Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
You know, maybe Tapioca Ed wouldn't have problems with fire if he had running water. Bobagate heats up -- literally!
Matier and Ross report today on some issues regarding yet another house that Ed Jew owns. Ed Jew owns so many houses he didn't even report this one to the Board of Supes! (By the way, who owns this much property in San Francisco? If he were playing Monopoly, Ed could put up a little red hotel.)
Anyways, this latest Ed Jew house is in Laurel Heights. The last tenant in the house killed himself with an OD of muscle relaxants in September 2005. Ed tried to sell it a few months later for $1.19 million, but it didn't move. About two or three months later, in February 2006, someone set it on fire -- apparently an arsonist walked in, dumped gasoline in the living room and den, and lit a match.
Jew then got permits to renovate the house -- but apparently, a homeless guy moved into the portapotty the contractors installed outside, and then one day the portapotty caught on fire too. Neighbors are now convinced the house is haunted.
The Chron is running a bio of Ed Jew today too. He owns about $5 million in property and bought his first piece of land when he was 21. (Only $5 million with 13 houses in San Francisco? That doesn't sound right.)
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Having lived on the same block of 2626 Sutter, I can tell you the rumor on the street was that the arson occurred out of revenge for Jew evicting the former tenants. The rumor was Jew evicted the tenants because one of the tenants died from a drug overdose. After the overdose, Jew evicted the tenants, put the house on the market, and quickly afterwards, the arson occurred. This was the crux of the neighborhood gossip. I make no claims to the veracity.
I got to watch the whole fire and the arson crew who came afterwards. Fun times in Laurel Heights.
(Only $5 million with 13 houses in San Francisco? That doesn't sound right.)
Have you ever heard of propertyshark.com? Of the thirteen properties listed in the article you linked to (which, btw, describes the list as property that is or =was= owned by Supervisor Ed Jew and his family, at least four are not currently owned by H&A Jew, Ed Jew or the Jew Trust. (I only checked five addresses before ran out of the "free six reports a day" that propertyshark.com allows without a subscription and didn't go any further. ...)
The five I checked:
» 1490 Newcomb Ave.
sold by Ed Jew & Lorene Chan in 1998
» 1679 32nd Ave.
sold by Ed Jew 2003
» 940 Jackson St.
Sold by Ed Jew & Lorene Chan in 1999
» 1027-1029 Washington St.
Sold by Ed Jew 1997
» 266-268 11th Ave. owned by Jew Trust
H&A sold to Jew trust 1998
Perhaps some of your other amateur investigative reporters can actually check with propertyshark.com to see how many of the other eight properties are owned by the family at this point in time.
"Anyways"??????
I love SFist, but it almost makes me cry to see non-words used by high schoolers show up here.
It is supposed to be "chatty" not "catty" sfstop.
As someone who has watched my share of Planning Commission hearings, I wonder how his window and door replacements got through the Commission.
On a house of this age and apparant caliber, the replacement windows and door aren't something the Planning Commission would have approved of.
It's much easier to see in the print edition of the Chron, but if you look at the before and after photos of the house in the M&R column, you can see that prior to torching, the windows and door had been narrow with arches at the top.
The replacements look too modern for the building.
Who knows, they may even be vinyl!
Where's a Buiding Inspector when you need one?
Before and after facade photos here:
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/27/BAGLRQ2BQP1.DTL
Here we go. Larger photos of the architectural details.
Those arches should have been retained...
Before;
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=1&f=/c/a/2007/05/27/BAGLRQ2BQP1.DTL
After:
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2007/05/27/BAGLRQ2BQP1.DTL&o=0
"Anyways" almost makes you cry, huh? Lame. It's a funny word tightbutt.
um, that's being very generous calling that address laurel heights....maybe kaiser heights. i bet it didn't sell because there's a housing project across the street and it's pretty much the western edition. do m&r even live in the city?
OK, that takes the cake. Maybe the guy took bribes, and maybe he doesn't live in hs district.
But he used VINYL WINDOWS!!
Throw the bum out, I say!
M&R both live in Piedmont.
hey everyone,
i think sfstop or sfstupid is "The Jew". We have a rabbit in the bush!
...it's pretty much the western edition. do m&r even live in the city?
I don't know if someone who says Western Edition has any right to talk about knowing the city.
Just a quick delayed update in response to the comment about projects across the street from this house. There are no projects across the street from the house, as I am pretty sure, I lived across from the house. The projects are one block down, but yes, it is a bit generous to call it Laurel Heights.
andrew (9):
My point about the house's window replacements that are not in keeping with the originals is that he is probably ignoring a directive from the Planning Commission to "replace with same."
Can someone please explain what NoeValleyJim means in (4)?
And what does johnv.sf mean in (11)?
Both comments seem to be non sequiters.
I was responding to the previous poster, which you would have realized if you had noticed the last word "sfstop" which is the posters nom-de-plume.
I was accusing him of being catty, because he was complaining about the previous posters spelling.
Many times in the past, the sfist staff has asked posters to either be funny or nice, or preferably both.
Next time I will type r-e-a-l s-l-o-w so you can get it, okay?
NoeValleyJim (16): I do believe you are being catty.
I got it that you were referring to the previous poster, "sfstop's" post, despite the fact that you didn't tag it with the posting number.
But because there was no precedent to your use of "it," "chatty," or "catty" I was looking for one or the other of those references, which aren't there. So your post seemed to be just sitting there referring to... what?
As can happen in email and general online posting, if one doesn't actually reference that to which one is referring, it doesn't make sense to readers.
There is no inflection to point the reader in the direction the writer intends. I'm sure your post made perfect sense to you, the writer.
How long befoer this whole ordeal is called TapiocaGate?
How long will it take?