Free Minds & Free Markets

San Francisco Man Has Spent 4 Years and $1 Million Trying to Get Approval to Turn His Own Laundromat Into an Apartment Building

Now the city wants the laundromat studied to see if it is a historic resource.

Daniel Case/Wikimedia CommonsDaniel Case/Wikimedia CommonsTo understand how difficult and expensive it is to build housing in San Francisco, observe the case of Robert Tillman. Tillman owns a single-story laundromat in the city's Mission District. Since 2014, he has been attempting to develop his property into a 75-unit apartment building.

The city is in the midst of a housing affordability crisis, with an average one-bedroom apartment going for $3,400 a month. So you might think Tillman's project would sail through the permitting process. Instead, the city's labyrinthine process of reviews, regulations, and appeals has dragged on for four years. The project has cost the self-described "accidental developer" nearly $1 million so far, and he hasn't even broken ground yet.

"It's taken me longer to get to this point than it took for the United States to win World War II," says Tillman, "and my site is the easiest site in the city to build."

In a sane world, it would be easy. No housing is located at the site, so there's no fear that redevelopment will displace any tenants. There are three other coin-operated laundromats within 100 yards of Tillman's property, so there is no real concern about lost neighborhood services. Half of the property is a parking lot, so the city won't be losing an aesthetically pleasing landmark. On top of all that, Tillman's lot is a three-minute walk from the 24th Mission Street BART light rail station, a major plus for a city obsessed with "transit-oriented" development.

In March 2014, when Tillman first submitted his plans to the San Francisco Planning Department, the initial reaction was positive. Officials were "very much in favor of developing site," Tillman says.

The real opposition came from some of the neighbors. A community meeting in January 2016 served as something of a flashpoint.

At the meeting, one woman fretted that the tall building would violate the privacy of a nearby public school. Another argued that the project needed to be 100 percent affordable housing. Two representatives from local Latino Cultural District Calle 24 said that even a 100 percent affordable housing project was out of the question, given the proposed height of the development.

When Tillman said he saw his project as necessary so people like his daughter could afford to come back and live in the city, one particularly motivated activist said she wished his daughter was killed in a terrorist attack.

Nevertheless, Tillman persisted, working with the Planning Department to change the design of his development where necessary and spending tens of thousands more on various impact studies. That includes $6,500 on a wind study, $5,000 on a shadow study, and $189,000 in city fees by the end of 2017.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco Planning Commission—which oversees the Planning Department and is responsible for approving new developments—continued to push for changes.

Parroting many of the Mission activists' concerns, Commissioner Rich Hillis complained that the design was "bulky, and a bit out of character" with the neighborhood, while Commissioner Kathrin Moore said that erecting an 84-foot tall building would be like "plopping a foreign object into this area and not thinking about the consequences." Commissioner Dennis Richards said, "I think a project absolutely belongs here. The question is what kind of project."

Thanks to California's state density bonus law, which restricts localities' ability to reject housing developments that reserve a certain percentage of their units for below-market tenants, the Commission was largely prevented from imposing new conditions. After another three-month delay, the Commission voted on November 30, 2017, to approve the project.

So that meant Tillman could move forward with construction, right? Of course not. It just set off another round of delays.

California's Environmental Quality Act allows anyone to file an environmental appeal within 30 days of a project's approval, requiring local agencies essentially to reevaluate the environmental and community impact evaluations they've already performed. On January 2, attorney Scott Weaver filed just such an appeal on behalf of the Calle 24 District Council, claiming that the city had conducted an insufficient review of the project's environmental impacts, including the impact of increased shadow on a nearby school and of the potential displacement of businesses and residents. (Remember: The property in question houses zero current residents, and the only business there is Tillman's.)

On February 5, the Planning Department rejected this appeal, stating that Weaver and his clients had "not demonstrated nor provided substantial evidence" to back up their claims of insufficient environmental review.

No, that didn't mean Tillman could finally go ahead with the project. The Planning Department also said that new information had been presented suggesting that Tillman's property might be a "historic resource." You see, the building once housed a local employment agency, back in the 1970s. Also, it once featured a mural depicting the life of Latina women. (The mural no longer exists.)

"You have 150 machines, you have wiring and plumbing. If there was a historical office there, it doesn't exist anymore," Tillman says.

Indeed, the lots Tillman owns were deemed ineligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and on any state or local equivalents, according to the 2011 South Mission Historic Resource Survey conducted by the Planning Department.

Nevertheless, on February 13 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to require a historic evaluation to be done at Tillman's expense. They will revisit the issue, they say, in another four months. To date, Tillman has spent $947,000 in development costs.

Tillman, who already owns the land he wants to develop and whose laundromat business still pulls some $10,000 a month, says he can afford to wait. Other developers watching land and construction costs increase with each delay might have given up long ago.

But the biggest cost may be one that isn't falling on Tillman's shoulders. "What's the cost to the people who would have occupied those units?" Tillman asks. "Those people don't have housing for six months. Put a number on that."

*CORRECTION: This article originally stated that there are three coin-operated laundromats within half a mile of Tillman's property. There are three within 100 yards of the property.

Photo Credit: Daniel Case/Wikimedia Commons

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The city is in the midst of a housing affordability crisis, with an average one-bedroom apartment going for $3,400 a month. So you might think Tillman's project would sail through the permitting process. ""

    No I wouldn't think that. Generally, high property values = higher tax revenues. Keeping property values high helps keep the government funded.

  • JFree||

    Generally, high property values = higher tax revenues.

    Most property improvements are depreciating assets not appreciating assets. So they do NOT in fact lead to higher tax revenues. Land is the element that can appreciate - but the question that cities with low prop taxes (like SF and NY) avoid like the plague is WHY that land appreciates, who actually pays for that appreciation, and who receives the benefit. And like it or not, Henry George (and for that matter Ricardo and Smith) was right - and you and pretty much everyone else who relies on either neoclassical/marginalist or socialist economics is wrong.

    Keeping property values high helps keep the government funded.

    And 'keeping property values high' is precisely what causes both the coercion of excessive regulations and eliminates lower-cost housing (I won't say 'affordable' because that is merely a political term). There is zero possibility of low-cost housing when land itself is expensive.

    And no surprise the three planning commissioners quoted (I googled them) are exactly the sort of guardians of 'keeping property values high while making sure someone else pays for it' that wealthy homeowners prefer to elect to planning commissions.

  • Rhywun||

    Bingo. For the neighbors it's all about making it more expensive for the other guy.

  • elmerfudd599||

    You're a $lut!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""And 'keeping property values high' is precisely what causes both the coercion of excessive regulations and eliminates lower-cost housing "'

    That's a feature not a bug.

  • Peej||

    Math problem for you: Who pays more property tax? A $10 million laundromat or a condominium with 75 units each worth a million?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Two questions: 1) What is the difference in rent between living in a washer versus living in a dryer? 2) Do you have to pay your rent in quarters?

  • SQRLSY One||

    I'm not sure, but as for me, personally, I live in a shoe-box in the middle of the road, and I have to collect road-killed rodents to bribe the buzzards to eat them instead of me... That's how I pay my rent!

    San Francisco Government Almighty sounds like a bunch of buzzards to me!

  • Arcxjo||

    Cardboard box?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, a cardboard box, "In the Middle of the Road"... With emphasis on it being "In the Middle of the Road"!

    When Chrissy Hynn of The Pretenders was singing about being "In the Middle of the Road", she was singing about MEEEE!!!!

  • BambiB||

    Speaking of Road Kill - I can't help but think that it would have been cheaper for Tillman to hire a contract killer to eliminate everyone who has been a problem to this point. At $50,000 per hit, he could have eliminated 18 obstructionists and pocketed the difference. 18 corpses would convey a powerful message to whomever took their place.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Finally, someone other than me is starting to get it.

