Key investor in Mission project is also part owner of ParkMerced, where union workers were replaced with a nonunion contractor

Labor is joining Mission activists in a protest against a 16th and Mission developer
Labor is joining Mission activists in a protest against a 16th and Mission developer

By Tim Redmond

JUNE 23, 2105 — Labor leaders and community activists will rally Wednesday morning to protest the 16th and Mission development project that is linked to the same investor who owns Park Merced, where union maintenance workers were fired and replace by a nonunion contractor.

The rally starts at 16th and Mission, and is sponsored by SEIU United Service Workers West, Jobs with Justice, and the Plaza 16 Coalition.

The connection between the two projects is a huge deal. All of organized labor is furious at Park Merced – the last time I was out there reporting on the picket lines, Tim Paulson, the head of the Labor Council, was seething at what had happened.

And if labor opposes the already controversial Monster in the Mission, the project will have even less chance of success.

We’re starting to see the once-solid building trades backing off from supporting every single deal that involves construction jobs. And it will be hard for anyone at City Hall to support a developer who has created such bad will with the unions.

This is what Maximus says the project at 16th and Mission will look like
This is what Maximus says the project at 16th and Mission will look like

The main connection between the two projects is a man named Robert Rosania. He’s a New York real-estate investor who had some tough times in the last recession, but has emerged to buy up properties on the West Coast.

He also loves to buy fancy Champagne and open bottles with a sword.

As recently as November, 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that Rosania was a key partner in Park Merced. “Rosania has steered Park Merced though enormous challenges,” PJ Johnston, a spokesperson for the project, said. The story said Rosania would “continue as a managing partner” at Park Merced.

Rosania’s name appears in a series of complex Oct. 14, 2014 real-estate transfers involving the Park Merced property. The documents on file with the city Assessor’s Office show that pieces of Park Merced were transferred to entities called Maximus PM 1 Mezzanine LLC and Maximus PM 2 Mezzanine LLC, both Delaware corporations; the deeds were signed by Rosania.

Johnston told me by email yesterday that Rosania is currently part of the investment group that owns Park Merced.

Rosania is also a key player in Maximus Real Estate, which operates Maximus BP 1979 LLC, the developer behind the Mission and 16th project.

Documents on file with the Secretary of State’s Office show that Rosania is a member (which means partner) in Maximus-BP 1979 Mission LLC, the legal entity that now owns the site of what is being called the Monster in the Mission.

Documents also show that Maximus Mezzanine 1 LLC is a partner in the Park Merced project.

Bert Polacci, a lobbyist with Public Advocacy Partners, represents both Park Merced, where he has been part of the team for some time, and Maximus, records on file with the Ethics Commission show.

So it’s pretty hard to argue that there’s no connection between Park Merced and the Mission St. Project.

The main issue that protesters have raised about the Maximus project is the lack of affordable housing in the Mission – and the fear that a huge influx of market-rate housing on that block will lead to even more gentrification and displacement.

The plan calls for 209 high-end rental units and 41 “workforce” housing condos. The developer has agreed to build 49 more affordable units offsite.

The 49 affordable units won’t even cover the direct impacts of the project itself, much less help the housing crisis in the community.

A moratorium on new market-rate housing in the neighborhood would shut the project down, at least for 18 months, while a community planning process goes on that might lead to different types of zoning. Advocates have a very short window of time to collect the signatures, and then would have to win at the ballot in November.

It’s almost certain that Maximus will fight any ballot measure.

But now the role of labor takes the fight to a new level. I just talked to Tim Paulson, the head of the SF Labor Council, and while the council hasn’t taken a position on the 16th and Mission project yet, he said “we absolutely support this protest against Maximus because of the horrible way that workers have been treated at Park Merced.”

The Building Trades Council isn’t supporting the Maximus project at this point, and is actually opposing at least one big project in the Mission. In fact, the union on May 26 passed a resolution opposing eight other developments in the neighborhood — including most of those that would be impacted by the moratorium.

So we are seeing a historic convergence of labor and community housing activists – and that isn’t good news for Maximus.

The rally starts at 11am at the 16th and Mission BART plaza.

