It isn't. Any landlord of any type would keep storefronts empty rather than take a risk when it's such a big tax writeoff to leave it unoccupied. He'd rather lose 10% for a year or two than lose 100% on rent when a small business fails in his building.
Honestly. San Francisco lost its soul years ago. It really sucks because I didn’t move to California till the 2000s. And being an artist, I was really looking for individuals and community. But instead, I found that the tech companies and all the shallow solace side effects of a tech economy had already ruined, the romantic ideal of San Francisco. And look at it now! A Solis overpriced train wreck. I remember being in a gallery and asking where the art galleries were like. Where can you find art? Where can you find artists or something cool or something different. And the girl could not give me any kind of Guidance. This is also made the locals very bitter. They need the tourism, but they’re really not the friendliest people like most over touristed cities. I live probably an hour away from San Francisco now and I never want to visit. All my friends that try to take time and go into the city always encounter some kind of crime or violence. if I wanted to go on that kind of adventure I’d go to a Third World country. Which is basically what most of our major cities are spiraling into.
The shops and the restaurants at Fillmore make the area attractive to people wants to live around there. Without the restaurants, the area not special , not attractive, not the same value for the housing development. Stupid
This is what sickening in America you own a business for decades if you don't buy that building it's not your business you're just a store phone like everybody else to be in business take that money that you saved out if the landlord don't want to sell the building move on and buy your own building and it be truly your business tip number one is not yours unless you own it all you just a storefront paying rent that's the same thing I want to keep paying rent in my house to somebody else same thing with your business Let It Be written let it be so
This mayor is so inept and needs to go. We have lost so many stores and businesses while she has been in office and they have done nothing about it. The statement on “ offering assistance for relocation,” etc. is pathetic. Why not use her position of power to stop this, especially our beloved small businesses and restaurants, instead of always rubber stamping the developers. It is destroying the charm, character and landscape of our beautiful city.
Outlawing investment firms from owning property in the United States would be highly complex and controversial due to several key reasons: Property Rights and Market Economy: The U.S. legal system is built on the principle of property rights, which includes the right to buy, sell, and own property. Restricting investment firms from owning property could be seen as a violation of these rights and a significant departure from the principles of a free-market economy. Economic Impact: Investment firms often play a significant role in the economy by investing in and developing real estate. They can provide capital for large-scale housing projects, commercial developments, and infrastructure, which might not be feasible without their involvement. Banning them from owning property could reduce investment in real estate, potentially leading to fewer housing developments, less commercial space, and economic stagnation in certain areas. Practical Challenges: Defining and enforcing such a ban would be challenging. For example, how would the law differentiate between different types of investment entities, such as Real Estate Investment Trusts, private equity firms, or hedge funds? Additionally, investment firms might find loopholes, such as using shell companies or other legal structures to continue owning property indirectly. Political and Legal Opposition: Such a law would likely face strong opposition from powerful interest groups, including the real estate and finance industries. It could also be challenged in court on constitutional grounds, particularly regarding property rights and the right to equal protection under the law. Unintended Consequences: A blanket ban might lead to unintended consequences, such as reducing liquidity in the real estate market, driving up costs for individual homebuyers, or even leading to a decrease in the availability of rental properties if large landlords are forced to sell off their holdings.
@@Thomas23-tu8gj Congratulations! You are correct. If people don't want corporations owning something, Buy it out from under them. Maybe you didn't recognize the sarcasm in my previous reply?
@@mourka01 If the government can do that then they can also prevent you from owning property. But I'm guessing you might be doing a pretty good job of that all on your own.
Happened to my aunt she had a restaurant for 30 years, then new building owners and they raised the rent from 8k to 15k, they decided to retire back in 2017…
Somewhere there was a person who couldn't wait to comment on this video , "haha San Francisco people that's what you get for electing politicians who are soft on crime and cater to homeless drug addicts." Then they read the caption and watched and were confused. (Not that that isn't an issue for San Francisco or other cities. But some act like that is the only problem).
