Sponsored link
Thursday, July 29, 2021

Sponsored link

UncategorizedMayor Lee's failed housing policies -- and how we...

Mayor Lee’s failed housing policies — and how we can demand change in 2015

The mayor’s State of the City address stressed housing — but his actual record is dismal and his proposals won’t work

Mayor Lee presents his glowing vision of the city
Mayor Lee presents his glowing vision of the city


By Calvin Welch

JANUARY 15, 2015 — The themes of Ed Lee’s re-election campaign were outlined in today’s State of the City address. At center place were the essentially defensive proposals to address the affordable housing crisis that grips San Francisco. His all-too-familiar initiatives — down payment assistance for middle class home owners, calls for private sector and foundation financing at never-mentioned levels, and a general obligation bond — remain unchanged from the Gavin Newsom Administration.

So much for “disruption” and “innovation” he and his backers love to yammer on about.

But then again, what can he do if, in fact, his policies are part of the problem and not a solution?

Let’s stipulate that a significant cause of the affordability crisis facing San Francisco and every other major American city has its roots in the failure of federal and state governments to maintain historic support for inner-city affordable housing development. A Republican Party intent on making government fail and a Democratic Party divided between populist and business wings has meant that government investment in urban infrastructure, of which affordable housing is a primary component, has virtually ceased.

The major housing subsidy now provided by the federal government – the mortgage interest rate tax deduction — is aimed at middle and upper-middle income homeowners — the very folks Ed Lee wants to help. In 2011, that tax break cost the federal government $72 billion, which was more than 70 times greater than the $1 billion the federal government spent to build new affordable housing that year.

But what makes the San Francisco crisis so devastating and so out of control is the local impact of rapid income disparity between the service/retail sector and the technology sector of our economy. The main manifestation of that disparity is the cost of housing.

Through a combination of embracing the most economically stratified sector of  the modern urban economy – technology — and adopting a pro-market development policy , Ed Lee is equally responsible for the most devastatingly destructive affordable housing policy disaster since the days of  redevelopment, when more than 10,000 homes were demolished in an effort to change the economic and demographic character of the city.

While presiding over a 10 percent increase in the employed workforce in the city since 2011, Ed Lee has also seen a 61 percent increase in the median price of a single family home over the same period.

Lee’s policies are so out of whack that his constant boasting of the “the highest minimum wage in the nation” is undercut by the fact that it would take TWO minimum wage earners paying 100 percent of BOTH of their incomes to afford the 2014 “housing wage” of  $37 an hour to afford to rent the averaged priced two-bedroom apartment in San Francisco.

This is no surprise; we’ve seen it before 

It not like this didn’t happen before. We all went through the same thing during the dotcom boom/bust from 1995 to 2000: A rapid increase in employment  — 23 percent — and a rapid increase in housing costs 56 percent increase in the median price of single family home.

But with the bust in 2000, the next five years saw 63,000 of those jobs disappear and, a little later, with the “Great Recession,” housing prices began to drop, reaching their lowest point in 2009, 24 percent below the peak.

After the dotcom bust/boom, observers and researchers begin to recognize the relationship between the rise of the technology sector and the increase in income disparity.

A 2003 report prepared by the National Bureau of Economic Research and a 2008 IMF report both drew a relationship between the rise of the technology sector and increasing “income inequality.” Indeed, much of the debate on the community side over the rezoning of the formally industrial areas of the eastern San Francisco – the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan — from 2002 on was informed by the experience of the tech boom, and sought to  preserve  resident-employing light industrial, arts , and production uses.

Those policies were resisted by SPUR and the Newsom administration seeking new areas for market-rate housing and the “new economy” (then thought to be biotech. Community veterans of the tech-boom fight had learned the hard lesson of the relationship between jobs (income) and housing and sought new policies that linked market -rate housing development with increased affordable housing requirements and office use allowed only if arts, production, nonprofit or light industrial space was linked and also made available. These policies were rejected or reduced in the final plan approved Newsom’s Planning Commission.

The point here is that the impact of a rapid increase in a tech workforce on housing costs was well known, and there were ideas on the table about how to mitigate that impact. The fact that Lee not only did not apply those lessons and policy innovations but that he and his administration actively opposed them resulting in an even more wild swing in housing costs and attendant tenant and community displacement.

The first indication of the Lee Administration disinterest in creating a robust affordable housing financing program aimed at exactions from market rate developers appeared in his first year as mayor and the debate over the  proposed construction of a giant new hospital on Van Ness Avenue.

