I asked the City to see the collapse before work began.
“I am concerned that the inspector should see it first.”
The City email includes the collapse photographs sent with it.
Open email and attached photosWhat happened
THE CEILING COLLAPSED OVER MY BED.
THE OPENING REMAINED EXPOSED FOR APPROXIMATELY TWENTY DAYS.
Wet, deteriorated material and insulation hung above the room. My foam mattress was drenched by the moisture. From the beginning, it smelled like mold. I was already seriously ill, and the room could not be used while the opening remained exposed.
What I did not know
AT THE SAME TIME, THE OWNER WAS IN DEFAULT ON HIS SAN FRANCISCO PROPERTY.
The San Francisco public record already documented years of leaks, mold, damaged walls, unpermitted work, unsafe stairs, written notices, hearings, reinspections, and abatement. A Notice of Default was recorded in San Francisco on May 30, 2025. The recorded notice states that payments had been unpaid beginning March 1, 2025, and that $24,734.15 was required to cure as of May 29, 2025. Days later, he sold the San Francisco home. The timing is documented.
Reliance after the repair
I CONTINUED TO PAY MY RENT IN FULL AND ON TIME.
THE HOLE WAS CLOSED. THE HARM WAS NOT.
The assurances were specific. I continued paying because the owner said the work would be permitted and inspected, Code Enforcement told me the matter would be resolved, and the owner later represented that the interior was “safe and sound.”
THE RECORD I RELIED ON
The work would be permitted and checked.
“This work is going to be done with a permit.”
“The inspectors come and check off the work.”
The statement followed my direct request for City oversight and a habitability determination.
Open May 28 exchangeI was told the matter would be resolved.
“You are welcome! We get this resolved.”
The actual exchange includes the City officer’s business card and documents why I believed Code Enforcement was actively handling the collapse.
Open Barela exchangeThe owner said the inspector could examine the work.
“I’ve also been in touch with the inspector from West Hollywood... he can come by anytime to check it out.”
This reinforced the appearance that the work was known to the City and available for inspection.
Open June 11 messageThe owner said the interior was safe.
“But everything is safe and sound inside.”
I reported that I was ill and planned to return the following afternoon in reliance on that assurance.
Open June 16 exchangeWhat the records later showed
IT TURNS OUT HE HAD BEEN WARNED NEARLY TEN MONTHS EARLIER. HE CONCEALED THE MEANING OF A NOTICE LEFT ON MY DOOR.
On August 1, 2024, a Building & Safety inspector left a yellow notice on my door. I could make out a reference to a ladder, but I did not understand the handwritten message. I photographed the notice and immediately sent it to McGlynn. He told me that the notice was for him and that the inspector had come to inspect his windows so he could remove the stickers. I had no reason at the time to suspect that explanation was incomplete.
The City’s own later record identified the inspection as “ROOF SHEATHING,” recorded the result as “CORRECTIONS,” and stated that no one was present and a door hanger was left. The ceiling collapsed less than ten months later.
Direct record · August 1, 2024
The notice and immediate exchange
Door hanger, same day message, moisture photographs, and the owner’s explanation.
Open notice and exchange
Official City record · August 1-2, 2024
ROOF SHEATHING: CORRECTIONS
The permit-inspection report records roof-sheathing corrections and confirms that a door hanger was left.
Open inspection report