In some redevelopments where they put up a mixed-use building with shops on the ground floor and multiple floors of apartments above, they rent the displaced landmark restaurant space in the new building. It’s a sterile space devoid of charm; invariably small and cramped because it’s very expensive.
SF is passing a law to require all entities to view, like , and subscribe. a second law will require all SF entities to buy one meal a day at these shops forever.
the investor is just going to lose money unless they can develop the land. Good luck running a restaurant or shop without being actively involved. probably going to be an empty store front for years.
Well do they own the building or not? Who ever owns the building has the right to sell their property to whoever they want. You need to accept that when you RENT a location for your business.
@@JeffButterworth-bm8gj - the main issue is the property owners can claim a loss for vacant property and write it off on their taxes...it's a blight on any city to have so many vacant store fronts when these VC companies buy in bulk and sit on vacant property while asking outrageous rental prices.
Normally I would be completely in line with your comment but a part of me is thinking "why should it only be giant corporations who get protectionist policies?". Especially when the people who bought the property are trying to drive out the exact kinds of businesses they say they want in those spaces. They say they want to rent to "non-chain" entities, yet they are pushing out those exact kinds of businesses. Nothing here makes sense.
Government is not in the business of picking winners in the losers. If a retailer is doing well & wants to stay where it is, it should buy the building. I love business that own their property. Then I know they will be there for a while.
This sucks! Really like those restaurants. What are their go fund me's? Also if they would be able to move to Ingleside on Ocean Ave they would have me as a customer.
The building consists of three businesses and one residence upstairs. La Méditeranée is in the restaurant business with two restaurants in San Francisco, one restaurant in Berkeley, and one catering business in San Francisco. It is not in the business of owning real estate and being a landlord to the tenants of the building.
@@HanginInSF it's gotta be regulated. If we let the "free market" rule, then nothing will stop all the great restaurants and businesses in SF from closing, as landlords seek ever higher-paying tenants. I don't know about you, but I could never afford $5,000 a month for a small apartment.
Capitalism is a failure. Decades ago it was promised that Capitalism would solve our problems. Well, poverty in the world has increased and inequality has increased.
The lockdowns radically altered our economic markets; they are not on a Capitalism trajectory any longer. Global market takeovers by military force means no more “free market”.
If any of them have unique signage out front, make the sign historic and unremovable. It might quash the developer's plans. Also tossing out small businesses to bring in small businesses? Imbecile move, false claims.
The precious Blue Bottle Coffee store, Fillmore and Jackson, covered early 20th century signage on its corner space, thus removing some of the character of the building with their bland vision. P.S. Blue Bottle Coffee is owned by Nestle.
You played yourself. Progressive policies lead to progressive change. No room for your niche restaurants/bistros/bars everything will be Wing Stop and Buffalo Wild Wings! Good luck!
This isn't progressive . It's just corporations not being regulated at all. It's just unregulated capitalism. BTW trump wants to be rid of regulations for corporations .
Can I get the number to your dealer to have what you’re smoking? Capitalism is what led these evil vultures to be able to buy up real estate and close these businesses down.
@@jeremys6631this impacts all Americans 😂 this will happen to you and your community. Capitalism isn’t just regulated through democracy 😂 many things that happen aren’t put on the ballot 😂
but no one will go to those new places no one will rents them it will become an homeless street LOL no one must rent those places anymore ! it will be like in Union street no one anymore !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! those developer's will loose all LOL
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Venture capitalists are one of the major reasons for the empty stores/restaurants across the USA.
Nah! Homeless and crimes
@@MossMinithat’s the financial framework that keeps people homeless and committing crime 😂 read a book
@@MossMini That too. But a combo of foolish voters & wealthy progressives (such as in venture-capital firms) has been a match made in hell.
It isn't. Any landlord of any type would keep storefronts empty rather than take a risk when it's such a big tax writeoff to leave it unoccupied. He'd rather lose 10% for a year or two than lose 100% on rent when a small business fails in his building.