Sutter-CPMC was the most profitable hospital chain in San Francisco and California. It was proposing a massive expansion in an area long zoned for “smart growth” with requirements for mixed-use housing and commercial development along a transit corridor.

The health care chain was proposing a commercial use, with no housing and a 10,000-car garage, at the intersection of Van Ness and Geary, a primary transit hub in San Francisco. There were extremely important health-policy issues as well — CPMC had taken over St. Luke’s hospital in the Mission and was wildly believed to want to close it in favor of “consolidation” at the new location.

The project offered Lee the chance to create jobs for residents, get payments for affordable housing and public transit, and leverage the preservation of St. Lukes. He failed in three of the four areas. He actually agreed to let CPMC provide half of the housing requirements forced on the hospital by community advocates for an ownership program with buyers chosen by CPMC management — rejecting the community position for permanently affordable rental housing opportunities open to all San Franciscans.

He showed no interest in resident job creation or meaningful transit mitigation.

After the deal fell apart once Lee found out CPMC was planning to close St Luke’s, the community/labor coalition got some $30 million in housing impact fees paid to the city as part of the final deal worked out with the Board of Supervisors.

Affordable housing task force 

The second failure of the Lee administration to address a robust affordable housing program came in the near year-long talks called by the mayor to create an affordable housing trust fund, finally passed as Proposition B in 2012. It what became his signature style, Lee and his advisors assembled an huge and totally unworkable “task force” representing “all stakeholders”  to come up with a “consensus” proposal for replacing the lost federal and state revenue for affordable housing development.


For much of the last decade, the city had put about $50 million a year into affordable housing development, with the largest portion being tax-increment financing from the Redevelopment Agency. Gov. Brown, who had repeatedly stated that affordable housing was one of the causes of Oakland’s crime rate, was in the process of repealing the use of the state portion of the property taxes used by redevelopment agencies and to redirect them to public education while he raided state funds then used for education in order to balance the state budget. That repeal would cost the city some $20 to $30 million a year. The job of the Task Force was to find a local replacement for that money.

The Council of Community Housing Organizations, made up of the non-profit developers of the City’s affordable housing stock, had proposed a general fund set-aside for an affordable housing fund in 2008, Proposition B which would have raised some $3 billion over its 15-year proposed life. Newsom, stung by CCHO member criticism of his failed homeless and development policy, adamantly opposed the measure and succeeded in its narrow defeat. CCHO proposed a repeat to Mayor Lee.

But developers wanted something in exchange for their support. They wanted a cap on all future market-rate housing fees for affordable housing.  Indeed, in exchange for supporting the trust fund, they wanted no new fees at all for market-rate development.

What then ensued was a very long and detailed series of conversations between market-rate developers and affordable housing developers with the rest of the task force left out of the picture. It became clear was that the mayor was supporting the market-rate developers’ position and was seeking to de-link market-rate development from affordable housing development, a policy shift from the former four administrations.

In addition, the mayor then linked his support for the Housing Trust Fund to the passage of a new gross-receipts business tax that was set to be on the ballot on the same November, 2012 election. For the first time, many of us saw the influence of billionnaire tech investor Ron Conway at the policy level in the Lee administration, as the tax proposal was massaged to give breaks to large tech firms at the expense of small businesses.

Mayor Lee's pal, waterboarding fan Ron Conway, chats with the Chron's C.W. Nevius at the State of the City speech
Mayor Lee’s pal, waterboarding fan Ron Conway, chats with the Chron’s C.W. Nevius at the State of the City speech

A new set of “linkages” emerged: tech tax breaks and fee caps on market rate housing developers. Both measures, the gross receipts tax and the housing trust fund, historic “progressive issues” passed, but each in a new, far from “progressive” form.

The third failure to embrace a full-throated affordable housing policy occurred in 2013 around the issue of converting Tenancies in Common (TIC’s) into condominiums. During the Housing Trust Fund discussions, Supervisor Scott Wiener, taking note of the market-rate developers’ ability to move the mayor, demanded that as a condition of his support for the Housing Trust Fund his allies, the realtors, needed something as well — and that was the approval of thousands of existing TIC’s to be allowed to go to the head of the line and be converted into condominiums. CCHO strongly objected to this “linkage” and prevailed.

However, by March of 2013 Wiener introduced an ordinance to allow 10,000 existing TIC to convert to condos.  He would charge them a fee, later to be only used for “homeownership” programs.

