Absence of Accountability in the Homelessness System (Texas Monthly Apr 2021)
116. The Shaky Foundations of LA's Housing 'Entitlement' for the Homeless (Rufo - Real Clear Investigations Apr 2021)
117.San Francisco’s Substance-Abuse Crisis (Erica Sandberg - City Journal Apr 2021)
119.Blighted San Francisco Diagnoses Its 'Perilous Trifecta' -- and Bungles the Cure (Rufo - Real Clear Inv - Apr 2021)
120.California is Leaving (Frontpage Mag May 10, 2021)
121.Why California Governor Gavin Newsom Keeps Making Homelessness Worse (Shellenberger - Substack May 11, 2021
122.Backlash By The Bay (City Journal June 2021 - Sandberg)
123.Fully Oligarchic Luxury Californication (American Mind-Kotkin, June 2021)
124.Why I Am Not A Progressive (Shellenberger August 2021)
125.Why Everything We Thought About Drugs Was Wrong (Shellenberger August 2021)
126.San Francisco’s Department of (Perpetual) Homelessness and (Un) Supportive Housing (Sandberg September 2021)
127.How ‘housing first’ failed to solve L.A. homelessness crisis (Shelley September 2021)
128.Compassionate Enforcement (Rufo Summer 2021)
129.Ending Homelessness? No—just more of the same federal policy. (Stephen Eide September 24, 2021)
129. $12 billion to house the homeless, but‘housing first' doesnt work (Kerry Jackson - OC Register, May 2021)
130.Spectacle vs. Progress (Piereson, Riley - City Journal Oct 2021)
131.The Social Costs of Scarcity (Sedgwick-American Conservative Oct 2021)
132.Disastrous Public Policies that Followed Psychologization of Cerebral Illness (NasniCares Apr 2021)
133.New Report on San Francisco Homelessness Provides Real Policy Solutions (Grimes, California Globe Nov 2021)
134.San Francisco Homeless Insider Tells All (Shellenberger - Substack Nov 2021)
135.EncycloReader (Flagship)Encyclosearch Factseek Gigablast SEARCH
136.The City of Palliative Care (Riverlong - Substack Nov 2021)
137.Healing ‘San Fransicko' (Sedgwick American Conservative Dec 2021)
138.Lessons learned from a failed bet on 'Housing First' (Steeb-Williams, The Hill Nov 2021)
139.At the Granada Hotel, a Rush to House the Homeless Comes at the Expense of Elderly Tenants (SF Standard Dec 2021)
140.Lessons From the Great Inflation (Samuelson-Reason Jan 2009)
141.Toronto 2021 - Overdoses in Homelessness Services Settings
142.America’s Asymmetric Civil War (Lind-Tabletmag Jan 2022)
143.Class War is Just Beginning (Kotkin-American Mind Jan 2022)
144.L.A.’s Billion-Dollar Failure (Ursua-City JournaL Jan 2022)
145.Housing First and the Homelessness Crisis: What Went Wrong? (Filter mag - Zwarenstein 2020)
146.San Francisco’s Village of Pain (Sandberg Jan 2022)
147.How 'Housing First' fueled the homelessness crisis (Washington Examiner Jan 2022)
148.Will Law Enforcement Unions Use Their Power to Change Homeless Policy? (Ring-California Globe Feb 2022)
149.Housing First is a Failure (Glock Cicero Jan 2022)
150.San Francisco’s Heart of Darkness (SF's Harm Reduction Nightmare) (Ursua City Journal Feb 2022)
151.Howard Anglin: In our cashless society, we need to take digital jail seriously (Anglin - The Hub Feb 2022)
152.Oligarchs Want Us to Power Down So They Can Power Up (Ring, AMGreatness Mar 2022)
153.California’s Homeless Housing Scam (Ring,- AMGreatness Feb 2022
154.The Great Reset Is Real (Gutentag-CompactMag Mar 2022)
155.The Censored (Atkinson 2022)
156.The 40 Best Political Twitter Accounts to Follow
157.San Francisco’s “Housing First” Nightmare (Sandberg - City Journal Apr22 2022)
158.How California’s rigid progressive politics hurt a successful Sacramento homeless program (Stutzman - SacBee Apr 2022)
159.Despite Spending $1.1 Billion, San Francisco Sees Its Homelessness Problems Spiral Out Of Control (Ohanian, Hoover, May 2022)
160.China and synthetic drugs: Geopolitics trumps counternarcotics cooperation (Brown - Brookins mar 2022)
161.Most Cities’ Responses To Homelessness Actually Enable Even More Homelessness (Marbut May 2022)
162.Why Won’t Policymakers Talk About Drugs and Homelessness? (GVWire May 2022)
163.‘Supportive Housing’ Is No Solution to Homelessness (Tyee-Canada, May 2022)
164.Three Times more die in Housing First than Shelter First - Shellenberger May 2022)
