60-year-old S.F. bottle shop evicted
The Jug Shop, a well-known neighborhood liquor store listed on the San Francisco Legacy Business registry, has been evicted from its location in the Polk Gulch area, court documents show.
The 60-year-old business was sued by its landlord at 1648 Pacific Ave. over more than $170,000 in allegedly unpaid rent. It now appears vacant, its shelves barren of the upscale wine and spirits for which it was known.
The Jug Shop had moved to this interim location, an old firehouse building, in 2021, within earshot of its longtime address 1590 Pacific Ave., on the corner of Polk Street and Pacific Avenue. But there, business dried up, second generation owner Mike Priolo told the Chronicle in December.
At the time, Priolo was seeking funds to help the Jug Shop complete its long-planned move back to 1590 Pacific Ave., joining a new mixed-use development, named Maison Pacific, where an empty retail space was waiting. Of the $500,000 it sought, the Jug Shop raised just $22,000; the fate of those funds wasn't immediately clear.
Priolo did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The developer of Maison Pacific did not respond to request for comment on the future of the planned Jug Shop retail space.
In 2024, a major distributor, Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, sued the Jug Shop for alleged breach of contract and what it claimed were more than $30,000 in unpaid invoices. The case was referred to arbitration in February, court records show.
The Jug Shop could be the latest Legacy Business to close despite the assistance program from the city. The program provides help with permits and incentives for landlords of businesses which have operated for more than 30 years. This fiscal year the city devoted $1 million from the budget, according to the city's Office of Economic and Workforce Development.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Top S.F. burger spot closing after nearly a decade
WesBurger 'N' More, whose burgers the Chronicle once hailed as among the best in the Bay Area, will close its doors at 2240 Mission St. after nearly ten years of business. Owner Wes Rowe announced the closure on Instagram Tuesday, inviting customers to 'have a last burger or five' before the final day of business on July 15. Until then, Rowe is primarily focused on celebrating the legacy of the business. 'I love the city a lot,' Rowe told the Chronicle. 'I don't really want to harp on too many negative things about closure and kind of pile along the same way that I feel like a lot of people do when they close.' Rowe, originally a photographer, started WesBurger in 2013 as a monthly popup. That turned into a weekly occurrence, and in 2016, he opened on Mission Street serving burgers and other items seven days a week. WesBurger is best known for its smashburger, but also offers a menu of fried chicken, mac and cheese (that was featured among the Chronicle's best), beer and a range of sides — with fries notably left off the menu in favor of tater tots. Following the tradition of the Wednesday weekly popup, Rowe will be at the restaurant on Wednesdays leading up to the closure and continue to put out specials for customers. He also envisions a big party in the last few days of the restaurant for the community to 'try all the tots and drink all the beer.' Tuesday's announcement might have felt sudden for the public, but Rowe's decision to shut down had been simmering for a while, he said. Many things have changed for the restaurant since 2016, including the rise of delivery apps like DoorDash and Uber Eats, which decreased their dine-in crowd. Although this iteration of WesBurger is closing down for good, Rowe thinks the brand is strong and may have a future. Since announcing the closure, he has been approached by a few people hoping to take over the business — and for the right person, he might consider. 'For now, I'm gonna let it breathe and go back to normal life for a little bit,' Rowe said, 'but I don't think that this will be the ultimate end of WesBurger.'
San Francisco Chronicle
3 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Tech entrepreneur pushes plan for ‘Silicon Valley 2.0' on Bay Area waterfront
A Silicon Valley entrepreneur is circulating plans for a futuristic tech enclave in Alameda, on land that is already slated for development. The pitch for Frontier Valley, a 512-acre waterfront complex that combines dense residential buildings with space to launch drones and rockets, surfaced on social media Sunday and instantly went viral. It confounded officials in Alameda, who said the project's founder, James Ingallinera, had not contacted them about his proposal. Cloaked in flashy visuals and brash marketing language, the idea for Frontier Valley still seems inchoate. Ingallinera envisions his development as a special jurisdiction independent from the Bay Area and the state, a form of zoning that would require an emergency declaration from President Trump. Frontier Valley fits the template of a 'Freedom City,' or deregulated area meant to serve as a vast open-air laboratory for new technology. Trump has vowed to build ten of them. Renderings of Frontier Valley show a landscape that resembles the world of a video game, with steel zeppelins and hovercrafts floating among cylindrical glass towers. Promotional materials on the website advertise a culture of 'radical moonshots and freedom,' steeped in techno-optimism and the celebration of personal liberty, with ambition to match Trump's erstwhile advisor, Elon Musk. The plan was first reported by the Nerd Reich website. 'This is the Manhattan Project of our time,' Ingallinera says in a video posted on his project's website. He also describes Frontier Valley as 'a wholly new, self-contained, Silicon Valley 2.0,' with loose regulations and complete independence from both the Bay Area and the state. According to his LinkedIn profile, Ingallinera previously founded another company that built co-habitational dwellings in San Francisco and New York City, aimed at young techies who would sleep in bunk beds. He also advised a nonprofit dedicated to whole brain emulation, the concept that scientists could create a digital replica of the human brain. Ingallinera did not respond to inquiries from the Chronicle on Monday. A spokesperson for the city of Alameda said the parcel that Ingallinera's group is targeting, a former naval air station called Alameda Point, has other development projects underway. These include a Veterans Administration medical facility and columbarium that Congress has authorized and funded, as well as a 158-acre open space park, created in partnership with East Bay Regional Parks District. 'No reasonable fact supports the proposed declaration of emergency at Alameda Point,' city spokesperson Sarah Henry said in a statement, noting that city leaders fully support turning the area, now home to a shoreline park, several craft breweries, two ferry terminals, into a 'vibrant community of commercial, industrial, and residential uses, including many high-tech and bio-tech uses.' Ingallinera is eyeing land adjacent to those buzzy transit hubs and dining corridors, which is currently empty but will ultimately house the park and VA medical campus. As of now it has no infrastructure, Henry said.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
