Antoinetta W. Stadlman OmbudsLady The Baldwin House# 234 74 Sixth street San Francisco, Calif.

, 94103 Phone 1415-552-4803 Fax 1415-552-2629 email antione tta@mindspring.com January 4, 2011 To: Randy Shaw Safety Issues at the Seneca Inner Security gate: Years ago there was an inner iron gate located right near the Front Desk throu gh which people had to be buzzed through. This is a necessity to maintain buildi ng security, but unfortunately it was removed sometime after THC took over opera tion of the Seneca. I recall pointing out the security risks to Drennen (remembe r her?) of not having the inner gate, and her response was along the lines of "B ut we don't want that, it makes the place look like a jail." And just this last month I was discussing this matter with Dave, the Seneca's current manager, and he said re-installing the Inner gate wouldn't happen, "because THC thinks it loo ks like a jail." This rationale is so utterly lame that it would be laughable if it were not allowed to trump the basic safety realities we face. Whether an Inn er gate makes the place look like a jail is true or not is irrelevant, the reali ty is that the inner gate is essential for Hotel security. Unfortunately, it is this sort of feelings-based "fuzzy thinking" that seems to prevail and leads to the perpetuation of this and all the other problems discussed in this letter. At any rate, regardless of how people feel about it, its lack is a huge hole in ou r security, and it needs to be replaced. And I hear that Housing wants to get ri d of the security gate at the Mission Hotel even though this was installed at th e command of Karen Carrera, the City Attorney who was dealing with the swamp tha t the Mission was in the months preceeding THC's takeover of the place back in ' 97. Completely wrong direction to go. II. Distraction issues As should be well know to anyone involved with SRO hotel management, the gener al scene of drugs and overall misbehavior which is part of Sixth Street, will ea sily come in off the street and into the Hotel unless strong vigilance is raised to keep it out. For this reason, the primary purpose of the Front Desk is to ke ep those involved in this activity OUT of the Hotel. To be aware of who is comin g and going, the Front Desk needs to generally be in an undistracted state, and this is quite impossible at the Seneca. In addition, to our regular sign in visi tors in and out, we also have to deal with a morass of trivia, represented in pa rt by the following list of forms that we have to deal with. Television Sign up Sheet Service Providors Tracking Sheet Seneca Hotel Package log Kitchen Station Sign up sheet Hotel Contractor/Inspector log Fire Watch Sheet Spare Key Sign-Out Sheet

In addition, there are four classifications of visitors. Regular Daytime Visitors

Overnight Visitors Extended Overnight Visitors Consecutive Overnight Visitors Each of these needs to be tracked somewhat differently, and, adding to the cunfu sion, the Consecutive Overnights do not need to sign in and out; they can come a nd go as if they live there. And many do essentially live there, if one has both Extended as well as Consecutive Overnights, people are "visiting" for twenty da ys and nights a month. This is likely a safety issue in its own right, as of cou rse none of these visitors get the background check that tenants do. So all this requires organizing out of an often endless flow of in and out traffic, who liv es here and who doesnt,(there's always a few new tenants, new faces to further c onfuse things) which visitors need to sign in and out and which don't, etc. All the above, combined with the lack of a back-up gate make it impossible to effect ively keep people from sneaking past the Front Desk and into the Hotel. III. Enabling Drug and Prostitution Activity: The removal of any practical downside to a tenant's violation of the visitor rul es has led to a situation where it is even more impossible to control who comes into he Hotel, When such violations happen, tenants get "written up" and at some point put on a 30 Day No-Visit list. However, this has recently had any effecti veness removed. As you can see in the attached meeting notes, we cannot refuse t o sign in someone, even if we know that they do not intend to visit the person w ho is signing them in, but are going to the room of someone who is officially on the 30-Days No-Visit list. In addition, this having to sign people into room we know they really aren't going to also extends into visitors seeking to stay ove rnight with a tenant who has exhausted their monthly allocation of overnights. A long with this, I see would-be visitors come to the Front Desk, not knowing the room number or last name of who it is they wish to visit. Again, these have been signing in with willing tenants, who sometimes clearly do not know them,(someti mes a dollar or two is exchanged for the favour) once signed in they head upstai rs and are free to roam the halls, knocking on doors, etc. Finally, tenants can come down and sign their visitors out, without the visitor being present, for al l we know the visitor is still up somewhere in the building. The cumulative effe ct of all this is that it has become impossible to consistently be aware of who is actually in the building and to ensure a reasonable degree of physical safety . When Management becomes aware that drug dealing or prostitution is going on in a particular room, it may take months to evict that individual. So that their act ivities do not add further disruption in the Hotel during his time, it is impera tive to disrupt their "business activity" to the maximum extent possible. This m eans a flat "'No Visitors" for such parties. Not just for 30 days but for the re mainder of the time they are resident in the Hotel. And if they say this is agai nst the Uniform Visitor policy, all Management needs to do is to tell the offend ing tenant that they are welcome to contest your decision at the Rent Board-if, of course they are willing to defend their drug or prostitution activity. 1 can guarantee you, none will want to confront you at the Rent Board, and Management' s decision will remain in force. Failure to take action like this while knowingl y allowing people to engage these activities is enabling and facilitating it, pu re and simple, and we need to stop this. If you go down to the Seneca, at virtually any time, from first light to well af ter midnight, you will see half a dozen or so people hanging out on the street i n front of the Hotel. At times camp chairs have even been brought in and appear to be just sitting around. Most of these people are former residents or visitors of the Seneca who have been Evicted or 86d. They are also part of the Sixth Str

