Sponsored link
Sunday, August 1, 2021

Sponsored link

UncategorizedSF Democratic Party votes against the Mission

SF Democratic Party votes against the Mission

County committee rejects community call for a break in runaway development

The Yes side: Mission community activists were well represented
The Yes side: Mission community activists were well represented

By Tim Redmond

MAY 28, 2015 – As if there were any doubt left, the Democratic Party of  San Francisco demonstrated how far  it has gone from its progressive roots and how closely it’s become aligned with the real estate industry last night as the party’s leaders voted against a temporary moratorium on market-rate housing in the Mission.

The vote was 13-10, with Assemblymember David Chiu, who ran for office touting his “shared progressive values,” joining those who voted against the measure.

“The sends a clear message that the Democratic Party is not interested in what the neighborhoods want,” Sup. David Campos, who is sponsoring the moratorium measure, told me after the vote.

The Democratic County Central Committee has no direct authority over land use (or any other city policy), and the measure will still come before the full Board of Supervisors June 2.

But the meeting was an early showcase of exactly what the debate will look like next week – and put every member of the committee on the record on one of the most critical issues in the city.

We saw the arguments on both sides with exceptional clarity. The residents and merchants in the Mission, along with housing advocates from across the city, said that the neighborhood needs a break from the rush of new luxury housing to create a new plan for future development.

Opponents, including Sup. Scott Wiener and the groups SF Bay Area Renters Federation and GrowSF, argue that more development would bring down prices, and anything limiting new projects would just mean higher prices and more evictions.

Most of the people who spoke against the moratorium were white. Some worked in the tech industry. Many of those who spoke in favor were Latino.

In fact, just about every grassroots group in the Mission supports the idea. It’s fair to say that the moratorium plan is something that came out of the community, and has overwhelming community backing.

The No side was more white, more young
The No side was more white, more young

There were points in the debate when I wanted to tear out what little is left of my hair.

The opponents of the moratorium repeated over and over the mantra that the city needs “all kinds of housing” – as if the private market is going to provide that.

I wanted to stand up and say to the nice folks from SFBARF and GrowSF: You are missing the fundamental reality of the SF housing market.

It’s not rocket science: The private market in SF (and New York) is driven today not by what the residents want, or what the city needs, but by the interests of the international capital markets. Without investment, nobody builds anything – and these days, housing isn’t built in SF by a small-time operator who goes to the local bank for a loan.

No: It’s big real-estate investment outfits that put up the money – and right now, they all want to put their money in luxury housing. That’s just the reality. If you read the Wall Street Journal or the real-estate publications, it’s not a secret.

The reason all that San Francisco is building only high-end housing is because that’s what there’s investment capital for.

Whenever I heard “we need housing at all levels” I want to scream. Yes, we do – and the private market right now can’t and won’t provide that. I feel sorry for the SFBARF folks, who think that if we just allowed more construction, eventually someone would build an apartment they could afford.

It’s not going to happen. We could eliminate all zoning in the Mission, repeal CEQA, get rid of the Planning Commission, abolish public hearings, let the private developers go to town – and there still wouldn’t be any housing built for middle-class people. Not until the Federal Reserve changes the interest rates, and the financial and political situation changes in Russia and China, and the accumulation of wealth and capital among the very rich slows down, and a lot of other factors out of the control of San Francisco elected officials shift, so that the return on investment in high-end housing dips compared to other areas of capital flow.

That may happen someday. It won’t be anytime soon.

Rafael Mandelman, a DCCC member, talked about the testimony we heard from a young woman who grew up in the Tenderloin, whose family owns a hair salon. If that family got evicted, he said, “there is no market solution that would be available to them. Not in the next five years, anyway.”


The Campos moratorium doesn’t stop middle-class housing; it won’t get built anyway. The market is too screwy and dysfunctional.

And by the way, the moratorium wouldn’t apply to affordable housing projects.

Oh, and the evidence is pretty clear that when you build luxury housing in a place like the Mission, it drives up rents in the surrounding areas.

And the moratorium would, in the best case scenario, last no more than two years; in a more likely scenario it would last a year.

All of the luxury housing getting built in other parts of the city would continue – and it will continue not to have any impact on high rents and housing costs.

Fernando Marti, co-director of the Council of Community Housing Organizations, noted that the EIR on the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan a few years ago said that market-rate housing in the Mission would be “naturally affordable.” That was a joke then, and it’s a joke now.

Tom Temprano, former president of the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, pointed out that only 7 percent of the housing in the pipeline for the Mission is slated to be affordable.

“If the Warriors need to shoot 50 percent to beat the Rockets, and they are only shooting 7 percent, what would (coach) Steve Kerr do? He’d call a time out. And that’s what a moratorium is.”

Some of the most powerful testimony came from people who had seen the destruction of the Western Addition, where we increased density, allowed highrise housing – and still have witnessed the outmigration of much of the African American community.

Erik Arguello noted, “remember the Fillmore. We have towers, but there are no African Americans.”

Nathanial Owen, a board member with the Harvey Milk Club, pointed out that there are only 13 sites left in the Mission where the city could buy land for affordable housing.

The hearing got raucous and testy, with both sides cheering and booing and Chair Mary Jung several times having to bang the gavel for order and threaten to adjourn the meeting. At one point, DCCC member Tom Hsieh (more on him later) tried to walk out and force the panel to adjourn.

After two hours of public testimony, Campos introduced the measure by saying that this was really about supply and demand – the supply and the demand for property in the Mission. A couple of years ago, there were 18 sites that were appropriate for the city to acquire for affordable housing. That’s down to 13 – and dropping fast.

If the city doesn’t slow down market-rate development, he said, there won’t be any place left to build the desperately needed affordable units.

Equally important, he said, this was about respecting a neighborhood and a community. There is no deep schism in the Mission; the residents and businesses have organized, created a future plan, and are now begging the city to respect their needs and give them a chance. The status quo has failed.

Former Sup. Bevan Dufty, who now runs the city’s homeless programs, argued that over the past, the city hasn’t done enough for the Mission. “You can legitimately say that this limited moratorium isn’t going to be enough, but there are times in a city when you have to push the reset button,” he said. “Now that we have the resources maybe we can acquire the parcels. I see how the people of the Mission have fought for immigrant rights and sanctuary city. I can’t see this community destroyed by the market forces.”

Wiener argued that the moratorium could extend for two years, and could spread, and stop the market-rate housing that is the main source of financing for affordable housing.

Then Hsieh, in a stunning move, tried to pull a fast one. At almost 11 pm, he (in apparent defiance of process and Roberts Rules) tried to gut the Campos resolution and replace it with a meaningless measure that puts the Democratic Party in favor of “building as much affordable housing as possible.”

That infuriated Mission advocates and Campos, who said it was a transparent attempt to avoid an up or down vote.  And that’s exactly what it was. There were activists on both sides who had been there for hours, waiting for a vote.

And eventually, they got one. Hsieh’s amendment failed, and the entire panel had to go on the record.

Voting Yes, with the neighborhood, were Campos, Petra De Jesus, Matt Dorsey, Dufty, Kelly Dwyer, Hene Kelly, Megan Levitan, Mandelman, Eric Mar, and Alix Rosenthal .

Voting No were Kat Anderson, Bill Fazio,Zoe Dunning,  Tom Hsieh, Mary Jung, Wiener, Fiona Ma, Trevor McNeil, Leah Pimentel, Rebecca Prozan, Arlo Hale Smith, Francis Tsang, and Chiu.

Joshua Arce ducked and abstained. So did Mark Leno, Phil Ting, Kamala Harris, and Dianne Feinstein. (None of those elected were there, of course, but they had proxies.)

In one of the great moments that showed where the local party has gone, Hsieh made a rambling speech in which he announced that the Democratic Party is a party for all, “the have and the have-nots.”

Think about that. And about who won last night.

Next stop: The Board of Supes. After that, more than likely, the November ballot.

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. since you upvoted me here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/firstpost/should_modi_accept_israels_invite_yes_he_should_ignore_the_naysayers/#comment-1980312028

    If you are a Jew, can you tell me or rather translate the name of the guy I replied to since he uses Yiddish/Hebrew script for his name?
    this is his name : אַרןצורא

    is it Yiddish or Hebrew in origin? Google translates it into antsura in these 2 languages.

    How is it written in English?
    what is the meaning behind that name?

  2. No, that’s false. Campos is doing what is right for the Mission. The Technocracy and its soul dead techie infantilized minions are destroying SF to its core.

  3. What people are really talking about is income inequality. It would not matter what ethnic group moved in – people are being forced out based on inability to pay those obscene housing costs. San Francisco has the highest housing costs in the nation.

  4. Didn’t you say the Mission is 30 percent white? Who says white has to dominate to make a district culturally diverse? Actually, I don’t think there are statistics defining who lives in the Mission.