These are established restaurants so not a new risk for a lease
Honestly. San Francisco lost its soul years ago. It really sucks because I didn’t move to California till the 2000s. And being an artist, I was really looking for individuals and community. But instead, I found that the tech companies and all the shallow solace side effects of a tech economy had already ruined, the romantic ideal of San Francisco. And look at it now! A Solis overpriced train wreck. I remember being in a gallery and asking where the art galleries were like. Where can you find art? Where can you find artists or something cool or something different. And the girl could not give me any kind of Guidance. This is also made the locals very bitter. They need the tourism, but they’re really not the friendliest people like most over touristed cities. I live probably an hour away from San Francisco now and I never want to visit. All my friends that try to take time and go into the city always encounter some kind of crime or violence. if I wanted to go on that kind of adventure I’d go to a Third World country. Which is basically what most of our major cities are spiraling into.
the romantic ideal of San Francisco never existed in the first place, it has always been a very transient place with weak social fabric
The shops and the restaurants at Fillmore make the area attractive to people wants to live around there. Without the restaurants, the area not special , not attractive, not the same value for the housing development. Stupid
This is what sickening in America you own a business for decades if you don't buy that building it's not your business you're just a store phone like everybody else to be in business take that money that you saved out if the landlord don't want to sell the building move on and buy your own building and it be truly your business tip number one is not yours unless you own it all you just a storefront paying rent that's the same thing I want to keep paying rent in my house to somebody else same thing with your business Let It Be written let it be so
This mayor is so inept and needs to go. We have lost so many stores and businesses while she has been in office and they have done nothing about it. The statement on “ offering assistance for relocation,” etc. is pathetic. Why not use her position of power to stop this, especially our beloved small businesses and restaurants, instead of always rubber stamping the developers. It is destroying the charm, character and landscape of our beautiful city.
Why don't we just outlaw investment firms being able to own property
Outlawing investment firms from owning property in the United States would be highly complex and controversial due to several key reasons:
Property Rights and Market Economy: The U.S. legal system is built on the principle of property rights, which includes the right to buy, sell, and own property. Restricting investment firms from owning property could be seen as a violation of these rights and a significant departure from the principles of a free-market economy.
Economic Impact: Investment firms often play a significant role in the economy by investing in and developing real estate. They can provide capital for large-scale housing projects, commercial developments, and infrastructure, which might not be feasible without their involvement. Banning them from owning property could reduce investment in real estate, potentially leading to fewer housing developments, less commercial space, and economic stagnation in certain areas.
Practical Challenges: Defining and enforcing such a ban would be challenging. For example, how would the law differentiate between different types of investment entities, such as Real Estate Investment Trusts, private equity firms, or hedge funds? Additionally, investment firms might find loopholes, such as using shell companies or other legal structures to continue owning property indirectly.
Political and Legal Opposition: Such a law would likely face strong opposition from powerful interest groups, including the real estate and finance industries. It could also be challenged in court on constitutional grounds, particularly regarding property rights and the right to equal protection under the law.
Unintended Consequences: A blanket ban might lead to unintended consequences, such as reducing liquidity in the real estate market, driving up costs for individual homebuyers, or even leading to a decrease in the availability of rental properties if large landlords are forced to sell off their holdings.
Yeah! What could go wrong with that? New "Rules" fix everything.
Because of a little thing called the U.S. Constitution.
@@Thomas23-tu8gj Congratulations! You are correct. If people don't want corporations owning something, Buy it out from under them. Maybe you didn't recognize the sarcasm in my previous reply?
@@mourka01 If the government can do that then they can also prevent you from owning property. But I'm guessing you might be doing a pretty good job of that all on your own.
Destroying a local treasure like La Med is just another stake through the heart of SF
Happened to my aunt she had a restaurant for 30 years, then new building owners and they raised the rent from 8k to 15k, they decided to retire back in 2017…
Looking at the decent amount of vacancies in North Beach under Peskin's tenure, I wouldn't trust a single bill he proposes.
Somewhere there was a person who couldn't wait to comment on this video , "haha San Francisco people that's what you get for electing politicians who are soft on crime and cater to homeless drug addicts." Then they read the caption and watched and were confused.
