Galería de la Raza’s landlord on Friday declined to make a deal with the venerable gallery that would allow it stay in a space on 24th and Bryant Street for two years while it searched for a permanent home. This likely means the gallery will have to close down in the near term.
This was laid out in a Friday evening Facebook post by Supervisor Hillary Ronen, who had been involved in negotiations between the gallery and its landlord, Lily Ng, since the gallery was served with a three-day pay-or-vacate notice two weeks ago.
“I feel the landlord is being unreasonable,” Ronen told Mission Local. “I tried to mediate, and I can’t mediate with someone who is being unreasonable, so I’m joining Galería in protest.”
An eviction notice would appear to be imminent.
This follows the gallery receiving a purported 100-percent rent hike in August that effectively forced it out of the space it had occupied for 46 years. It was founded in 1970 at 14th and Valencia; two years later, it moved to the location on 24th.
The negotiations that crumbled on Friday morning left Ronen “heartbroken and angry.” The supervisor said in her Facebook post that the gallery had been willing to compromise by paying increased rent on the smaller space and contributing to building upgrades. That, apparently, was not good for Ng, who was “unwilling to budge on costs and liability that would be unacceptable to any commercial tenant,” Ronen wrote.
“This landlord’s behavior toward their responsible tenant of 46 years is appalling and emblematic of the greed that has infected the real estate market throughout San Francisco,” Ronen continued. “We are seeing these same types of assault on small businesses and tenants throughout the Mission.”
Ng could not be reached for comment, and messages left with Galería de la Raza were not immediately returned.
A press conference will be held at the gallery (2857 24th Street) on Monday, Oct. 29 at 10 a.m. An “emergency community response meeting” will be held at 6:30 p.m. that evening at the same location.
We are asking the family trust who owns the property to please return to negotiate a fair lease for the Galeria de la Raza while they prepare to move into a permanent home. We understand there is widespread support and a willingness to work with the family members. Negotiations are supported by the Mayor’s office, Supervisors Ronen and Peskin, the Small Business Commission that oversees legacy SF businesses, The SF Art Comission, and a host of neighborhood groups and other cultural organizations.
Hey Chilelindosfgmailcom above:
I’m relieved you didn’t mention the tragic loss of livery stables along Valencia. Or maybe the dairy that used to be on Guerrero across from the former eyesore Valencia Gardens. Yeah, those condos were a dairy way back when. In fact, the Mission was dotted with dairys. I don’t know if it’s still the case but many lefties in the know were not so long ago lamenting that the BART stations and BART itself had torn apart the social fabric of the Mission. That said, we obviously had different majors in college because if I’d have heard the terms social fabric, disenfranchised, and especially fragile ecosystem I’d have walked out laughing. Other than that, we probably don’t agree on much, and that’s ok because neither of us will give an inch I’m sure. As for a 100% rent increases at the root of all evil, that’s an overstatement. I don’t understand what you mean that outsized rent hikes killed New York City neigborhoods. I’m quite familar with NYC and as far as I’m concerned it’s never been better albeit a bit sterile in places and harder to find a dive bar. But what neighborhoods have blocks and blocks of vacant storefronts? The East Village? Clinton? Carroll Gardens? Chinatown? The old Meatpacking District? They’re all thriving as never before.
As for ten story buildings and quality of life – I’m willing to sacrifice and frankly couldn’t care less any longer about neighborhood Victorians. There’s nothing sacrosanct about someone losing an hour or two of sunlight. This city needs housing and a new vision on how to supply it. I’m willing to sacrifice if it means many others flourishing. I can promise you that more foot traffic means more business for the merchants of all persuasions and those Victorians will continue to appreciate even faster. As for traffic. the City has to figure out how to better manage vehicle flow. I took Cesar Chavez to 101 for years but then our great masters took away two lanes. Ergo: gridlock much of the day. I now shoot down the side streets to either Bryant or Potrero. That little beautification project was a disaster for the Mission. It’s high time to one-way the whole Mission. That’s a no-brainer. I’m weary of the infernal left-turners and double-parkers holding up traffic for a block.
