Monday, April 19, 2021
Uncategorized The Agenda, May 11-17: Housing Blues, unmasking the sharing...

The Agenda, May 11-17: Housing Blues, unmasking the sharing economy, understanding community victories and more


We look at the key political issues and events coming up in the city this week

Housing Blues: Artist Charles Bierwirth can only afford a picture of a home he can't buy
Housing Blues: Artist Charles Bierwirth can only afford a picture of a home he can’t buy

By Tim Redmond

MAY 11, 2015 – The Chron calls the idea of a moratorium on luxury housing “counterintuitive, some even say crazy,” but a story by Emily Green quotes at least one eminent urban theorist saying that it actually makes perfect sense:

“Moratoriums give cities time to breathe and think about environmental issues,” said Peter Dreier, a professor of urban and environmental policy at Occidental College in Los Angeles.

That’s pretty much all that Campos is asking for: Slow things down for a bit, and give the folks in the Mission (and at City Hall) time to figure out a better plan for the area. Because what’s going on now clearly isn’t working.

Campos will ask the Board of Supes Tuesday/12 to put the item formally on the agenda for a Committee of the Whole hearing. That means the full board, not just one committee (most likely Land Use) will hear testimony on the issue and vote on it – moving it forward more quickly than the typical process would allow.

I can’t imagine why any supes would object to hearing the issue that way; it’s typically done as a matter of courtesy to a colleague. But if we see three or four members oppose the process, that will be a sign of who is gearing up to block the moratorium, which needs nine votes to pass.

Nine is going to be hard – we already know Scott Wiener is against it, and Sup. Mark Farrell has spoken against the concept. If those two say No, Campos would need everyone else.

Whatever happens, if the process goes forward as Campos hopes, we’ll get every supervisor to listen to the case from the community, which will be out in force for the hearing, and take a stand for the record.

While I was writing this, two of my neighbors stopped by to talk to me. Chuck Bierwirth and his partner John have been Bernal Heights residents since the late 1970s, when they moved into a live-work studio on the hill. One of Chuck’s paintings, Blau Haus (Blue House, above) is going up on display at a local hangout called the Pinhole Café.

Our neighborhood blog, Bernalwood, which I read every day, took notice and ran a picture of Chuck and John hanging the painting, which, like all of Chuck’s work, is on a tarp.

Like so many SF neighborhoods, ours is its own small town and Bernalwood is where everyone goes for the latest news about our neighbors. I’ve always been friendly with the proprietor, Todd Lappin – although he and I have, to say the least, rather divergent views about the housing crisis.

In this case, the item about Blau Haus was posted right above Todd’s article that totally attacked the Campos moratorium proposal. Chuck wasn’t thrilled with the coincidental juxtaposition — he’s a big fan of Campos and a strong supporter of the legislation.

In fact, he wanted me to know the story behind the painting.

Chuck and John have always been renters, are part of the SF only because of rent control, and have never been able to afford to buy a house in this city – particularly in Bernal in the past few years, where real estate has been crazy. So at one point, Chuck went and took a picture of a house, and painted himself taking the picture. “I can’t buy a house, so the closest I can come is taking a picture of one,” he said.

Blau Haus is a reflection of the San Francisco Housing Blues. And the artist thinks Campos is on the right track and the folks who just want to see more and more luxury condos and $10,000 apartments crammed into the Eastern Neighborhoods are wrong.

Anyway, fun to see them, and there’s a show of Chuck’s work at Pinhole at 6pm June 6.


Remember when Mayor Ed Lee wanted the city treasurer to back off on taxing Airbnb because he had appointed a “task force” to study the “sharing economy?” The Business Times notes that the task force never met. Not once. And now we have the mess that is Airbnb and the short-term rental market.

(BTW, let’s remember that Ron Conway, Lee’s biggest supporter and current best pal, is a big investor in Airbnb and has a clear financial stake in San Francisco staying out of the company’s way.)

All of this will come up for discussion Thursday/14 at the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council’s meeting on The Sharing Economy and Housing Affordability. 7pm, Park Branch Library.

It’s a busy city: The same night, Urban IDEA holds a forum that takes a look not at the problems facing us but at how the community can win. “Unity in the Community: Coalition Success Stories” takes a look at case studies where grassroots organizing worked.

It’s a chance for activists to learn lessons from our successes – and also to remember that for all the things we complain about, the progressives have the ability to impact policy in positive ways. And we’ve done that, over an over.

The event is at 6pm, Bayanihan Community Center, 1010 Mission.


On Wednesday/13, Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi kicks off his re-election campaign at an event hosted by SEIU 1021 President Roxanne Sanchez, former Sheriff Mike Hennessey, Officers for Justice President Yulanda Williams, and former Mayor Art Agnos and his wife Sherry Agnos.

5:30 to 7:30pm, Delancey St, 600 Embarcadero.

Mirkarimi, of course, is going to be attacked by Ron Conway and the mayor; it will be interesting to see who shows up to support him.


The Affordable Care Act, for all its flaws, has added millions of people to the ranks of the insured. How does that impact San Francisco General Hospital and the city’s community clinics?

Sup. John Avalos has asked for a hearing on the issue, and it will come up at the BOS Budget and Finance Committee Wednesday/13 at 1pm,  Room 250 City Hall.


It’s Question Time at the Board of  Supes this week, which means the mayor has to show up and take a (prewritten, prescreened) question or two, and give a (prewritten) answer.

The agenda for the Board meeting Tuesday/12 has Sup. Katy Tang asking what the mayor will do to make it easier for small businesses to open in the city. Simple setup, the mayor will give a lovely answer about how much he loves small business, and everyone will go about the day.

The question I would ask: Are you supporting the merchants and residents of the Mission who want a moratorium on luxury housing – and if not, what else can you offer to solve the planning and development problems of that neighborhood?

But then, that’s not on the agenda.

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.


  1. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that, in the Mission as in the rest of the world, local dynamics do not dominate local residential real estate rents and sales prices.

  2. Capital macro economics has everything to do with Mission housing prices. A moratorium will afford an opportunity to build up and strengthen defenses against its worst ravages.

  3. Why yes, the macroeconomy does affect capital deepening, along with development, technology and the relative political power of capital and labor.

    Capital deepening has nothing to do with the desirability of rezoning the Mission do restrict housing development.

  4. Macroeconomic forces marshall capital for loans and speculative investment in start ups not to mention foreign capital seeking refuge.

    Those are the determinative phenomena.

  5. Insults likewise are unpersuasive.

    Generic critiques of capitalism and government, however valid, say precisely nothing about development in a single neighborhood. It is incoherent to argue that ultralocal policy follow from entirely national and global phenomena.

  6. The effectiveness of that strategy depends on how that land us rezoned during the moratorium, doesn’t it? Not all risk can be known beforehand.

  7. Speculators will just be sitting on land they acquire, watching its value creep ever upwards thanks to supply constraints, and silently thanking you.

  8. I am sure you have already displaced someone living in the Mission, your argument about affordable housing is truly fake

  9. please do not call people dumb; just a demonstration of your lack of emotional and intellectual skills

  10. Those words hurt your little brain, don’t they? Four legs good, two legs bad bad bad! Either/or, with us or against us.

  11. But we don’t have to when the voters want to put the brakes on luxury condominium production!

  12. Answer the question, troll. What people who support the moratorium are criticizing Ed Lee for not building sufficient housing?

  13. Housing approvals have been “streamlined” to the point where they’ve abandoned the sweet spot. Overreach is the term.

  14. If we were at a sweet spot, then there would not be a super-majority of voters in favor of a moratorium.

  15. After the moratorium passes and the death penalty is imposed for building market rate housing, the these radicals will actually begin to tear down some of the more ghastly new condo structures. You are right, this is only the beginning.

  16. I would very much like to see SF progressives run on an overt platform of “Fuck the next generation”. Just be honest. It should be your rallying cry. Run with it!

  17. You’re my hero, foggy. Thanks for taking the time to refute that bore.
    Maybe we should do it in shifts.

  18. One factor that is overlooked or not discussed in the housing equation is that in the 70s, while housing units were actually in decline (W. Addition and SOMA ‘redevelopement’ — aka, slum removal), and families were leaving, young singles – many, gay – were starting to fill the City. They were able to bid up the cost of formerly-family units (5,6,7 rm apts), like in the Haight, Mission & Richmond, filling an apt with unrelated roommates; each of whom had their own income, These newcomers could outbid a one wage-earner dad/mom/kids situation and this started the rising rents we all so familiar with today.

    If you reinstituted the ban on occupancy by unrelated roommates, you’d find rents decreasing and more units opening up to families. But, who’s gonna support kicking out the gays and lowering property values? Not Dems. Not Rs. And not the business community.

    If you want a City of singles, you oughta build a boatload of small units. But that means more cars, which impedes parking if not traffic, so various interests campaign against any change. The fact that its so damn expensive to build anything that cheap housing is unsupportable, and actually disfavored by many current residents; who wants a new “project” down the block? And even housing for teachers has a negative cash flow, Add to that the extra vehicles if it does get built, and support becomes verbal at best.

