Three people involved in an ongoing dispute over the ever-contentious parcel 36, a strip of land at 22nd and Harrison with unclear ownership, were hit with restraining orders this week.
The orders, issued by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Lydia Villarreal, are the consequence of a fight on the parcel back in May. Elizabeth Creely — who was then a member of the greenspace advocacy group Friends of the Mission Greenway but has since stepped away — punched Rudy Rucker, co-owner of local internet service provider Monkeybrains, after he hit Creely’s phone out of her hand.
Creely and her husband, Jay Martin, who is a volunteer with the greenspace group, are now prohibited from contacting or being within 15 feet of Rucker or his business partner, Alex Menendez, for three years. Rucker, too, was issued a restraining order, and is not allowed to contact or be near Creely or Martin for three years.
“It is my hope that our mutual restraining orders will result in the safety of our employees and allow us to move forward,” Rucker said in a statement.
“The argument on May 24 should have been followed by apologies and reconciliation,” reads a joint statement from Martin and Creely. “Instead, Mr. Rucker chose to go to court. It’s really a lost opportunity.”
This is unlikely to be the last court ruling related to parcel 36. Martin filed for a restraining order against co-owner Menendez last week, and the pair are set to appear in court later this month. Monkeybrains has also filed multiple suits in small claims court after property on the contested land was damaged.
Background of the dispute
The diagonal strip of land at 22nd and Harrison streets, formerly part of a rail line, has had unclear ownership for several decades. It was fenced off by nearby businesses in the 1980s, and was used thereafter for private parking.
In October 2022, Friends of the Mission Greenway cut the locks on one of the fences and installed planters in the lot’s southwest corner, with the stated intention of ultimately opening the lot up to the public as new green space.
Nearby businesses Monkeybrains and the Mission Kids Co-op preschool have said they are uncomfortable with the greenspace group making unilateral decisions about the parcel, and that they had safety concerns about opening up the lot. Monkeybrains also claims to have a prescriptive easement on the property — essentially a right to use it based on historical precedent rather than ownership — although this has not been proven in court.
Tensions between the businesses and the gardeners have been high for several months, but climaxed in May during the punching incident.
Ongoing legal skirmishes
On top of the restraining orders issued this week, Monkeybrains has filed two small-claims suits related to damage on the parcel.
The first involved a concrete block Monkeybrains installed on the parcel in May. Friends of the Mission Greenway members Lara Hanna and Chiara Powers allegedly used a sledgehammer to damage the block, which Monkeybrains said was designed as a base for planters.
Monkeybrains sought remuneration for repairs from Friends of the Mission Greenway. But last week, Judicial Officer Pang Ly decided that, because the damage was “neither authorized nor encouraged” by the gardening group, they would not need to pay. “The property damage was committed by individuals in their individual capacity,” said Ly.
“It’s clear that Mission Greenway refuses to take responsibility for their members’ continued escalation of activities on Parcel 36,” wrote Rucker over email.
The second small claim involves Patrick Theimer, a local man who rammed the Treat Avenue gate with his car in July. Monkeybrains paid for repairs on the damaged fence totalling $1,929.50, according to the suit. The company is asking Friends of the Mission Greenway to cover the cost, plus $700 for private investigator fees used to identify Theimer from security footage.
“I did ram the gate, but it wasn’t to try and make a statement,” said Theimer. “It was just out of a kind of personal frustration, almost like hitting a wall with your fist.”
Theimer said that he is unaffiliated with the Mission Greenway gardeners, although he had been aware of the dispute between them and the local businesses. He first spoke to the group after they were jointly issued a summons to small claims court, he said.
Rucker said he believed Theimer and his partner, also named in the suit, were members of the gardening group: “We are asking Mission Greenway to pay, instead of Patrick, because Mission Greenway incited his actions.”
“I don’t think it’s fair to blame us for everything that happens on that piece of land,” said Tree Rubenstein, a veteran greenspace advocate and a member of the Friends of the Mission Greenway board. “I did not condone any act of violence like smashing concrete, damaging a fence or even calling people names.”
Rubenstein added that he did not know Theimer or his partner and did not believe they were affiliated with the Mission Greenway group.
Another contentious point likely to arise at the trial, scheduled for December, is ownership of the fence itself. Rucker claims ownership on the basis of a building permit issued to James Heinzer, former owner of the Monkeybrains warehouse, in 1981. The permit appears to sign off on Heinzer constructing fences on the parcel. But Heinzer never owned the land.
Parcel 36 becomes political
Beyond legal wrangling, the tension at parcel 36 may yet become an issue at the ballot box.
Trevor Chandler, a candidate for District 9 supervisor in the November 2024 election, issued a position paper this week stating that if he were elected, he would push for the city to acquire the land through a legal process called eminent domain. Eminent domain allows the government to purchase land without the permission of private owners; it has been used by the city only rarely.
Chandler tried to mediate between the groups vying to control the parcel earlier this year, without success. He said that the ideal path forward would be to acquire the land and gather input on its use from everyone involved: “I commit to convening as many meetings in my office as needed to bring about a resolution all parties can be satisfied with.”
But, he added, he would support using eminent domain, with or without buy-in from Monkeybrains or Friends of the Mission Greenway.
Santiago Lerma, legislative aide to Hilary Ronen, said that eminent domain had already been investigated as a possibility by the supervisor’s office. He said that using it in this case was “currently a legal impossibility.”
“The first element of eminent domain is making a fair offer to the owner. That is a challenge in this case,” said Lerma, because attempts to find the owners have proven unsuccessful.
“There also has to be a department that has to be willing to take on the legal process and pay for the land,” he said. According to Lerma, Ronen’s office met with the Recreation and Parks Department, Public Works and the Department of Real Estate, but found none were interested in acquiring the parcel. The Board of Supervisors does not, itself, own or purchase land.
He added that the process is further complicated by factors such as possible contamination of the soil and ongoing litigation on the parcel.
With Monkeybrains and the Friends of the Mission Greenway at loggerheads, there little sign that the legal battles surrounding the parcel will end any time soon.
So is Lerma now actually our BoS member or… what? If Ronen no longer wants to do the job, that’s fine (I wouldn’t!) but shouldn’t she resign?
Mission Local needs to do an investigation on why Hilary has been MIA this whole year, and and why she’s been sending Lerma out to do her dirty work
@Luis: Uh, what?
The City could downzone the parcel to devalue it significantly. If no owner comes forth to contest this taking, then that would prove that nobody currently has an interest in the parcel.
The City could then make a plan required for eminent domain, in this case a plan to resolve unclear ownership, and place the fair market value, significantly reduced due to downzoning, into escrow and perfect the condemnation.
Then the City could rezone the parcel to P, public, and upzone it to whatever height and bulk, and then develop it.
If the supervisor cannot compel the Mayor’s government to take an interest in this case, then they’re not supervisoring right. If one sees the job of supervisor as a technician for connecting favored nonprofits with city funding, such an approach is well out of one’s league.
There is something morally repugnant about the idea of a government passing laws specifically designed to devalue a parcel of land for no reason other than for that same government to be able to buy it cheaply.
The last example of that I can think of like that is when the city imposed sprinkler requirements upon SROs so that its docile and captive non-profits could buy them on the cheap.
Mutual restraining orders?? What a pointless waste of time. From “Conflict is Not Abuse” by Sarah Schulman: “There should never be cross-restraining orders…Restraining orders should only be issued if one person is deemed to be a perpetrator and the restraining order is necessary to save the other
from Power Over. It’s not a tactical strategy designed to prove a point. If both people are contributing to the problem, then it is mutual and therefore Conflict, and the intervention of the court is unreasonable. And asking for that intervention is similarly unreasonable. “
Why is it unreasonable for the a court to intervene? So it is a “Conflict” with a capital C — what the heck does that mean. I think it is entirely reasonable for the court to put both parties on notice that they are acting unreasonably and that they will face penalties if they continue to do so.
Juri Commons is another Mission stop on the old rail lines. who owns that? Park and Rec? if so how did that come about? and what happened to the train company? Why not give it to Park N Rec and have whatever fence or gate there fighting over removed?
The Mission Greenway people are so entitled. It is unclear why they think they have the sole right to decide what is done with this property. They represent nobody but themselves and seem to be entirely unwilling to work with others — including the business and homes nearby. Instead they destroy others’ property; then whine when people push back. Their claim that they are looking for “apologies and reconciliation” is self-serving nonsense — they are the ones harassing others.
Lol they represent no one? For one, they represent the 2100+ neighbours who signed the petition advocating for this abandoned, unowned land to become a park, read some of their many comments at the link : )
https://www.change.org/p/let-s-create-a-greenway-for-everyone-to-enjoy-on-abandoned-land-in-san-francisco/c
both the Monkeybrains and Mission Greenway organizations should lose all access privileges to this parcel
Neither side is worried about their safety, a restraining order can be used as a de facto trespass.