    Less progressives = More freedom

    Dead progressives = A few chuckles

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Crusty would know.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Silly property owner. You cannot take the people's local laundromat away from them.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Are there any mandates to do studies of the trans-Galactic, Inter-Dimensional environmental impact here!?!? Some fluffy bunny waaaabbits in another universe could be made to suffer, there should be another study!!!! And you need to PROVE that there will be NO negative impact!!!

  • BambiB||

    Don't forget to apply "The Butterfly Effect". A chance puff of wind going over the taller building might kill a butterfly that might have been eaten by frog which might...

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    "It's taken me longer to get to this point than it took for the United States to win World War II,"

    More anti-Russian animus.

  • Longtobefree||

    And yet for a few thousand dollars, and a week in time, he could have moved out of California and be retired on the income from the millions spent feeding the egos of the SF bureaucracy.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    $5,000 on a shadow study

    What the fuck is a "shadow study"? Is it what it sounds like--a study on the shadow the building would throw on a sunny day? If so how the fuck would that cost $5000?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The Shadow Measurers Local 510 has a really sweet contract with the city.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Hire some code monkey at $200/hour to search the internet for sun angle calculators.

    Scratch that. Hire a panel of bias experts at $500/hour each to find a non-binary-gender neutral race-neutral code monkey.

  • cgr2727||

    It's the duplicate set of plans, impact analyses, etc. that you have to submit to the shadow-government planning board, whose members are all Illuminati and Freemasons.

  • A_Spellman||

    It's a study of how the shadows cast by the building at various times and season will affect the surrounding neighborhoods. Actually somewhat desired with taller buildings as they can block sunlight for surrounding buildings and vegetation.
    That being said, it was likely required as yet another obstacle to approval.

  • IceTrey||

    It's a city. If you want sunlight move to the burbs.

  • Griffin3||

    I have yet to see a deed that assigns sunshine rights.

  • cluskillz||

    The city of Fremont, CA now requires new developments to not shade surrounding buildings, as of last December. In the case of a new building shading another house, a "solar shading easement" needs to be recorded with the county. This effectively grants sunshine rights to all existing properties with a building on it.

  • geo||

    I used to have a friend that would buy "air rights" over buildings. Most of the people he bought from thought he was crazy and took his money, until they realized that they could not build taller buildings. My friend sold most of those air rights for a handsome profit to nearby property owners that wanted to preserve their ocean view. So yeah, "sunshine rights" can be created simply by making a contract. In this case, the City seems to have claimed jurisdiction over "sunshine rights" simply to enforce their own power over the populace.

  • cluskillz||

    It is exactly what it sounds like. A shadow study involves a 3D model of the proposed building as well as a model of its surrounding buildings, including any grade. So a contour mesh needs to be created and any affected nearby buildings or lots needs to be measured and built virtually. The 3D model program typically has sun angles built in so when everything is built, you enter the geographic coordinates, pick the day and time, and the program calculates the shadows. The output scenes are then taken and digitally inserted into a submittal set. Jurisdictions typically want morning and afternoon of the solstices, but I've seen crazy(er) jurisdictions ask for one day per month of the year.

    Depending on the extensiveness of the study, $5000 isn't too far out there. Our firm's modeling department bills out maybe on average $110/hr and it'd take one of them maybe 2-3 days to complete the model plus a few hours to finish out. Plus whatever civil work needs to be done for the contour mesh. We are on the expensive end of the spectrum though. We only do shadow studies as an add service for our clients.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You didn't build that. You won't build that.

  • Libertymike||

    You will pay to have us tell you that you won't build that.

  • Libertymike||

    Once again, we are reminded that spectacular misallocation of resources is a feature of monopoly governance. We are also reminded of the cess pool that California has become.

  • Hugh Akston||

    What part of California do you live in?

  • Libertymike||

    I don't in the progressive shithole.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    New Jersey, CA.

  • Rich||

    Latino Cultural District Calle 24 said that even a 100 percent affordable housing project was out of the question, given the proposed height of the development.

    "What, higher than the *Alamo*?!"

  • esteve7||

    "Affordable Housing" is another bogus term of the left. Here you literally have nutcases arguing against more housing supply because they think more units should be subsidized for lower income people. Fucking idiots, even housing for middle or higher income people will make housing more affordable for everyone since you are increasing supply.

    The left's solutions are just pure garbage, and there is a reason the bay area is having a wider gulf between the upper and lower classes. Their solution is just to prog more. Good fucking luck with that

  • Rhywun||

    The exact same nonsense is at play in NYC - the "affordable" housing is really just subsidized by your neighbors to be slightly less expensive than their apartments, and since since regulations make it unprofitable to build anything other than luxury buildings, you still need to be pulling in at least high five digits. Depsite the activist propaganda, it's not affordable to the actual poor, who are either shunted into the projects or make do with what's left of the private market in sketchier neighborhoods.

  • You're Kidding||

    Hey, hey, you, you get off of my cloud!

  • Robert||

    True according to what I've heard from everywhere such programs exist. You have to submit proof of income w/in a certain range—far from poor—just to apply, w a nonrefundable & non-trivial appl'n fee. Even then, I've heard you need cx w the developer to actually win a spot.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Tillman, who already owns the land he wants to develop and whose laundromat business still pulls some $10,000 a month, says he can afford to wait.

    I'd also tell the city that I won't be conducting any further studies, and I will instead be withdrawing all plans to develop, and then suggest they conduct a study, at their own expense, as to why housing costs are so high in the city.

  • Rhywun||

    suggest they conduct a study, at their own expense, as to why housing costs are so high in the city

    Their answer, which will totally not be pulled out of their ass, will be some combination of the following:

    1. Greedy landlords
    2. Rich "techies"
    3. Foreign speculators

  • GILMORE™||

    "When Tillman said he saw his project as necessary so people like his daughter could afford to come back and live in the city, one particularly motivated activist said she wished his daughter was killed in a terrorist attack."

    I eagerly await phase 2, when his proposed development is accused of enabling a white supremacist patriarchy

  • Rhywun||

    Heh yeah - I think that neighborhood "belongs" to Latinos.

  • You're Kidding||

    The mission was known for that until.............evil gentrification occurred! As a result we have "displacement" regulations imposed on any further development.

    We used to give alms to the poor. Now, the government demands direct payment that they turn into outright gifts. All in the name of equality you know?

    The Mission was a shit hole. It's improved vastly. But CA & SF proggies want to take it back to the shithole it was as a sort of cultural museum that they can visit on occasion. Of course, none of them would ever LIVE there.

    Who the hell would?

  • Bill Poser||

    One would hope that such a vile statement would eliminate any need to pay further attention to the activist.

  • Ron||

    I wouldn't be surprised if some big developer comes along and gets the city to condem his property and hand it over to the real developer who has friends

  • Galane||

    Yup. The city is milking Tillman for all they can, they want him to give up and sell the property, to be bought by a developer that one or more of the city obstructionists has a stake in.

    But Tillman owns the property, apparently without liens or debts, and it's making him $10K a month as a laundromat.

  • Rhywun||

    the 24th Mission Street BART light rail station

    Quibble - BART is "heavy rail". You're welcome.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Places like SF are, to me, a field study on what happens when progressives get what they want; namely the ability to confound and obfuscate everything on specious grounds ["shadow study?"].

    They also have the most aggressive pan handlers I have ever encountered, here or abroad.

  • Rhywun||

    I lived there for a year a couple decades ago. Things like the smelly bums everywhere and the smug progressives in your face all the time can make it quite unpleasant at times. And that's coming from a NYC resident of 20 years now.

    obfuscate everything

    Their brains are mush. They simultaneously hate big buildings, love poor people, and want to make everything as goddamn expensive as possible.

  • shawn_dude||

    I wonder what libertarians think of pan handlers?

    I mean, these are people living the way they want to live, on the street, in the middle of all of the action, access to all the chemicals they desire, living their authentic life. They can get a free bus ticket to a relative in any town. They can get a bed in a shelter or halfway house (if they give up drugs). They can join a free rehab program. They don't. They want the life they have.

