Another Google bus blockade, this time targeting a Google employee

|
(147)
Claudia Triado (right) with her son on the steps of 812 Guerrero, where tenants are facing eviction.
GUARDIAN PHOTO BY REBECCA BOWE

This morning (Fri/11) kicked off with yet another Google bus blockade in San Francisco’s Mission District, only this time housing activists said a Google employee is directly to blame for displacing residents. 

The blockade, which took place at 18th and Dolores streets, was short-lived but featured speeches by tenants facing eviction, as well as a giant cardboard cut-out depicting 812 Guerrero, a seven-unit building where tenants are facing eviction under the Ellis Act.

The property owner is Jack Halprin, a lawyer who is the head of eDiscovery, Enterprise for Google. He moved into one of the units after purchasing the building two years ago and served eviction notices on Feb. 26, according to tenant Claudia Triado, a third grade teacher at Fairmount Elementary in San Francisco who lives there with her two-year-old son.

The Bay Guardian left a voice message for Halprin requesting comment. We will update this post if he returns the call.

After the bus blockade, activists proceeded to 812 Guerrero and staged a short rally on the front steps.

Evan Wolkenstein, who teaches Jewish literature at the Jewish Community High School of the Bay, said he’s lived at 812 Guerrero for eight years. Other tenants facing eviction from the property include an artist and a disabled person, he added.

During the Google bus blockade, minutes before police officers arrived to clear a path for the bus by urging protesters onto the sidewalk, Wolkenstein gave a speech about the overall impact the tech sector is having on San Francisco.

This evening, Eviction Free San Francisco will continue its protest activities with a march to the homes of teachers who are facing eviction, beginning at 20th and Dolores streets at 5pm.

Comments

You forgot to mention that several of the people living in this building are involved in the protests against Google, while presumably knowing that their landlord works for Google. That is probably a big part of why the owner wants them gone.

Clue to the clueless. Be nice to your landlord.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 11:20 am

Jack Halprin starting displacing his tenants before any of them were involved with these protests. He already occupies 2 units, and it appears he wants the entire building for himself. He bought the building knowing it contained families and teachers.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 11:40 am

building for his own use and so he bought one, and then dutifully followed the law.

Why don't you reserve your ill-considered venom for folks who break the law?

Renting isn't permanent. Who doesn't know that?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 12:12 pm

In SF they think they are so special ( their mother told them so) that they can defy gravity and reality….

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 2:48 am

Tenant protests against landowners are a national phenomenon dating back to the Colonial Era.

Posted by saintlennybruce on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 3:49 am

People who break the law,yeah.

Like that redneck retard in Nevada who insists he can let his 2000 pound pets rampage every which all over the landscape.

Posted by Eastside Clyde Townsend on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 4:30 am

That was pretty neutrally phrased. But, if their pending eviction prompted their dislike of the landlord & their subsequent demonstration, that's pretty understandable, whether you agree or not. 1st Amendment.

Posted by saintlennybruce on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 3:54 am

So what…. the stupid tenants rented in the building knowing that it could be Ellis acted. PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS ! Stop government property restrictions and seizers.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 2:44 am

Douche Bag

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 1:32 am

Lawful has nothing to do with ethics. Since Halprin's a lawyer, I'm sure he knows and doesn't care about the latter. Since this is also still a free country, I'd say people are free to protest whatever they like, big government, rich fat cats, tech dicks, and liberal leftists. Seems Halprin's in good company.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 14, 2014 @ 6:37 pm

The law trumps subjective moralities.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 15, 2014 @ 7:23 am

If law was objective, we wouldn't need judges to interpret their application.

Are you actually against having ethics, even if laws trump them in legal matters?

Posted by saintlennybruce on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 3:58 am

if we can just slow this all down.... and make new pro-renter laws retroactive.

Posted by SF'er on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 12:32 pm

People can only act on the basis of what they know at the time

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 12:45 pm

There's a very good reason why we have a Federal Constitution. You might want to try reading it someday.

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

Posted by Charlie on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 7:28 am

I used to hate just rich people.
Now I hate nearly everyone I see in my neighborhood.
http://darkanddifficult.com/wordpress/?p=2531

Posted by gussdolan on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 12:36 pm

Nobody cares about your self-absorbed blog.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 12:48 pm

Clearly you weren't a Hayes Valley resident before 1992.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 1:58 pm

The owner doesn't want to continue offering his property for rent. Isn't that his right?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 12:39 pm

1) The government make not take private property without full compensation

2) The owner of a property has a right to put that property to use in any form that he deems desirable

The city has a housing crisis because of the very policies that the city has passed. It cannot then reasonably externalize the costs of its errors on the community that it is supposed to serve.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 12:47 pm

I used to hate just rich people.
Now I hate nearly everyone I see in my neighborhood.
http://darkanddifficult.com/wordpress/?p=2531

Posted by gussdolan on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 12:39 pm

posted it. That was boring as fuck. Sum up your whining to a few paragraphs, k thx.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 1:00 pm

Your life sounds terrible. Maybe you need to move on.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 1:17 pm

And mostly the same misfits who show up for every one of these.

