Sent in by sharp-eyed Cameron is this little article over on KTVU regarding SF's own symbol of the recession, Union Street.
"Hanson said Union Street has been hurt by too many stores selling clothing, and landlords raising rents during a recession as opposed to lowering them.
"They have to reduce it," said Hanson. "What are they going to do with empty space?" "
Uttered by Luisa, the landlord, who rented out space to a clothing store next door to her flagship location on Union and regularly drives out her tenants by unrealistic rent increases. I guess we can chalk up this "victim of greedy landlords" persona as her latest reinvention. Or as the latest personality to take up residence in an increasingly crowded mindspace.
(As a point of digression, this KTVU article is not signed, but I would truly love to meet the reporter who managed to track down La Hanson and either by use of a broom + corner or brute force + sodium pentathol get the woman to talk to any member of the press. Truly an astounding feat, and sir or madam reporter, my hat is off to you.)
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Ding Dong! The witch is dead...
Not literally, of course, because then this post would be in bad taste. No, gentle readers, she's out of the game, financially speaking.
In the last week, Luisa Hanson has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The good folks over at BarleycornSurvivors.org have uncovered the bomb, and have even posted a copy of the filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. I assume the source is the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, but since their court record search system is a paying service (PACER), I will wait for confirmation on that.
But for the moment assuming this is not some horrible joke, I'd like to point out a few things that struck me as odd in the filing (the least of which are that she's managed to get yet another lawyer, and said lawyer spelled Hanson's name and the name of her corporation wrong!). In the filing, Hanson says she owes an estimated $10 million-50 million, and that she only has "$0-$50,000" in assets. Really? I guess condos on Nob Hill must not be what they used to be, as she certainly owns at least 2 in the building at 1177 California Street, one of them her personal residence. Next on the list, let's not forget she owns the building Luisa's Restaurant occupies. Leaving out the commercial properties she has surely leveraged and leveraged again to buy more property, she also has a car and an Imelda Marcos-worthy collection of headbands. Surely her assets total more than a mere $50,000.
As part of the filing, Ms. Hanson was required to submit to credit counseling. The filing shows (on p. 6) that she completed it over the phone and internet, but that no debt repayment plan was prepared. One can only imagine how the counseling, which was to "outlin[e] the opportunities for available credit counseling and assis[t] ... in performing a related budget analysis" went.
Pages 7 and 8 show her largest unsecured creditors, with a whopping $81,000 owed to Rewards Network, Inc., one of those restaurant listing services for, you guessed it, rewards programs. (How does one rack up an $81,000 debt with them?). She then lists $80,000 from the Heritage Bank of Commerce to purchase a liquor license for her attempted Nob Hill bar, Duffy's. Ouch, Heritage Bank of Commerce.
For now, I leave you, dear readers, to the enjoyment of this reading material.
In the last week, Luisa Hanson has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The good folks over at BarleycornSurvivors.org have uncovered the bomb, and have even posted a copy of the filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. I assume the source is the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, but since their court record search system is a paying service (PACER), I will wait for confirmation on that.
But for the moment assuming this is not some horrible joke, I'd like to point out a few things that struck me as odd in the filing (the least of which are that she's managed to get yet another lawyer, and said lawyer spelled Hanson's name and the name of her corporation wrong!). In the filing, Hanson says she owes an estimated $10 million-50 million, and that she only has "$0-$50,000" in assets. Really? I guess condos on Nob Hill must not be what they used to be, as she certainly owns at least 2 in the building at 1177 California Street, one of them her personal residence. Next on the list, let's not forget she owns the building Luisa's Restaurant occupies. Leaving out the commercial properties she has surely leveraged and leveraged again to buy more property, she also has a car and an Imelda Marcos-worthy collection of headbands. Surely her assets total more than a mere $50,000.
As part of the filing, Ms. Hanson was required to submit to credit counseling. The filing shows (on p. 6) that she completed it over the phone and internet, but that no debt repayment plan was prepared. One can only imagine how the counseling, which was to "outlin[e] the opportunities for available credit counseling and assis[t] ... in performing a related budget analysis" went.
Pages 7 and 8 show her largest unsecured creditors, with a whopping $81,000 owed to Rewards Network, Inc., one of those restaurant listing services for, you guessed it, rewards programs. (How does one rack up an $81,000 debt with them?). She then lists $80,000 from the Heritage Bank of Commerce to purchase a liquor license for her attempted Nob Hill bar, Duffy's. Ouch, Heritage Bank of Commerce.
For now, I leave you, dear readers, to the enjoyment of this reading material.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Torre del Grego = Luisa Hanson, or, It Ain't Over til the Crazy Harpy Sings
So I received a comment from John, as well as a few notes from my neighborhood sources about the newish liquor license application that's appeared in the window of the old Front Room (1500 California) and Barleycorn (1415 Larkin) locations. The applicant is listed as a certain Torre del Grego.
Not so unexpectedly, it's just another trick. The last time she applied for liquor licenses at those locations, Hanson was notified by the Alcoholic Beverages Control office that she was facing a "large and well organized opposition." So of course she hits on the bright idea (several months later, I might add--it's not like we're dealing with Einstein here) to apply in a different name.
Now, yes, Hanson did set up a corporation with that name a few years back, and it's been attached to some of her other failed projects here in the city. However, the corporation has been suspended. In my experience that can happen a couple different ways: not filing the required paperwork for quarterly minutes, not paying taxes, or not paying the state's fee (most likely in my book).
As in all good bureaucracies, the Secretary of State's office probably doesn't talk to the ABC and other permitting authorities, so please do protest--either on the grounds that this shows a blatant disregard for California business law, that Luisa Hanson/Torre del Grego is still not a welcome presence in the neighborhood, or whatever. You have until January 16 to do so. The local ABC office can be contacted at SFO.Direct@abc.ca.gov, by mail at 71 Stevenson St, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105, or on the phone at (415) 356-6500.
John, should you feel like sharing the picture of the liquor license application at either or both location, please do so (feel free to post on the Barleycorn group on Flickr, for example)! The name of the particular agent to contact is listed on the posted application.
Not so unexpectedly, it's just another trick. The last time she applied for liquor licenses at those locations, Hanson was notified by the Alcoholic Beverages Control office that she was facing a "large and well organized opposition." So of course she hits on the bright idea (several months later, I might add--it's not like we're dealing with Einstein here) to apply in a different name.
Now, yes, Hanson did set up a corporation with that name a few years back, and it's been attached to some of her other failed projects here in the city. However, the corporation has been suspended. In my experience that can happen a couple different ways: not filing the required paperwork for quarterly minutes, not paying taxes, or not paying the state's fee (most likely in my book).
As in all good bureaucracies, the Secretary of State's office probably doesn't talk to the ABC and other permitting authorities, so please do protest--either on the grounds that this shows a blatant disregard for California business law, that Luisa Hanson/Torre del Grego is still not a welcome presence in the neighborhood, or whatever. You have until January 16 to do so. The local ABC office can be contacted at SFO.Direct@abc.ca.gov, by mail at 71 Stevenson St, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105, or on the phone at (415) 356-6500.
John, should you feel like sharing the picture of the liquor license application at either or both location, please do so (feel free to post on the Barleycorn group on Flickr, for example)! The name of the particular agent to contact is listed on the posted application.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Michael Bauer vs. Luisa Hanson
In doing a little research for the last post, I came upon this intriguing entry in the SF Superior Court name search database*: this case against Michael Bauer! She's listed as the defendant in this case--in spite of what various reporters think of this woman being a one-woman litigation machine, she's mostly the defendant in the cases she's party to. So what the hell did she do this time??
As usual, any hints, actual knowledge, guesses or "fan" fiction welcome in the comments.
____________
*In this case, I searched under "Hansen, Luisa". In the previous post, I searched for "Hanson, Luisa".
As usual, any hints, actual knowledge, guesses or "fan" fiction welcome in the comments.
____________
*In this case, I searched under "Hansen, Luisa". In the previous post, I searched for "Hanson, Luisa".
A closing
So I'm a bit late on this, but it looks like The Holy Grail has closed, according to SF Eater.
Does this mean Luisa gets another crack at a liquor license? If ever there were a time for the Lower Polk Association to endorse a bar (before La Hanson gets her hands on the license), now's the time! (Of course, maybe it's also the time to for any readers out there who are friends with Mr. O'Reilly to casually schedule lunch with him and let him know the pain he's in for* if he decides to try to sell his license to her...).
___________________________________
*Search for "Hanson, Luisa"
Does this mean Luisa gets another crack at a liquor license? If ever there were a time for the Lower Polk Association to endorse a bar (before La Hanson gets her hands on the license), now's the time! (Of course, maybe it's also the time to for any readers out there who are friends with Mr. O'Reilly to casually schedule lunch with him and let him know the pain he's in for* if he decides to try to sell his license to her...).
___________________________________
*Search for "Hanson, Luisa"
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Here be monsters
Only for the brave of heart: click here.
I don't know if I'm more appalled by the close-up of her talking head or the fact she's credited as the "chef." Eek, indeed.
I don't know if I'm more appalled by the close-up of her talking head or the fact she's credited as the "chef." Eek, indeed.
Monday, July 7, 2008
A note on Vinoteca
Today is a special day: going by this reference Vino Teca (or Vinoteca) has been open for a whole 40 days! I know, it seems like just 41 days ago we all thought the establishment would never open.
Of course, in the eyes of the County Clerk, Vino Teca (or Vinoteca) is still not officially open and this particular fictitious business name is still up for grabs...
You see, La Hanson has never actually filed a DBA with the SF County Clerk, which she is required to do by California State Law. And moreover, according to the CA State Business and Professions Code, section 17910: "Every person who regularly transacts business in this state for profit under a fictitious business name shall do ... the following: (a) File a fictitious business name statement in accordance with this chapter not later than 40 days from the time the registrant commences to transact such business..."
So once again, our fair protagonist is shown flouting the law. And while I can't speak for certainty on this point, I'm guessing that not filing the DBA like she should have means she also hasn't paid the necessary business tax for Vinoteca required when anyone starts a new business.
If anyone is interested, one can get updates at SFGov's Business Name Search (I personally have tried to hit all possibilities, searching for Vinoteca, Vino Teca, La Vinoteca, etc.), and to complain I suggest one call the County Clerk's office at (415) 554-4950 or email them at County.Clerk@sfgov.org.
Of course, in the eyes of the County Clerk, Vino Teca (or Vinoteca) is still not officially open and this particular fictitious business name is still up for grabs...
You see, La Hanson has never actually filed a DBA with the SF County Clerk, which she is required to do by California State Law. And moreover, according to the CA State Business and Professions Code, section 17910: "Every person who regularly transacts business in this state for profit under a fictitious business name shall do ... the following: (a) File a fictitious business name statement in accordance with this chapter not later than 40 days from the time the registrant commences to transact such business..."
So once again, our fair protagonist is shown flouting the law. And while I can't speak for certainty on this point, I'm guessing that not filing the DBA like she should have means she also hasn't paid the necessary business tax for Vinoteca required when anyone starts a new business.
If anyone is interested, one can get updates at SFGov's Business Name Search (I personally have tried to hit all possibilities, searching for Vinoteca, Vino Teca, La Vinoteca, etc.), and to complain I suggest one call the County Clerk's office at (415) 554-4950 or email them at County.Clerk@sfgov.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