Other than that, what’s my vision for the neighborhood is insignificant. My suggestion is that change is inevitable and will continue at a breakneck pace as long as the economy is strong. Urban areas went south for generations post WWII. Most people reading this have no concept of the hardships big cities suffered. Even this city, San Francisco. Anyone longing for the old Western Addition or the old Tenderloin is delusional. The only neighborhood the merits even a single tear for the old days is maybe North Beach. So now the pendulum has swung the other way but the bottom line is still housing and will be for a long time.
sad i showed art there in the 90’s
People respond more to carrots than they do to sticks. If we want to encourage landlords to do some kind of behavior, we need to incentivize it somehow and stop demonizing people trying to make a living and build wealth. They are not responsible for the society we live in and it’s many problems and inequalities – they are merely actors in it like the rest of us and they act in their self interest like the rest of us. “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”
As Ernesto called out, prohibitions like the one banning space mergers may be well intentioned but they do have unintended consequences. Vacancy taxes/fees are the same. Maybe the answer is to boost the legacy business program or to actually talk to property owners and find out what motivates them and if there are some changes to “the game” that would make them act in the way we want them to.
Of course things change but there is a real problem plaguing this neighborhood (as well as those that do not have such prohibitions) with regards to retail vacancy. Maybe the issue is online sales, maybe they are charging rents that are too high, maybe there are tax incentives to have income-losing space. We need to assume that these are rational business people and they have legitimate reasons for doing things. We then need to understand those reasons and policy makers need to create a structure that uses those reasons to make filling the space the best outcome for them.
Sounds like
(1) Supervisor Ronen mistook being an advocate for being a mediator, at best (at worst, she doesn’t know what mediation is)
(2) The landlord is willing to risk vacancy to target the rental income she desires. That’s her risk to take.
Thankfully, unlike residential rent control, no one is subsidizing anyone or obligated to. 40+ years of rent is something that happens when it serves both parties’ interests. If that’s no longer the case, and lovely neighbors want to intervene, they can do so by raising funds for the Gallery to meet its rents.
Finally, rents paying off the value of a property has nothing to do with it, unless you want to then concede that residential rents should be priced to let landlords pay off their mortgages.
Unintended consequences much?
What the did Ronen and Eric Arguello think would happen when they had the genius idea to ban mergers of small spaces on 24th Street? This is their fault, because now all the existing large spaces on 24th (like this one) are much more valuable. So here we are. It would be nice if Ronen would stop trying to pretend that the 24th St. of 1987 can be preserved forever through her endless series of silly bans and prohibitions, but it’s pretty clear that she’s economically illiterate.
It would also be nice if Ronen tried to represent D9 constituents beyond just Calle 24, but she’s made it clear over and over again that she has no interest in doing that. Sad to see Galería de la Raza go, but Ronen and Calle 24 did this to themselves. Now, if only Ronen would take some responsibility for what she’s done. Too bad that’s not her style either.
This is one of the saddest of Mission loses that is turning the city into a soulless pit of self-indulgence lacking in style, class, or cultural wisdom. The tourists have no reason to come here any more and residents have little incentive to stay. That seems to be the goal. Convince us all to leave so they can turn our home into their goldmine, until the next big shaker hits or the tides rise or both.
Can’t they just operate out of an RV parked on the street? That seems to be an OK thing to do in the ‘hood. It’s not permanent. Just a couple years until they get a sweet cheap space in one of MEDA’s new developments.
An art gallery that sells paintings for hundreds ( maybe even thousands? ) of dollars will be replaced, probably by a place that sells coffee and muffins for $5, or maybe a bar selling beers for $6. New place will probably employ 5x as many people ( since food/drink establishments tend to need more people). How is this gentrification?
No worries. This space can’t be used as a bar. In fact the greedy landlord will face big hurdles and delays in filling this space at all. Their behavior has enraged the Mission. Unless they negotiate a fair and reasonable lease with Galería de la Raza, any upscale replacement business will be opposed. New businesses don’t like to come in knowing they will be boycotted by the community.
Galleria De La Raza didn’t see this coming many years ago? How long were the terms of their last lease? Ten years? Five years? Of course the landlord isn’t going to compromise.Duh! He’s probably eaten s*** for many years. Who’s upstairs? Rent controlled tenents? His position isn’t greed, it’s economics. You may not like it but that’s just a fact. He has zero obligation to subsidise the Gallery. Zero. Does the Gallery clean the sidewalk in front of the premises? Just asking. The neighborhood is changing, The Gallery and other longer term commercial tenents should embrace the change. Upscale your merchandise. Find the tourist dollars. Most of all be skeptical of the amen gallery and false prophets. Hillary Ronen will no doubt go through the motions but she should be on a short leash with her extortion tactics because she’s under a microscope and won’t be the first big city official to be indicted. Ronen should be working tooth and nail to get a ten story building on every block of Mission and and every block of Valencia – from Market all the way to 24th. Remember: the detractors will decrease as the years go by and then the changes will be the new reality and quite accepted.
Nah, this is just greed. The Galleria is easily the nicest spot on the block and the owner wants to leverage all the work and prestige they’ve put in over the decades to offer a posh storefront to somebody with deeper pockets. We’ll probably end up with another overpriced furniture store that does 90% of it’s sales online or worse, an insurance or mortgage office that gives nothing to the local scene and has nothing to do with the neighborhood. After a few years (or months if they try a storefront) they’ve fold because they’re paying more than the area will support and we’ll have 2 empty storefronts instead of the one that’s there now, and we’ll STILL all be hanging down at the other end of the block eating burritos at La Palma.
And yeah, the Gallery does clean the sidewalk in front of their space, just like every other business up and down 24th st.
Face it, 24th is not going to be gentrified by landlords or developers, it’s going to be decimated and we’ll wind up with blocks and blocks of empty storefronts and burnt out buildings just like 17th and Mission. Meaningful change is happening all over the city: 14th street, Dogpatch, Mission in the 3000s. It’s happening because entrepreneurs with vision are picking up empty storefronts and creating new, dynamic markets. Not because greedy landlords are looking at really successful businesses and trying to extort more money from them.
Robert: As a long time Mission resident and small business owner, I can assure you that the “change” we are experiencing in our neighborhood is far from favorable and it is taking a huge toll on the overall social fabric of this community. Just look around you, never before have we seen such high levels of disenfranchised people suffering from mental illness–and this dramatic situation in our streets is the direct result of a society that thinks that a 100% rent hike is reasonable. We are displacing the fragile ecosystem that keeps a society stable. If you think that such a rent hike is reasonable, you’ve never owned a business. This tenant has paid their rent for 46 years–who subsidized who? I assure you that the building has been paid in full three times over. This tenant contributed towards making the neighborhood an artistic cultural hub where people now want to live in. No doubt this landlady has the right to raise the rent, but I’d be very interested in finding out weather she really needs to raise the rent to the point where she will lose her tenant. Such rent hikes killed NYC neighborhoods. The landlords raised the rents to the point that the landmark small businesses had to shut down, the new tenants did not thrive, and now you find blocks and blocks of empty store fronts.
It appears to me that your perception of “progress” does not take into account “quality of life.” Do you really think that this neighborhood would benefit from having a 10 story building in every corner, blocking the sunlight to the little Victorian homes and congesting the streets with more traffic? Is that really what you consider a pleasant neighborhood to live in?
Also, what do you consider “upscale merchandise”? Chanel boutiques? I may love to browse a Chanel boutique but I don’t think they belong in every neighborhood. Have you seen the work at Galería de la Raza? The people moving into this neighborhood are doing so because they want to live in a bohemian neighborhood that has character, and galleries that offer what Galería de la Raza offers. I find that your vision of what is right for this neighborhood is at odds with the very essence of the neighborhood.
I am not one that does not take into account the many changes we are experiencing, and I agree that there needs to be negotiations with the real estate developers so that they can build in the neighborhood but with discretion and consideration towards the community that has been severely impacted by this wave of “gentrification on steroids”. There has to be reasonable negotiations from both sides, so that everyone gets ahead and so that we do not continue displacing low income people from their businesses and homes. Every City needs a low income neighborhood… and the Mission was the City’s low income neighborhood that allowed the working class affordable housing, small business owners to get a start, and students and artists to get ahead. To think that there is no need to keep this sector of society stable–is uncivilized.