    So, what do the libertarians think of that? That's real freedom, right? In the middle of a "prog city" no less.

  • markm23||

    I'd start with the old hobo distinction between hobos (men who traveled on the cheap to look for work) and bums (those that weren't really looking for work. The people you describe are bums. They subsist on funds taken by force from those that earned a living. That makes them parasites, and robbers at one remove, and libertarians have never considered a robber's "freedom" to be admirable.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    The city is in the midst of a housing affordability crisis, with an average one-bedroom apartment going for $3,400 a month.

    Somewhere in the depths of SF city hall, a politician strokes his chin wondering "What would Stalin do?"

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "What would Stalin do?"

    Shoot people until the demand for housing falls enough to bring prices down?

  • cgr2727||

    "In Soviet Russia, house buys you!"

  • Longtobefree||

    Stalin would relocate enough people to labor camps in the Sierras to bring the population in line with the available housing. And, oh by the way, assign 150 people to sleep in the laundromat.

  • mashed potatoes||

    I Just think about the guy that set himself on fire in Tunisia over permitting issues and getting a few hundred dollars jacked by municipal thugs which started the Arab spring.

    I find it highly commendable Tillman hasn't suicide bombed himself in front of the city council.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Dude, he's already spent almost a million, and is content to wait.

    Even if he wanted to blow up the city council, he'd pay someone else to do it.

  • markm23||

    But wait until he finds out he has incurable cancer...

    And that's one of the reasons Regressive politicians want to keep guns from citizens - especially in San Francisco. They've already had one gunman tearing through City Hall, and Dan White had much less to be upset about than Tillman. Has Tillman started eating excessive Twinkies?

  • Olga||

    While there are clearly some unnecessary hurdles the local government is putting up, a bigger problem in NIMBY. Many people want affordable housing in the abstract. However, if they think it will negatively affect the property value of their home, they suddenly oppose it.

    Palo Alto is entirely too expensive for people to live in. The residents that own houses don't want large apartment complexes built to support the large number of young tech workers. So companies are doing what they need to do and moving to places like Portland and Texas so that their workers can find housing.

  • You're Kidding||

    And yet, more than 64,000 people live there. But, as they are mostly white and wealthy, they don't qualify as people at all.

    I get tired of hearing "it's too expensive for.........." when the in-your-face facts say otherwise.

  • Robert||

    She meant it's too expensive to move into.

  • shawn_dude||

    It's all relative. A young tech worker can get a starting job at $40K in the Southern US or $140K in the Bay Area. You have to view the $3500/mo average rental cost in context of their income. They can afford to rent if they can find a place to rent. The issue isn't "too expensive" as much as "no supply" with the NIMBY folks trying to prevent more supply.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    As society advanced and we need to spend less time providing for our own necessities, people have a need to fill that time with crap like this. Read about Bank of America after the SF fire, giving out loans on a handshake from the back of an apple cart.

  • thestuff||

    "At the meeting, one woman fretted that the tall building would violate the privacy of a nearby public school. "

    Since when did a public school need privacy rights?

  • Gimlet Eye||

    Buried at the end of this name-calling pro-historic-site article is a quote from the early lead organizer of the Mission Coalition Organization: "I have no reason to think that building is a historic resource. The activities that took place within it are historically important, but that's not about the building."

  • Bob Armstrong||

    Google street viewing the property at 2918 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA , and the proposed building , this is just luddite obstructionism to any rational development .

  • You're Kidding||

    I've said it many times on these forums and I'll say it again..........................

    Libertarians here focus way too much on the federal government. While we're arguing over Clinton vs Trump, local government across the nation are eating their young. Sate and local government abuse of civil rights is more rampant than almost anything the feds do and has a more direct impact on average citizens.

    I myself have been harassed, fined and penalized for more than a year by a city where I have a second home. They, based on the fact that I own two residences in two separate cities and have the water bill for the second residence sent to the first (actually, it's paperless) home that I am operating a rental without a rental license. I told them that I have never rented the place to anyone - I've owned it since 1982 - and to get lost. They retaliated by assessing me for three years of rental license fees and slapped me with $1,000/day fines because I refuse to 1) sign an affidavit, 2) provide copies of my federal income tax returns for the years they insist it was a rental and, 3) provide the names of anyone living there and their relationship to me.

    That's an out of control government reminiscent of a banana republic.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Have you sued them for violating your civil rights under color of authority?


  • colorblindkid||

    Reason addresses these local issues all the time.

  • shawn_dude||

    I know that libertarians are against all taxes, but the government does have taxing authority and it is reasonable for it to try and police those who refuse to pay taxes on rental income. That you aren't renting it is one thing, but that you refuse to provide evidence that you aren't avoiding taxes when your data pattern apparently (at least to that municipality) looks like you're renting it, is another thing.

    If you want to snub your nose at the government because it's following up on an apparent attempt at tax avoidance, by all means do so. But holding that up as government run amok is silly and as a banana republic is just insane. If it truly was an actual banana republic, you'd only need to bribe the official and the problem would go away.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    FOAD you statist moron.

  • markm23||

    Why is he required to prove a negative? Shouldn't the government have to prove that it is a rental?

  • drisco304||

    That'll teach him to try to get something done in California!

  • Stnycchi||

    He should split the dirt from the bldg via a ground lease and place restrictive use covenants into the lease. Sell the building to a friend of pelosi liberal and watch the builsing get built while he collects the upside via the sale and ground lease payments. SF out of control as compared to NYC / CHI. Gotta get creative.

  • shawn_dude||

    Flaw in this logic: a "Pelosi liberal" is more likely to agree with the owner. See Scott Weiner, former Board of Supervisors member for the Castro district next door and the one trying pass a state law that will prevent these shenanigans.

    If you don't live in SF you may not understand the politics here. A Feinstein or Pelosi is more likely to support the building owner. Just because they're "liberal" doesn't make them as liberal as half of this city. They're "conservative" by SF standards.

  • Curly4||

    Regulations is what government is best at. By controlling the permitting process. By dragging out the process to get the permits they show how much power that they have. And they use that power even when it is not in the best for the city.
    This same death by over regulation is killing America. When the Empire State building was built in a year . . .

    1930: On March 17, construction of the Empire State Building begins. Under the direction of architects Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates, the framework rises 4 ½ stories per week.

    1931: On May 1, President Hoover presses a button in Washington, D.C. officially opening and turning on the Empire State Building's lights. (from this web address

    When the building can be constructed in a year in the 1930s why does it many times that to get any project just permitted. This delays the project and drives up the cost many times and prevents the benefits of the project from being realized for much longer time than it should. In some cases it has even prevented the project from being built at all. Sometimes that this slowdown is caused by a small group that has its own agenda and that agenda is not for the progress of the community.

  • shawn_dude||

    While I agree with your general sense of frustration over this crazy process, and point out that the state-wide laws designed to break this gridlock are being recommended by a former SF supervisor (aka: city council person), I find your position on "best for the city" as it applies to the Board of Supervisors or the "small group[s]" distasteful.

    The BOS is elected and those that fight construction do so because their constituents want it fought. They get their own definition of what is "best for the city." That is what elections are intended to sort out. So, by definition, as long as they maintain local support, they're doing what is best for the city. (No matter how much I disagree and vote the other way.)

    And from a libertarian perspective, the solution to someone doing something you don't like is to sue, right? So these small groups using the legal process to stall a development they don't want is in keeping with that principle, even if the bureaucratic system they're using now isn't libertarian in nature.

  • Sevo||

    "And from a libertarian perspective, the solution to someone doing something you don't like is to sue, right? So these small groups using the legal process to stall a development they don't want is in keeping with that principle, even if the bureaucratic system they're using now isn't libertarian in nature."

    You're a troll, and your spphistry stinks as much as you do.
    From a libertarian perspective, the guy owns his property, period

  • sharmota4zeb||

    San Francisco is getting so totalitarian that soon only someone raised by a communist regime will want to live there.

  • shawn_dude||

    Captain Hyperbole, your cab is here.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I think the guy needs to quite fucking around and just sue the city on the grounds that they're taking the value of the property from him without compensation.


  • Longtobefree||

    This article, and all the comments seem to ignore the first fact that he does not own the property. The city council does.

  • shawn_dude||

    "Tillman, who already owns the land he wants to develop and whose laundromat business still pulls some $10,000 a month, says he can afford to wait."

    Perhaps you should reread it?

  • ||

    Question: Why did this guy even buy that laundromat? Answer: So he could make a huge profit.

    Summary: The people that owned the property, understood it would take a lot of politics to make it a building. Which is why there are 3 other laundromats in a 100 yard radius. Anyone ever hear, "buyer beware", Trust me, this guy does not want to put up low income housing.

  • shawn_dude||

    Tillman is required by city ordinance to provide a certain percentage of "below market rate" housing or pay into a fund that builds BMR housing elsewhere in the city.

    Regardless, the Mission district is popular and has two BART stops, is walkable to the Castro and has a growing economy. It's a great area. People want to live there.

  • shawn_dude||

    "No housing is located at the site, " This is factually accurate. "so there's no fear that redevelopment will displace any tenants." This is not. (But I understand why the author might think this is true.)

    Having lived in this city for 3 years now, I can say quite clearly that any redevelopment anywhere is immediately worrisome to people because redevelopment itself is seen, rightly or wrongly, as leading to gentrification and thus displacement of tenants. The Mission district fights gentrification tooth and nail. Nothing the property owner agrees to will help him win that argument because they don't want any change at all. They'd rather his shop close and remain boarded up forever, covered in graffiti, than to be redeveloped in any way.

  • MarvinG||

    Bingo. Definition of conservative. Against change.

    In CA progressives and to a lesser degree, liberals, support more housing.

    Conservatives, armed with Proposition 13, which limits property taxes if the property does not change hands, oppose it. The state may be run by Democrats but there are more conservative Democrats there than anywhere else. They may vote D but they are not in any way liberals.

  • ||

    For everyone complaining about my home state please just leave the most populated state in the USA. Moreover, if California was a country, it would be the eighth in gross revenue.

    Go live in Montana where it is -25 degrees for three months.

  • Don Nico||

    And that is related to the discussion at hand, how?

    SF has the housing crisis that it deserves and its citizens have voted for.

  • Mitsima||

    Leave? If Disneyland & Universal were anywhere else there'd be no reason to go! If CA was a country the people of Venezuela could at least be thankful they didn't live there.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    We could say the same thing about lefty, dead thread-fucking trolls like you , Bill. FOAD with shawn.

  • mpercy||

    Burn it down and walk away?

  • dchang0||

    If he doesn't need the income, I recommend that he run a "free laundry day for the homeless."
    This will certainly piss off the neighbors, and when they object, he has the PR and social media advantage. "Look, I'm helping the homeless. It's the city and these neighbors that want them to suffer."

  • GamerFromJump||

    Help the homeless? Without a permit?! Surely you jest.

  • tlapp||

    The obvious answer is to get it designated an historic site. Then you will get tax breaks plus subsidies to maintain it. Should make the Laundromat business very profitable. Not so much for anyone needing a place to live.

  • GamerFromJump||

    In Soviet California, property owns you!

  • nordmann1||

    Do You Need a loan…..?
    Contact Michael Nordmann Financial Service , a private money lender and also in real estate management. Here comes a

    good loan offer for all those who needs Financial assistance at a low rate of 3%. With Red Cross loan Improvement, you

    can say goodbye to all your financial crisis and difficulties.

    We give out loans of any amount. We fight financial crisis and to give a room for bright future in our society as we do

    our business .If you are interested you should indicate your interest and we shall assist you in securing your loan.

    Contact Person: Mr Michael
    Contact Number: +15125627955
    E_mail: . .. . . ..


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online