eet drug scene, as they were of the Seneca's back before they were Evicted or 86 d. Of course she reason they are continually out in Front is the presence of the ir drug buddies still resident in the Hotel. This arrangement needs to be broken up. the Seneca needs to get Stay-Away orders on these people, to shut down this drug-link between the street and various residents of the Seneca. Another issue that facilitates this activity is that we now accept virtually any type of ID. The worst of this is that we now have to accept jail. prison, and j ail "hospital bracelet" IDS. A lot of the jail issues on Sixth Street are behind drug activity; it should be abundantly clear that allowing someone in the build ing that is just out of jail is probably NOT a good idea for the overall safety and well-being of the Hotel, Yet another issue is the fact that earlier restrict ions on requesting overnight visitors are all now gone. Originally, a tenant wanting an overnight would have to inform the Front Desk of his fact by Noon of the day in question, and would have to supply the name of t he intended guest. Now, Noon has been moved up to 900 P.M., and, worse, no name need be furnished, the tenant merely needs to "reserve an overnight." IV. Quality of Tenants + Worthlessness of Screening: The following experience I had at Seneca pretty much speaks for itself. I was working alone at the Seneca and around 6:OO P.M., Tamara, the Manager call ed. She asked me to "keep an eye" on a new tenant, someone who had just moved in that day. I asked what the issue was, why this heads up? Tamara said that when they were doing the background check the tenant's previous landlord informed her that the reason she evicted this person was because the individual had set fire to their unit. I asked Tamara what possessed THC to rent to this person in ligh t of this information, and Tamara said that since the previous landlord wouldn't write this on paper, she couldn't prove it, and they couldn t refuse rental. Renting to someone you know has a recent history of Arson? This is bat shit craz y. Since when do you have to have a reason for not renting to a particular indiv idual, let alone have to prove anything. Why does Housing consistently adopt the responsibility of justifying every negative decision they have to make? They ar e Management and that alone is sufficient justification. This perceived need to self-justify everything is a substantial overall hindrance to operations anyway, but when it permits a kmown Arsonist to home a tenant, well, this is just scary . V. Self-Defence Issues: Unfortunately, part of the reality that any of us working in the SRO Hotels has to deal with is the occasional aggressive or violent tenant or visitor. Several times in the past year we have had irate individuals jump over/come behind the F ront Desk, one of these incidents happened while I was alone on duty However, th ere is a "zero-tolerance' regarding making any physical contact with tenants / v isitors. Just how much this actually would be applied to someone defending their self has never been made clear, but there is certainly real doubt; when the ten ant jumped over the Front Desk and hit me with the roll of paper; I was told "Yo u're lucky you didn't have to hit him." If this zero tolerance policy extends pe ople coming behind the desk or assaulting staff, we are essentially being denied the right to defend ourselves. Certainly, I could see a staff person injured in such an incident claiming in the inevitable personal injury lawsuit that would ensue that they felt inhibited from defending themselves as they would get disci plined for this by THC, and that this contributed to the extent of whatever inju ries they sustained.