 

SHARE
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.
  • “Labor, community unite in protest against Monster in the Mission?” I have not heard one word about this struggle from the leadership of my union, UNITE HERE Local 2, despite the fact that a great many of our members live in the Mission.

    • renew

      My union SEIU Local 1021 supports it; I asked them to support the Plaza 16 Coalition and they did. You can take the matter up with your board as well.

      • Somehow I imagine that Local 1021’s support for the Plaza 16 Coalition involved more than some anonymous individual named “renew” asking the leadership to support this struggle.

        In the real world of Local 2 politics, decisions about participating in campaigns such as the Plaza 16 Coalition are made by a small coterie of officials, not by any “board.” Local 2 workers have little opportunity to initiate or participate in such decisions.

        The point here is not so much about Local 2 as it is about Tim painting a rosy picture about labor and the community uniting together in struggle that is more hope than fact. San Francisco labor officials generally view the “community” as a mere adjunct to their contract campaigns. The San Francisco labor movement needs fundamental reform before community forces who want to fight the good fight can rely on consistent and durable support from the official labor movement.

        • renew

          Gary Gregerson
          Chapter President
          The Arc San Francisco
          I am on SEIU’s Committee on Political Education. I brought up the request to have SEIU support the Plaza 16 Coalition and it passed.

  • RealFakeSanFranciscan

    So how many times at this point has Tim said it “would be hard for anyone at City Hall to support X”, to be followed promptly by a display of reasonably strong support for X by a fair number of people at City Hall? I’m just amused by how he keeps going back to this line, somehow.

    • Almondy

      The best way to interpret most of Redmond’s warbles is to see it in the context of a drowning wounded bird fantasizing about how San Francisco would have been if only this fine city and its voters hadn’t ignored him for the last 40 years.

      That said, n the last few months his remonstrations appear to have withdrawn into the mindless opposition to every new home. He has become obsessed with this one topic – a veritable nattering negative nabob of NIMBYism..

      • 101SF

        Too true. If you take away the NIMBYism, there really isn’t much left of the left here anymore.

        • Ragazzu

          If you take away the word NIMBY from tired trolls, they’d be out of arguments on the subject.

          • VivaShotwell

            Truth hurts, does it?

      • jhayes362

        How appropriate of you $am, to adopt a phrase coined by only the second vice president to resign from office and the only one who faced criminal charges. Below comes from Wikipedia.

        Agnew was the second Vice President in United States history to resign, the other being John C. Calhoun, and the only one to do so because of criminal charges. Nearly ten years after leaving office, Agnew paid the state of Maryland nearly $270,000 as a result of a civil suit that stemmed from the bribery allegations. Critics have cited Agnew as being one of the worst Vice Presidents in American history.

  • MSS SF

    I am geninuinely curious to see what the academic or real world support is behind this view where more regulation and on aggregate building less housing of any kind would be beneficial. A policy decision based on this view can’t be taken without any support from research or experience. As a trained economist (Keynesian worldview) I haven’t seen any analysis to sopport this view personally but would like to see if there is any that can be recommended reading. So far my reading suggests this is similar to Laffer/supply side economics which ‘sounds right’ especially based on starting predispositions but doesn’t bare out in theory or practice. Krugmann and most other left leaning or otherwise, economists also don’t support this view. Krugman below essentially says basic demand supply applies in SF like anywhere else. Worth reading his comment on rent control too.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html

    Happy to change my mind if I see convincing evidence And to debate the topic in good faith. I am not an ideaologue or political but this topic is close to my area of expertise and I have a view (I.e. I am not neutral) thus willing to engage anyone who is interested.

    (also, I live within walking distance on this project)

    • Jon Kozone

      I think the basic theory can be summed up as “If you don’t build it they won’t come”.

      Using the Monster in the Mission example, everybody on both sides apparently believes that there are at least 209 affluent people/groups who want to live in the Mission.

      The moratorium camp seem to believe that if you don’t build new housing then those 209 people will stay put in Redwood City or Denver or Dubai or wherever they may be.

      The anti moratorium camp believes that those 209 people will still want to live here and will have no options other than to outbid people of lesser means for available apartments or become an incentive to Ellis existing residents

      • MSS SF

        Jon – Thanks. I understand your side of the argument.