San Francisco had long limited the number of condo conversions of apartments to no more than 500 year. State law prohibited TICs from being considered condos, so there was no limit on the number of rental apartments that could be converted to TICs.

The problem for TIC owners (and TIC speculators) was that TIC’s aren’t  as easy to sell as condo’s and they did not want to wait in line for the annual limit.

Tenants and affordable housers objected to TIC being allowed to be converted because TIC’s were created by selling rent-controlled buildings.  Rent controlled apartments were “cheaper” than non-rent controlled buildings and thus were cheaper to convert and buy as TIC’s.  Allowing the TIC/condo conversion would only lead to more TIC conversion and more loss of rent controlled units.

Mayor Lee made it known that he had no real objection to the legislation and thus Wiener had a political “hunting license” to round up six votes. A seven-month battle ensued between Wiener and tenant and affordable housing advocates. When six votes were found for a conversion process that was capped and limited and would suspend the 500 annual conversions until all of the TIC’s were converted, Lee let it be known that six votes weren’t enough and that eight votes would be required. Key areas of the legislation had to be weakened to get Supervisors London Breed and Malia Cohen to join the six. He then allowed the legislation to be approved without his signature.

The fourth example of the mayor’s preference for tech and the private market over an effective affordable housing policy is his full blown support for Short Term Rentals, the housing preference of Airbnb investor and mayor’s main political pal, Ron (Waterboard-‘Em-All) Conway.

Hotel rooms everywhere

Until the passage of Supervisor David Chiu’s ordinance in October, 2014,  it was illegal for any housing unit that wasn’t a permitted hotel or a bed and breakfast to rent to anyone for less than 30 days. Planning staffers have allowed that the Mayor’s Office has directed the department to enforce that law only if there are complaints. Since most folks have no way of knowing which units are being rented for less than 30 days and thus don’t complain about what they don’t know, enforcement of the law is simply ignored.

In addition, Lee two years ago strongly urged the Treasurer not to collect any hotel taxes from Airbnb or any of the other “sharing economy” innovations in the hotel business.

The legislation that Lee supported and signed allows every residential unit in San Francisco to be a hotel room by changing the definition of “residential use.” By making a distinction between “hosted” and “unhosted” rentals, a distinction the city can’t enforce without being present at all times in all homes, the law allows STR’s 365 days a year.

There are now some 10,000 units listed on VRBO or Airbnb in San Francisco and more than 60 percent of them are rented as full apartments, with no “sharing” at all with “home sharers.”  They are hotel rooms in residential buildings in residential neighborhoods. This simply leads to the loss of long-term residences — directly adding to the city’s housing shortage at a time of peak demand. It would take more than Ed Lees entire $250m housing bond to simply replace these units lost to STR’s.

I could go on to list the mayor’s unwillingness to allocate sufficient funds to rehabilitate public housing while repeatedly saying how committed he is to do so. Or his administration’s total refusal to make the Art Institute stop its conversion of hundreds of housing units to “student housing” and pay for the replacement of the permanent units already converted.

The Lee administration has seen the lowest percentage of affordable to market-rate housing ratios (less than 25 percent ) of any of the last three administrations. The Lee administration has allocated less local funds to for permanently affordable housing production than three of the last four administrations. The Lee administration has seen the largest reduction of rent-controlled units of any administration since the passage of rent control in 1979.

Ed Lee’s affordable housing performance has been  appalling, and with his near certain re-election, it becomes our responsibility to place directly before the voters of this city measures which will correct that dismal record and stop Lee from making an already difficult problem even worse.


Tim Redmond
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.
Sponsored link


  1. … [Trackback]

    […] There you will find 25135 more Infos: 48hills.org/2015/01/15/mayor-lees-failed-housing-policies-nothing-will-change-2015/ […]

  2. Simply I’ll see you at the polls when, Nov 3, 2015: awaiting change not strange Ed is
    predictable how? When approved “BMR” below market rate units notice there only few
    rentals majority for sales displace residents of neighborhoods still face. Uncertain future gentrification” appease the campuses and corporate influence continuation of this administration encourage you. Seek repeal renters rights time to fight or living in paper bags since “Scott Wiener encourage “Micro Housing to satisfy “SFAA.NAIOP,Small-proSF and CAANET these enemies fair housing. Lobby to retain “The Ellis Act” furthermore increase evictions slated “2016” 2,800 units “TIC” lottery system Ed, instead 30,000 units how? Majority land sold by San Francisco redevelopment for private REITS? Bogus lease controlled told by “BOMA-SF and PPMAOFSF awaiting profits to readers we fighting to retain housing ratio. Affluent eager to purchase less is abundant ratio of super wealthy has increase behind Ed Lee. Plea to be mayor again?

