Ryan Palmer bounced around for years: He spent about a decade on the streets, then lived in two residential hotels that he had to leave under duress. First, someone pulled a gun on him, and then a neighbor busted a hole through his wall with a sledgehammer.
When he landed two years ago at 835 Turk St. — the former Gotham Hotel, which was converted to permanent supportive housing under the name Vantaggio Suites — Palmer thought, at last, he was somewhere he could call home.
“Finally, I could breathe,” Palmer said. His new home, located between Franklin and Gough streets, was just a stone’s throw from Jefferson Square Park.
But a notice, posted in the building in March, informed Palmer and the 90 other households in the building that they have to move between May and September before the building undergoes necessary repairs in October.
Renovations will take a year, and the tenants are guaranteed a comparable housing placement, according to Five Keys, the nonprofit that manages the site. But residents aren’t convinced.
“I got out of the Tenderloin. I’m happy about that. I don’t want to downgrade,” Palmer said. “I was in the trenches for like six, seven years down there.”
Michael Sims, another resident, said he also thought that he had found his forever home when he moved in almost three years ago.
“They told us, ‘Look, you don’t have to worry about ever moving out of here. This is your permanent housing,’” Sims said. “‘You stay here basically until you die.’”
As it turns out, the city knew back in 2022 that it would eventually have to relocate residents to make repairs. But residents were only notified of the required move in the last couple of months.
A flyer posted in the lobby of the building called for residents to attend a community meeting in early April for additional information. It was unclear who posted the notice, but residents say the meeting was run by a relocation consultant hired by Five Keys.
In the weeks since, Sims said he and his neighbors have felt pressure from the consultant and city officials to immediately confirm they will move into the Granada Hotel.
The Granada is another city-owned permanent supportive housing site in Lower Nob Hill, but it has a history of issues, including vermin infestations and general neglect, that persist, according to resident complaints recorded by the Department of Building Inspection.
Sims and other residents said they were told that if they don’t accept the placement at the Granada, they could be sent to a shelter. Many were confused about their status and who to speak to, having heard from the relocation consultant, Five Keys, and elsewhere.
“You told us specifically, when we first moved in and signed on the dotted line for the permanent housing, that we don’t ever have to worry about being displaced ever again,” Sims said. “You tell us we can move back, well, what guarantee do I have that we can move back when you lied to me the first time?”
Five Keys president and CEO Steve Good said “no permanent displacement” would result from the project, and said that the Granada may fill up if residents don’t accept placement soon. Those who decline it may end up in less new, alternate locations.
Built in 1930, the six-story building at 835 Turk St. offers 112 units of permanent supportive housing for the formerly homeless. Records show that inspections conducted in 2021 by a consultant for the Housing Accelerator Fund concluded that the building needed $9.1 million in immediate repairs, including $5.5 million in “voluntary seismic upgrades.”
Now, the city is applying for $18 million in state Homekey+ funding through California Prop. 1 to make further repairs that were never carried out in 2022, when the city acquired the site. The state funding will also allow the city to save local funds currently being spent to operate the site.
A statement from the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing said that it identified “significant capital rehab needs” in 2022 and “had always intended to conduct this capital rehab.” Outreach to residents about their relocation, however, only began when the city began applying for the Homekey+ funding earlier this year.
Good said Five Keys had intended to give residents 90 days’ notice of construction, but that the timeline was “suddenly accelerated” when Homekey+ funds became available.
“This project is an investment in restoring and protecting deeply affordable housing, and not a cycle of displacement,” said Good of Five Keys. “We remain committed to transparency, stability, and ensuring that every resident receives the full support and respect they deserve throughout this process.”
But residents are frustrated with the abrupt announcement of the renovation and the lack of communication from management.
Tiara Poquis Mafuahingano, a Five Keys employee who works at the front desk of 835 Turk St., called the lack of transparency dehumanizing. She wondered why the city hadn’t warned residents well in advance that they might need to move.