  5. The comment about Campos is off the wall. You are not a serious person. Ever hear of the class struggle? Come to SF and watch it in real time.

  6. I agree Susan – the real change that has happened over the years is that the Mission remained working class and the people moving in have the salaries to afford luxury housing – are upper middle at the very least when it comes to wages. Most people don’t know that Noe Valley was a part of the Mission which was subdivded and re-named – sometime in the late fifties. Noe Valley was as working class as the Mission during those decades and slowly began to gentrify sometime in the sixties. As my generation grew up – we left the area for the suburbs or moved to different areas of the City and Noe Valley gentrified – again, slowly, in the case of Noe Valley people left by choice. We have no return rights – it is too expensive.

  7. Correction – There were Latinos in the Mission as far back as I can remember along with Italians, Irish, Scandinavians,Germans, other first generation Americans from Europe and some African Americans. Latinos began arriving in larger numbers slowly but surely from countries that were having internal wars or were at war and/or where economic conditions were bad – just like the Europeans who came earlier. By the the mid-seventies the Mission was predominately Latino and grew more so until today. More like 45 years ago not 60 The real point is that residents of the Mission are losing their homes due to gentrification (in droves) and their culture is being destroyed. They do not have the money to rent in SF and also have to pull their children out of school. In addition what is happening is more like the gold rush than any other period of the development happening in SF. The Mission is almost a diaspora for many who cannot return to their or their parents homeland. You should listen to the testimony of the district residents at the Board of Superviors meeting – June 2 – starts at item 7 on government TV. Perhaps it would be an eye opener. Maybe if you think of the Mission as a Latin American diaspora you might gain some insight into what people are feeling.

  8. “Their culture is under attack (bicycles instead of autos)” Earth to folderpete: When Columbus ‘discovered’ America he was shocked to find a bike-riding culture, far advanced from that of his own…
    But seriously, Do you even notice the many Latinos reliant on cycling to work, school, etc.?

  9. Not quite, Ripoff. Sprawl happens when there are insufficient codes for ‘dictating where people should live.’ The result is ‘They live everywhere.’

  10. Global Warming is a real problem, not propaganda. People in Paris, London and Tokyo would be surprised to discover that they have a 3rd world lifestyle. Americans consume far too much.

  11. Reading the comments here it seems like you are all racist hunters.
    This isn’t about race, its about ECONOMICS!
    All of this will end badly, look at history.

  12. After all, Campos’ resolution calls on the Planning Department to tweak the zoning. How could you possibly fear anything that Planning would green light? They’d probably make it better for developers.

  13. Try the google machine, The sources have been posted multiple times. I am not your researcher. I don’t care if you are upset. This does not mean that you “win” the chat board.

  14. “Anyone who wants a market-rate housing unit, up to and including a mansion in Belvedere, can move in today.”

    A more false statement has never been said.

  15. Gary, do some simple research. Click on chasmader’s posts and figure out whether Sam would ever support Hilary Clinton. Then think about the basic logic error you made.

  16. Anyone who wants a market-rate housing unit, up to and including a mansion in Belvedere, can move in today. May have to wait a week for Belvedere. Ditto office or retail space. Not so for the Starbucks barista, or the refugee from one of our Endless Wars, or a community college student, or a senior on fixed income.

    A municipal bank is the proper funding mechanism for all public infrastructure projects. Keep the money in the community. We don’t need no stinkin’ “developers;” we just need to hire “planners” who actually know how to design a 21st Century community. Towers, in addition to being boring and ugly and nearly identical in design, are some dorky architects wet dream, not the cutting edge of modern construction. Where are the solar panels, the blade-less wind turbines, the rainwater capture systems, the community kitchens and laundries, the pedestrian malls and bike roadways, the greenbelts?

  17. I had to google around and even sfist was skeptical of the poll.

    According to a late February survey of 602 likely voters conducted by David Binder and Associates and reported on by the Examiner, 65 percent favor a time-out on “new project approvals in the Mission District for one year.” 26 percent were opposed. Give the people what they want, as they say, but in this case, that might not be entirely clear.

    In contrast to that survey, an informal poll of 690 respondents to the Business Times rebuffed the idea of a moratorium on development. 67 percent there said “No” in response to the question “Is a moratorium on market-rate housing development the answer to San Francisco’s affordability crisis?” Yes, that is a different question: but “the answer” to the affordability crisis” and a good idea re: the affordability crisis aren’t completely separate ideas. Noting the Business Times’ leanings in the direction of market-rate development, SFist conducted our own poll, which currently stands at 333 votes for “More housing across the board” and 103 for “Just more affordable housing.”

  18. Where? I’ve asked 4 times in portions of this thread and I haven’t seen a single link anywhere.

  19. Hey when you have prejudiced immigrant parents you deal with it. It’s just funny you use the same arguments they use.

  20. So you argue micro when it comes to polling but macro when it comes to crime? Sorry, that doesn’t work. There is gang violence in the Mission and that has been steadily eroded due to population shifts.

  21. I feel you. I want all those things too. I support raising funds for affordable housing through an increase in the required BMR percentage, a peid-a-tere tax, housing bond, etc. But even with all that, the city and the non-profits won’t be able to build nearly enough affordable housing, the money just isn’t there. Market rate housing has to be a part of the equation. Much of what is driving rents up around the US are economic factors far beyond what the city has the power to influence. Many of the ways the city does exert it’s influence end up making housing more expensive: very low height limits, restrictive land use policies, labyrinthine planning processes, etc. People respond to incentives, so lets let the techies build their glass towers even taller in exchange for more affordable housing.

  22. Indeed, presupposing the plan is not the point of a moratorium. The point is to manipulate neighborhood demographics in ways perceived as politically friendly (if you’re a Mission progressive), or protect one’s investment (if you’re a Mission property owner). Affordable housing? Please. We’ll be lucky if you replace the BMR units you kill with the moratorium.

  23. The planning process would be specified in the initiative and would be bounded by the term of the moratorium. The sky really is not falling.

  24. Presupposing the plan is not the point of a moratorium. The moratorium is how state law provides time and space for a creating a land use plan.

  25. There is no plan presented with this moratorium. There isn’t even a plan for the plan. Campos, when asked where the funding will come from, has dodged and weaved every time. The process is the excuse, not the end.

  26. Yes, the tasks for the planning process would be outlined in the ballot measure and the timeline would be specified by the term of the moratorium.

  27. A “planning” process with no direction and no end. We know how this goes: the 1-year moratorium becomes a 2-year moratorium when the funding turns out to be invisible and nothing comes of the “planning”, then longer … and then it’s a ban. And the whole time, absolutely nothing gets built – as was the true original plan.

  28. Ban with a time limit, whatever. The point remains: you don’t know how to get the job done.

  29. That’s the same argument my mom uses when she claims she’s not prejudiced against blacks. PS Tell your “friends” to read your posts in these threads.

  30. The freight that each incremental new resident needs in public infrastructure that is already under-invested and the impacts that new residents, many of whom will own cars, will have on public transit.

    Crime has fallen nationwide over the past 20 years. San Francisco fits that general trend.

  31. Are you talking about the “freight” of impact of overall safer neighborhoods? What do you think has driven the crime stats down in the Mission the last 15 years? Or did that happen in a vacuum?

  32. I’m not the one who wants to restrict who is allowed to open a business based upon their race, as Calle 24 seeks to do.

  33. It would be nice to see some studies about the cost- benefits of both “Affordable” and Lux housing.

    Off the top I can guess that Lux may involve more ancillary local spending, but may involve more car traffic. “Affordable” has more limited spending, possiblilty of more police services, probably less car traffic but then more demand for transit. As for schools, that may be a toss-up. Density of Lux or Aff would determine water, sewer, comm demands; assuming ‘Aff” would involve more density due to the trumpeting as a ‘family’ solution.

    As for the demand of ‘building homes for SF residents’, well, thats just a non-sequitur, isn’t it.

  34. you are incorrect again; what will you do when the real estate mess crashes caused by your greed and racism

  35. This is the portion of our program where the trolls ignore the fact that Weiner is skating on the boundaries of honesty and attack the politics of the underlying facts.

    Either the facts are false or Weiner is lying.

  36. Maybe we should bar anyone from working in the city who lives outside its borders as well.

  37. People commute in from the outer suburbs for a number of reasons:

    1. because they cant afford the over inflated luxury housing market in San Francisco
    2. because they do not want to raise their children in an urban environment.
    3. Because they afford to buy homes, with backyards, and send their kids to good schools

    Luxury condos surrounded by “walkable streets” does not create affordable housing. It didn’t work in Manhattan and it wont work in San Francisco.

    Hate Suburban Sprawl? Blame yourself for trying to dictate how and where people should live.

  38. Whenever you can’t debate, you demean the value of annoying data points baselessly relying solely on appeals to fantasy.

  39. The data are not my data, they are data that the Planning Department commissioned from an independent economic analysis consultant.

  40. Tim must have “forgotten” about that detail.

    The left claim to practice tolerance but the reality is the exact opposite.

  41. Anyone who believes that new homes don’t pay their way would prefer market-rate homes, because BMRs require an additional subsidy

  42. There is much more to the issue. Your claim discounts all the property tax that flow from new homes, for instance.

    Cities compete with each other for developer dollars because they want and need them

  43. Whenever you cannot win a debate you always claim you will win some future mythical election.

    It’s a de facto admission of defeat.

  44. Yeah, anyone who talks so much about how he is going to win knows that he has already lost.

  45. So we should believe some anonymous guy on the internet over someone who won a landslide election because the voters believe him?

  46. We don’t know what neighborhoods want. But I doubt any of them want no new homes even though there are NIMBYs everywhere

  47. Things Tim won’t tell you. One pro-moratorium activist who attended the meeting now stands accused of assault:

    “By the end of the night, one committee member said she had been assaulted.

    “Leah Pimentel said the meeting had ended minutes earlier when she felt someone shoving her. Pimentel said the person — who she identified as Rosario Cervantes, a consumer affairs representative at the California Public Utilities Commission — told her, “You’ve shown your true colors.”

    “Pimentel had voted against supporting the moratorium legislation. “To aggressively do something like that because you’re upset — I was in shock and I’m still in shock,” Pimentel said, adding that she plans to press charges against Cervantes.


  48. So, is it the tech workers you hate, or simply the ones that get on the Google bus? Or maybe its all workers who reside here but have jobs outside the City limits!

    That would be less than one of four employed residents, or 105k of 445k in ’13. FYI, there are 175k folks who live elsewhere but commute here.

  49. I was interviewing Weiner on the phone a few months back for a piece on housing issues and I said “what should be done to mitigate San Francisco being a bedroom community for Silicon Valley?” He almost sputtered and said that wasn’t true, the city wasn’t becoming a bedroom community for the south bay. I didn’t push the point because it wasn’t my job to challenge his politics, just do the reporting, but I was struck by how this ultimate policy wonk can’t see the reality of the thousands boarding Google buses every morning to go work in a city 35 miles away.

  50. “The architect built more than 6 lanes even though only 2 were needed at the time of construction.” So we should build even MORE housing! Glad we’re on the same page.

  51. Slum clearance of the 60s & 70s resulted in homelessness of the 80s & 90s. Granted, not all ‘slums’ needed to be torn down. I think of the Western Addition, with all those Victorians. If CITA money had been used to train repair people and business owners who fixed those up and restored them to glory, then many of the Black residents could have stayed there and been productive – instead of selling drugs and going off to prison. Its a pathology for which both white and Black communities share responsibility.

    Then again, we don’t need the Valencia Gardens and Hayes Valley North/Souths. They’ve been rebuilt. But where are the troublemakers that plagued those projects now? Antioch? San Quentin?

  52. Space for the Working Class is acceptable. But what about the Loafer Class?

    Most of the Tenderloin, which was designed for workers, is these days taken up by welfare recipients. Granted, they need a place to live too. But, in expensive SF??

  53. What are the impacts of Lux housing? And what are the impacts of (or maybe lack of) “affordable” units?

    Because absent a good response, it could be compared to people spending money in local businesses vs ppl holding up those local biz.

  54. Pease folks, don’t walk over this bridge. There is a very hungry troll living under it. So keep away. KEEP AWAY. That last sentence clinched it. He is saying whatever will make progressive San Franciscans most angry. He may live In Alabama for all we know. Or Cape Town. It’s the internet. Starve him and he will go away.

  55. Well, if the low income housing was there, and a smooth transition path, then we could talk. As it is, we are talking hyotheticals. The destruction of one will not create the other, and no such plan is in the works so far as I know.

  56. The fantasy was your dismissal of the poll via waving of the hands.

    Campos measure is flawed, the DCCC is not worth anyone’s free time.

    Any relief here will be at the ballot box.

  57. The base data speak for themselves. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day. Except for you.

  58. Whatever you say, Mr. “Marcus-Books-Was-a-Blacks-Only-Store.”

    And we WILL campaign for this moratorium.

  59. In the weventiess, parts of it did due to Bart construction. When construction was done, it bounced back and did quite well, until recently. Yea, there was crack and bla bla bla, if that’s what you mean, but that’s just part of living in a city. The newcomers want to turn SF into an upscale suburb. And, “The Latino watch?” Are you talking about the big watches that once hung from zoot suits, or are you, I dunno, a racist? The Latinos were never in charge.

  60. No, far smarter people than you already negotiate the best deal possible. You have no idea about how these things go down

  61. Nope, the City could easily raise fees, peg them to economic activity and call a moratorium to figure this all out. The voters support this by a wide margin.

  62. I do. It is rare that they speak the truth in ways that do not reflect well on their developer patrons. But when the evidence is clear, the evidence is clear. It is you who muddles.

  63. Show me where the city charter says that some voters are more important than other voters

  64. According to a bogus biased poll

    I haven’t met a single person who thinks we can build more homes by building less homes

  65. That’s a myth. The city already gets the best deal it can, and needs developers more than they need us. It’s a competition.

  66. Most SF infrastructure was not funded by the feds, most of it is quite old and unmaintained. New construction could easily cover 3x current impact fees.

  67. Not many wealthy Russian and Arab billionaires buy a condo on 24th Street

    They go downtown or to SOMA, if at all

  68. I didn’t call you racist, just a race-baiter. So many of your comment threads devolve into such comments, so far removed from the article at hand.

  69. Not once you account for the fact that most of that infrastructure is already in place, was funded by the Feds, and is a sunk cost that you cannot reasonably allocate across new build

  70. It sounds to me like San Francisco can’t fit that many people in. There isn’t enough space. They have to expand to the surrounding areas. And with limited space you have to save some room for low income/subsidized housing as well as luxury housing. If its all luxury housing then there is no room left for working class people

  71. Those who are closest to and are most effected by a public policy decision should have more of a say.

  72. It’s really too bad that that is the only argument you have, especially as it has been frequently and spectacularly debunked here and elsewhere.

    Even the most left-wing DCCC in the nation rejected it. What is your plan B?

  73. A large percentage (but of course not all) of the high end real estate development which has occurred over the last few years in American cities has been investment by wealthy foreign investors, many of whom are looking to evade taxes in their own country. This is what is meant by the xenophobia in terms of real estate development. Believe me if wealthy Americans started buying up apartment buildings in Europe or Asia and evicting the current residents you better believe they’d be pissed off, and the governments over there would probably put a stop to it.
    People who rent understand that they may have to move at some point, but the problem is if they have no where to move and a job in the area. One of the reasons America has the highest per capita prison population in the world is the problem of lack of housing for poor people or people suffering from mental disorders. And no one really wants to see homeless people on the streets – not only can they be dirty or dangerous but they remind us of our own vulnerabilities…a simple twist of fate and anyone could be homeless

  74. You want decisions weighted towards those with whom you feel the most affinity with

    The people reject such bias. Planning is a city-wide function and you get one vote.

  75. Nope, impact fees account for only 1/3 of the infrastructure costs in the Eastern Neighborhoods, the Siebel study determined as much. Antonini stipulated to this on the record in 2008.

  76. Demanding representation for residents only means excluding everyone else in your little troll mind.

  77. Long-term we have 200,000 people moving to SF in the next few decades, most of whom are high-value knowledge workers and who will be living here.

    Either they live in new homes that we build for them OR they displace existing people.

    Which would you prefer?

  78. How is it racist to quote FBI statistics that blacks carry out more than 50% of violent crimes in America and constitute more than 50% of those imprisoned for felonies??

  79. A moratorium is communism? People get serious. This is about long term urban planning, which the United States has lacked since the last great era of development from 1900 to 1950. Long term urban planning means looking ahead 30 years and saying “what does this area need for long term viability?” An example of that would be the George Washington Bridge. The architect built more than 6 lanes even though only 2 were needed at the time of construction.

  80. Jesus, race-baiting Sam changes his name almost daily now. Never changes his tune, though. Lonely little man.

  81. No more than you wish to exclude those who disagree with you

    Your problem is that almost everyone disagrees with you

  82. So you think that only people who agree with you should be allowed to participate and should hold the balance of power.

  83. It more than covers its cost due to impact fees, BMR fees and additional property tax

    It is subsidized housing that doesn’t pay its way, which is why the city will never build much of it.

  84. If there is no need for market rate housing then why does every market rate new home quickly rent or sell to a person who is happy to live there?

  85. No, I think they should have the same say as anyone else. But planning is a city-wide function and NIMBYism has to be resisted.

  86. So you’re arguing that neighborhood residents should be excluded from a community planning process?

  87. Planning is a city-wide function.

    You should start a movement to get the Mission to secede from the city.

  88. Residents should be well represented in the planning process. Had they not been excluded during Eastern Neighborhoods, then there would not be a clamor for a moratorium, the zoning would have been much different.

  89. They get a vote at city elections, same as everyone else

    The Mission is not a jurisdiction

  90. Greece and Spain are taking the first tentative steps to fight back against the austerity oligarchs.

  91. You really want no Mission residents at the planning table at all because you hate democracy.

  92. Arce is sucking up to the construction and building trade unions.

    There is no evidence that a moratorium would push development anywhere that it would not already go.

  93. A citywide poll in a single district holds none of the complexity and risk of a multi-state electoral vote poll but thanks for trying!

  94. First of all, I am not Sam the Troll.
    I was channeling my inner Erlich Bachmann; my pun fell on deaf ears. But I do feel it to be cultural elitism to favor one group over another.

  95. Thanks, Leo. Could not find this post earlier. Rod does not have a thought in his head. So ignorant which is what lack of education results in.

  96. Thanks for acknowledging that other neighborhoods don’t want crazy luxury development either. So why can’t you see the legitimate concern of the Mission residents (ground zero)? Just sacrifice the Mission to keep Noe Valley happy?

  97. Thanks for your kind words, Leo. Just happy that 48 Hills has room for everyone, even Rod.

  98. The City’s decrepit housing infrastructure needs to be rebuilt before “market-rate units are added. The 10K people living in “in-law” apts., garages, an the under stairs need housing NOW, and hella more than 12-30%. Ditto for “the homeless,” seniors, single parents, immigrants, workers, students, and people with disabilities. “Building new housing” is fine, as long as it’s for everyone who NEEDS it.

  99. So what? Isn’t it great that rich people are willing to live in little tenements instead of wasting resources on a 4,000 square foot suburban home? WTF is your point?

  100. I live in about 1100 square feet with three other family members. It is plenty of space for us and much more than I had growing up. I don’t feel entitled to more. How large is your “average traditional apartment size”?

  101. Lol – I live in San Francisco (average traditional apartment size), not Marin. I hope you are actually living the 3rd world lifestyle you’re preaching. Think you read too much propaganda.

  102. Very few people are making that argument. The fact is market rate housing is still in demand and if people want to buy them, why are we putting artificial limitations on those families that can afford to move into the Mission?

  103. Really? There were that many visitors to the Mission 15 years ago? Frankly the dirty word “gentrification” is what took the “gritty edge” off the Mission so that business and visitors will come here.

  104. It is you ROD that seems to have these “preconceived opinions”.
    When that is all you have, evidence, data, statistics and facts are meaningless.
    Fact #1 I can still get a great slice of Pizza at Arnells on Valencia.
    That in and of its self is a victory.

  105. The changes in the Mission are complex. Mostly white pre-war; post war changes incentivized moving to new neighborhoods (Sunset, Marin, Peninsula), – partly thru new, larger housing, partly thru car-centric devel, and further due to changes deemed undesirable by remaining residents.

    Undesireable? Well, there’s the phenom of ‘white flight’, there were changes to the hood that made the ‘new’ hood less desirable – like taking a large Vic, and cutting it up to make half a dozen units next door; so that previously there may have been half a dozen inhabitants in one family, then there were half a dozen families with half a dozen occupants each. Look at the housing in the Mission – its a mishmash of what was once pretty cozy. Along with the crowding, more people, more noise, more cars and different languages which probably made the old inhabitants feel less familial with neighbors and just more uncertain. It was a force that, while not explicitly violent (drastic rent increases, evictions), was a force none-the-less. That old residents had better places to go made the change relatvely easy.

    The ppl currently in the Mission are unlikely to find the future v familial. Many of their jobs are disappearing (PDR). Their culture is under attack (bicycles instead of autos). Their commerce is going away ($3 donuts, anyone?).

    Maybe activists are right to try to freeze things in amber. But, things in amber aren’t vibrant.

  106. Why does everyone think that anyone who opposes the moratorium is a “shill for developers” or that “the DCC is controlled by real estate interests”. Why can you not concede that maybe some people just disagree with you, and that’s OK? It really might be that simple that some people think a moratorium is a bad idea.

  107. Don’t bother with this guy Susan. He has been skewing everyones words and facts.
    Fact is, he does not know what hes talking about. He is the Sean Hannity of Disqus.
    Have a nice day all!

  108. Of course they want to build market rate housing to make money. We want them to build market rate housing because people get homes out of it – including people who can’t afford market rate, thanks to the BMR requirements.

    But if you feel that we’re not building enough BMR housing, and you want to solve it by banning market rate housing that produces BMR housing as a side effect … then I’d say it becomes your responsibility to explain how to make up that lost housing, and then some. No one seems to want to do that.

  109. More development will not bring down prices. Scott Dog Is also pushing the sugared beverage tax. A tax that would mostly affect the poor.The Progressives have lost this battle. The war will be won when You and your Fox Friends are exposed as the bought and paid for propagandists.
    We are winning the war against the developers and Edwin Lee. That is why he has to lock himself in his office.
    The tide is turning and your own excessive vitriol proves it.
    The people are standing together in the Tenderloin. The Tech and building Lobby will not be able to fight us here in the streets. Thats why they use the Police to do it. If you watch the news you can see that is war that they are losing.
    None of us here want to encroach upon other neighborhoods, we just do not want to be forced out of our homes.
    How would you feel if the City came and evicted you to build condos you could not afford?
    We will not be forced out of our city.
    Frankly, there is nothing you, personally can do about it.
    So keep railing in vain against things you have no control over.
    I am on the Task Force. I have allies in City Hall.
    Rod, you have already lost.

  110. Exactly. We seem to be having two separate conversations. If all these developers want to come out and honestly say “we want to build market rate housing because we want to make money” then go ahead and say it – but just stop pretending like they’re doing it out of some deeply held concern and yearning to create affordable housing for the city’s residents. Just like you said – it doesn’t lower prices, so don’t pretend it does.

    So again – from a city planning perspective – what is city hall’s priority? To manage housing stock for its population, or to help its developer buddies and real estate investors make money? We already know what the answer is – so come out and be honest about it. Then see how long they get to stay in office.

  111. Reading for comprehension does not seem to be a strength of yours. My condolences. Enjoy your day.

  112. So what? Surely part of the reason to work hard and build wealth is to have more control and influence over your life and have a better environment?

    Why else would people work hard? You seem to think that is a bad thing.

  113. We don’t build market rate homes to lower the cost of homes. We build them because people want them and can pay for them. The fact that you cannot afford them doesn’t change that.

  114. I am not buying your racism. The past is the past, but starting now we should allow no subsidies.

  115. As soon as some one suggests a psychiatrist, I know they know they have lost the debate. It’s a cop out.

    The Campos moratorium is predicated upon race. He is on record lamenting that some Hispanics have left the Mission

    If you support him. you support racism even if you couch it in PC terms like “cultural diversity”

    Own your prejudice.

  116. White Americans after World War II never asked to be subsidized, but subsidized they were. The Federal Housing Administration used Treasury funds to guarantee private loans to white homebuyers using standards based explicitly on race. This persisted from 1937 until the Fair Housing Act in 1968. If your parents or grandparents were/are white, and they or you grew up in a suburban area between 1940 and 1970, you were subsidized by the federal government. Your ancestors relocated to places with more opportunities, and those opportunities were created for them, and not for others, by the federal government. Doesn’t make it your fault, but it did happen.


  117. I said noting about keeping whites out of the Mission. or supporting any policy. you are confused and a terrible debater. You consistently insert your own interpretation, without any basis of facts or what was actually said.
    You are the only person on this forum that speaks in terms of race.
    Please educate yourself on the difference between Culture and Race.
    I no longer feel the need to argue with someone that ignores reality.
    You may even be delusional.
    But I am no Psychiatric Professional.
    I suggest you consult one.

  118. Haha, that was a good one–“white ethnics,” it should have said.

    Again, and as the historical record shows, opposition to freeways to the west was political, not fiscal. The plan was never to bore through the hills and it never had anything to do with traffic demand. In fact, losing the freeways cost San Francisco quite a good deal of federal investment. But it left beautiful housing that would later be gentrified. Not unlike Jane Jacobs et al.’s killing of the Cross Manhattan Expressway through Greenwich Village, and right about the same time.


  119. To a Marin suburbanite, 200 square feet per person is unbearably cramped and a “tenement for the rich” while in most of the world it is considered plenty of space. In a world of diminishing resources, we have to learn to live with less: smaller dwellings that are bicycling or walking distance to work. We have to learn to use less water on our swimming pools and lawns. We will run out of easily available oil and the planet is warming at an alarming rate. We have been wasteful up to now and will have to be more parsimonious with what is left. This is not some evil plot, it is the laws of physics.

  120. You seem to be living in a vaccum. You assume that there is a limited number of people looking for housing – that a “techbro” moves away from the available housing stock on to the market rate housing. What about all the outside interest of other “techbros” wanting to live in the city? The argument here is that more market rate “luxury” housing only attracts (yes, some) “techbros” who are already here – and then a whole drove of other “techbros” or investors who want to move or park their money in SF real estate. This doesn’t guarantee any real increase in available housing stock for those already living in the city – just creates more options for those who want to live or invest in the city. So the question becomes – who is city government representing, and to what degree?

    All your suggesting is nothing more than trickle down economics – just a theory that building more market rate housing blindly will automatically create more housing options on a 1-1 scale for those living in the city. This is patently false – room to build housing is extremely limited, and the available demand for such housing not only includes current residents but a million other types of outside parties. You’re welcome to have whatever belief you want on which members of society should be prioritized – but let’s at least not boil this down to “it’s basic supply and demand!”. Supply and demand, it is – but there’s nothing basic about it.

  121. Wrong, you said you valued “cultural diversity”. And yet you support a policy that would keep whites out of the Mission, thereby reducing cultural diversity

  122. I do not and cannot comply with a persons argument when they ignore the truth and what people have “actually” said. You insert your own rhetoric when you have no meaningful answer.
    That Makes you a Propagandist.

  123. Your view of history is highly prejudicial. White flight was caused by crime and blight. That is every bit as much a displacement as what you allege is now happening in the Mission.

    CCSF and SFSU? Figures.

  124. Nothing in the moratorium plan provides for a dollar for BMR homes. In fact it will cost BMR dollars.

    It is about envy and reverse racism, pure and simple.

  125. So IOW you cannot refute me and so personally attack me. And then progressives wonder why they lose elections.

  126. So where’s the plan to replace the mandatory BMR units produced by market rate development in the Mission when the building stops? Do tell.

  127. Regardless, boring through hills was always going to be more expensive than building on flat under-developed land. And the further NW you go in the city, the lower the traffic demands (GG bridge aside).

    White Ebonics? WTF?

  128. Under the original plan, money was no object. SF would have been blanketed by freeways. There was also a plan for a bridge between Tiburon and SF, among several others. But even though the money was federal, relocation costs came from local government. Since the eastern neighborhoods were rated yellow and red by the Federal Housing Administration (meaning no federally guaranteed mortgages), because of who lived there (working class and non-white people, as well as white Ebonics who were still viewed with suspicion), even aside from homeowner opposition in the western neighborhoods, eminent domain costs would be lower in the east because homes were worth less. And of course it was a working waterfront, but in decline by then. So it was cheaper, for political and economic reasons, more than topography.

  129. You talked about “cultural diversity”. In SF that is code for hating whites. Campos’ idea is anti-white.

    Own your racism.

  130. “White people are the real victims of racism, I tell you!”

    — virtually all supporters of white racism

  131. Perhaps his perception of what Mission residents really want has changed Or perhaps he has read Wiener’s persuasive report that was very critical of the economics behind the moratorium/

  132. Yes. Clearly he has changed his mind. Or at least he now has more doubt than he used to. What is wrong with changing his mind? Do you prefer rigid minds?

  133. AGAIN!
    I said nothing about supporting Campos. only Jane Kim’s Absence.
    By the way, genetically, there is no such thing as race.
    Race is social construct, created to divide ignorant people.
    Thank you and, GOOD DAY SIR!

  134. If his position has changed, he should make a statement about it. Seems to me like he still wants voters in the Mission to think he supports the moratorium, even though he now apparently does not.

  135. Why does SF think it’s so special that supply and demand aren’t at play here? There’s a reason why housing here is so expensive: lack of supply! You can’t add 45,000 new jobs but only 7,500 new units of housing in the last 5 years and expect prices to stay the same! Supply & demand, folks. There’s a reason why we’re insanely expensive and it’s because we have such little housing stock compared to Seattle or Chicago.

  136. I just want a representative who doesn’t lie to the community about their positions. That is all I am asking for here!

  137. Ah, so you admit that you cannot win the debate without somehow prejudicing it and preventing a free, fair and balanced discussion?

    What does that say about how valid you think your arguments are?

  138. But his positions can change over time, as he learns more.

    Just like Ed Lee, a now popular but one-time reluctant mayor.

  139. I want my representative to be honest about their positions. That’s all I’m asking for here.

  140. Nobody was defrauded. He is entitled to change his mind if he is convinced to do so.

    You appear to want a tame obedient pet rather than someone who puts the facts first and can think for themselves.

    A rabbit, perhaps?

  141. I accept change and impermanence, tough to deny as we get older, I agree with you and still would not choose to live elsewhere, however the rapid unchecked changes in the last decade have made this a less livable, less affordable, less accessible and less inclusive city. Yes it’s still spectacular, I just try and avoid the ugly barbarians and their high rises made of ticky-tacky, like the character below.

  142. OK, I read your response. Between Sam’s comparison to communism and yours saying it is an “attempt at a coup d’etat”, one can only conclude that you both are delusional beyond help.

    It is a moratorium. Stopping all development is leverage that will bring everyone to the table. Sadly, this could have happened without a moratorium, but Mayor AirBnB would lose favor with his donors, and Ron Conway is still at war with progressives, so no serious effort will happen without leverage.

  143. If he was not intending to defraud people on May 8, we would have to believe that he genuinely changed his position within the last 20 days without making any public statements to that effect. I guess you can believe that if you wish, but I’ll be voting for a more sincere candidate.

  144. Campos has made it very clear that his main driver is to preserve the Hispanic population of the Mission at current levels, which is three times the national average

    If you support him in this than you are a de facto racist

  145. So you admit it’s just a political ploy. Like when the republicans shut down the gov’t to extract concessions. Were you against these types of tactics then?

  146. Again, the moratorium is little more than an attempt at a coup d’etat. You want to prejudice the debate. Even the liberal DCCC rejected that.

  147. Oh god, another white guy who is offended by something. Don’t you have a puppy to kick, Sam?

  148. Did I say anything about RACE? that was your assumption, with the emphasis on ASS! Cultural can also mean, Poets, artists, Activists, that the Mission seems to be mostly devoid of. Where are the Bookstores, Like Argonaut, Dog Eared. The Coffee Shops we all would meet and share Ideas. I am WHITE! Learn the meaning of words before you reply.

    Look it up ROD!

    Culture: of or relating to the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a society.

    of or relating to the arts and to intellectual achievements

    Your comments make “YOU” sound like a Racist

  149. If he is open and honest about it, sure. But the rally was just 20 days ago, and I haven’t seen any public statements by him to indicate that he has changed his mind. Most people he talked to at the rally still think he is a champion for the moratorium.

  150. Who is empowered – the thousands who have been displaced by eviction, usurious rent hikes or to make room for new development or landlords, developers and their puppet politicians?

    Don’t bother to answer. I’m ignoring your posts.

  151. SFGP is a de facto socialist party.

    Anyone from there who has achieved a modicum of power has immediately quit the party

  152. Politicians are allowed to change their mind, else what would be the point of ever talking to them?

  153. He didn’t have to go to City Hall on May 8 to show support for the moratorium. Scott Wiener didn’t. I strongly disagree with Scott Wiener’s position on the moratorium, and think he has been disingenuous in some of his arguments against it. However, at least he has been honest that he opposes the moratorium. That’s all I ask of Josh Arce: don’t lie to people about your positions.

  154. Yes, SF progressives hate racism unless it is directed towards whites, whereupon they love it

  155. I wasn’t there on May 8 but how much pressure and intimidation did you apply? Typically the left are very aggressive about their agenda and I would blame no-one for saying what he felt he needed to.

    Again, you should want him to have the results of the city economists study before prematurely ejaculating on this matter

  156. “The No side was more white, more young” – Not too subtle with your racism and ageism, eh?

  157. There is a far simpler explanation. The areas where freeways (and before them, railroads) were built correspond to those areas where it was physically and geographically easiest to build them.

    So CalTrain and 101 went up the east-side because it was flat and easy. Boring tunnels through Nob Hill, Russian Hill and Pacific Heights would have been considerably more difficult and expensive and the traffic volumes didn’t justify it.

  158. There is alot of evidence and data on both sides of this debate and many people on both sides have been honest about the conclusions they have drawn from them. If Arce still can’t decide, I question his competence to be a representative of the community. That said, if he hadn’t fraudulently indicated to people on May 8 that he was in favor of the moratorium, I would be less concerned about his abstention last night.

  159. How can you claim to know what the people want?

    The only thing we know is that a pro-development mayor won an easy 60% landslide victory last time and is cruising to an even easier victory again.

  160. I don’t care for the term “community.” The fact is, in most cities, San Francisco included, freeways were planned to cover essentially the whole city. Neighborhoods that had more political power were able to block them. City leaders used freeway building to demolish working class neighborhoods they considered “blighted,” especially places where people of color lived. There is a reason that freeways go through the eastern neighborhoods and not elsewhere. They were blocked elsewhere by middle class people, sometimes in alliance with working class people of color, sometimes not. http://www.prrac.org/pdf/mohl.pdf

  161. You should not want your representative to have a preconceived opinion. You should want him to consider the evidence, data and statistics before deciding

  162. Anyone who saw him and talked with him at City Hall on May 8 came away with the understanding that Arce absolutely supports the moratorium. If, in fact, he doesn’t support it or is reserving judgment on it, his actions and words on May 8 were fraudulent.

  163. Which side are you on with this comment? (serious question). I see Plan Bay Area which promotes high density development into already crowded cities as the USSR model. It’s driven by an unelected bureaucracy. It promotes its agenda irrespective of what the people want. The result of their policies are seen in SF – displacement, elimination of the middle class. And they know that. That’s why they dedicate large amounts of money to mitigate their damage under the guise of social equity. Now there is need to subsidize the middle class. Is this not a forced path to socialism? Not saying that would be good or bad. Just saying that’s where were being taken. I also see the big high density buildings filled with small units as “tenements for the rich” reminiscent of post WWII USSR building.

  164. Actually, a lot of us would have been generally on board with efforts by Campos to get western neighborhoods to upzone. Pity he saw the NIMBYs and went “Us too!” instead.

  165. How could anyone have extended 101 to Fort Mason without destroying entire communities?

    I though you liked communities? Or do you only like non-white communities?

  166. Campos is concerned that some Hispanics are leaving and some whites are moving in.

    What explanation can be provided for that preference without consideration of race?

  167. Wow, what a coincidence! The absence of freeways and BART in the western neighborhoods definitely couldn’t have anything to do with NIMBYism.

  168. Nobody is calling for “racial quotas.” If you’re trying to find racists, start by looking in the mirror.

  169. I am not the one calling for racial quotas. Campos is. If you think you can defend that without appearing racist, then knock yourself out.

  170. Great idea. Let’s upzone Pacific Heights, Cow Hollow, the Marina, and a bunch of the Sunset (where there is less than half the population per square mile). Surely if there is opposition that would be NIMBYism.

  171. Abstaining isn’t lying. He is simply reserving judgement. The city economist is studying the financial losses to the city from a moratorium and it is prudent for Arce to wait for that rather than be ideologically bigoted.

  172. Campos has framed the moratorium in explicit racist terms so, if you defend the idea, you must address that criticism.

  173. But that is the “theme park” argument. It’s like saying that ChinaTown must be allowed to keep out other races. Or the Fillmore must be frozen in time like some monument to black culture.

    I do not believe that most voters want SF divided up along racial lines. Nor politicians like Campos who want to carve up the city into homogeneous ethnic ghettoes.

  174. I love the fact that EVERYONE is reading and responding to 48 Hills! Such a lively bunch of subscribers! Carry on, Tim!

  175. Talk about a stretch of the fact and not in a post-racial way. Sorry, once you wander into this territory, you are not discussing, you are standing on your own bully pulpit and clearly not willing to listen. I do “own” my biases and my students both support and challenge them every day, as long as they have facts to uphold their beliefs. And I give them more than enough to do both. Looks like if what you say is true about academics, then I am not alone (I am not) and your kids will have to learn the facts to argue their points just like everyone else at City College and San Francisco State University. Plenty of room for all. Adieu.

  176. I don’t think “foreign capital” is used here to mean “buyers of condos from overseas.” It means that buildings are not built unless they provide a return for a very very large pool of money far away (much of it pooled in New York, as it happens). Since the marginal cost of each new infill development is very high, why would a builder not shoot for the top? And yes, market-rate development pays for affordable housing, but also drives the price of land very high because as soon as you upzone you are talking about orders of magnitude higher potential revenues. This means fewer affordable units, or if they remove the 1-mile radius (as SFHAC proposes), increased segregation.

  177. I didn’t realize lying to people to their faces about what your positions are is part of the “essence of the New Mission.” If Arce opposes the moratorium, I think he should be honest about it. You may call that view “dated,” I would simply call it “ethical.”

  178. My understanding is that there is a plan to add several thousand new homes to the outer Sunset region.

    That said, it is ill-served with transit links compared with the east side. Other than 19th Avenue to 280 and the GG Bridge, and the ponderously long L and N streetcars. A commute from 48th Avenue to downtown takes longer than one from Walnut Creek or Hayward.

    The eastern flatlands must bear the brunt.

  179. One reason for the fixation is that of neighborhood culture. Many of us want the mission to retain it’s hispanic culture both for the residents and for the rest of the city and visitors to enjoy. This means affordable housing in the Mission, not diluting this culture by displacing it’s people to the Excelsior or Balboa reservoir or anywhere else.

  180. An exception was made for the Sunset in the early 2000s after residents successfully defeated upzoning in the interest of keeping the neighborhood the same. And the western neighborhoods are not marked as priority development areas in Plan Bay Area, though they are along transit lines. Why do they not come under fire now?

  181. Leo, the Mission is still 70% non-white, which makes it more diverse than most of America.

    When did “diverse” come to mean no whites?

  182. you are so right! lived in the Mission for 10 years. Loved the cultural diversity, now destroyed by the Tech Sector.

  183. It was impossible to miss Josh Arce working the crowd in a full suit at the May 8 rally at City Hall to save the Mission, conveying the clear impression to everyone there that he supported the moratorium (and undoubtedly mining for votes for his ’16 SFBOS campaign). Last night, with very few people from the May 8 rally in attendance at the DCCC meeting, he abstained from voting on the moratorium. What a fraud!

  184. Where is Supervisor Jane Kim’s name. It is notably ABSENT! Is she still on Memorial day vacation? As usual District 12. The Tenderloin Counts for nothing. Went to see Supervisor Kim earlier this month. Her office was complete chaos! The only order in City Hall that Day, Was the Protest in the Atrium. No Protest banners allowed, only Permanent Tech banners. Mayor Edwin Lee remained behind bolted doors. Plenty of Security guarding him.

  185. Susan, sadly academics are highly politicized and what they teach is a massive stretch of the facts.

    When non-whites moved into the Mission they created a high-crime environment in which the honest working-class denizens of that neighborhood should never have been exposed to. So they move out of necessity.

    They were forced out in much the same way as Hispanics now allege that they are being displaced by more successful people.

    There is no material difference between the two cases. And please tell me which college you teach history at so I can direct my kids elsewhere lest they have socialist dogma and propaganda rammed down their throats by some washed-up Bolshevik boomer.

  186. Marina, you are talking out of your tucus. Self-reliance, at an individual level, means not demanding that someone else subsidize your housing costs in SF just because you want to live in a cool place that, sadly, is beyond your means.

    Please explain to me why the value of you being in SF is so high that I should pay for it.

  187. Hispanics did not “displace” whites. Again, read your history. And timing is everything. Whites moved to the suburbs and Latinos moved in. I’m tell’ ya, I teach and research history for a living (a meager one at that) but anyone can pick up a book or look up this stuff online. Again, we moved to the Mission (from a very reasonable Castro area) to be closer to our business. I teach in addition to owning the book shop because I cannot live on the net profits of the bookstore, which supports three of us. I don’t idolize the Mission; it is what it is and it ain’t good now. That is my Mission.

  188. “Self-reliance” is for losers. For winners there is corporate welfare, taxpayer subsidesed workforce, and if that doesn’t help, bailouts. These are real American values and virtues now.

  189. Nowhere did I mention ethnicity in either of my two posts about long time residents, whereas you constantly distinguish between whites and Hispanics. Who’s the racist?

  190. It is fascinating how people like Campos can get away with racism if and only if that racism is directed at whites.

  191. Own your bias, Susan. You claimed that quoting Wiener “nails” me.

    Your implication is clear, as is your bias.

  192. Sorry, thought that you had taken the time to read my facts. The above comment was merely a coda to those. And why would be reference to Scott Wiener be interpreted as an attack vs a characterization of your opinion? Actually Scott Wiener would agree.

  193. It makes no difference whether you relocate because of fiscal inadequacy or because the crime rate was rising.

    Either way, neighborhoods come and go. Your implication here is that Hispanics are somehow more worthy residents than whites, and I affirmatively reject that racist viewpoint.