  3. As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance.
    Quoted in John Dewey and American Democracy by Robert Westbrook (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), p. 440; cited in Understanding Power (2002) by Noam Chomsky, ch. 9, footnote 16; originally from “The Need for a New Party” (1931) by John Dewey, Later Works 6, p. 163. (Via Westbrook.)

  4. “As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance.”

    Quoted in John Dewey and American Democracy by Robert Westbrook (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), p. 440; cited in Understanding Power (2002) by Noam Chomsky, ch. 9, footnote 16; originally from “The Need for a New Party” (1931) by John Dewey, Later Works 6, p. 163. (Via Westbrook.)

  5. Brilliant idea- weird right wing Christian guys shouldn’t be allowed to build housing in SF (we have too much housing here already.)


  6. Perfect summary Sam.

    And thanks to all the housing lefties for ensuring that my rents and property values remain at top levels. Good going guys!

  7. Whether I agree with this or not (and I do not have the knowledge to check the facts), Calvin Welch is a nonprofit developer, not a reporter, and should be identified as such.

  8. Do you have proof for that?

    Seems to me that to make such a claim you would have to be posting under multiple names, which would destroy your credibility anyway.

    The fact that you would even consider such a tactic as being worthwhile and valid shows that you fear and respect Sam.

  9. Sam, I would not be that rude about people like Calvin and Marcos. I agree that those who are “has-been’s” have a tendency to talk more as they achieve less. And they perhaps never come fully to terms with their failures.

    But I try and feel compassion for those who have fought hard to freeze this city in time but instead have to deal with the city moving on while they have not.

  10. Obviously you are an imp because Sam understands housing issues better than almost anyone here. He has a deep understanding of landlord/tenant law and gets supply/demand like few others.

    I’ve learned a lot from Sam, and cannot say that about many others here.

  11. We are in the habit of relentlessly attacking individuals who are irrelevant has beens and who pose no substantive threat to us.

  12. The fact that Sam always responds to comments if he knows the poster and opposes them and rarely responds to comments posted by the same person under a pseudonym means that he’s a hack who is paid to troll individuals.

  13. I’m really sorry for what I wrote above. After I wrote it, and hit the “send” button, I realized I don’t know anything about the issue of housing. I don’t know anything about the true impact of rent control on San Francisco’s housing stock. I’m just spouting nonsense because, well, I don’t know how to do any different. My apologies, and in the future I will try harder to think and actually inform myself before I wrote such utter foolishness.

  14. Transit is for the little people. Movers and shakers are too import to take a bus or ride a bike.

    I ride a bike but I used to be a contender.

  15. Having a brain the size of a small galaxy has always been as asset for me, but it leads to the constant frustration that others cannot keep up with me.

    So I share your view that voting is too important to be entrusted to most people. If only we could have some kind of test that weeds out and disenfranchises those who will not vote the way that we think they should.

  16. Yeah, Tim Colon from the Housing Action Coalition [sic] developer lobbyist lives up on the hills of D7 in a SFH with a two car garage that is nowhere near the “transit oriented development” that he promotes when he drives his car to work in Civic Center.

    NIMBY supreme!

  17. This may have been true as recently as 20 years ago, but the City has been overrun by carpetbaggers, speculators, and opportunists who “believe” the crap they see on Mainstream Media, which includes “social media.” They may be “educated,” but they are not informed; this explains why they continue to vote for people who sell out at the first opportunity.

  18. We are part of the problem here. By endlessly posting about Sam instead of the topic of the thread, we both undermine an important avenue for our community to exchange ideas and we elevate Sam to a pedestal where his power and influence grows.

    I encourage us all to not feed the beast here by giving him the satisfaction of being the center of attention. It deflates the nobility of our cause.

  19. San Francisco has the most educated and informed citizenry in the nation outside of Boston. The problem is not so much a lack of comprehension but rather that our elected officials invariably become corrupted as soon as they gain power.

    And the citizenry evidently accepts this situation as they keep re-elected the same types of politician over and over. I have given up on this city ever becoming what I once hoped for it – a nirvana for the less adequate and the misfits of this planet.