V Loss of Institutional Memory: These problems have been worsening and metastasizing for years. Seeing the degre e of turnover at various levels of management during this time, it appears that a lot of this problem involves the lack of any real institutional memory. As new people come to work in the policy-making levels of the housing operation, each wants to "do" something "'for the tenants"; the latest policy-makers are unaware that they are adding more on top of what their predecessors have done, and the cumulative effect over the years of this process goes unrecognized, until the op eration devolves into the dysfunctional morass it is today. What needs to be done: Not all this can be done immediately, some things will require changes to the Un iform Visitor Policy, others may require changes in tenant leases, for others a 30-Day Notice should suffice, but at the minimum: A. Reinstall the Inner Gate in the Seneca over by where the old safe is cur rently located. The layout needs to be so that someone coming aboard talks to th e Front Desk, signs in or whatever first, THEN is buzzed in through the Gate. B. Quit accepting any ID not specifically mention& in the Uniform Visitor P olicy, especially jail, prison and hospital bracelet IDs, or xeroxes of any IDs. C. Get rid of the Extended and Consecutive Overnights. It is impossible to ke ep any track of visitors when some are essentially living here for twenty days a month, where some need to sign In and out and others don t. D. Plug up all the loopholes in the visitor situation, as described in Sectio n 111 above. E. Get some Stay-Away orders and eject the crowd of druggies (former Seneca r esidents and visitors) from in front of the Hotel. F. Get rid of the plethora of sign-in and tracking sheets listed in Section I . G. End the practice of allowing tenants to sign out their visitors when we ha ve no idea if the person has actually left or is still hiding out in the Hotel. H. Make tenants requesting Overnight Visitors do so by 12:Noon, and supply th e intended visitor's name, the practice of reserving" an unidentified Overnight has to be ended. I. Institute a permanent visitor ban on tenants you have reason to believe ar e engaging in drug or prostitution activity. J. Get rid of the appeal process for visitor and other purely personal issues . Visitor issues must be resolved quickly and on site. The highest level of appe al should be the site Manager of the relevant building. They are the only ones w ho will know the people and the situation involved,and who have the ability to m ake a reality-based decision. The problem with the appeals is that those hearing the appeal don't how those involved or the situation, but they DO know that the y have fundamental philosophical problems with the simple fact that there are vi sitor rules and restrictions at all ,and this leads to distorted decision-making . K. Work with our new Supervisor, Jane Kim, to hit a sort of re-set button on the Uniform Visitor Policy and end the annual circus where the Policy is amended ev ery year at the Rent Board. This is an entirely rigged game, and has allowed the original policy, bad as that was, to be constantly watered down, further hamper ing Management's ability to control the situation while at the same time mandati ng things such as the Consecutive Overnights, which are a serious problem. VIII. Conclusion: As you may recall, back in the Fall of 1998, when the Seneca was still under pri vate control. the management was so atrocious that some basic improvements had t o be made before THC could Master-Lease the place. For this purpose, you had int

roduced me to Dr. Mahendra Dave so that he could bring me aboard the Seneca to t ry to get a handle on the worst of the problems there. This was done; I worked a t the Seneca for some months, during which the key troublemaking tenants were id entified and evicted. Other problems were sufficiently addressed, and so THC was able to take over the operations of the Hotel. You also set me up with the owne rs of the Mission HoteI for a like purpose back in the Spring of 97. All this wo rked out well, but if 1 restricted my options in dealing with these basic issues as THC Housing restricts theirs. none of this would have been possible, nor wou ld I have been able to dean up Baldwin House as 1 did back in '95 and 96. Altoge ther too many policies and practices actively enable precisely those activities that it is the primary responsibility of Management to abate, For some reason, H ousing seems completely infected with a world-view and values system that is ent irely incompatible with the safe and functional operation of an SRO Hotel. Certa inly any Management that has serious moral and ethical problems with doing thing s like telling someone they can't have a visitor, something that is really SRO M anagement I01 level stuff, is going to be severely compromised in carrying out e ven routine functions. And since it is THC-wide policies that are to blame for a ll this, it is logical to assume that these problems are present in all the hote ls. not just the Seneca. As it is to-day, the Seneca at least is a textbook exam ple of how NOT to run an SRO Hotel. It also should be noted that the on site Man agers, Dave, and Tamara before him, and the onsite Managers of the other hotels are not ta blame for any of this, the problem originates from higher up in the o rganisation. Since all these problems are self-imposed, here should, other than some procedur al issues, be nothing tangible blocking any of the recommendations above. The re al problem is that wing to discuss this stuff with Housing is like trying to arg ue about religion, logic will get you nowhere as the rationale underlying this h as long since become doma, from which Housing seems unwilling to remove its focu s. At any rate, I can formally attest: That under the current conditions, it is imp ossible to operate Be Seneca with an^ assurance of aenerrtl safetv. It is physic ally impossible to control who gets in the building, and until we rid ourselves of all the extraneous agendas that have being piggy-backed onto the basic one of running the Hotel, nothing will change. Finally, it has to be accepted that an SRO is NOT a "regular apartment", and that attempting to treat it like one will only lead to a bad end.