“For the people, I’m pissed off, because I have an apartment, and what if someone did that to me? Told me I have to get out of my own house?” Mafuahingano said, her voice quavering.
“We’re dealing with people with mental-health issues. You’re coming into their place, telling them that they need to leave. Do you know what that’s going to do to them?”
Though inspections were done before residents moved in, a Budget and Legislative Analyst report from 2022 said that they did not review the “adequacy of building systems, hazardous materials, or a geotechnical assessment, which would inform structural upgrades.”
That same report, however, indicates that the city intended to apply for a Homekey grant even then, to “offset” the cost to the city to acquire and repair the property, and the ongoing $2.3 million yearly cost to operate the fully occupied building.
Mafuahingano worried that overdoses that already occur at the site will increase, saying residents are stressed and feeling distrustful.
“It breaks my heart every single time I have to tell someone who has been homeless that, ‘Hey, your home is being taken away,’” she said.
Other residents were more resigned to the coming move, but expressed concern about what would come later.
“As long as it’s legit and I can come back, I have no problem with that. But that’s the part that’s a little iffy,” said one resident who did not give his name for fear of risking his housing status. “I know that before I leave here, I want something in writing.”
Robert Krelle, a 30-year tenant who lived at the former Gotham Hotel long before it became permanent supportive housing, accepts that the building likely needs repairs, but objected to the way people were moved in initially, calling it misleading and manipulative.
“If you don’t tell them that they’re gonna have to move out in five years, you’re deceiving them,” he said.
As a low-income resident, Krelle said he somehow wasn’t too surprised: “I’m kind of used to it, in a way, as sad as it is.”
Earthquake retrofit has been overdue in SF’s older buildings for decades.
Maybe they could have been warned sooner but the work must be done or then they’ll be complaining about that later on. See to it that the building hires movers, round-trip, and help the tenants pack up their stuff. I’ve been through it twice and it was not an easy experience but they moved me back after about 10 months from 9th and Mission and I was VERY happy to get away from that corner. Good luck.
If they didn’t do the earthquake retrofit, in a couple years we might be reading an ML hit piece ripping the city for letting this so-called vulnerable population live in earthquake-unsafe housing.
“@ Mr. Mike S & his one sided & misinformed perspective on our current situation here at The Gotham! , Your comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both our situation and how permanent supportive housing works. First, this isn’t ‘free housing’ – we pay rent according to our income, just like any tenant. Second, we’re not ‘choosy beggars’ – we’re tenants with valid lease agreements who were explicitly promised PERMANENT housing by city officials.
The issue isn’t about renovations – it’s about the city potentially using renovation as a pretext to replace us with a different population to access new funding streams. When you sign a lease that says ‘permanent,’ you have a reasonable expectation that means permanent. Would you accept being forced from your home with no guarantee of return, regardless of who pays your rent?
We followed all the rules, transitioned through the system as directed, and secured what officials called permanent housing. Now those same officials want to break their promises. That’s not about self-respect – that’s about holding people accountable to their word and protecting tenant rights that exist for everyone, regardless of income level.”
“First, this isn’t ‘free housing’ – we pay rent according to our income, just like any tenant.”
===
But that’s not like any tenant. We don’t pay rent according to our income. We pay rent according to what the landlord charges. And if that means 60% of our income, well, that’s what it means.
@Robert: You do realize that it’s ***BAD*** for tenants to pay 60 percent of their income, right?
Not something to celebrate?
and that is ‘official’ income.
Irrelevant to the issue – That’s not the lease they signed. When you enter into a contract at x-rate for y-period and the City or management is going to break or pause without much in the way of notification or options while giving dubious promises of an as-yet unrealized right of return, there’s nothing they could have done as tenants to avoid the situation. Contracts mean what they say, well, or they mean nothing. Stop punching down like you’re some big shot real estate developer.