165.When ‘misplaced compassion’ does more harm than good (Morgan -Chicoer June 2022)
166.Ideology has poisoned the West (Howland, Unheard, Jul2, 2022)
167.The Simple Economics Of Why San Francisco Is Not Recovering (Ohanian - Hoover, June 2022)
168.Harm reduction has captured the US (Siegel, Unheard Jul 2022)
169.More housing isn’t the solution to homelessness — it’s treatment (Steeb, NY Post, July 2022)
170.Canada Vancouver Housing First SRO study 2022
171.NEW STUDY: Despite Billions Spent, Project Homekey Providing No Way Home for State’s Homeless (Pacific Research July 2022)
172.The Dehumanizing Tyranny of Densification (Ring-AMGreatness, July 2022)
173.BRADLEY: Alberta’s drug overdoses going down, British Columbia’s skyrocketing (Bradley-Western Standard - July 2022)
174.The drug deaths haunting Scotland (Gillies-The Critic August 2022)
175.Why Converting Hotels Into Homeless Housing Doesn’t Usually Work (Steeb, Federalist, March 2022)
176.Meth has changed, and it’s sabotaging Oregon’s mental health system (OPB, August 2022)
177.Psychiatric Deinstitutionalization in Bc: Negative consequences and Possible solutions
178.Sac Bee Editor Tells Tall Tale in Preoccupation with Assemblyman Kiley (Kennedy,mental health, Grimes, Aug 2022)
179.Opinion: Housing First Does Not Work (Moitz, Dallas Morning News, Aug 2022)
180.Exposing the Homeless Industrial Complex (Ring, Epoch Times, Aug 2022)
181.Subsidizing Addiction (Housing First. Glock, City Journal, summer 2022)
182.Housing First and the Risk of Failure (PubMed 2015)
183.Hard truths about deinstitutionalization, then and now (Pierson, Calmatters Jan 2022)
184.Reagan didn't close institutions (Thousand Oaks Acorn, Jan 2019)
185.Low Expectations Lead to Low Results | Opinion (Steeb, Newsweek, Sep 2022)
186.‘Housing First’ puts lofty goals about real-world results (Winegarten, PRI Oct 2022)
187.How San Francisco Became a Failed City (Bowles, Atlantic Jun 2022)
188.How San Francisco Can Solve Its Homelessness Problem (McQuillan, Independant, Oct 2022)
189.Skid Row Nation: How L.A.’s Homelessness Crisis Response Spread Across the Country (Quinnones, LA Mag Oct 2022)
190.Address Mental Illness, Substance Abuse to Combat Homelessness, New Report Says (Richards, Daily Signal, Oct 2022)
191.Land acknowledgments meant to honor Indigenous people too often do the opposite (Sobo, The Conversation, Oct 2022)
192.‘Housing First’ Caused the Homelessness Catastrophe (Smith, EpochTimes, Oct 26, 2022)
193.The Moral Crisis of Skid Row (Rufo, City Journal, winter 2022)
194.San Francisco Can't Afford 'Safe Supply' (Sedgwick, American Conservative, Nov 2022)
195.To America's Permissive Addiction 'Fix,' Critics Just Say No (Woodhouse, RealClear Investigations, Nov 2022)
196.Limits of “Housing First”(Olasky, Fix Homelessness, Oct 2022)
197.‘Housing First’ Foments Homelessness in California (Glock, WSJ, Nov 2022)
198.Stable housing helps the homeless but it doesn’t cure all their problems (Bell, Guiardian Nov, 2022)
199.Why housing alone is not enough for some homeless moms (Grabmeier, Ohio State News, Nov 2022)
200.‘Housing first’ is a failed approach to chronic homelessness in California (Shelly, OC Register, Nov 2022)
201.America’s syringe exchanges kill drug users (Economist, Dec 2022)
202.New Data on Syringe Exchanges (Sutton, National Review 2019)
203.A bipartisan approach to helping the homeless (Hussock, The Hill, Nov 2022)
204.How Frighteningly Strong Meth Has Supercharged Homelessness (Hart, NYMag, Dec 2022)
205.Why so-called ‘safe injection’ sites put NYC communities in danger (Steeb, NYPost, Dec 2022)
206.San Francisco’s deadly failure on the drug crisis is unfolding inside its own housing program (Thadani, SF Chronicle, Dec 2022)
207.The ”Housing First” Approach to Homelessness Doesn’t Work (video, Prager, University, Dec 2022)
208.Housing First’s Imperial Overreach (Eide, City Journal, Dec 2022)
209.Adam Zivo: The silencing of drug addiction experts who criticize 'safe supply' (Zivo, National Post, Jan 2023)
210.Are Progressives Responsible for Our Homeless Inundation? (Kerr, Westside Observer Jan 2023)
211.San Francisco Falls Into The Abyss (Ohanian, Hoover, Jan 2023)