(Not that that isn't an issue for San Francisco or other cities. But some act like that is the only problem).
It's funny how basement dwellers from sh|tty red states rush to comment on California videos.
In some redevelopments where they put up a mixed-use building with shops on the ground floor and multiple floors of apartments above, they rent the displaced landmark restaurant space in the new building. It’s a sterile space devoid of charm; invariably small and cramped because it’s very expensive.
Yep! Its sad
We are in a class war, rich vs the rest of us.
This should have more views and likes. Large corporations generally don't care at all obviously about small businesses and communities .
SF is passing a law to require all entities to view, like , and subscribe. a second law will require all SF entities to buy one meal a day at these shops forever.
And neither do our city officials. We need to get people in office who love and want to preserve our city, not these bought off sell-outs.
@@CJinsoo Yes, unfettered capitalism is the answer to everything. Just ask the patients of hospitals and nursing homes owned by private equity.
the investor is just going to lose money unless they can develop the land. Good luck running a restaurant or shop without being actively involved. probably going to be an empty store front for years.
Yes and also people come to and want to live in this neighborhood for the good food. So its not a good long term plan.
Good luck developing anything in the Bay Area. They always shut that down
Well do they own the building or not?
Who ever owns the building has the right to sell their property to whoever they want.
You need to accept that when you RENT a location for your business.
La Medditerrainee is a good one. I hope they reopen closer to my neighborhood.
I used to eat there in my teens and twenties. Excellent food. Its absolutely wrong to "evict" SF legacy, small businesses!
Did you actually think San Francisco has forever been anything but bought and paid for?
Instead of blaming the VC, just buy your own property then open up for business!
VC and non-profit together sounds very fishy! KPIX needs to do more digging....
The investor will destroy what he invested money for
Voting Democrat is like sniffing glue or paint. Feels amazing that very first time. The long term ramifications however are disastrous.
Why a nonprofit, I don’t trust them.
They get tax breaks and exemptions, that's why so many label their business Non-Profits. Which in reality it's just a label and they do profit
@@stevenotero2627 Yes, and mostly liberal that democratic government gives contracts & money too. In turn all the NP vote democrat.
please no more legislation! Lease ends and move on. Owner shouldn’t be obligated to maintain tenant’s legacy.
BS!!! Offer a new lease...its about renting out the commercial space...right???
@aggieshan You are certainly a brainwashed part of the problem.
No more laws, regulations. If the new owner drives it into the ground then after they lose enough they'll quit the buyout business.
@@JeffButterworth-bm8gj - the main issue is the property owners can claim a loss for vacant property and write it off on their taxes...it's a blight on any city to have so many vacant store fronts when these VC companies buy in bulk and sit on vacant property while asking outrageous rental prices.
Normally I would be completely in line with your comment but a part of me is thinking "why should it only be giant corporations who get protectionist policies?". Especially when the people who bought the property are trying to drive out the exact kinds of businesses they say they want in those spaces. They say they want to rent to "non-chain" entities, yet they are pushing out those exact kinds of businesses. Nothing here makes sense.
Filmore is a beautiful neighborhood !
Government is not in the business of picking winners in the losers. If a retailer is doing well & wants to stay where it is, it should buy the building. I love business that own their property. Then I know they will be there for a while.
This sucks! Really like those restaurants. What are their go fund me's? Also if they would be able to move to Ingleside on Ocean Ave they would have me as a customer.
Rented for 45 years and never bought the building?? Probably could have gotten it for $100k back in the 90’s
The building consists of three businesses and one residence upstairs. La Méditeranée is in the restaurant business with two restaurants in San Francisco, one restaurant in Berkeley, and one catering business in San Francisco. It is not in the business of owning real estate and being a landlord to the tenants of the building.
Nooooooo
Peskin will never stand with you. He loves MONEY show me one thing that he did in this city in last 30 years.
Own your place and you won't get kick out.
45 years and did't save to buy a place?
