CFAH

668 Guerrero

A plugged-in tipster reports that the single-story building at 668 Guerrero Street in the Mission, just down the street from Tartine, was foreclosed upon and sold for $2,481,000 in cash on the courthouse steps Monday.  That’s $194,198.96 more than the lenders were owed.

And while plans have yet to be submitted to the City, the 4,000-square-foot parcel is zoned for residential use and development up to 40-feet in height, as is the adjacent Voice of Christ Full Gospel Church site at 660 Guerrero.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Joel

    Prime site just outside of the moratorium boundary…

  2. Posted by Density+

    The Full Gospel Church is the most egregious practitioner of “Sunday” parking in the middle of the street. There would be rejoicing in Guerrero if that site became housing.

    • Posted by zig

      “Sunday” parking is a SF tradition. How dare you try to change the culture

      • Posted by AnonAnon

        complaining about minor annoyances is San Francisco tradition as well.

    • Posted by Ivoryhouse

      Used to drive me to distraction – the hi-viz jacketed attendants just blocking off lanes of guerrero. Ticket them like anybody else.

      • Posted by gribble

        Call the parking cops and complain that people are jaywalking dangerously. It works. They are no longer parking on my block on Guerrero.

    • Posted by Orland

      The City looking the other way and acceding to the practice is a violation of the Establishment Clause IMO.

      • Posted by Bertie Anglis

        Indeed. If they’re acquiescing on the churchgoers’ double parking, but not the non-churchgoers’ double parking, this violates the First Amendment.

    • Posted by Ep

      The most vigourous opponents of the Sunday parking situation (at least on the area mailing list) are also the most vigourous opponents of basically any development. That would really put them on the spot!

  3. Posted by lasertag

    Really? Your biggest gripe is that people are parking on the street for a few hours while they go to church? wow

    • Posted by Brad

      It’s not a small problem. It encourages double-parking all across the city and endangers cyclists and pedestrians, let alone the effects on traffic.

      • Posted by Nimby

        What a ridiculous conclusion. It’s Sunday morning. Let the people go to church. I’m sure church going encourages positive behaviour.

        • Posted by san FronziScheme

          My religion is coffee and I practice it religiously every morning. When in SF my places of worship are on Valencia and Guerrero.

          I demand the central lane on Valencia and free parking attendants!

        • Posted by Orland

          By suspending the laws otherwise applicable to favor religious activity clearly violates the First Amendment.

        • Posted by Fishchum

          Ridiculous. Some of the biggest reprobates I know attend church regularly.

        • Posted by Wai Yip Tung

          There is no law prohibiting people going to church. People are free to go any time of the day.

          Parking a car in the traffic lane is however clearly illegal. We ask the city not to look the other way and encourage this behavior.

          • Posted by Nimby

            “We”? “We” also ask that the city preserve accessibility for those Missionites that do their thing on Sunday mornings.

            As far as illegal activity goes, this is pretty harmless. There are lots of “illegal” activities given a pass by this city. Letting those people park in the center of the street as they’ve been doing for decades seems as innocuous as the guy smoking a blunt (illegal according to federal law).

          • Posted by Bertie Anglis

            @Nimby And what if your local government started enclosing copies of the Ten Commandments with every property tax bill? That’s arguably harmless too–you can simply toss out the little piece of paper–but it would still violate the Establishment Clause and therefore should not be permitted.

    • Posted by Zig

      First the hood is ethnically cleansed and now complaints that the poor folks come back to the old church. Amazing

  4. Posted by BobN

    Tangentially, is there such a thing as a “Partial Gospel” church?

  5. Posted by Hitman

    Perfect example of perversity of SF. Tenant likely pays nearly nothing and landlord bears all the risk – to the point of being foreclosed. JR will probably say: LL’s fault for overfinancing.

    • Posted by Frisco

      Who is the tenant of this unmarked gray building, anyway?

      • Posted by gribble

        I live just down the street and have often wondered what that building was used for. I have never seen anybody go in or out.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles