It’s going to be a busy week at City Planning — and on the streets
By Tim Redmond
MARCH 16, 2015 – Here’s an idea that could change the voter turnout in San Francisco: Why not lower the voting age to 16?
It’s not crazy – other cities have done it. And Sup. John Avalos is introducing a Charter amendment that would allow 16 and 17 years olds to vote in municipal and School Board elections.
There’s a rally in front of City Hall Monday/16 at 4pm.
Think about it: Voter participation has been really low in the city recently. Adults aren’t doing a good job of getting to the polls – or, apparently, of teaching young people the importance of voting. (There aren’t a lot of civics classes left in San Francisco high schools).
I suppose you could argue that 16-year-olds aren’t mature enough to make political decisions, that they will just do what their parents tell them or will be overly influenced by flash-and-dazzle ads.
But anyone who is a parent of a teenager knows that they don’t, typically (or ever?) do what their parents say. In fact, according to the Youth Commission:
Studies have found that 16-year-olds’ political knowledge is about the same as 21-year-olds’ and quite close to the average for all adults. Further, 16 and 17 year olds vote in ways that are aligned with voting patterns in the older electorate overall, but do tend to vote independently from their parents. … Research shows that given the opportunity, 16 and 17 year olds vote in high numbers, and that once they cast their first vote, they are likely to keep voting.
And kids these days are pretty used to advertising – and might even be more cynical than their parents.
From Youth Commission Member Joshua Cardenas:
“16-17 year olds can work without limitations on hours, pay taxes, drive cars, and be tried in adult courts. Considering the civic responsibilities that accrue at age 16—and as people who use public services and are affected by government decisions—16-17 year olds deserve a say in how government is run.”
So here’s the interesting political question: Who on the board is going to vote against this? Which supervisor is going to say that young people aren’t smart enough, mature enough, or well-enough informed to register and vote? Who wants to say that there will be serious (or any) harm done to the local politic by getting more people involved?
I’m sure somebody will. And it won’t cost him or her directly – kids can’t vote, yet. But I want to hear the supervisors who oppose this try to make the case.
And if Avalos gets six votes and it goes on the ballot, who’s going to spend money organizing opposition?
.
The Planning Commission agenda is packed this week, and some of the issues have major consequences:
The housing balance measure: Sup. Jane Kim’s proposal to mandate that the City Planning Department publish every six months a report showing how much market-rate housing has been built and how much affordable housing has been built (and lost) gets a commission hearing and vote.
The idea is simple: The city’s voters have approved a measure saying at least a third of all new housing should be below market rate. The mayor agrees with that. And how are we going to keep track?
Kim originally wanted a bill that made it harder to build new luxury condos when the ratio fell below what it’s supposed to be. But Mayor Lee wouldn’t go for that, so she wound up accepting a policy statement.
Now, to implement it, she’s asking for a full accounting of the ratio. And that would include tracking the loss of affordable units, too. The department staff recommends approval with some conditions, including (of course) adding resources to do the work. Hard to argue against a method for tracking whether the mayor’s promises are actually coming to pass.
Protecting nightlife and entertainment: Sup. London Breed has a measure that just seems like common sense: It would establish that places with live music at night have a right to be here, and that you can’t build housing next to a nightclub and then complain about the noise.
There’s an inevitable conflict between housing for rich people and existing music venues, as the Planning Department report notes:
It is understandable for those having recently purchased or leased a residence to expect a certain quality of life, irrespective of their proximity to a nighttime entertainment venue. It is also reasonable for an established nighttime entertainment operator in good standing to expect to continue in business despite the concerns of new neighbors.
The proposed Ordinance would amend the Administrative Code to provide that a Place of Entertainment (POE) shall not become a public or private nuisance on the basis of noise for nearby residents of newly constructed or converted residential structures if that POE has had permits to operate for 12 months or longer; to authorize the Entertainment Commission to hold a hearing on a proposed residential use near a POE and require the sponsor’s participation in the hearing; to authorize the Entertainment Commission to measure noise conditions at such project sites and provide comments and recommendations regarding noise to the Planning Department and Department of Building Inspection; to require lessors and sellers of residential property to disclose to lessees and purchasers potential noise and other inconveniences associated with nearby POEs and authorize civil penalties for not providing disclosure; and to require that such disclosure requirements be recorded against a residential property in a Notice of Special Restrictions.
In other words: If you move in next to a nightclub, you got no right to complain about the noise.
The same principal might apply to market-rate housing in industrial zones. We’ve seen repeatedly over the years that putting expensive condos next to Production, Distribution, and Repair facilities creates conflicts.
Then there’s 101 Townsend Street.
This is yet another example of a long list of buildings that have been converted, in some cases illegally, from PDR use to offices. The city loves to talk about the importance of blue-collar jobs – but when it comes to allowing developers to destroy them in the name of higher land-use values (and profits), the planners typically cave in.
I this case, the argument in favor of conversion is that
(a) the building was used as office space in the past. (Illegally used as office space; the zoning didn’t allow it.) So we should reward property owners for breaking the law?
And (b) the area around it is mostly offices, and we want smaller offices for the tech industry. (We have chipped away at PDR zoning; now we want to formalize that?)
There is one big issue here, and I hope the commissioners discuss it: You can’t possible protect PDR unless you zone for it, and are consistent, and don’t allow any other possible use.
It’s all about land value. And ironically, if you want to protect PDR jobs, you have to keep land values down.
A building that can only be used for industrial space isn’t worth as much as one that can hold offices. Simple math. If a developer can buy a PDR building and convert it to office use, he can make a killing. That means that when the city allows any conversions, the speculative value of the remaining PDR property goes up (Hey! They let the last guy do it! Maybe I can buy a warehouse, and kick out the tenants and get a permit for office space, too!)
And that means the end of blue-collar jobs in San Francisco.
The Planning Commission meets at Noon in Room 400, City Hall.
An anti-eviction group is meeting in the Mission to talk about how to monitor the nine (count ‘em, nine) major development projects, most of them market-rate housing, that are in the pipeline for a neighborhood that’s already under immense pressure.
The Our Mission No Eviction coalition meets Monday/16 at 7pm at Galeria de la Raza, 2857 24th St. People are asked to arrive at 6:45 so the meeting can start on time.
The agenda is long; among other things, the group wants to put together subcommittees to monitor each of the projects and bring to City Hall a different approach to development.
Meanwhile, of course, the battles never end: How about the tech offices that are moving into neighborhood commercial space? Is anyone going to enforce the zoning laws (or are the planners all too busy with Airbnb?) At the very least, have the landlords paid the necessary conversion fees?
Busy week. As we used to say at the Bay Guardian, spit on your hands and get to work.