I hate to tell you this but in the real world tenants don’t get charged rent based on their income – you have a sweet deal that the tax payers of San Francisco pay for. You are not “just like any tenant”.
If you have a problem with your landlord take it up with them, please don’t start crying about “potential” problems. If you need help as a tenant you will have to do what any other tenant in San Francisco has to do – go to places like the rent board.
If you have a problem with people “crying about potential problems” maybe you shouldn’t be reading articles at all, as there’s no need for it to give such unfocused “advice” in the comments section, which the subjects of the story are unlikely to ever read. Find a mirror, give bland and dismissive “advice” there for twice the benefit to society.
This is not relevant. They pay rent and promises were made to them.
“ Renovations will take a year and the tenants are guaranteed a comparable housing placement, according to Five Keys.”
You are still getting deeply discounted housing at public expense. Come on.
FOR THE CITY’S BENEFIT in their goal of reducing homelessness, which several vocal people (ahem^) complain about on the daily here.
And you’re skipping over a valid concern to rehash your own chorusline. Come on indeed.
“First, this isn’t ‘free housing’ – we pay rent according to our income, just like any tenant.”
That’s not like any other tenant. Most tenants pay fair market rent that covers the cost to maintain the home they live in. The residents here pay an arbitrary amount that is based on what they can afford. That’s why your building needs $18 million from the state for these repairs and a further $2.3 million a year for regular operations. That’s charity.
“it’s about the city potentially using renovation as a pretext to replace us with a different population to access new funding streams”
I’m sympathetic to this concern if there’s even a shred of evidence that it’s what’s happening.
“When you sign a lease that says ‘permanent,’ you have a reasonable expectation that means permanent.”
No one in the city has the level of guarantee to ‘permanent’ housing you seem to expect here. If I’m a tenant and my building needs major repairs there is no guarantee when I will be able to return to my unit, and there is no guarantee that my lease will still be valid by the time repairs are complete. If I’m an owner and my building needs major repairs there is no guarantee that I’ll be able to afford them, no expectation that someone else foots the bill for my housing in the meantime, and no guarantee that the timeline for those repairs will be acceptable to me.
I don’t begrudge you your housing. I don’t want you or the other residents on the street. I do roll my eyes at the idea that after receiving millions in taxpayer funding to maintain housing residents are upset at a temporary move while the building is repaired. If the building weren’t repaired the city would be accused of shoving poor folks into substandard housing. Since the building is being repaired the city is being accused of displacing the poor. Either way taxpayers spend millions and residents complain.
The article is mis-titled; it buried the lede.
It should have been titled as follows:
“Long term taxpayer-financed supportive housing in historic building in a great neighborhood right across from a park to get long-awaited, full building seismic retrofit and building systems upgrade to ensure its long term viability as high-quality housing for present and future extremely low-income residents!”
Oh Mr. Mike S., Your response shows you stil seem to be having difficulty understanding the in and outs of this situation or exactly how permanent supportive housing truly works. With that being said I must address your misconceptions you passionately laid out for us to digest here. However even though I’m still hungry I’m going to press forward and explain in detail the misconceptions.
1. You stated “Get Jobs'”… Hmm in truth,you just might be shocked on how many of the tenants across this historical city of ours have jobs. Yes that’s right many are employed or are seniors/disabled individuals that has worked for years even decades before unfortunately becoming “unhoused” Mike S. Countless people have medical issues that grew to become way too much to bear, bankruptcies that wiped them out and had to start over, housing costs that sky rocketed beyond their own ability to financially manage, and all of this tripled very fast, or people’s unfortunate disabilities. For the many of thousands that became “unhoused” is far from being a character flaw Mike S.
These things happen as a result of a progressing disability, medical emergencies, of a job that is lost while you were paying upwards to 80% of income just on your monthly rent. .
2. You say Free Housing…The last time I checked which was just last month, we are still paying 30% of our monthly rent Mike S. These are subsidized housing programs that continue to effectively serve “Working” families, Seniors, and People with Disabilities all thru the city. This isn’t charity at all , It’s how income-based housing programs work Mike S.