    If there’s any solution, it probably will come in bits and bites, not wholescale developements. One solution wouild be a one-time reintroduction (with registration for verification of time empty) of all vacant units that wanted to come online – UNCONTROLLED. No shadows, no height/bulk changes. And they may need to come with a free FastPass/carshare; buts its a relatively inexpensive fix and would not take anything away.

    Or, we could cease building, and see if that improves anything. If nothing else, it wouild lay to rest the arguemnts of one side or the other (hopefully). And maybe that’d be worth an addiitional 2000 units. I just feel that reconsidering the Vacant Units idea would produce more than double that virtually overnight.

  19. Using long words to build a straw man is not persuasive.

    How is building housing in the Mission a problem in itself?

  20. Allowing development capital to get whatever it wants means allowing retrograde taxation and finance arrangements to disrupt the orderly development of the community.

  21. If there was an extreme shortage of apples in a market — and everyone wanted/needed apples — then any apples in that market would command a high price, i.e., they would become — by virtue of the shortage — defacto “luxury” apples.
    The same basic principle is in operation with regard to housing in SF. Currently, any “market rate” housing (and the land that it is built upon) in the City — given the massive shortage — inevitably becomes “luxury” priced. In such a situation, further limiting the creation of housing — any housing — is like pouring gasoline on a fire. It will not put out the fire, it will make it worse — much, much worse.

    For the better part of 4 decades — via a myriad of incrementally well-intention, but cumulatively disastrous policies (the preverbial “road-to-hell”) — we have been artificially (and to our now-obvious detriment) limiting the construction of adequate amounts of housing.

    The historical data clearly bares this out. From 1945 until about the mid-70’s we were producing, on average about 32K housing units per decade. This was, mind you, even during a period of population decline in the City (the all time low at the end of the 70’s was about 690K persons) as large portions of the population were opting for the new suburbs fueled by Federal government policy (e.g. low-cost FHA loans for single-family homes and massive freeway construction.)

    From about the mid-70’s — when we started to limit housing growth in the City in various way — until the present, we saw a decline in housing production to about 19K units per decade. This decline has ironically coincided with a substantial increase in population starting in the 80’s that continues today (we are now at over 850K persons and growing.)

    Given such facts, imposing a moratorium on housing creation in all its forms is the exact opposite of what we need to do. We need to figure out ways to streamline and accelerate the production of housing in all its forms: market rate, subsidized, etc.

    If we don’t then, the most vulnerable, e.g. those more limited financial means will be displaced at an even more accelerated rate, and the lower and middle classes will continue to spend an ever larger portion of their income on housing.

  22. Don’t beg the question.

    How does government responsibility to regulate mean that building housing in the Mission is counterproductive?

  23. Nope, the damage being done is irreversible and San Franciscans are receptive to putting the brakes on development until we can figure out how to do it right. Why do you oppose doing it right?

  24. The matter is not one of intelligence, rather how to stop the damage that these luxury condominiums are doing to our community. Apparently voters citywide agree.

  25. Smart people can evaluate issues without stopping anything. dumb people cannot.

    Again, why argue for something that you admit is not “material”?

  26. We are already at the sweet spot. If you get greedy, the developers will invest elsewhere and instead we will ration by price, meaning that your class loses

  27. No, it means that just because you personally cannot afford a particular place does not make it luxury. It just makes you poor and miserable.

  28. Population keeps increasing only if there is housing to accommodate it. Let’s see: Google buses go away, more people commute from outside or businesses locate elsewhere. What’s wrong with that? Oh wait, the developers lose money. We can’t have that.

  29. Who that supports the moratorium is criticizing Ed Lee for not building enough new homes? The moratorium exempts affordable housing.

  30. The whole legal basis of a moratorium is to put a halt to permitting so that the circumstances that caused the problem can be evaluated and solutions adopted.

  31. C’mon, they don’t reveal Xenu to junior economics students. You need to be in OT-III to get that wisdom.

  32. Except for those Prop Bs. We also beat Weiner at the ballot box on his ethics corruption.

  33. Government has controlled the price of essential services in the past and will probably in the future.

  34. So they are marketed as luxury, rented as luxury but it is a mistake to call these craptacular condos luxury because it paints new housing in a poor light? Uh huh

  35. Raise those barriers higher to make sure that the loser developer leeches don’t get subsidized!

  36. Odds are that since new housing is only affordable to like 10% of San Franciscans, that most new units were being purchased by newcomers.

  37. For the time being, to figure out how we can get more. We have what they want, we need to sell high, not give away low, run the guvmint like a bidness.

  38. It is an argument for comprehensive regional planning in this regard, not just developers gaming densities to generate the highest immediate profit.

  39. To plan for the orderly development of communities, not a wild west free-for-all of corruption.

  40. No, I think they want to ration housing by some other means: seniority, ethnicity, occupation (poet, artiste, civil servant), or even LACK of money (say <50%AMI).

    Cuz these are all the 'good' people (i.e., those more likely to vote their way)

  41. Everything is easy if, like marcos, you sit in an armchair all day criticizing others but never doing anything yourself

  42. I’d agree that nobody has built enough new homes

    But that is not an argument to build even fewer

  43. It depends on what comes out of the rezoning as to how many units would be allowed, doesn’t it?

  44. Apples and oranges. They don’t build enough and have never built nearly enough to correspond to the job growth.

  45. Nope, that it has been more difficult to build in Silicon Valley than in San Francisco for a decade now.

  46. But you claimed they do not build enough, and you criticized them for that

    And now you want us to do the same thing?

  47. Yep, put barriers between the greedy and their profits and they do what they have to in order to get at those profits.

  48. Who cares about newcomers of the needs of existing residents are not met? But you hold existing residents in contempt as you’ve previously stated at length.

  49. We should ask foghorn how the polling data worked out in the English election last week, when the left got pulverized, even though polls showed them ahead

  50. An obscure highly localized and specific prop in a low-turnout election terlls you nothing about the popularity of Ed Lee’s pro-jobs, pro-growth policies.

    The same popular policies that are seeing him glide to an easy re-election which, according to you, could not happen

  51. There isn’t any more on the table. Smarter people than you already negotiate the best deal available

  52. Not nearly as much as they are concerned that NIMBYs are denying them the chance of ever buying a home in SF

  53. Of course it is, this tells Ed Lee and developers that they’ve overreached. San Franciscans see overreach and they don’t like it.

  54. Bottom line – your idea leads to fewer new homes

    Notice that you are the ONLY person on this thread arguing for this?

  55. By “spigots being open” do you mean that we have built some new homes, but clearly not nearly enough?

  56. No it won’t, not measurably. This is all fucking around at the margins and quite irrelevant to the intractable general case.

  57. We are not so concerned that somebody somewhere might be making some money

    What we want is more homes at all price points and your idea will shut that down

  58. There already is a shortage. A temporary moratorium will not materially exacerbate the shortage.

  59. San Franciscans are increasingly wary of the get-rich-quick schemes floated by fly-by-night developers.

  60. They more than pay their freight, by funding most of the BMRs that the city builds

    What is your plan for replacing that funding once the developers all go elsewhere?

  61. The nonprofiteers want 100% affordable. I’ll settle for 2/3 of units affordable to a wide range of incomes from very low to moderate income.

  62. It’s not getting built now because the money isn’t there to provide the necessary volume of subsidies

    And you want to cut funding for that even more by banning the new build that pays for that funding

  63. Bingo!

    Moreover the same people who want a moratorium on building new homes have previously criticized Ed Lee for not building enough new homes

  64. People are free to think their shitty 1-BR is “luxury” if they want to.

    Doesn’t make it so.

  65. Wait, now – when the South Bay shuts off the housing supply as its economy booms, you don’t seem to have any trouble regarding this as dangerous. Now, suddenly, you want evidence that the same applies to SF?

  66. Which ‘existing residents’? The guys under the 101 freeway? Renting techies in Noe Valley? Marinagals? Tim Redmond?

    Oh, I see, EVERYONE and ANYONE! Gotchya.

  67. Yes, and housing is not a utility because the government does not control the price of it – the free market does.

  68. If it’s being built and sold, then it’s “affordable”. What you (and Campos and his followers) seem to want is 100% subsidized housing, which just ‘aint gonna happen, no matter how many tantrums people throw.

  69. Those who want zero new development are arguing that we should continue to ration housing by ability to pay

  70. I wonder how a ballot measure to end *all* development in the MIssion permanently would do? The “moratorium” is a deceit and a joke.

    But lets have at it. Soon it will extend to most other neighborhoods – and we’re right back to 1979, where new units coming online were in the low 3-digits annually. .Meanwhile, populaiton keeps increasing from 680k – 860k.

    Wanna borrow a shoehorn?

  71. A problem which neither you, nor anyone else advocating for the moratorium, has presented a realizable solution for.

  72. utility
    A business that provides an essential service, generally under government regulation. Electric companies, gas transmission firms, and local telephone companies are utilities.

  73. IMHO, thats right. Wasn’t too long ago that BH had its own set of hardened crims. Mostly south of Cortlandia (but some west and north).

  74. This will be the greatest upset since Generic Republican defeated Obama in the 2012 election, as a late 2011 poll promised me it would.

  75. If that much of an SF housing development is pure profit, then this should be an easy situation. After all, the community land trust should just be able to grab some land and put up _reams_ of cheaper housing easily, right? No problem! Just take the profit off!

    And yet, somehow … we don’t see reams of nonprofit housing going up. I’m sure this is the result of marcos’s Grand Nonprofit Conspiracy Theory, of course, and not at all related to the fact that it’s actually pretty hard to do.

  76. But the leverage compounds the risk.

    And if that amount of leverage is needed to make a fair profit then clearly the costs are already very high, and pushing that will simply lead to the city losing the funds.

  77. No, developers will simply do what they always do. Crunch the numbers and decide whether to invest in SF or elsewhere (or in this case, in the Mission or elsewhere).

    Demand 50% BMR and you lose both the MR homes and the BMR homes.

    How will the city replace those lost BMR funds? (Rhetorical question because we already know that you dont know)

  78. That’s for the project as a whole, the leveraged gains of the developers are many times that.

  79. It is their job if we make it so they have to do that job before they get to print money by building housing in San Francisco.

  80. It isn’t their job to find money for BMRs. That is the city’s job.

    If we build nothing, the developers will build elsewhere instead, and the city will have LESS money for affordable homes

  81. So they may instead build in other parts of the country where they can make a reasonable ROI.

    Meanwhile, if you want to see affordable housing get built instead, figure out where the money’s going to come from, right _now_. Campos and his crew sure don’t seem to know.

  82. You didn’t say housing is “necessary”. You said it was a utility. It is the former but not the latter.

    Air is a necessity but it is not a utility. Two different things

  83. Clearly housing is a life necessity like water and electricity that functions poorly under market competition, therefore housing is a utility.

  84. Developers can figure out where the money comes from if they want to build luxury condos.

  85. 25% when applied over several years is a fairly low rate of annual return given the risks taken

  86. The rates of return on high rise projects are north of 25% on capital committed. The developers are highly leveraged and get many times return on capital invested.

  87. OK, so you have no clue where the money would come from? Got it.

    We can discuss rezoning without a moratorium. We do it all the time.

  88. After the rezoning that happens during the moratorium, I’d imagine that these arrangements would be worked out. A moratorium is not forever, it provides space for a reconsideration of land use controls and exactions. Tighter rules would force developers to spend their money doing what they can to find the resources to build affordable housing. They’re politically savvy and connected, I am sure that they can figure it out.

  89. It does, and what it says to us is: “It’s f-in’ expensive to build anything at all in San Francisco.”

  90. When they all market their units as luxury condomimiums or premium rentals, then they are calling their product luxury. It is sold as such and it is purchased as such. The market in its infinite, magical and mystical wisdom speaks more clearly than you or I mere mortals could contemplate.

  91. Answer his question – where does the money come from if you have no fees from MR housing?

  92. It’s easier to see in Noe Valley where people do discuss this, and which is nearly 100% white so interlopers are obvious.

    The idea that zero percent of crime in Bernal comes from Mission residents is highly unlikely. Some may also come from the Bayshore area. Race might be a clue – is most of the crime you see blacks or Hispanics?

  93. Make it so that developers of for-profit housing can’t build until the needs of existing residents are met first and developers will figure out a way to meet the needs of existing residents.

  94. Realtors always talk up their stock. But no reasonable person thinks that a small one-bedroom flat in a higher-than-average crime area is luxury.

  95. You always want to go to the ballot with 2/3 in the bank in favor of a measure that requires 50%+1.

  96. Yes, why should the supervisors and voters let get Campos get away with exporting his housing problems to other parts of town?

  97. Yes, sffoghorn really should disclose his personal financial interest in a policy idea like this

  98. Any poll question that asks something like “Should X be helped . . ?” is bogus. You might as well ask if mothers should be helped. It says nothing about whether voters believe that building new homes will lower housing costs, which I suspect almost nobody believes

  99. When you have to pay Ferrari prices just to get any apartment built in the first place, how do you sell it like a Toyota?

  100. It’s an observation, marcos, not a threat. And yes, things can always get worse. (Unless you own a condo in the Mission, of course, as I’m told you do; no concerns for you.)