212.Gavin Newsom Chickens Out On Homeless Accountability (Lonsdale, Jan 2023)
213.Evidence Calls “Housing First” Homelessness Strategy into Question (Calder, Cato, Jan 2023)
214.The Secret To Ending Homelessness (Klickstein, Substack, Jan 2023)
215.Seattle’s DESC Reveals Pitfalls of “Housing First” (choe, fixhomelessness, Jan 2023)
216.Evidence Likewise Calls California’s “Housing First” Homelessness Strategy into Question (Calder, Cato, Jan 2023)
217.I talked to two ex-homeless people about Newsom's 'investment' in homelessness. Their answers will shock you (Steeb, Fox News, Feb, 2023)
218.To Solve San Francisco’s Drug Problem, Start Emulating European Traditionalism (Sedgwick, Legal Insurrection, Feb, 2023
219.Fentanyl Soldiers (Segwick, American Conservative, Feb 2023
220.Protecting and Preserving the Tenderloin (Buntin, Governing Mag 2010)
221.Political Theory for the Homeless (Eide, LawLiberty, Feb 2023)
222.Seattle homeless advocate pushing treatment first approach (Komo News Feb, 2023)
223.Safe injection sites aren’t safe or legal (Lellin, Boston Globe 2019)
224.Urban Alchemy and the Normalization of Crime (Shane, Substack, Feb 2023)
225.Did Prop C Deliver? (Adams, Eyes On SF, Jul 2022)
226.Opinion: The Homeless Industrial Complex (Campbell, Westside Current Jan 2023)
227.The Collapse of Housing First? (Campbell, CityWatchLa, March 2023)
228.Is Urban Alchemy Up to the Job? Critics Say No. (Campbell, CityWatchLa, March 2023),
229.Urban Alchemy is coming to Portland (McDaniel, Streetroots, March 2023)
230.“I Believe that Fentanyl is Not Addictive”(Sandberg, Substack, Dec 2022)
231.The Great Abdication (Mac Donald, City Journal, March 2023)
232.California can solve the homelessness crisis, it just can’t keep doing more of the same (Shelly, LA Daily News, March 2023)
233.Beyond Housing First (Mayer, Built in the Cloud, March 2023)
234.A Housing-First Approach Won’t End Homelessness (Burton, Change WA, March 2023)
235.Obama Promised to End Homelessness This Year (Marbut, WSJ, Feb 2023)
236.Susan Shelley: The ‘housing first’ approach is a failure in California for obvious reasons (Shelley, LA Daily News, March 2023)
237.Will L.A. “Die of a Theory”? *Campbell, CityWatch. March 2023)
238.An All-Hands-On-Deck Approach to End Homelessness (Rep Andy Barr, Ripon, March 2023)
239.Homeless Housing Failing in Los Angeles, Advocates Calling for ‘Recovery-Focused’ Solutions (Epochtimes 2023)
240.Discovery Institute Releases National Report on Homelessness (fixhomelessness.org Dec 2022)
241.Housing First has failed. The homeless crisis in California demands a swift, effective response. (Bales, OC Register, May 2023)
242.Beyond Housing First (Mayer, New Geography, May 2023)
243.Opinion: Our leaders must all get their ‘stuff’ together to save our state (Johnson, Oregonian, May 2023)
244.California’s ‘Compassionate’ Homeless Policies Are Just The Opposite (Steeb, DailyCaller May 2023)
245.SPECIAL: We Can End California’s Homeless Crisis in One Year – These Blue States Show Us How (DA Sacto Sheriff, California Globe, May 2023)
246.America’s Approach to Addiction Has Gone Off the Rails (Quinones, Atlantic, June 2023)
247.To Fix Homelessness, Stop Fixating On Housing (Chapman, Federalist, May 2020)
248.Why Housing First does work very well for the homeless (Miskey, Pasadena Star, June 2023)
249.‘Snake Oil’: Housing First Advocates Sneak Attack DAs & Sheriff’s Plan to End Homelessness (Grimes, California Globe, June 2023)
250.Newsom’s homelessness insanity fails taxpayers (Desmond, Foxnews, June 2023)
251.When ‘Harm Reduction’ Becomes Harm Promotion: Yale Study Shows Biden's Drug Policy is Misguided (Shemmel, FreeBeacon, June 2023)
252.Homelessness: Plumbing, Process, and Politics (Campbell, Citywatch, June 2023)
253.The government created homelessness and enables it through inaction (Davy, Toronto Star, June 2023)
254.“Housing First” Homeless Policy Gets a Critical Look (Calder, Cato, June 2023)
255.Leftist Media Distort New Homelessness Study To Support Failed ‘Housing First’ Policies (Axe, Federalist, July 2023)
256.Demolishing the California Dream: How San Francisco Planned Its Own Housing Crisis (Stanford, Collectors Weekly, September 2018)