Why is this newsworthy?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 1:05 pm

I live in Hayes Valley and have probably passed you on the street many times. I am one of the very shuttle-riding technology employees you vilify. To you, I say the following:

1. Fuck you, too.
2. Go back to Mountain View? I've lived in the city for 15 years. Did I lose my right to live here because of my career choices? Fuck you.
3. Renting isn't forever. Sorry to burst your sad bubble but a rental agreement isn't a sacred document guaranteeing you a damned thing. If you'd put the energy you spend on perpetuating your impotent rage into saving your pennies and buying a place, you wouldn't be at the mercy of property owners.
4. The buses serve a purpose: to take cars that would otherwise be driven by people like me. They currently fulfill that purpose. I've given up my car and no longer drive. If you can't see that as an environmental gain, you're a moron. If the shuttles were to be discontinued, I'd simply buy another car. Sorry, but it's just the truth. People have conflated the buses and the housing shortage. They are simply not related. If the buses didn't exist, I'd still live here. Getting rid of the buses doesn't magically make the employees of tech companies go away. The proof? I made that drive to Mountain View/Sunnyvale/Palo Alto for almost 10 years. The buses didn't bring me here. I was always here, you myopic asshole.
5. Oh, yeah: fuck YOU.

Posted by Guss Dolan, you're a fucking idiot on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 1:40 pm

+1.

Except he left off #6 - "fuck the protesters".

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 1:52 pm

Fuck the whining whiners.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 1:57 pm

+1

The worst part about these carpetbagging progressive hypocrites is that, by and large, none of them are from here.

I was born here. The rest of you parasitic "activists" are just visitors by the sufferance of my generous hospitality. I'd come to your place and protest your shithole apartment, but I don't want to catch body lice. Get the fuck out of MY town.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 6:17 pm

San Francisco has always been on the Left. But it's become much more so. Right about the same time Rudy became Mayor and started cleaning up NYC, we had a massive invasion of unemployed radical activists.

I prefer the term radical over progressive. That's the original word for the far left fringe and it's better suited to their temperament.

Posted by Charlie on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 7:35 am

Progressives are radicals who have been tamed down with a job at a city funded poverty nonprofit.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 7:51 am

"Progressives are radicals who have been tamed down with a job at a city funded poverty nonprofit." = FALSE

Progressives are close minded, intolerant, turd polishing liberals who are so erroneously self confident in their moral superiority that they are able to rationalize using coercive, unconstitutional measures to advance some far off, unattainable group think utopia.

They are the use[less] idiots that think wearing a t-shirt with Pol Pot on it makes them cool and non-conformist.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 1:08 pm

lefties (my preferred term) do not want anything to change.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 8:53 am

Most Americans to the left of right want to reverse neoliberalism, the nonprofiteers have made peace with neoliberalism.

Most Americans are not conservatives. Most conservatives are not libertarians or neoliberals. Yet these minorities of minorities demand complete and total consideration and the subordination of all concerns to their religious theoclassical economic doctrine.

These takers expect for everyone else to concede to their unworkable economic fantasies in what boils down to a great wealth transfer scheme from the productive taxed and regulated blue counties to the consumptive untaxed and unregulated red counties.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 9:40 am
Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 9:50 am

You really don't believe that the choices that the elites allow the two "parties" to put forth are actually remotely representative of public opinion and politics, yet you continue to promulgate such an illusion, how quaint!

Posted by marcos on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 10:04 am

It's just that most of them do not have popular support, which was my point.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 10:45 am

Please encourage all your co-workers to buy up as much rent controlled property as they can afford and Ellis act it. That will really fuck them…..

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 2:47 am

Eat me you POS.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 15, 2014 @ 12:26 pm

You must have worked a long time on that reflective post.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 15, 2014 @ 12:38 pm

SF will be so much better when people like Mr. "Fuck you google scum" have been forced to move to Stockton.

It's the obvious place for them.

Posted by racer さ on Apr. 15, 2014 @ 1:17 pm

Do the former tenants get a 2 year rental subsidy?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 2:59 pm

They are lucky to get anything at all.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 4:11 am

Can a bunch of people in SF just show up at my house "protesting" and be protected by the police? - As in they have a right to occupy my front porch and intimidate me?

I have seen many protests in my two decades here, I have seen the police protect the protesters plenty of times, but this stuff is turning personal with people showing up at private residences. At what point does your right to freely protest infringe upon my right to safety?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 3:57 pm

that they want to sit on my stoop.

Works every time.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 4:24 pm

They can run amok and expect nothing in return.

If a protester runs wild the Bay Guardian will even defend them with such non sense as saying that smashing up a bank isn't really violence.

When the occupy types were wilding the editor here made excuses for it.

It's all a one way street of entitlement.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 8:20 am

I suggest the buses congregate in parking lots in convenient, central locations and have the tech workers make their way to the bus by muni, bike, walk, taxi, uber, etc...
Commuting is difficult and expensive for every worker and these folks can't expect to be picked up at home by a huge traffic clogging bus.

Posted by Hank Chapot on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 4:00 pm

If you call an airport shuttle, you expect them to come to or near your home. you do not expect to shlepp to Transbay.

But if in the end they cannot use Muni stops then they will stop in private parking lots just like the UCSF shuttle stops at the Kezar lot. no biggie.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 4:25 pm

an airporter is van sized, not bus sized. And who goes to the airport twice a day?

Posted by Hank Chapot on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 4:44 pm

tech shuttles.

And a tech shuttle only runs ten times a week, while airport shuttles run 24/7.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 5:00 pm

I suggest the buses congregate in parking lots in convenient, central locations and have the tech workers make their way to the bus by muni, bike, walk, taxi, uber, etc...
Commuting is difficult and expensive for every worker and these folks can't expect to be picked up at home by a huge traffic clogging bus.

Posted by Hank Chapot on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 4:03 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.