  20. No, I expect an informed citizenry to elect competent officials who in turn will hire or appoint people who actually know what they are doing. OK, “expect” is a little too strong. “Hope” is more like it. The key being an informed citizenry. The point is that it’s not rocket science.

  21. Scam, I know Sam and he is a successful property investor. I have attended meetings where he has made the case for building more housing. Although I often disagree with his approach, I can attest to his financial shrewdness in navigating San Francisco’s housing market.

    I am a much more modest property owner, of course, but I feel that I do learn from him in my striving to build financial and residential security.

  22. He will of course deny it, but Sam lives in his parent’s basement and spends all day, every day trolling on his computer. That’s it. That’s all he does. That is the extent and the meaning of his life. Fact.

  23. Nimbyism is the process where those that have grab more and more building higher and higher walls and moats around them watering down commissions and panels supporting lobbyists to hire others bought and paid for like SPURS SFHAC SFBARF and those in power to keep the gravy train running. The status quo wont last and the system must change for the majority’s benefit PERIOD. Sam you need to look at what you do and how you corrupt the ability to discuss the real problems take a hiatus come back in 6 months let the people propose the cities future not the private NIMBYISTS that you currently represent…….

  24. You wish, no doubt. But I own multiple properties, and haven’t lived at my parents’ home since I was age 18.

    And it takes me very little time to post here, as I multi-task.

  25. He will of course deny it, but Sam lives in his parent’s basement and spends all day, every day trolling on his computer. That’s it. That’s all he does. That is the extent and the meaning of his life. Fact

  26. He will of course deny it, but Sam lives in his parent’s basement and spends all day, every day trolling on his computer. That’s it. That’s all he does. That is the extent and the meaning of his life. Fact.

  27. People of all races sometimes have to move. Cities change their demographic over time again and again.

    Are you suggesting that there is a perfect racial composition to this city which must be preserved at all costs? Some kind of quota that is optimal?

    And if so what is it? Back in 1945 only one percent of SF was black. Now it is about six times that number. Does that mean we have too many blacks?

    There were even fewer Hispanics back then and now they are orders of magnitude more than that. Problem?

    In fact it is whites who have declined in number since then. Does that bother you less? Why?

    Debates about housing quickly become polarized and unproductive as soon as someone plays a race card.

  28. Do you really trust Ed Lee and London Breed to hold the key to credit creation using city infrastructure as collateral?

  29. Good questions. When I lived in the Haight people really hated Calvin Welch as I recall. He’s a blowhard.

  30. Only about 8% of SF residents are tech workers so I would hardly call that an “invasion”. More a natural tilt towards more successful residents, which of course is what all cities want and need.

    I never said rent control isn’t the law. I said that it drives up rents for vacant units because of all the “rent control royalty” who hoard the existing rent-controlled stock. Rent control rewards tenants with little ambition and mobility at the expense of those who have both. How is that good for the city? It just makes it sclerotic.

    Thousands of RC units go away each year, either through TIC formation or conversion to short-term use. And of course zero new RC units are created. So the question is when rent control goes away and not if. Already more than half of SF voters no longer benefit from it, and declining, so it’s just a question of time.

    Only then will we have a healthy rental market and I support that even though I’ve done very very well out of Welch’s policies.

  31. San Francisco’s old and wealthy homeowners thank you for your prolonged efforts to keep San Francisco as expensive and inaccessible as possible to younger generations, Calvin.

  32. What absolute crap, Spam. A huge portion of the population has turned over in the last decade–you know, the “tech invasion.” A shortage of high-rent properties? How silly. Maybe you haven’t seen all the new apartments being built. Just check Craigslist.

    Anyone with a brain knows that eliminating rent control would mean mass evictions. Hell, we’ve already had a mass of those, by hook or by crook. A good tenant who works and pays rent and lives in the city is not hoarding, just living and being part of a community (something you wouldn’t understand.)

    Rent control is the law. Get over it, Spam.

  33. “Ed Lee’s affordable housing performance has been appalling”

    Calvin Welch’s affordable housing performance has been appalling. He failed to pass Prop B in 2008, low hanging fruit if there ever was any because he hired Enrique Pearce to throw the campaign. He signed onto the bait and switch with the next rev of the AHTF, which simply filled the redevelopment hole by relieving developers of 1/4 of their burdens under inclusionary housing.