        I really would like to hear from Tim (does Tim respond to comments?) and/or other supporters. Again, I know what their view is. I am looking for any supportive evidence with either theoretical (but rigorous) backing, or practical empirical evidence.

        Also I would like to understand the refutation of the 93% consensus in the economic academic community stating that rent control is a net negative (please note the use of net and not gross, as there are always some gross positives).

        Thanks.

        • chompsky

          Tim occasionally responds. I highly doubt he will have any legitimate evidence to support this view, however.

        • vratrm

          With respect to rent control, the classic Econ. 101 argument against rent control generally regards controls that applies to all building, including new construction. Under that scenario, so the argument goes, restricting the amount of rent that land owners can charge discourages them from building new units by cutting the returns that they can expect from those units. That scenario clearly doesn’t apply in CA because rent control is limited to units build before 1980.

          Instead we have a situation where rental housing resources are allocated with preference to long-term tenets at the expense of new arrivals. You can argue that that is unfair, or that it negatively affect the ability of landlords to upgrade their properties, and the physical infrastructure of neighbourhoods, but if your definition of ‘gross positive’ is the number of units made available to live in, the impact is mostly a wash, with reasonable arguments made both ways depending on the specifics of the city.

          • MSS SF

            Thanks for responding. I understand that’s the view and that intuitive arguments can be made to support it but research has not supported this idea that partial rent control is a net economic positive. Also, I would make the point that classic Econ 101 doesn’t need to apply price caps to all buildings. Partial price caps, fit within the theory and are part of the 983pct agreement on this topic. Thus in my opinion, if one is making an arugument outside of that consensus, there is a high burden of proof that is needed to make significant public policy based on it.

            Also this is highly recommended reading as it is empirical analysis specifically on california and housing regulation. It doesn’t support above view.

            Quigley, John M. and Steven Raphael, “Regulation and the High Cost of Housing in California,” The American Economic Review, May 2005, 95 (2), 323–328.

            http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~raphael/QR%20Regulation%20110804.pdf

        • Yonathan Randolph

          In San Francisco, rent control is not a price cap on new tenants (as Krugman mistakenly assumed in that article). When the landlord is looking for new tenants, she is free to set the rent to whatever she thinks the market will bear. So there is a free market for vacant rent-controlled housing units. Theoretically the market rent for vacant rent-controlled apartments should include the value of the option to stay in it practically forever at almost the same rate, but you also have to factor in the fact that these units are older and less well-maintained (since there is no incentive to maintain them once she gets a tenant) than non-rent-controlled units built after 1979.

          There are still plenty of disadvantages to rent control. It discourages the landlord from fixing up a unit until the existing tenant leaves. It is a welfare program for tenants paid for by landlords with no means-testing and which the tenant loses when he needs to move for any reason. It also partitions the electorate into homeowners, a large fraction of tenants that are protected from the free market for now, and a small fraction of tenants that suffer under the free market. See Kim-Mai Cutler’s piece: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

          But the advantage of rent control is that it is a massive welfare program that the city government would not be able to afford itself due to California’s Prop 13. Prop 13 is also the reason that San Francisco has inclusionary fees on the permitting of new development to offset their “impact” (which is not a measurement of any negative externality, by the way).

          So although almost all economists would oppose a price cap, you may get a different answer from economists if you poll them on San Francisco’s rent control given the constraints under California law.

          • MSS SF

            Not harsh at all. Thanks for being thoughtful. Take a look at the link I posted above as the analysis focuses on california and the results are consistent with theory. It’s not looking at rent control in isolation, but makes the broader point that housing regulation in price or volume terms partial or otherwise is a net negative for affordability on aggregate. Thus even combining with welfare program point (which make have a social benefit) the net economic effect is still negative. Thoughts?

          • “a small fraction of tenants that suffer under the free market.”
            You so funny! ALL tenants suffer under the “free market,” which is subsidized by taxpayers. The solution to the housing crisis is tenant-owned housing at all price points. The City owns the land; rent or lease it out according to the circumstances. Luxury rates and taxes for developers, modest rates and taxes for working people and students. Private property? Tell it to the Ramaytush.
            Then the Spanish. Then the Mexicans.