Oh yeah then there was the…
3. “Villain’ Narrative” as you would call it… – Inform me on who is calling anyone a real villain for providing housing Mike S.? C’mon we are calling out city officials who made promises to our faces that our current living situation would without any doubt be “PERMANENT HOUSING” and did so with a straight face for all the public to hear.
Now just a short time later without proper due process attempted to break that promise. Now you tell me please how you would feel if you received a letter from your landlord who suddenly decided to empty out your building and relocate you and the family breaking the sworn promise he made leaving you with nothing that ensuring that you are guaranteed to move back in when this alledged renovations are complete?
You tell me truthfully in all seriousness
Mike S. how would you truly feel about being displaced now after all that you have actually learned today?
4 The Real issue… This isn’t about renovations Mike S. The city of San Francisco has documents showing that they applied for $18M in funding through I believe a specific grant that is specifically for ” Unhoused” individuals that have behavioral &mental health issues. Now it appears that they’re using ‘renovations’ as a cover to change the current resident population in order to access this completely different funding stream.
So all in all of you still think it’s acceptable for local government officials to break written promises and là are low-income, then you’re advocating for a system whose rights solely depend on our bank accounts. This should absolutely concern every tenant living in San Francisco.”
You keep repeating the “mantra” that you were promised lifetime housing and you’re upset that you are being moved…..but it’s to IMPROVE the building you’re living in. You are asking to stay in the building -no matter the condition of the building until you die. Think about the condition of the building if there are no improvements made….and then pack up.
Exactly right. The “people” who can’t help but to crap on lower incomes of SF residents truly don’t belong anywhere near the City of Saint Francis. May they rent in Hell.
He could get a job. Some people do.
You could learn the most basic facts about their situation. Some people do.
You mean that they don’t support themselves by working, but instead are getting subsidized housing at taxpayer expense and are whining about it?
I think I got that from the article.
No, they’re “whining” about being forced out of it after promises.
Maybe some critical reading courses are in order if you’re missing the main thrust this badly, or even if just pretending to.
Waste of time.
You should get a clue. Some people try to.
The fact that this article doesn’t even mention the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance act and similar State laws shows what shoddy journalism this is.
Sir or madam —
It does, but not in the way you seem to be implying. The Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act applies to federal programs. That would be wholly irrelevant here.
In the future, we always welcome input in an area in which you purport to have expertise. It is possible to share your purported expertise without being insufferable and condescending.
Yours,
JE
I additional concerns that were not in the in article raises concerns about questionable practices being employed:
A. Attempting to bypass the actual intended process of providing proper documentation, despite lacking the required filed permits.
B. Engaging what appears to be a shell company (owned by Trans Group Corp) that seems to emerge only when liability issues need to be avoided. Such companies are not commonly used by city-owned properties under normal circumstances.
C. The absence of permits means there are no actual renovation plans – contradicting claims made to the contrary.
D. Initial documentation provided to residents suggested this third-party company might purchase the property, with promises that residents could return. However, this option may never have been genuinely available.
E. According to the article, a 2021 building inspection revealed not only structural damage but also the presence of dangerous or hazardous materials. This indicates the city has been aware of these conditions since 2021, potentially exposing residents to hazardous materials throughout their tenancy.
There seems to be some missing information in this article. The Grenada just underwent a complete ground-up renovation: it took several years. It is hardly as decrepit as the article makes it feel. In fact, it is quite lovely. (This is not in denial of the lack of trust brought about by the decision to close down the other site while retrofitting it, etc.)
The city continues to have the choosiest beggars in the world. $18 million in taxpayer funding to upgrade free housing and $2.3 million a year to maintain it and the residents can’t help but act like they’re being given a raw deal because they aren’t 100% certain where they’ll live during renovations and whether they’ll be able to return to their exact unit. I feel bad for them, not because they’ve lived difficult lives but because I couldn’t imagine having so little self respect as to complain while living off of another man’s dollar.