  194. That is not an argument, It is a statement with no analysis, evidence, data or statistics to support it.

  195. Those that chose to leave because the area got sketchy and move to the suburbs did so of their own accord. The long time residents that stayed through years of “high crime and blight” because it was their HOME are now being forced to leave.

  196. Preventing building new housing, by itself, does not make it easier for people to stay in the Mission. If anything, in the face of increasing housing demand, it makes it more profitable for landlords to evict. The moratorium will also prevent the construction of city-mandated BMR housing, for extra pain.

    If the Mission were the only place in the city to buy land for affordable housing, this might be slightly more compelling. But if, as Fazal suggests, this turns out to be about making it easier for the city to buy land in the Mission instead of a short distance away in the Excelsior, it’s harder to be sympathetic.

  197. And what happened since the “Miracle Mile” days? It fell into crumbled into disarray under Latino watch.

  198. Leverage is bias and skew. But I do respect you for being honest enough to admit that the moratorium idea is transparently an attempt to prejudice any discussions about zoning.

  199. Well, that’s an awfully convenient way to dismiss any sort of analysis whatsoever.

  200. I agree it’s not communism. But it is bad policy.

    Why are you scared to debate zoning without one?

  201. And yet America has always been a place where people are flexible, ambitious and responsive to change in a positive way. Rather than whine for a European -style nanny state, Americans have always been willing to relocate to somewhere with more opportunities.

    I cannot afford Aspen so I don’t choose to try and fight reality, but rather live in a place where the cost of living suits my wallet, fiscal power and earning capability.

    Asking others to subsidize me is anathema to any real American.

  202. How is displacement by being outbid for homes any different from displacement by seeking to avoid high crime and blight?

  203. Changing 60 to 75 does not alter the point materially. Hispnaics displaces whites, and now if some whites are displacing Hispanics, that should not be a problem for you.

    But if you have specific racial quotes in mind, why not share them with us?

  204. The reason people should be able to stay in their neighborhoods (and that neighborhoods should remain communities):

    “The reality is that the people living in increasingly expensive communities cannot magically adjust their lives to the vagaries of the market. Our neighborhoods give real meaning to our lives, and Americans often live where they do because of proximity to family or friends. Moving, then, may help a family save money on housing—but it incurs real social costs that affect their relationships and lives. This kind of market-based sorting process ultimately reinforces the advantages of the already well-off. As numerous studies have shown, the ability to locate in advantaged urban neighborhoods provides access to better schools, lower crime, better libraries, and more accomplished role models and peers. The end result compounds economic inequality with a broader inequality of well-being, which reinforces and perpetuates America’s growing social and economic divides.”


  205. Identity politics used as a bludgeon in these post-racial times. How fitting. We moved into the Mission 30 years ago, both with our personal belongings and our business, because it was a welcoming place and a good place to do small business and sell books. Now it is neither. The small shops along Mission St. are dwindling and the “middle class” (the working class with a few assets) is leaving. And no, Rod, the Mission was not “mostly white” 60 years ago. This was the era of the Mission’s “Miracle Mile” with Latino movie theaters and businesses, and white businesses (Siegels, for one) that catered to a white and Latino clientele. The Mission was mostly white 75 years ago. World War II changed that. The real change is that it has become less working class. Read your history, Guy.!!

  206. Regardless of your fantastical view of how this moratorium will turn out, it is not communism.

  207. “Nancy, the Mission you idolize was simply the result of earlier displacements.” The difference between then and now is that these displacements are not voluntary.

  208. I’m old too. But perhaps the difference between us is that I don’t expect the city to stay the same or be like it was when I was young. I loved this city then and I still love it now. Things change but the San Francisco dynamism I love remains the same.

  209. By your own admission, you are sad, tired and old, and have little skin vested in the game.

    So step aside and let the real players decide what kind of city we want, and whether we want to be winners or losers.

  210. “they have done a magnificent job of alienating younger San Franciscans who feel that this is their city too.”


    Remember when Tim would go on about how new residents to the Bay Area should just have to spend a few years, or decades, in Stockton/Concord/wherever before they get their chance to live in San Francisco?

    And then how, whenever the opportunity to build new homes for these hypothetical new residents who should be in Stockton/Concord/wherever actually comes up, Tim invariably comes out against it, no matter what the context?

    Funny how that works. Just propose building a wall already, Tim. You know you want to.

  211. I for one do not find the future outlined in the Global Cities Report one that I welcome. But then I’m ‘old’ and won’t have to suffocate in it’s sameness. In the time I have left I’m just going to enjoy what’s left of this city and do what little I can to preserve what made this such a unique and special place before the invasion of the booty snatchers.

  212. The regressive agenda to freeze the city in time is doomed to failure long-term. We all know that. They know that, and are merely trying to delay the inevitable.

    Fast forward a few decades. Every existing rent-controlled incumbent tenant will have left by then, being replaced by high-income, high-value tenants and home buyers.

    Long before that demographic trend has completed, the voter demographic will have changed so much that Campos will be out of a job.

    The NIMBYs and regressives are trying to turn back the clock but, in reality, the best they can hope for is to slow it down a little

  213. The smarter old timers understand that boom-bust cycles are just part of the landscape, but the unmistakable trend is that the city is growing, not shrinking. Previous busts have provided opportunities for smarter middle-class san franciscans and entrepreneurs to exploit the dips. They do fine before long, the overall trend us upward. If you didn’t learn this fundamental lesson after the dotcom and great recession busts, you weren’t paying attention. The demand for housing is not going to magically disappear.

    That means we need more housing for everyone, and that nail-biting about speculators and “international capital” is just pointless twaddle to avoid building the housing we all need.

    Besides, its telling that progressives spend so much time and energy cheering for our city’s decline. Luckily for the rest of us, the 1970s and 1980s just aren’t coming back.

  214. I know longtime residents of the Mission love their neighborhood, and (though some posters here may indeed disagree) I don’t consider anyone a failure for not being wealthy.

    But I also don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if the city decided it was easier to build more subsidized housing in, say, the Excelsior instead of fighting to keep more of it in the Mission. We’re not talking about living in Antioch or Stockton here – it’s a short ride away on the 14.

  215. Yeah, put your stock in that rigged polling. Just remember, Romney felt pretty good about his polling too.

    The moratorium is probably a loser at the polls. There’s no recent evidence showing that it is gaining support, rather than just appealing to the already-decided. There is evidence to suggest that the moratorium proposal is activating and uniting San Franciscans who see it as misguided and destructive.

    Even in the unlikely event that the moratorium wins at the polls, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for progressives and Mission District nativists. Their numbers are shrinking, and will continue to shrink, and they have done a magnificent job of alienating younger San Franciscans who feel that this is their city too.

  216. What distinguishes DFI from domestic investment?

    How would DFI in particular drive a change in development mix?

  217. It’s a trojan horse strategy. The “just 6 weeks” will become a year, then two, then permanent.

    The “just in the Mission” will become the surrounding areas, then the whole city.

    It is a dishonest self-serving ploy to try and slant the playing field in favor of one team over the other teams. We can have a debate about planning and zoning now. There is no reason to stop or change anything while we have that debate.

  218. Not offensive at all. That is exactly what Campos is trying to create.

    Maybe we should not blame Campos for trying to keep his constituency happy, but not at the price of the rest of us.

  219. Nancy, the Mission you idolize was simply the result of earlier displacements.

    The real Mission changes all the time. It isn’t frozen in time.

  220. no, you could not be further from reality: longtime Mission residents love the community they have built and lived in for generations, and to be forced out by extreme wealth and greed – and, lots of these young white folks just call the Mission residents failures for not becoming obscenely wealthy as they have – just want to live where they have been raised, where their children have been born, and where they have lived their lives. Please show some respect.

  221. At some point you are going to have to realize that NIMBYism no longer sells in San Francisco. We don’t want people to have to commute in from the outer suburbs, we want to build housing for them near their jobs, schools and communities.

  222. Campos has his heart in the right place. When I was working to improve our voting system (I co-founded The Center for Election Science) he had me into his office on two occasions, and talked to me for some time, despite the fact that I have essentially no power. Most other supervisors ignored me. Scott Wiener listened to me, but shot down my proposal (Approval Voting) based on his intuitive gut instinct about it, without regard to the decades of research that experts have put into the field. This is why I was happy to help distribute campaign literature for Campos, and why I supported him against David Chiu. So it’s hard for me to get behind the “politically incompetent demagogue” charge.