  101. According to a citywide poll conducted in late February, a wide majority of registered voters are on board.

    Sixty-five percent of city voters polled said they’d support a ballot measure to halt “new project approvals in the Mission District for one year” while a plan to help businesses and nonprofits from being displaced is crafted, according to a survey of 602 likely voters conducted by David Binder and Associates in February. Only 26 percent of voters said they were opposed.

  102. Government responsibility to regulate a utility like housing is well established. That will not simply involve building luxury condos in the Mission. it will involve a wide range of changes to ensure that housing production matches the needs of the population first.

    This cannot happen one unit at a time. In order to address this, issues of taxation, finance and interest rates, free flow of capital, barriers to relocation/labor mobility and the like need to be addressed. All other things being equal, diminishing restraints on capital against urban housing solely enriches developers and landlords of those newly produced luxury units.

  103. Like the nearby owners don’t have incentive now? You’ve got to be kidding. Not building only will cause evictions to increase and haave property values increase.

  104. It really is frustrating. No one on the anti-development side wants to talk money. Conversations quickly devolve into shouts of “100% affordable” with little regard for how that could actually be achieved beyond nebulous ideas like “tax the rich”.

  105. “Nearby Noe Valley is already very trendy, and, while more expensive than the Mission, fully within the range of many dot-comers.”

    Nope. I can tell you for sure that the more recent waves of tech workers will never be able to find and buy a Noe Valley house/apartment, if only because you can count the number actually on the market each month on your hands. Possibly one of them.

    Now, if Campos et al had decided to demand that other neighborhoods upzone, instead of just joining the NIMBY wave, we might be having a different conversation here. But that is not what is on the table now.

  106. That may be partially true, but I don’t think it describes the situation entirely. There are a lot of neighborhoods in San Francisco. Nearby Noe Valley is already very trendy, and, while more expensive than the Mission, fully within the range of many dot-comers. The fact remains that when you build expensive, high-end housing in the Mission, property values go up and owners of the rest of the property have an incentive to sell or find ways to boost the rent.

  107. That’s the problem they’re going to face here: call a housing moratorium if you will, but don’t expect the rest of the world to immediately indulge you by pronouncing a local job-creating moratorium, or a desiring-to-move-to-SF moratorium.

  108. They call it “luxury” just because of the price. Some still seem to cling to this myth that developers could sell condos for $200K a pop if they really wanted to, and they just choose to go for a higher-end market and charge several times that because Greed.

    They can’t accept the unfortunate truth that, given land/labor/permitting costs and height limits, this is how much it actually costs to build anything in SF and make a profit. (Or at least enough of a profit to get loans for a project.)

  109. “What is it that compels Bernal residents to insinuate themselves into the land use politics of the Mission District?”

    Because land use policies in the Mission affect Bernal, and everywhere else in the vicinity, obviously.

    South Bay cities could just as easily give an analogous response to you if you demanded they built more housing to make up for the jobs they attract.

  110. “Dirtbag”. Of course.

    SF progressive activists really are the local version of teabaggers: Supporting policy out of spite. Supporting policies that are bad for _their_ own wellbeing out of spite. Incapable of responding to counterargument with anything but blind abuse, straw men (“WHY DO YOU LOVE DISPLACEMENT?! WHY DO YOU LOVE EVICTORS?!”) and accusations of evildoing.

    And, depressingly: unwittingly serving the cause of people much wealthier than themselves.

  111. In order to prevent gentrification, you would need to stop new people from moving into the Mission. A moratorium doesn’t stop people from moving there, it only forces them to displace existing residents.

  112. Sam, any junior economics student can also tell you that new market-rate housing in the Mission brings gentrification, a combination of higher prices and dislocation of existing residents, a concept that you endorsed elsewhere in this thread. This isn’t just about more housing, it’s about the character of the community.

  113. In other wordsSam, you have no real evidence. I have a little bit to the contrary. I’m a member of a neighborhood watch group in Bernal and we discuss crime. Never has what you say been suggested in our discussions. I’ve been to meetings with the SFPD. Never has our proximity to the Mission been raised as a crime issue.

    I think you’re making things up again.

  114. Bernal is (these days) a fairly wealthy enclave surrounded by much larger and poorer neighborhoods. It’s not unreasonable to posit that much of the crime in Bernal is imported from adjacent areas.

    People I know who live in Noe Valley have told me similar things i.e. that some of hardened elements from the Mission stroll over to Noe because the pickings are richer and easier.

    I didn’t say anything about race. You raised the idea that race may be a marker for crime, and if you are correct than that may be a factor here too.