State Farm accused of ‘illegal scheme' that left California wildfire survivors underinsured
State Farm General, the largest insurer in California, stands accused of orchestrating a 'multi-faceted illegal scheme' to underinsure California homeowners in an effort to grow its market share, according to a lawsuit brought by Los Angeles wildfire survivors. In a complaint filed Monday with the Los Angeles Superior Court, attorneys alleged State Farm's California subsidiary and one of its agents 'deliberately' misused reconstruction cost estimation programs to undervalue how much its policyholders' homes would cost to rebuild after a disaster. That allowed them to offer cheaper policies while deceptively marketing those policies as providing '100% replacement cost' coverage. The tactics formed part of a 'race to the bottom' pricing strategy, through which State Farm captured more than 20% of the California insurance market, according to the complaint. 'Lower coverage limits correspond to more attractive premium rates, but leave homeowners unwittingly exposed to serious underinsurance when faced with a total loss following a natural disaster,' attorneys for the wildfire survivors wrote. 'This has severely undermined Plaintiffs' efforts to rebuild their lives in the aftermath of this tragic event.' This lawsuit and others follow a Chronicle investigation published in April that found that companies representing at least 40% of California's home insurance market all rely on one software program, called 360Value, to recommend policy limits to their customers. Insurers have failed to disclose 360Value's specific flaws to policyholders. Reporters found that the tool relies on faulty data and methods to determine its reconstruction cost estimates, often incorrectly guessing a home's features or drawing from outdated records. Agents for major insurers, including State Farm, rarely take the time to examine and correct the pre-populated data. Additionally, the information 360Value uses to price building materials and labor does not adequately account for California's higher costs. Taken together, these shortcomings have driven widespread underinsurance among California policyholders, the Chronicle investigation found, leaving them with coverage limits that can be hundreds of thousands of dollars too low. In the State Farm lawsuit, attorneys allege that the company deliberately misused the software to save time and operating costs. Over the past decade, the insurer required agents to input and validate fewer home characteristics by hand, instead relying increasingly on the 'assumed data' and skewing reconstruction estimates downward. What's more, State Farm may have attempted to use the incorrect data its agents prefilled into the tool against its own policyholders, soon after their homes burned down. According to the complaint, when some policyholders questioned the adequacy of their policies following the fires, State Farm 'demanded' their clients answer detailed questionnaires about their homes. Attorneys alleged these questionnaires were designed to help insurers claim that homeowners had provided incorrect information about their homes at the point of sale, giving State Farm an excuse to deny their claims and 'escape liability.' Most of the policyholders named in the lawsuit are underinsured by $1 million or more, according to the complaint. In one case, a couple purchased their home in April 2021 and signed up for a new State Farm policy. Their agent, using cost estimation software, set their coverage limit at $1,005,400. When the couple inquired about the adequacy of that limit, their agent responded in writing that the figure 'does cover the rebill (sic.) of your home.' However, after the couples' home burned down in the Eaton Fire in January, they learned it would cost well over $3 million to rebuild their home — meaning they are likely underinsured by at least $2 million. The State Farm underinsurance lawsuit follows others filed by Los Angeles wildfire survivors against USAA as well as the Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club and CSAA, the two AAA-affiliated home insurers for California. The Chronicle's reporting also spurred a May hearing by the California State Board of Equalization, the state's agency tasked with overseeing property taxes and recommending legislation. The California Department of Insurance previously investigated State Farm for its replacement cost estimation methods following the California wildfires of 2015 and 2017. In a 2022 report summarizing that investigation, the state regulator identified 31 destroyed homes whose policies were set using 360Value replacement cost estimates, finding that half were underinsured by 25% or more. An additional five were underinsured by 40% or more. The department also found instances where State Farm's agents deliberately manipulated the 360Value program to lower the price of policies. In one case, an agent reran 360Value 26 different times, dropping the home's quality grade to 'economy' to generate a lower rebuild cost and thus cheaper coverage. The policyholder ended up being underinsured by $86,000. Representatives for State Farm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In previous statements to reporters and to the Department of Insurance, however, it has attributed underinsurance to policyholders' failure to adequately assess how much their homes are worth. 'It is the customer's responsibility to select the appropriate limits,' the company wrote to regulators in 2022. In the lawsuit, however, attorneys argue that the average State Farm policyholder could not possibly know more about the cost of rebuilding homes in California than the insurance giant, which collects and analyzes reams of data on construction pricing each year. 'The determination of coverage amount occurs in the context of extreme information asymmetry,' wildfire survivors' attorneys wrote. 'While State Farm writes over a million California homeowners insurance policies each year by generating reconstruction cost estimates, the consumer typically only owns a single home and has no experience or knowledge of how to generate or evaluate the accuracy of a reconstruction cost estimate.'