You really like to like the capitalist boot
competition and options are overrated…
for another overpriced bland condo complex?
We need housing.
😢Lululemon being forced out for LOUIS VUITTON 😅 As Gentrification goes, this one seems relatively lateral.
Good luck California.
Just move. There's plenty of empty spaces in San Francisco.
@ty5967 You move.
Thank you for choosing corporate America who cares more about Wall Street than small businesses 🇺🇸
Capitalism sucks sometimes
The only good thing I can say about it is that it's better than the other systems.
@@HanginInSF it's gotta be regulated. If we let the "free market" rule, then nothing will stop all the great restaurants and businesses in SF from closing, as landlords seek ever higher-paying tenants. I don't know about you, but I could never afford $5,000 a month for a small apartment.
Capitalism is a failure. Decades ago it was promised that Capitalism would solve our problems. Well, poverty in the world has increased and inequality has increased.
@@HanginInSFsocialism for the rich lol
The lockdowns radically altered our economic markets; they are not on a Capitalism trajectory any longer.
Global market takeovers by military force means no more “free market”.
You get what you vote for😂😂😂
If any of them have unique signage out front, make the sign historic and unremovable. It might quash the developer's plans.
Also tossing out small businesses to bring in small businesses? Imbecile move, false claims.
The precious Blue Bottle Coffee store, Fillmore and Jackson, covered early 20th century signage on its corner space, thus removing some of the character of the building with their bland vision. P.S. Blue Bottle Coffee is owned by Nestle.
I dont agree with governments jumping in at all that is could be called mafia like tactics
Venture capitalists are the mafia and they infiltrated our government
Jones Richard Johnson Donald Martin Jose
They been around that long, so why did they not buy it.
The Fillmore District was destroyed after Japanese people were put in camps, and many Black people moved in.
Thomas Gary Miller Melissa White Mark
You played yourself. Progressive policies lead to progressive change. No room for your niche restaurants/bistros/bars everything will be Wing Stop and Buffalo Wild Wings! Good luck!
This isn't progressive . It's just corporations not being regulated at all. It's just unregulated capitalism. BTW trump wants to be rid of regulations for corporations .
How? Capitalism is progressive lol these are venture capitalists
Too bad i guess
We don’t need more regulations, let capitalism work
Can I get the number to your dealer to have what you’re smoking? Capitalism is what led these evil vultures to be able to buy up real estate and close these businesses down.
@@GregBirkin no, democracy did. You get what you voted for
Lol it sure hates the middle class 😂
@@jeremys6631this impacts all Americans 😂 this will happen to you and your community. Capitalism isn’t just regulated through democracy 😂 many things that happen aren’t put on the ballot 😂
@@jeremys6631 ohhh you’re the typical right wing MAGA loser type that can’t think for himself so they blame “democracy”.
Italian VC firms invading
Clark Kenneth Davis Kenneth Brown Mary
🙊 😂
Horrible.
Betsy Trace
DR BEN CARSON BOOKS ROMANIA
Allen George Young Sharon Harris Helen
Thomas Deborah Taylor Karen Robinson David
but no one will go to those new places no one will rents them it will become an homeless street LOL no one must rent those places anymore ! it will be like in Union street no one anymore !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! those developer's will loose all LOL
White Ruth Thomas Brenda Thomas Cynthia
After all those years in business those small businesses should of bought the building...😂😂
That’s not feasible for many small businesses whose owners are middle class. America hates the middle class.
Move to the Peninsula.
SF passed a law requiring all SF entities to buy one meal a day from these shops.
White Patricia Robinson Helen Harris George
jahahajajaja
These restaraunts are all lame 😂😂😂
Mr. Peskin has my vote
Mine too
White Deborah Smith Christopher Martinez Jeffrey
VC sucks
Should have bought the property, find a new location
The owner wasnt selling?
They held out for the big chaching
KPIX | CBS NEWS BAY AREA, i turned on notifications
Ikr I’m subbed I feel like I’m getting old
WHERE IS THE RESTURANT ?
Neel mehta , what's his phone number?
Feq capitalism