  115. Anyone who touts a totally counter-intuitive theory like less supply = lower prices has the burden of proof here.

    No such burden exists for anyone who subscribes to the mainstream idea that less supply = higher prices.

  116. I’m always interesting in hearing scientific data Viva, and there is far too little of it in these discussions. Please disclose.

  117. Sam, why do you suspect that much of the crime in Bernal comes from Mission residents? Is this caused by their color or ethnicity? The language they speak? Other evidence you care to divulge?

  118. Yes, the analogy with climate change deniers was telling. In both cases they just ignore the vast body of evidence that refutes the idea and, moreover, they insult anyone who points out the obvious flaws with the idea.

  119. Conflating market rate housing with “luxury” is one of the things that annoys me the most about these housing policy arguments. Market rate housing is simply priced at a level that people associate with “luxury,” when in fact $3,400/mo for a 1BR doesn’t get you the palace people envision. The palaces cost north of $5k. The idea that building nicer units in the mission will somehow raise land values to a level that will encourage increased evictions is silly. Prices are already at that level, far beyond a point at which it would be profitable to build anything resembling what they would consider “affordable.”

  120. Yes, but realistically I can’t see the other supervisors agreeing to either idea, and nobody so far has presented a reason why they would support it.

    Discussions about planning should be city-wide and don’t require arbitrary time-outs. They just require good faith discussions – something that Campos seems scared of.

  121. LOL, a totally discredited and biased poll?

    If support is so widespread then why have I not encountered a single person outside of 48Hills who supports it?

  122. Some of the Mission is also 94114. But most of the Mission shares 94110 with Bernal. They are siblings, if not twins.

  123. Yes, Foghron has given up trying to argue his case here as he knows he cannot. All he keeps saying and hoping is that the voters are as stupid as he clearly thinks they are.

  124. Interesting that marcos changed his handle here in order to try and duck that hypocrisy allegation.

    But his trite predictability gave him away and his plan failed. As you say, he’s got his so F*** everyone else

  125. I think my issue with this article is Tim calling Dreier a “preeminent urban theorist” when his most famous publication has nothing to do with urban policy and he teaches at a middling college. No need to fluff things unnecessarily….

  126. How does government responsibility to regulate mean that building housing in the Mission is counterproductive?

  127. And where is the polling data that you speak of? If it’s the one that has been repeatedly attacked because of its methodology, I don’t know why you keep on harping about it. It’s embarrassing to criticize conservatives on their anti-science views like I constantly do and then watch the progressives on the left refuse to understand basic economic theory (and I’m not talking about supply side/trickle down economics).

  128. When did Campos restrict the proposed moratorium to ‘luxury housing’? Market rate need not be luxury. That lately market rate development in the city generally is targeted at the high end suggests the solution: change incentives. Tax luxury. Subsidize utility.

    Not that it matters – sympathetic characters in policy stories make for lazy, navel-gazing, New-York-Times-style me-me-me journalism – but Portola seemed pretty affordable as recently as five or so years ago. Portola is a nice little neighborhood.

  129. I read the Chronicle article. It was reasonably balanced (by Chronicle standards) but I didn’t get the sense that it was a comprehensive look a the scholarly research on this issue. This has not been the case, as VivaShotwell noted, with the climate change issue.

  130. In order to address industrial scale problems, government must regulate industry rather than demanding crumbs from individuals.

    In order to address housing, government needs to regulate industry to produce the kind of housing that solves problems instead of the kind of housing that gooses developers’ bottom lines.

  131. The institution people use to solve collective action problems has a name. That name is ‘government’, not ‘industry’.

  132. Much appreciated Tim. It’s true: We don’t always agree on policy. But we are 100% aligned on the objective. Minimizing displacement and making home ownership more affordable to more longtime San Franciscans like Chuck is what this is all about. Our differences are those of means, not ends. Thanks for everything you do here at 48Hills.

  133. The burden of solving industrial scale problems must rest with industry, not individuals.

  134. He also didn’t say that he can’t imagine why any supervisor would object to the moratorium, just to hearing it as a committee of the whole.

  135. I asked you for evidence of this alleged city-wide support.

    You respond with an insult. So why would any reader believe you?

    We will find out tomorrow when the Board of Supervisors rejects the idea.

    Same day Greece has to pay over 700 million Euros which it hasn’t got. Should be an entertaining day for socialism-watchers.

  136. Keep on telling yourself that, smiles everyone, smiles here on Sam’s Fantasy Troll Island!

  137. How so? The racism looks fairly clear to me. Campos wants more Hispanics in the Mission because he is Hispanic. And because they are more likely to vote for him and whomever he annoints to replace him.

    If Farrell argued for more whites in Marina, you would not hesitate to call him a racist. Why the double standard?

  138. Same zip code, same district, adjacent neighborhoods, why shouldn’t Bernal residents opine on how they want the Mission to be?

    And I suspect much of the crime in Bernal comes from Mission residents, so upgrading and gentrifying the Mission will be good for Bernal as well.

  139. What citywide support? Nobody outside the Mission is going to care either way. And why should one neighborhood get to selfishly export its housing needs to the others free of charge? Why would voters and supervisors in the other 10 districts support that?

    They don’t, of course.

  140. Just because no one person can solve global warming does not imply that none of us should try and do something towards solving it

    Similarly, the fact that we can never build enough homes to make SF as cheap as Detroit does not imply that we should build no new homes.

  141. Redmond notes some academic from “Occidental College” (wherever the hell that is) and yet ignores all the research from other far more prestigious colleges that say otherwise.

  142. Your inability to refute my arguments and instead resort desperately to throwing out one-line insults is well noted.

  143. There is citywide support for a moratorium on market rate housing to give time to fix Eastern Neighborhoods. How that proceeds needs to arise from the Mission and Campos, the Bernal squadron and the East Bay commuter corps must defer to residents on how to proceed. They have done enough damage to the Mission over the past few decades.

  144. Totally agree. It’s complete BS that David Campos is messing with land use politics in the Mission. Dude should just stick to Cortland Avenue and call it a day.

  145. Tim, since you “can’t imagine why any supes would object” to the moratorium idea, here are four reasons:

    1) Any junior year economics students can tell you that in a free market, less supply = higher prices for any relatively inelastic product or service.

    2) It reeks of envy i.e. the idea that more successful people somehow don’t deserve a new home

    3) It says that it is OK for Hispanics to grow in number but that they can never be allowed to decline in number. That is racist.

    4) It will take money away from affordable housing because the city will lose the set-aside BMR’s and BMR fees.

    And quit with the “but it’s only 45 days” nonsense. Everyone knows that if it were put in place, Campos would try and extend it, extend it again, and then make it permanent if he could. Call the thing what it is. If you want to have a debate about zoning then we can have that debate without arbitrary time-outs. Or do you lack confidence that the idea is persuasive?

  146. Building housing in the Mission at all costs to solve the housing crisis is like turning on the AC full blast to forestall global warming.

  147. What is it that compels Bernal residents to insinuate themselves into the land use politics of the Mission District?

    It is almost as if Bernal residents have decided to throw the Mission to the developers in order to forestall the march of the luxury condos into their enclave for a few years longer.

    This is par for the course that under the rule of the neoliberal progressives, residents are to be marginalized and outsiders from Bernal and commuter advocates from the East Bay are designated to represent the helpless Mission residents when cutting deals to divvy up the spoils with developers.

  148. The moratorium crowd is just like climate-change deniers. “One scientist says climate change isn’t real!” [Even though the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that it’s really happening]”

  149. The article in Bernalwood is right on the money. It even calls out Campos on his racial quotas.

Comments are closed.

More by this author

Radical right group is trying to attack public-sector labor in SF

Anti-union mailers are going to workers home addresses -- but really, this group is looking pretty desperate.

Breed won’t promise to spend real-estate tax money on rent relief

The voters approved Prop. I last fall to support tenants and affordable housing, but the mayor says she will use the money for her own priorities.

Reese Erlich, foreign correspondent and radical reporter, is dead at 73

After a life of progressive politics, ground-breaking journalism, and social activism, a legendary writer loses battle with cancer.

There’s a lot more to the GG Park debate than cars v. bikes

This is part of a huge discussion the city needs to have about transportation -- and equity -- in a post-COVID world.

SF could have affordable Internet for everyone for $35 a resident

Why isn't the Breed Administration moving for municipal broadband? That's The Agenda for April 11-18

Most read

COVID outbreaks continue in workplaces in California

The pandemic is far from over -- particularly for workers in vulnerable occupations.

New COVID-conscious Kapwa Gardens celebrates Filipino culture

Outdoor activity site in SOMA Pilipinas district was designed with safety in mind as people begin to gather again.

Money for ‘safe sleeping’ shelters — or permanent supportive housing?

Legislation by Sup. Rafael Mandelman aims to get people off the streets -- but homeless advocates are not supporting it. That's The Agenda for April 18-25

COVID denial is a grim rerun of AIDS denialism

Two decades ago, a cult-like crowd believed that HIV was harmless and AIDS was a plot. Many of them ended up dead.

You might also likeRELATED