My favorite is when the tenants firing guns in the building or breaking down walls with sledgehammers get free legal aid and sympathetic coverage in local news for their lawsuits against the city for failing to provide safe and habitable housing.
You need to read better than you write fiction, Jake.
As an example: take plaintiff Orvelton Neal in Anderson vs. THC complaining about drug use in the building. He was caught selling crack to residents leading to an eviction (CUD15653032). This was from a decade ago, but plenty of ongoing lawsuits have similar fact patterns. Craig vs. THC is a more recent one where plaintiff Noel Quintana has been arrested for engaging in the same types of activities the lawsuit complains about at least 10 times in the last few years.
You literally live off a lot of “other mens’ dollars” without thinking. Typical microbrain commenters blaming the low income renters for trusting a contract to remain in effect.
Well considering all of that money isn’t seen by any of the residents they are still subject to substandard housing conditions and a lack of oversight that regular people would automatically get.
That money is seen by the residents because they get to save the tens of thousands of dollars the rest of us spend on rent or a mortgage. Normal residents don’t automatically get anything, they pay handsomely for the privilege of living here. It’s embarrassing to give someone housing, pay to upgrade it, pay to house them while the upgrades are ongoing and still be made out to be a villain. If the residents want better housing I’d recommend getting jobs.
I ain’t hating on nobody but some of these people make a good point , if it’s for low income people and they make sure it matches your income therefore u can afford to stay at there, appreciate that shit, my wife is born and raised in the city and I lived there for over 20 years but eventually had to move to Reno in order to buy a house, and I’m a veteran, it’s unrealistic to be able to buy a house in the city.
Mortgages are very different, since you are paying into something that you ultimately own.
As for renting, do tenants have more rights than these folks? I would assume so, but admittedly I don’t know.
No, tenants have the exact same ‘rights’ in a general sense but each program / lease is specific. City and State and Federal laws override lease provisions in that hierarchical direction. But you have to go to court at the cost of thousands over several months after being damaged, in this case moved out – and because of the delay in the renovation being years, they won’t “realize” they’re damaged until they go to move back and are told they need to reapply and start at the beginning, should that happen here. So the end result is people without thousands of dollars burning a hole in their pockets and without years to sit around waiting to enforce their promised rights are ultimately swept along with all the varying results that brings.
When it’s a big realtor (like the John Stewart Company for a single example) doing this on a massive scale there are hundreds to thousands of people disenfranchised without the ability to fight it. This may not be nearly as big and we don’t know how it will play out yet, but the trend has been established.
So, Mike: exactly how much money in your mind does someone need to pay per month before they get the basic respect of not being forcefully evicted? Be specific.
Literally nobody is being evicted in this story, but nice straw man.
Jake T needs to read better. Yes they are being relocated with very little notice against their will, and if they resist they are basically threatened with being at the mercy of a waiting list, or potentially homelessness.
And if they aren’t given first dibs to return when it’s renovated, which many property mgmt companies are guilty of reneging on over the course of history in SF, they have been effectively evicted from their promised ‘forever’ housing. Try again Jake.
They are being given highly taxpayer subsidized temporary housing while important safety repairs are made to their highly taxpayer subsidized permanent housing. Some eviction!
No one here is being evicted though. They are being relocated temporarily while the building undergoes maintenance. Everyone else in the world is subject to the same risk here no matter how much rent they pay. If your building is unsafe and needs repairs you may have to relocate during those repairs. Depending on your specific situation your landlord may have to pay for your alternate housing during that time or you may be stuck footing the bill. Everyone here is able to remain housed at no additional cost so the whining is embarrassing.
Why couldn’t they work on what they can fix while tenants are still living there. I use to work in property management in the TL’S & they LIE to the tenants a lot. No one teaches them how to maintain their housing & quick to throw them out. Honestly a lot of them like to be Homeless frfr
Why do these anointed people get free luxury housing in San Francisco and not me? What makes them so special?