257.“Housing First” Policy Is Not Helping the Homeless (Smith, Fixhomelessness, July 2023)
258.Supportive Housing Is Meant to Help Tenants Stay Housed. It’s Not Always Working (Denis, Tyee, August 2023)
259.What treatment and services are effective for people who are homeless and use drugs? A systematic ‘review of reviews’(NIH 2021)
260.Homelessness Numbers and the Merry-go-Round from Hell (Campbell, Citywatch August 2023)
261.B.C.’s supportive-housing system faces challenges in preventing people from getting entrenched in cycle of homelessness (Bula, Globe and Mail, August 2022)
262.Solutions First (Kurtz, City Journal, August 2023)
263.Is the Housing First Model Effective? Different Evidence for Different Outcomes (NIH 2020)
264.What treatment and services are effective for people who are homeless and use drugs? A systematic ‘review of reviews’(NIH 2021)
265.Solutions Utah: Salt Lake needs more than money and housing to solve the homeless problem (Graham, SLT, September 2023)
266.Housing First programs aren’t working (Winegarden, Jackso, Pacific Research Institute, August 2023)
267.Housing First -= What Would Failure Look Like? (Eide, Glock, City Journal, September 2023)
268.Why Recognizing Housing First’s Failure is So Important (Campbell, Citwatch, September 2023)
269.California Needs an Alternative to “Housing First” (McQuillan, Independant Institute, September October 2023)
270.Southern California mayor who went from street addict to elected office battles city's homelessness problem (Fox News October 2023)
271.California is at a tipping point—and liberal pols are left to scramble (NY Post, September, 2023)
272.Shoot Up at IRS Nonprofit Crackhouses (Greenfield, Front Page Mag, October 2023)
273.A Low-Income Housing Complex Was Lauded as a Model for Pulling People Out of Homelessness. Three Years Later, Tenants Are Fleeing. (Vaughn, Portland Mercury, October, 2023)
274.Breaking news: Living in the projects sucks (Jack Bogs Blog October 2023)
275.Homelessness and the New Luddites (CityWatchLA, Campbell, October 2023)
276.Devon Kurtz: Solving homelessness isn’t as simple as providing a house (Kurtz, St Louis Dispatch, November 2023)
277.Solving homelessness requires more than just housing (Calton, The Hill, December 2023)
278.The Progressive Approach To Homelessness Comes To Madison, Wisconsin (Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, December 2023)
279.Column: Homelessness: Sometimes You Don’t Get What You Pay For (Campbell, Westside Current, January 2024)
280.Point: Housing Alone Cannot Solve Homelessness (Calton, DC Journal, January 2024)
281.All In': Biden’s Ill-Fated Strategy to Reduce Homelessness (Steeb, Townhall, January 2024)
282.California voters will decide on Newsom’s mental health overhaul. How did we get here? (Wiener, CalMatters. February 2024)
283.Yes, Homelessness & Drug Addiction Are Related: Heres How (Irvine, Irvine for Oregon. January 2024)
284.The Big Con in the California Housing Mandate (Hall, EpochTimes, March 2024)
285.How San Francisco Attracts and Traps Homeless Transplants (Friedman, Piratwires, March 2024)
286.Harm Reduction is a Myth (Strom, Hotair, April 2024)
287.How To Solve Our Soaring Homelessness Problem (Sheffield, Heritage, February 2024)
288.Harm Reduction: A Misnomer (King, Springer, November 2020)
289.Overdose or Poisoning in Fentanyl Deaths? Why are “Words” the Focus as Fentanyl Deaths Soar? (Perez, Sons of Liberty, April 2024)
290.Lost souls expose the dangerous inhumanity in L.A.’s homelessness policies, and illustrate why “housing first” often fails (Legras, All Aspect Reort, June 2023))
291.Kevin A. Sabet: The harm-reduction movement has lost sight of what truly matters (Saget, National Post, April 2024)
292.Is California’s Narrow Homelessness Vote The Beginning Of The End Of ‘Housing First’(Steeb, The Federalist, April 2024)
293.Homeless Services Audits: Overview and Model Legislation (Bonura, Texas Policy, April 2024)
294New data prove it: ‘Supportive housing’ is no cure-all for mentally ill homeless (Eidie, NT Post, May 2024)
295.Better Homelessness Policies Needed to Restore Order on Streets—and in Individuals’ Lives (Sheffield, Daily Signal, June 20024)

Posted in misc | Leave a comment

suicide at the Seneca

On February 20, 2019, a twitter user captured this in front of the Seneca SRO hotel at 34 6th street, which is a Tenderloin Housing Clinic supported housing for the homeless

6th stevenson victor humphries

Some research found that this person was Victor Humphries and he was being evicted by the San Francisco Sheriff and Tenderloin Housing Clinic that day and that he had barricaded himself inside his room and jumped when the sheriff finally gained entry. Victor Humphries owed $650. It was a default judgement and he never showed up for court. Questions remain whether Victor Humphries ever knew he had options, such as eviction prevention that is funded by the mayors office or whether Tenderloin Housing Clinic followed their own protocol or city or state protocol. Here is his eviction

Tenderloin Housing Clinic v... by on Scribd

there are also inconsistencies in evictions that Tenderloin Housing Clinic has done with the amount people can owe before they are evicted. For example this eviction was for $3000

THC BOS 2017 770 OFarrell W... by on Scribd

Posted in 6th street, Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Housing First evictions

update 2024 list of restraining orders

update 2023, On March 20, 2023 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors held a 2 hour hearing on evictions in supportive housing. Testmony by both staff and tenants included incidents of throwing microwaves out of windows, how some people destabilize entire buildings, an increaee is damage to units and an increase in refusal to pay rent. Also, thread on California 2016 Housing First law and efforts to repeal it

update 2022 - A whole pile of ever expanding related articles

update 2020 - not just evictions but also overdose deaths. Between 2010 and 2017 there were 1,551 drug overdose deaths in San Francisco between 2010-2017. 424 of them were in SRO hotels, which is 19 times higher than non SRO residents.

Drug overdose mortality among residents of single room occupancy buildings in San Francisco, California, 2010–2017

Both Housing First and Harm Reduction is official policy of Tenderloin Housing Clinic "We use the Housing First and Harm Reduction models to "Get and Keep People Housed".

These eviction filings are all Tenderloin Housing Clinic, a non profit that is exclusively Housing First supportive housing for the chronically homeless in San Francisco

also, another example. This is a screen shot from the SF superior court. Just one section has 75 pages of 10 each page of evictions 2004-2019, Tenderloin Housing Clinic houses 1500 people so that's half their clients evicted. Of those, nobody knows how many were pre-existing tenants

thc eviction screen shot
These records tell a very different story than what advocates have been telling the public for the last 15 years. It is also becoming clear that over the course of 15 years, Tenderloin Housing Clinic has evicted more people than they house

more evictions can be found here and here and here

One of the main problems with statistics the government officials keep repeating is that Housing First has an occupancy rate of 94%. What they don't mention is that this percentage is for a single point in time. Any landlord can fill a building to 94% for a single point in time, but if one looks at extended time periods, the story becomes very different (it is actually closer to 30% over 2 years - see NIH article below)

Many of the causes of this can be attributed to out of control drug abuse and sales in and around the buildings including getting new people addicted and making even more people homeless

further reading here and here and a good article critical of Housing First and a NiH article Housing First and the Risk of Failure

The National Institute of Health is a good resource that confirms much of this with articles such as this one which contains this choice quote

Of the people in supportive housing in San Francisco, 93% have a major mental illness that we can name. That is very, very high. 80% use cocaine, speed, or heroin every thirty days, or get drunk to the point of unconsciousness.

Tenderloin Housing Clinic specializes in this type of 'master lease' SRO which is described as being worse and more traumatic in this NIH research, as opposed to newly built supportive housing

Update 2021, a new Boston study of supportive housing confirms low retention rates and high mortality

Housing retention at ≥1 year was 82% yet fell to 36% at ≥5 years; corresponding Kaplan Meier estimates for retention were 72% at ≥1, 42.5% at ≥5, and 37.5% at ≥10 years. Nearly half of the cohort (45%) died while housed. The co-occurrence of medical, psychiatric, and substance use disorder, or ‘trimorbidity,’ was common. Moves to a new apartment were also common; 38% were moved 45 times to avoid an eviction. Each subsequent housing relocation increased the risk of a tenant returning to homelessness. Three or more housing relocations substantially increased the risk of death.

More related issues surrounding this type of 'master leasing' of SRO's can be found in two separate San Francisco Civil Grand Jury reports, one on homelessness and one on non profits, both being still valid after 10 years since none of the recommendations were ever addressed. Two recent lawsuits are also related, one in state court and one in federal court. Both of these lawsuits level various charges related to fraudulent misrepresentation of 'housing first' and 'master leasing' SROs including failing to report evictions for a city mandated eviction database, constructive evictions, drug trafficking, criminal conduct by employees, etc


Continue reading »

Posted in Tenderloin Housing Clinic, the worst of housing first | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Tenderloin Housing Clinic 2014 tax form 990

Tenderloin Housing Clinic non profit tax form 990, the latest available from the California Attorney Generals office

Tenderloin.housing.clinic.990.2014 by Jeff Webb on Scribd

Posted in Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Mid Market assaults February-April 2017

Mid Market San Francisco area assaults from past three months to today. Embedded directly from DataSF Mid Market Assaults. Interesting that Mid Market assaults deserves it's own category

Interactive map. Click any dots to expand and go deeper

Powered by Socrata

Posted in 6th street, mid market | Tagged | Leave a comment
« Older