    That said, the arguments put forward on the housing/moratorium issue by Wiener and Campos have demonstrated a clear disparity in economic expertise and rationality around the issue. The moratorium just makes no sense, and Wiener’s recent blog post about the subject was powerful and steeped in empirical data. On this issue, I think Campos couldn’t be more wrong. And as someone who was priced out of the city when we had a child, I put particular weight to this issue. Thus I’ve moved a lot more toward the camp that I suppose locals would call “moderate”, as opposed to “progressive”. On this issue, “progressives” are really conservative/preservationist. It’s sad that they’re arguments get the traction they do by well-intentioned people who lack mathematical/economic expertise.

  223. > The Campos moratorium doesn’t stop middle-class housing; it won’t get built anyway.

    1) A tech bro living in market rate housing is a tech bro who isn’t outcompeting for currently available housing stock.
    2) Market rate housing FUNDS affordable housing.

    The pro-moratorium arguments don’t hold one bit of water. The economic data here is just massive and clear.

  224. Deja Vu.
    This should come as no surprise to ‘old-timers’. It is just a repeat of our historical Boom, Build, Bust cycle. The speculators and their enablers will pocket their profits and we will be left with acres of vacant office/commercial/luxury space and decreased public/social services as a result of diminished revenue. You ain’t seen nothing yet. As Heather Knight reported in her recent Friday fishwrap article, according to the 2014 Global Cities Report San Francisco is sinking into the sunset, and not just the new development in the SE Sector which will succumb to rising sea levels. These corrupt and co-opted ‘civic leaders’ and ‘people’s representatives’ who are lining their pockets and advancing their political careers at the expense of the citizenry represent the antithesis of public service, they are simply self-serving sycophants. It is no surprise that the sell outs at SPUR are salivating over these developments.

  225. the CAD drives the availability of funds for DFI and the investment mix is obviously driven by demand. the MF market is highly geographically concentrated. unfortunately FRED doesn’t give us these numbers at a sub-regional level so its hard to use it to parse the details.

  226. Perhaps Arce understands what D9 residents really want better than you, Campos and Redmond?

    And since the moratorium would push development into the areas immediately surrounding the precious Hispanic theme park that Campos has delineated, those other D9 residents won’t be happy at all to be sacrificed on the alter of identity politics so that the theme park can be artificially propped up?

  227. This phrase from Redmond was particularly repugnant:

    “Most of the people who spoke against the moratorium were white. Some worked in the tech industry. Many of those who spoke in favor were Latino.”

    His implication was clear. White peoples’ views don’t count. Nor those of tech workers. Only precious Hispanics matter in the racist world of Campos and Redmond.

  228. Look who they are having as their keynote speaker in June… Gruesome Newsom! A well-dressed puppet for the billionaire elite who like to pretend that they are socially conscious and environmentally green. The DCC has been and continues to be, controlled by real estate interests. So that means any renter should run from the party as fast as they can.

  229. It’s not just people who happen to live in the Mission that get to decide this. The Mission is not a jurisdiction and so should not be an autonomous self-serving, beggar-thy-neighbor fiefdom either.

    The city decides what goes where based on broader principles than NIMBYism

  230. Agreed, it was a massively rigged and flawed poll. Casual discussions have indicated to me that almost nobody thinks that building nothing will create more homes

  231. I don’t think that Greece is the model we want to follow. They are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and may have to pay government salaries and pensions in IOU’s soon.

    Planning is a city-wide process and we should not be making exceptions for some neighborhoods and not others. No one place is special, but some neighborhoods do lend themselves better for more density and height – the eastern neighborhoods with their flat topology, large blocks and excellent transportation links,

  232. Maybe because the 2/3 support is BS you keep on spouting. The question seems to be more why people like you treat whites and Asians with contempt in these threads.

  233. Yes, the polling you constantly harp about which has been attacked on the methodology. Go ahead, provide the link and let’s start all over with who paid for the polling and which citizens were polled.

  234. Campos and the D9 machine behind him could lose voters if longtime Mission residents move elsewhere in the city. That’s what behind at least some of this.

  235. As long as there is demand for high-end housing, the market will prioritize it since it is more profitable. There is still the requirement to set aside a fraction of the units as below-market-rate, so it’s not correct to say the market won’t provide any at all.

    I don’t understand the fixation on the 13 Mission locations available for affordable housing, there are plenty of other locations like the Excelsior where the city could acquire property using the $3B revenue windfall from the tech boom, or build on top of land it already owns like Balboa Reservoir. When my rent went up I moved west to a less desirable but more affordable neighborhood. The sense of entitlement of those who expect the city to subsidize their staying in prime sunny real estate is simply stunning.

  236. “The Yes side: Mission community activists were well represented”

    How many of these people live in the Mission?

    There are 70,000 Mission residents. What percentage of those residents did the Mission community activists organize and mobilize to bring out in support of the moratorium?

    The reason why it is quite likely that 2/3 voters support will be translated by these people into one big shit sandwich is that, like the Planning Department, they hold most Mission residents in nothing short of contempt.

    You should hear some of the language these commuters use in meetings to describe “their own people,” it would not be out of place on Fox [sic] News.

  237. The use of “foreign capital” in this case isn’t entirely off base or xenophobic. The US’s persistent trade deficits have allowed the winners from this system to accumulate vast sums of capital that needs to be deployed somewhere. And real estate is the name of the game right now.

  238. Campos’ office is not exactly the source of land use wisdom, given that he’s been in office, took money from developers for his doomed AD17 race for which he adopted a “hands off” policy towards condo development in the Mission.

    And the Mission “community” is not really, they are nonprofit employees who style themselves as community organizers, leftists ensconced in bureaucracies dependent upon the capitalists for funding. and who largely commute in from the East Bay to tell the Mission what they want while not organizing people.

    In all cases, Campos, the nonprofits and the Planning Department, Mission residents are merely Sims from Sim City who are in the way of their grand designs.

    Contrast this to what is going on in Spain or Greece and we can see that there is no left to speak of in San Francisco, just professionals raking cash from government and taxpayers, residents, citizens and voters who are relegated far away from the public policy table, relegated to merely sources of income to be redistributed upwards and out.

  239. The is a sweet moment. The DCCC took a stand against the reactionaries who are driving the moratorium effort. Campos is revealed as a politically impotent demagogue. Progressives have become so shrill and extreme that they are actually generating their own grassroots opposition. This foreshadows more of what’s to come.

  240. “And the moratorium would, in the best case scenario, last no more than
    two years; in a more likely scenario it would last a year.”

    LOL, and yesterday the message here was “Chill out, it’s only a 45-day moratoritum”. Only 24 hours for it to creep up to “likely a year”. Can’t wait for what it becomes by the time it reaches the BoS (and dies there).

  241. Polling indicates that 2/3 of voters support a moratorium.

    And the moratorium, as written, charges the Planning Department and Commission with “fixing” the mess, which means Campos gets points for a moratorium and the developers get to fiddle around the edges minimizing any fees. Even still, their market rate housing will only be more valuable in two years time. This is all whining not about how these policies will impact any families, rather that people have the nerve, three decades after Reagan, to deny the primacy of the market.

    How much longer will we have to offer tribute to the altar of free market economics before the benefits of libertarian capitalism are widely felt?

  242. “The sends a clear message that the Democratic Party is not interested in what the neighborhoods want,” Sup. David Campos… Let’s get this clear. The ‘neighborhood’ doesn’t want this. It’s a small, but very vocal, contingent of unhinged, uninformed radicals that are clamoring for this moratorium.

  243. Foreign capital generally wants high-end condos in a downtown tower. They don’t want a mid-range condo on 16th Street. So it’s really only a factor in the trickle-down sense. Those who get outbid downtown and in SOMA may chase new Mission condos.

    But then a Mission moratorium would have the same trickle-out effect, where buyers artificially pushed out of the Mission bid up new homes in surrounding neighborhoods like the districts of Cohen, Breed and Wiener, all of whom I expect will vote against it.

    And, as Wiener said last night, “more development would bring down prices, and anything limiting new projects would just mean higher prices and more evictions.”

    The DCCC got this right, despite Redmond’s contorted logic that less is more, black is white, and less supply means lower prices.

  244. Tim, please give a quick look at Todd Sinai’s brief on rental affordability. It is a fine overview of the dynamics driving the ‘general, long-term erosion in housing affordability overall,’ and many of its points offer support for your policy positions.

    What doesn’t appear is ‘international capital’. There is no wealthy foreign villain pulling the strings. Continually citing it is implicitly xenophobic and nativist and, worst, wrong.

  245. A command economy didn’t work in the former USSR, it didn’t work for the Cubans and the Chinese, why on Earth would one work in San Francisco?

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

A move to save Cantonese language classes at City College

Most college Chinese language programs focus on Mandarin -- but in SF, Cantonese literacy is critical.

Screen Grabs: How ‘The Panic in Needle Park’ changed drug movies

The 1971 film mixed stark realism with post-hippie disillusionment. Plus: Lorelei, Tailgate, No Ordinary Man, more

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