It’s free? Are you sure about that?
With your attitude, you don’t deserve a cardboard box in a rat colony.
Classic progressive: only people I like deserve a house, and I only like the least productive members of society. Everyone else can pound sand.
Classic Jake, saying nonsense things for the thrill of trolling.
I think people who accuse me of saying nonsense should first prove they can read past an 8th grade level.
Mr. Mayor,
‘Real Mike S.’ has it right and you have the power to stop this kind of shit that goes all the way back to when Jim Jones of Jonestown fame ran the Housing Authority.
You should do here as you’ve done with the Police Force and take out the entire top management of SFHA and hire Don Falk to run the operation.
At least talk to the guy, Daniel.
In 30 years with TNDC he ran the tightest Non-Profit housing organization in San Francisco only to be forced out by Mayor Breed who replaced him with someone who ran the organization into the ground.
Listen to ‘Real Mike’ and not this guy using his handle for evil.
And, it is for Evil.
The posters here defending these moves are part of and from the colony of Housing Vampires who have infested this City since top positions within the Management of housing for the Poor have been handed out as Political plums.
I can’t understand why you haven’t met with me since you became Mayor as I’m your friend who has more honest first-hand knowledge about how this City runs than any of your other friends and you can trust me on that, Charlie.
At least, for God’s sake, talk to Don Falk !!!!
go Niners !!
h.
If you can get this housing, you can quit working, get $695 GA, pay 30% for rent and have $485 plus food stamps (about $200) plus free healthcare, free muni, free museum passes, and all the other goodies The City hands out. And you get to live in San Francisco, a privilege that most of us bust out asses to be able to afford!
No wonder people from all over the country are coming here with their hands out. Sure beats the crappy life you have on a minimum wage job in most of the country!
And if you can be qualified as disabled you can get SSI instead of GA and have even more cash! Does being a druggie – excuse me, substance abuse disorder – qualify?
How can I get in this list? This seems like a sweet deal. I am sick of working for The Man.
So do it right now.
The level of hate for poor people here on this site is disgusting. I hope most of you do not live here, but I am afraid you do. I hope not on my block!
Freeloaders
“‘@Nelson and his Freeloaders’ comment? Well first of all we pay rent according to our income and followed every rule the city required to secure housing. Most of us are seniors, people with disabilities, or individuals who worked for years before becoming homeless due to circumstances like medical bankruptcies, job loss, or housing costs that increased faster than wages.
Permanent supportive housing exists because it’s more cost-effective than emergency services. It costs taxpayers far more when people cycle through ERs, jails, and emergency services than when they have stable housing. This isn’t charity – it’s smart policy that saves public money while helping people rebuild their lives.”
Real Mike and Lydia,
I don’t understand why Lydia allows this guy to pull this scam on your name.
That kind of thing has been going on with people and products forever.
Let it end here on this thread on Mission Local.
lol
I’m more like Groucho Marx.
Sometimes when people ask, “Are you h. brown ?” I say …
“No one else would take the job.”
Lord, I love my own humor.
lol
go Niners !!
h.
Anyone from anywhere in the county and come to San Francisco and get free money, free food, free healthcare, free muni, free museum passes and get to live in San Francisco for the rest of their life, without having to work. No wonder our streets are covered with the nations free loaders – excuse me, people that decided to drop out do the work force for whatever reason, usually because the stress of working full time at a shitty job was something that they preferred not to have to endure.
How do I get in on this?
Ah the “i’m jealous of poor people without housing” routine.
Seen this a lot over the years, it’s never exactly hilarious.
In hindsight, I retract my negative comment and wish the residents good luck.
Yeah it’s a bit late. Try not being a jerk up front next time.
Columbo.
One of my favorite tv shows.
My favorite TV show growing up was Johnny Quest!
Haha!
I still watch the original Star Trek series.