    • jhayes362

      There are limits to looking at this as a simple supply and demand issue. What’s going on in the Mission right now is gentrification through the development of relatively high end (compared to the ability of existing Mission residents to buy or rent it) housing.

      One common consequence of this is the dislocation of existing residents. (Go to Google Scholar and do a search for gentrification and dislocation. You’ll find many papers not written by economists.) There are social consequences to this: the loss of affordable housing for working class people and artists, the breakup of social and support networks, and a loss of economic diversity for the community at large. It is commonly estimated that the Mission has lost 8,000 Latino residents since gentrification started.

      If you live within walking distance of the proposed Monster project you should go out for a walk and look around. Open your eyes and you’ll see signs of gentrification everywhere. Pay attention to what’s going on along Mission street. Notice the architecture and think about how the Monster will fit in (it won’t). Check out 24th Street and notice some of the new high end (and obviously white-owned) businesses there.

      Yes, communities change. The Mission was once occupied by Germans who headed for the suburbs when freeways were built. But for a long time — since long before I came to San Francisco — the Mission has had a unique and valuable character as a working class, largely Latino enclave that Ed Lee and his developer friends are hell bent on destroying. This is why there needs to be a moratorium.

      • mortacai

        If the Mission has lost 8,000 Latino residents, are you saying there are now 8,000 less residents in total?

        I doubt that. So what has really happened is that there are now 8,000 more residents of other races.

        So you seem to saying that some races are more desirable than other races. Why? What are the correct numbers for each race that you would like to see, expressed as a percentage? Would it mirror the average for the city? The state? The nation?

      • Pvt. Hudson

        While i feel you regarding the whitewashing of the Mission, you don’t really address his premise. Everything you mention is most certainly happening: the displacement (white people moving in, Latinos moving out), the loss of small businesses, and the loss of artists. That said, these are all symptoms of the increasing affordability of housing, which in fact is made worse by restrictive housing policies, which include rent control. The best affordability is abundance. The cities with the most aggressive housing controls are also the most unaffordable. Even if the condos don’t get built demand is such that landlords with any sense will do whatever they can to get low-rent tenants out. If housing were abundant, they would have no leverage to do so.

      • Kevin Smith

        The Mission has always been a dangerous crime infested slum, till the last 5 years. The Monsters are the current low lifes who need to be Ellis acted.

      • MSS SF

        Jhayes – Thanks for taking the time to reply. There are a number of different issues here.

        What is your justification for the moratorium? Is to stop gentrification? Is it to improve affordability? Is it both?

        Preponderance of research and experience ( that I have come across) suggests that affordability is inversely proportional to restrictive policies on either volume or prices. I am happy to read any google scholar articles you may have seen that suggest otherwise.

        Please see this as an analysis of California but 2 very well known housing economists.

        http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~raphael/QR%20Regulation%20110804.pdf

        The question on the changing character of the Mission/change or architecture being good or bad or neutral is a social issue (as you point out) that can and should be discussed but still my point remains that it is net economic negative.

        Thus in summary I think the moratorium is hard to justify from an affordability view point which Tim and others have tried to do (at least as I read it). The social impact can be debated and am happy to do so but that was not what my post was addressing.

        Curious to read your response.

        Thanks,

        MSS

        • jhayes362

          You missed my point. Gentrification is associated with displacement, and displacement hurts people. It also reduces economic diversity, and that harms the community at large. Here is the link to my Google scholar search: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=gentrification+displacement&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

          Gentrification is a much broader question than just housing supply. It involves the nature of new housing and its impact on communities. Arguably, Lee’s push for new market rate housing could be one of the factors pushing up rents. I think the issue is far more nuanced than just supply and demand.

          • MSS SF

            Hi – As I said that is separate argument. I started the thread talking about improving affordability and its relationship with restrictive policies – the relationship is negative and well established. You are talking about gentrification and its social impact. I would like folks to be clear on which reason is their argument for the moratorium based on. If it’s affordability, then I believe based on evidence its wrong and that’s what my discussion was about. It’s not a reduction to supply and demand etc. Ifs its gentrification, then that’s a purely social argument which needs to be justified on its own two feet while acknowledging that it will be negative for affordability.

            On your point, gentrification causes displacement. Surely that can’t be disputed. And people who are being displaced are logical to act to protect against that. But those who are coming in will likely feel the opposite. It’s in effect a zero sum game. Thus the net societal benefit or loss is not clear though I understand arguments on both sides. The question here that you may need to answer is that can restrictive pricing or volumes prevent gentrification and is thats a good thing as the cost of less affordability for the city as a whole?

            Thanks

          • jhayes362

            I think a moratorium will slow the process of gentrification and its associated dislocation of existing residents in the Mission. I make no claims about a moratorium’s impact on the cost of housing and commercial rents except one: Less gentrification reduces the pressure on housing and commercial prices.

            I do not agree that dislocation is a zero sum game. Forcing out one population for another, the whitening of the Mission as another poster so aptly put it, should not be on anyone’s list of goals for San Francisco.

            The African American population is a fraction of what it once was and the Latino population is headed in the same direction. San Francisco once prided itself on its ethnic diversity. Now, regional planners say that the Bay Area is becoming less white, but that San Francisco is becoming more white.

            As I said before, framing this as a simple supply and demand question doesn’t do justice to many other things, including some of our values.

          • mortacai

            jhayes, can you get into more detail about what the correct racial quotas are for SF?

            It’s clear that you think we have too many of some races and not enough of other races. Can you explain your racial preferences?

          • MSS SF

            Hi -there a number of assertions here regarding gentrification but here are a few questions?
            I am in immigrant and I was offered a job in the city which if why I moved here in 2009. Is that gentrification when I moved? Should I have not taken the job? Should anyone who wishes to move here be allowed to move here? Where should they live? These are also valid questions that I am curious to hear your thoughts on?
            There are a lot of jobs in SF which is why most people move here. How do you consider their position in this debate?
            How is this opposition different from opposition to immigration to the U.S. as a country? Is it not just a localized version?

          • MSS SF

            Oh another thought – less gentrification will mean less price pressure. This is right though you must realize that you are making a demand supply point. Less demand via less gentrification will reduce price pressure.
            Though I honestly fail to see any way that you can reduce demand or desire by a large amount if at al by restricting building etc. what is the transmission mechanism there? What matters is marginal demand in setting the price and there is just no way outside of recession to achieve a significant reduction in that in SF. Where do you disagree or agree on this?

          • jhayes362

            No one has pointed to immigration as a cause of gentrification in the Mission and a lot of people have looked at it, even the staid old Chronicle and The New York Times. See below from a Google search for gentrification in San Francisco.

            A changing Mission – San Francisco Chronicle
            http://www.sfchronicle.com/the-mission/
            San Francisco ChronicleMission. To whom does San Francisco’s oldest neighborhood belong? … for protests over evictions, tech shuttles, gentrification and the soaring cost of living.
            ‎A changing Mission – The Story – ‎Documentary – ‎Alistair & Lizzy Crane – ‎Phil Jaber
            Gentrification Spreads an Upheaval in San Francisco’s …

            http://www.nytimes.com/…/high-rents-elbow-latinos-from-s...
            The New York TimesMay 22, 2015 – Like Chinatown, this distinctive neighborhood helps define San Francisco, but the gentrification — fueled by technology workers and the …
            In the first of two posts above, you fail to note that some degree of the housing demand in the Mission is created not by jobs in San Francisco, but in Silicon Valley. Workers are transported to and from SF in huge buses that block traffic and crowd Muni bus stops. Surely you have seen them. Should SF be a bedroom community to Silicon Valley, particularly when it floods Mission property owners with money and promotes gentrification and dislocation?
            Probably the worst aspects of gentrification are projects like the monster on the Mission. These are totally out of context to the surrounding community, bring in people willing to pay gobs of money for housing, and disrupt the rest of the community.
            Finally, you note that reducing gentrification would change the “price point” for housing and commercial costs. This is correct, but what you didn’t note is that new housing that costs well above the median in an area like the Mission enhances the gentrification dynamic (never mind that it’s ugly). Ed Lee and Scott Wiener don’t care about this, but the people who are protesting the monster do.

          • MSS SF

            Hi – I don’t think you addressed my questions. Maybe I wasn’t clear. That’s ok. anyways in summary I don’t think I or anyone should tell other people they should not live or not live somewhere and I also recpect locals desire to stay where they are but I don’t think it’s a right.

            Thanks for engaging even though I disagree with your view point.

            Best,

          • jhayes362

            I agree that people should be able to live where they choose. Where I think we diverge is when city government sets up the conditions for gentrification and dislocation as it has in the Mission.

            I’ll provide two examples of this: The relaxed conditions we’ve set for the operation of massive buses to haul workers to and from Silicon Valley, and the overdevelopment of expensive market rate housing in the Mission. The city has control over both of these factors and has failed in its duty to protect the residents of the Mission.

            This is my final post. Thanks for your sharing your views.

          • No, nobody gets everything they want, even the filthy rich.

          • “Zero sum game” sounds logical, but is in fact meaningless, as there is no such thing existing in Nature. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction, is how it (the Universe and everything in it) works.

            “America’s Housing Crisis Is Long-Term And Pervasive: http://sco.lt/6PM6tt

          • mortacai

            Surely diversity is increased if the Hispanic population is reduced because they used to be over 50% of the Mission, meaning that we weren’t particularly diverse at all. We were Hispanic.

            “Diversity” doesn’t mean “no whites” although you seem to think it does.

    • So tell me; how does the Keynesian worldview explain the fact that a dollar today
      is only worth a nickel, every “modern” economy with the exception of some Scandinavian countries is deteriorating, and the richest nation in the history of the world is in debt?
      Well, let’s start with this: “Developers Are Not Going To Solve San Francisco’s Housing Problem,” which “Takes apart supply-side arguments to solving the housing crisis in San Francisco and offers real solutions for affordable housing.”

      http://www.peoplepowermedia.net.

  • Bob

    Much ado about nothing. Every day I walk past unions protesting a specific company/developer/organization for any multitude of reasons. I can tell you right now that there is no way in he!! that construction and trades councils are going to start lining up in support of housing moratoriums in SF neighborhoods. Whatever their beef is, they recognize that with no construction there are no jobs.

  • Robert Starzel

    Apparently the union acceded to an agreement for a buyout of jobs at Park Merced. Members received payments but now the union wants the jobs back. That’s hardly playing by the rules.
    One has to wonder why they would be angry at the owners of Park Merced for treating workers fairly.

  • brookse32

    I hope that this means that the Labor Council and Trades Council have now fully internalized the crucial importance of joining in active strong solidarity with housing justice and environmental activists -every- time the latter two are jointly opposing a development project (as housing and environmental organizers did in the case of Parkmerced).

    If we’d had the third force of labor squarely on our side during that and similar fights, we would have had the collective power and influence to demand – affordable housing, an environmentally sound project, *and* guaranteed union employment, in every case.

    The good news is this..

    We can start engaging in such strong triangulated housing/environmental/labor alliances right now and start winning the city that we all deserve to live in, at every income level.

    Eric Brooks

    • mortacai

      So you want the construction unions to oppose construction?

      Just want to make sure we all understand you here.

      • brookse32

        Nope. I’ll clarify for you.

        We need housing, environmental, Labor Council , and construction union organizers to all form alliances together to demand -better- construction projects that serve affordable housing, the environment, and good paying union jobs, all together in the same projects.

        Opposing a specific project -plan- does not mean opposing a project entirely.

        We need to all join in strong solidarity together, to get much better construction projects for everyone.

        That usually means opposing the first, inferior plan; much like opposing a first union contract proposal and holding firm to demand a far better one.

        Eric Brooks

        • mortacai

          “We” in that sense means what the extremist activists want and not the people who, mostly, support growth, development and the construction of new homes at all price points.

          Protesters by definition are a small minority who want to punch beyond their collective weight by acting non-democratically

          • brookse32

            Absolute nonsense. Demanding good construction projects that people will like and want more of, is -pro- constrauction and -pro- development.

            And the fact that even the Building and Construction trade unions are now joining housing and environmental organizers to support such better development shows that backward thinking that promotes bad development and thereby turns off the public to construction, is sensibly going the way of the dinosaur.

            Eric Brooks

          • mortacai

            There are cranes all over the city. Your claims to have won the war against housing is clearly false.

          • brookse32

            Interesting that you are now unfathomably claiming that an advocate for housing is ‘against housing’.. How do you figure that exactly..?