    Calvin has been a failure over the past 15 years because Calvin and the CCHO are dependent upon the Mayor and his office of housing to finance their nonprofits. Thus, although they purport to represent San Franciscans in land use and housing political conversations, they are ethically conflicted because they cannot serve two masters, their own immediate fiduciary interests which are dependent upon sucking up to the Mayor, and the political interests of San Franciscans who are facing housing insecurity.

    Yet they continue to get paid as their political portfolio goes down in flames….I wonder why that might be.

  34. Why did Calvin Welch support Willie Brown in 1999 over Tom Ammiano, and why did Calvin Welch support Sue Lee over Eric Mar in 2008?

  35. That study has been thoroughly debunked by urban scholars. It relies on census data, however census data cannot track where people move to and why they left. Pop culture isn’t always the best source for debates on serious topics.

    Neither are ideologically-driven one side bashing of rent control, without citations, and without addressing the arguments of the other side.

  36. I don’t have a big problem with gentrification, as like all the nutty progressives in SF I am a gentrifier, but that article is all cherry picked.

  37. It’s no secret that Scott Wiener, David Chiu and Ed Lee are in bed with tech barons who are right wing Republicans. If the national Republican party was not so bat shit crazy on social issues these guys would be a better fit for the Republican party. Ed, David C and Scotty don’t care about economically marginalized people (which is at the heart of Democratic party values)

  38. Sam, take a break.

    Look at who is helping you and the mayor increase supply.
    CEO is Michael Maples. Check it out. He is a major Christian Bigot.
    Data do not lie, Sam. Lets see of you have any intellectual honesty, whatsoever.

    Worth bringing this asshole in to profit off the very people he hates, in order to validate your very unproven assertions. Oh, and calling someone a hypocrite is an
    ad hominen attack, which you constantly accuse others of…doesnt that make YOU the hypocrite

    Wonder if Nancy Pelosi knows that her daughter represents a complete right wing nutcase.

    Look here, then http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Danville/mike-maples/34557222.aspx

    Then you can look up Truemark Wholesale Insurance

    (same address as Truemark homes in Danville.) Wow, the management team (the Belligs) are also on board at The Gathering.. Many of whom are also on board at National Christian Foundation, who sent Scott lively around the world to advocate putting gay people in prison in Uganda and Russia

    Sing that, Sam.
    And redistribute your priorities, while your at it. You might even still have a heart

    Michael Maples
    Michael Maples (Vice Chair)
    Mike Maples earned a B.S. in business administration from San Jose State University and a Master of Divinity from Bethel Seminary. He is the Co-Founder and a Managing Partner of Trumark Companies, which focuses on real estate development. Mike and his wife, Jeanie, live in Corona Del Mar and have four children, three of whom attended Biola. They currently attend Mariners Church in Irvine. Mike has also served on the Board with Hume Lake Christian Camps, The Gathering and San Diego Christian College.

  39. The two biggest causes of the housing crisis in this city are the two housing policies that you advocate – rent control and NIMBYism. The former deter property owners from renting, freeze mobility and encourage hoarding by tenants, ensuring that there are very few rental units available for rent, at high rents. The latter ensure a permanent shortage of new homes to buy or rent, which again drives up houses.

    If you support rent control and NIMBYism and you also claim to want affordable housing, then you are a hypocrite, plain and simple.

    But then of course you own real estate in the city and therefore personally and financially benefit from creating artificial shortages. Just like Hestor, Daly, Redmond and others who have theirs already.

    The rest of your spiel is just the usual leftist whine for redistribution of wealth, AKA the politics of envy.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

What does a Just Recovery look like in San Francisco?

Join us to discuss a community-based agenda for economic, racial, and climate justice in the San Francisco of the future.

Good Taste: E-40 launches Goon With The Spoon sausages

Plus: A drink trend to challenge boring boba and a new Palestinian-American restaurant is ready to roll

Screen Grabs: Another vital public film program axed—for what?

SFMOMA's hatchet job. Plus reviews of Blood Red Sky, Old, Charlatan, Mandibles, and more

More by this author

Muni director talks about cutting lines and changing focus

Post-COVID plans could alter the city's transportation policy in some profound ways.

SF to pay $8 million after cops framed an innocent man for murder

Plus: An urban farm in the Portola, and shadows on two city parks ... That's The Agenda for July 26-August 1.

How did the Housing Authority ignore awful conditions at Plaza East?

Western Addition public housing project has been a disaster -- but a private contractor ran it with very little oversight.
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED