Thanks
George, kind words, and a reasonable description worthy of a share. I probably
couldn't have said it better myself.
-
gibbs
¥¥¥
In
response to a post by a Mr. Julian Mark in something called "Mission
Local."
A
friend of mine, Gibbs Chapman, lived in that building for decades. From what I
saw, the situation was a little different than all that, and the 'article' is
somewhat off (Mr.) Mark.
1)
It is likely that what bothers me about what the public may get from the press
about that situation, is what I'm sure was described to me, and the press, in
detail back in 2014: That the people in the building were described essentially
as 'Artists living in illegal shanty-town, putting the lives of babies at
risk.' I would characterize the place differently:
Gibbs
was a working person, operating a small business, a machine shop of sorts
involved in obsolete industry, a person predisposed to working on media
projects whose raison d'etre was primarily
philosophical or working for social justice. Therefore, especially in recent
times (after 1999 or so) he had little choice but to sleep in his shop. I guess
due to poor planning, he was unprepared for the transformation of San Francisco
and by default found himself raising a family in a grey-area industrial
building subject to rent control and other aspects of the schizophrenic City
housing policies and governmental band-aids. They
didn't get around to an escape plan for child-rearing
and retirement by the time they physically had to escape fire.
I
needn't go into depth, into what I view as a conspiracy by owners (mostly after
2000) to maximize profit while minimizing expenses in renting industrial
property to kids who are mostly looking to get chicks and have parties in
'cool,' fire traps. You either think this is fine or at least legal.
Unfortunately, there is no ban on investment property ownership and no czar who
decides who is worthy of loft rental.
2)
In light of a "Ghost Ship" (a little too accurate now) and the current
fire disasters in northern California, and 22nd & Mission among others, from
what I saw, Stevenson St. was fairly mild, the damage quite minimal, despite
the insomnia, the endless recovery from smoke and soot, the displacement, etc.
The owners simply used the fire as an excuse to learn and strategize as to how
best to get rid of all those people, and sell the building for an immediate and
ongoing profit. As I understand it, they carry 1.4 million on the property
still. No press apparently feels it important to research or explore the
insanity that is disclosed if one looks at just the transfer data alone for the
property since 2000, in the public record. No one wants to talk about the
morality of investment property ownership; you all seem to think that is too
intellectual or complicated or boring for a reading public. And it certainly is
a non-starter for the bulk of the population who think milking people for the
fruits of the their life's labor in exchange for the false 'service' that is a
roof over their head, is not only morally just but an excellent way to compile
wealth for them and theirs. They will not want to hear about John Locke, Robert
Mugabe and land reform. The fact is, there are alternative financial structures
for housing, even if they are 'Too Quaint' to hear about.
3)
Value is clearly very subjective, but let me just say that you omitted some
important information about the "Go Away" money. Firstly, a million
dollars is a figure. And sure enough, the news of your recent writing came to me
from a friend in NY, asking me if heard that Gibbs got a million dollars. She
didn't read the article carefully, clearly. But nevertheless, leading with that
figure is heavily problematic. Mr. Tobener, bless his
heart, likely didn't want to talk about how half of that went to his firm. Then
the eight or more of them bitched at each other over the rest, and let me clamp
down here: The money they received to shut up and go away FOREVER, as partial
compensation for Gibbs and family to spend 3 years and ongoing, cleaning
equipment, repairing things, comforting the little boy to get him to stop
screaming in the middle of the night... ...well, they didn't loose everything,
or their lives. In any case, it's not very much money; I'm sure they'd gladly
return the money if they could erase the experience, but alas...
Of
course, Justice (I think) involves holding responsible parties accountable.
None of this 'Million Dollars' came out of the pocket of the men who caused the
fire and/or the subsequent real estate maneuvers. Gibbs told me back in 2014:
"I was in that building for 23 years, and I hereby testify: I NEVER saw an
insurance tech inspecting anything, the least of which might have been the
charred rafter joists from the 1962 fire." In other words, somebody's
getting kicked for that underwriting, but no boots will ever reach the butts of
the owners, their lawyers or the moronic tenants that started the fire.
4)
Mr. Tobener suggests something uninformed - he was
apparently never in the building, by the way. "The building wasn't safe
because of the tenants..." is not accurate. The grandfathered building did
not have modern safety upgrade (regardless of use) solely because the owners
DID NOT WANT TO PAY to have this done. They also directly arranged and allowed
division of the two floors to remove modes of egress - it was typical behavior
known the world over and throughout history: Simply minimum expense, maximum
rent, buy low, sell high. The idea that DBI would have denied a permit (and not
accepted the fees) from a properly designed sprinkler and escape system in an
old wooden structure is ludicrous. I think the 'residential' tenants would have
stowed their beds and covered their equipment with plastic for this, gladly.
They did when roofers were pounding on the roof in the 90s. I was visiting at
that time and found tar covered pebbles in my suitcase when I got back home.
Also,
the fire department visited the building, as did police and other City agencies
on numerous occasions without issue. They know or knew about grey-area
buildings, and their job was not to force people out of housing. The only
instance when a unit was shut down by a tenant calling someone was when one
called DBI about mold in a shower, clearly not understanding that this was
shooting oneself in the foot and the way the kludged system worked: You fix
your own shit and shut up about it. I suppose Mr. Tobener
is trying to say that old loft tenants are '...in a bind...' in that they can't
call DBI to complain about a slumlord when by its sheer nature you've 'agreed'
to maintain a commercial space. But this is just a misunderstanding of the
dynamic and is a result of shifting the rental of industrial property from
small business or artisans to unqualified trendoids.
It's just stupidity and opportunism.
¥¥¥
No
one should think there is justice involved in this. This was solely business
activity and business expense for subsequent profit. Sure, the public only
cares about the 'Human interest Story,' I know, I've worked on hundreds of
funded and un-funded documentaries, and I've heard the producer's talk. Well,
in my humble opinion, justice also matters, and the public should be told about
justice and injustice, whether they like it or not.
George
Numbrunt
New
York, New York
October
20, 2017