            Are you reading comments before you reply to them or just cutting and pasting from a preset Wall Street developer propaganda doc..?

            Just to repeat (since you don’t appear to have read it above) we are pro good development and housing, and against bad development and housing, and recent moves by the building trades appear to be swinging us back in the direction of a unified movement for good development.

            That (the concept of ‘good’ and ‘bad’) should be a concept clear enough for even a Wall Street PR mouthpiece to understand. 😉

          • mortacai

            “Good” and “bad” are such subjective terms that they are useless. Who gets to decide what is “good”? You?

            If you desire diversity, why wouldn’t we want lots of different types of new homes, so that people can choose whatever they think of as “good”?

          • sffoghorn

            What does it mean that a person has no values whatsoever?

          • mortacai

            I feel sure that Eric has some values. They just are not in synch with the voters, otherwise Ed Lee would not be heading to an easy re-election

          • brookse32

            Thank you for confirming that you can’t easily tell the difference between good and bad.

            This, above all other comments that you have made, really gets to the heart of the matter.

      • sffoghorn

        We need for developers to learn the lesson that Henry Ford learned, to pay your employees or price your product so that they could afford to purchase the product they were making.

        • mortacai

          The construction workers do not need to be able to buy the home they are building. They already have homes, else they would not be able to work here in the first place.

          Millions of people cannot afford the products and services produced by their employer

          • sffoghorn

            Now you understand why construction workers are switching sides politically.

          • mortacai

            Doubtful. Most of the construction guys I know live in the East Bay. And they’re a fairly right-wing bunch of guys who you would have nothing in common with.

          • sffoghorn

            Yeah, the Bay Area is just crawling with Reagan Democrat hardhats. That is why they teamed up with the nonprofiteers.

          • mortacai

            Obviously you do not know a single construction worker

          • sffoghorn

            Right, election results clearly indicate that construction workers are right wing. That is why they are taking no position on 1979 Mission.

          • mortacai

            Occupation is not recorded when you vote.

          • sffoghorn

            Clearly the East Bay is a Republican stronghold because of all of the right wing construction workers who live there.

          • mortacai

            I’d like to see your data

          • sffoghorn

            How many Republican elected officials are there in the CA and US legislatures from the East Bay? Didn’t Pombo get crushed?

          • mortacai

            Sure the Bay Area mostly votes Democrat. What does that have to do with the political allegiances of one specific occupation?

            Contractors are not particularly progressive at all. and thanks for admitting you have no data to prove otherwise.

          • sffoghorn

            Construction workers are more progressive than construction capitalists.

          • sffoghorn

            Except that they’ve declined to endorse 1979 Mission even though it is ostensibly in their immediate economic interests to do so. Why might that be? Might they start to be realizing that they are being cheated and don’t want to screw others in the process? Ayn Rand shrugged.

  • Kevin Smith

    This just shows how self centred the rent control class is.” We have our cheap rat holes and NO ONE else is allowed”… PATHETIC CREEPS IS ALL THEY ARE….

  • Pingback: سایت ساز()

  • Pingback: שירותי ליווי()

  • Pingback: youtube video production services()

  • Pingback: make money through udemy()

  • Pingback: Find Businesses in Australia()

  • Pingback: Carpenter in Rye , Victoria , Australia()

  • Pingback: are steroids legal in the us()

  • Pingback: Following the big tech and real estate money in D11 and D9 - 48 hills()

  • Pingback: Trisha on Times of India()

  • Pingback: Best Magazine in India()

  • Pingback: buy anavar british dragon()

  • Pingback: blowfish()

  • Pingback: accounting fraud()

  • Pingback: Trisha()

  • Pingback: buy hand truck wheels()

  • Pingback: para para dinle()

  • Pingback: fat burners reviews()

  • Pingback: joseph de saram()

  • Pingback: joe de saram()

  • Pingback: joseph de saram()

  • Pingback: M88()

  • Pingback: pornhub()

  • Pingback: kalpa pharmaceuticals any good()

  • Pingback: http://www.mckenzieandwillis.co.nz/()

  • Pingback: lawyers()

  • Pingback: home improvement()

  • Pingback: freeletics burpees()