SF Gate writes that a person who identifies as “Venceremos (meaning, “We shall overcome”) with Brigada Anti-Gentrification suggested on Indybay that Vanguard Properties at 2501 Mission Street was targeted “because it had built housing for the wealthy.”

San Francisco police Officer Gordon Shyy told SF Gate that it appeared a brick had been thrown through the window there.

“Vanguard thought it was pretty funny to build some luxury condos on 24th, but we thought it was more funny for their property to get smashed. Vanguard thought it was pretty funny to buy foreclosed houses in Oakland and flip them at a profit. We think it’s more funny to bring the fight to the developers themselves,” the person wrote. READ MORE.

The woman who works at the front desk at Vanguard said today that the incident happened over the weekend and the two large windows damaged on 21st Street have already been repaired.

She added that the footage from surveillance cameras had been handed over to police.

Follow Us

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

      1. Not just people but pinches hipsters… these entities have displaced the natives and have virtually wiped out the latin flavor of the barrio…

        1. But these were newly built homes and so their new residents could not have displaced anyone.

  1. If you are referring to the new condos on lower 24th street that use to be an auto shop I have to agree it is sad to see because I saw the ostentatious people who came out to see the properties. My family are property owners from the early 60’s ( grandparents from Mexico) and though I am happy to see less crime also unhappy to see rude and callous newcomers.

    1. Sam, if all you know of these newcomers is seeing them viewing the new homes then on what reasonable basis can you claim to know that they are ostentatious, rude and callous?

    1. Just curious, marcos, and not that I would advocate it, or the above. But if someone put a brick through your window, or the window of La Raza’s offices, would you advocate that as well? Personally, I’d advocate neither.

      But I’d love to hear your response to the question.

      1. Nobody who lives in our home or works at La Raza perpetrates economic attacks against the community, hence neither is a legitimate target.

        Vanguard is a corporate actor whose actions seeking the highest profits have hurt others. If there are no meaningful legal disincentives to such conduct, then it is up to individuals to hold these legal fictions incorporated ostensibly for the public benefit accountable.

        1. Marcos, the individual(s) noted in the above article put a brick through a window. That window cost money to install and will cost money to replace. As such, it is an ‘Economic Crime’ of which you speak.

          You, rightly or wrongly, do not like some of your neighbours. And undoubtedly, some of your neighbours do not like you. Do they therefore have a right to destroy your property? I’m sure some of the gentrifiers with whom you have little patience have considered putting a brick through your window, but would you advocate them doing so based simply on their disagreements with you? I certainly would not.

          1. No, this is not about not liking new neighbors or any given eviction. It is about the wholesale parceling out of a community by speculators for profit with no consideration for the attendant human costs.

            When the only members of the Mission community who are allowed at the table do not meaningfully reflect election outcomes in the Mission, when by the election results most residents are frozen out of policy making decisions, then that pressure is going to be released some way.

            Given the immense human cost of Vanguard’s conduct and the embarrassing levels of profit, a brick through a window is no big deal.

          2. But Marcos, are you advocating putting a brick through the windows of those with whom you disagree, or those with whom anyone disagrees? You have not answered.

          3. No, I am saying that direct action gets the goods.

            Where did I advocate throwing bricks through windows?

            When I evaluate the harm from a brick through a real estate speculator’s window on one hand and the torrent of evictions on the other against my values, well, that is a no-brainer for me.

          4. marcos, you are arguing to break the windows of those whom you personally disagree with. In other words, to determine whether brick-throwing is fair, we must simply refer to your little red book of political opinions first.

            That is blatant, self-serving, biased nonsense.

            Of course, we all know that you just enjoy being extreme for the sake of it now that your political “career” is in ruins by your own admission. So being deliberately outrageous is all you have left.

            So sad.

          5. Are you seriously suggesting that the Boston Tea Party was not direct action and did not get the goods?

          6. marcos, are you seriously equating undemocratic rule by a foreign power with a legal entity building homes for SF residents?

          7. Undemocratic rule by citywide elected politicians subverting the democratic expressed will of residents in a neighborhood, makes for an interesting parallel, no?

            Hell, most of District Six was rezoned with Chris Daly conflicted out because the Mayor had Planning draw the district boundaries so that they all came within 150′ of Chris Daly’s home, we were planned over with no local representation.

          8. Disagreements about how to most effectively use land are not the same kind of thing as rule by a foreign imperial power.

            Direct action almost always fails because it is undemocratic and rarely carries the will of the people.

          9. In your opinion. But city-wide, the voters wanted Lee as mayor, not Avalos, indicating a clear preference for growth, jobs and development over NIMBYism and the status quo.

            You support direct action only because you do not have majority support of the people.

          10. The evidence via election results bears this out. The outcomes do not reflect that. So long as the neighborhood is frozen out of self determination, there will be friction, some of which will erupt into direct action. That’s life in the big city.

          11. Wrong, marcos. Avalos was the anti-growth candidate. Lee was the pro-growth candidate. Three voters chose Lee for every two who chose Avalos.

            The community wants jobs, growth and development. The outcomes reflect that majority view. You’re the outlier.

          12. And in the Mission, Avalos creamed Lee as all candidates and measures that bring some equity to “growth” do. The conversation here is about what our neighborhood thinks not what you think. No matter how many times you post, the election outcomes in this neighborhood are consistent, speak for themselves and against every single one of your positions.

          13. Wrong. The issue isn’t what I think but nor is it what Mission residents think, ultimately. Because, as explained to you already, the Mission has no legislature. It is not a jurisdiction. It has no decision-making body.

            If you want a say about whether 8Wash gets built, which is not in the Mission, then you must accept that people outside the Mission ultimately get to decide what gets built in your back yard.

            Have 94110 secede from the city, if that is what you want to see.

          14. Either a people have a say in the public policy that impacts them or there are going to be problems, that’s the way that it is supposed to be.

          15. You do get a say, marcos. You get a vote. And the opportunity to go to public planning meetings.

            What you do not get is to make the final decision. And sometimes, having had your say, you lose. That’s life.

            How maturely people accept loss if a definining test of character. Evidently you fail it.

            But luckily for you, others have more maturity, and those who lost with 8Wash decided not to throw a brick through your window, even though according to you that would be reasonable.

          16. The colonies were sovereign British territory when they perpetrated treason and launched an insurrection against the mother country. You are apparently fine with that. But as the liberal shotguns the second amendment, you would cut off similar recourse to future comers. You’re not a democrat at all.

          17. Most Americans have the intelligence to see the difference between opposing non-democratic imperialism and open debates about land use within a democratic framework.

            You’d get more respect if you simply stated that you are a bad loser and have temper tantrums when you do lose.

          18. No matter how the Mission votes, we get just the opposite. That is by definition not democratic.

          19. The Mission is not a jurisdiction. It accepts that it is better off being part of a bigger conurbation even though it understand that, in so doing, it loses 100% control over its own destiny.

            The Marina has the same problems. So does every neighborhood.

            If I thought like you, I’d start a movement to secede from the city. Maybe you could be the mayor of the Mission?

          20. You are a tory loyalist usurper to a proud American revolutionary tradition. The Mission is a supervisorial district and it is a planning area. Those are both governmental designations.

          21. Not really. D9 doesn’t fit exactly with the Mission. Even if it was, Campos cannot decide anything without support from others.

            Your local government designations have no indepedant decision-making power. Planning is a city-wide function. Locals can give opinions and advice, but must accept decisions that go against them for the good of the city.

            We do not have legislation by block or zip code. In fact, we are already massively Balkanized compared with other cities. You are lucky the Bay Area isn’t one big jurisdiction with one supervisor per county. Then you really would be unhappy.

          22. The structure of representative government does not produce outcomes in The Mission accurately reflect the desires of Mission residents as expressed at the ballot box.

          23. Maybe so. But you could say the same about any other neighborhood in the city.

            Are you arguing that each neighborhood should have its own government? That we should have dozens of mini-cities instead of San Francisco? Each with their own police, transit etc?

          24. But we’re not talking about other neighborhoods or the city at large on a bloc called missionLOCAL.

            The fact remains that when government does not reflect the aspirations of a the majority of a constituency in an area, then it is not truly democratic and the door is open to extraelectoral solutions such as property destruction to those interests who get have commandeered public policy.

          25. For the purpose of my refutation, it does not matter which neighborhood we are talking about. City-wide decisions will only feel right for neighborhoods that align perfectly with a city.

            So folks in the Mission may not like those decisions but then folks in the Marina won’t either, for the opposite reason.

            So your argument equally supports the idea of Marina residents smashing the windows of La Raza, SEIU, the tenants union and so on.

            Clearly if every neighborhood embarked on the idea you are suggesting then we would have anarchy and chaos. Fortunately almost everyone has a more mature and reflective approach, and understands that in a democracy, nobody ever gets exactly what they want all the time.

          26. “The fact remains that when government does not reflect the aspirations of a the majority of a constituency in an area, then it is not truly democratic and the door is open to extraelectoral solutions such as property destruction to those interests who get have commandeered public policy.”

            Sounds like secession. Maybe we can draw the boundaries of an area as small as a block, or a single house, giving right to riot against any change you don’t agree with.

          27. Yes, Confused, that is the logical outcome from the argument marcos is making.

            But it is based on a fallacy. He wants Mission residents to influence the building of, say, 8Wash, even if the population local to that project want it.

            But then he wants Mission residents to have 100% of the decision-making power on projects in the Mission.

            Clearly inconsistent or, more accurately, hypocritical.