Monday, April 19, 2021
Uncategorized The Mission comes to City Hall

The Mission comes to City Hall


Huge crowd fills the rotunda and demands that the mayor recognize the emergency in the community

Hundreds pack the Hall to demand an end to evictions -- and a halt to luxury housing in the Mission
Hundreds pack the Hall to demand an end to evictions — and a halt to luxury housing in the Mission

By Tim Redmond

MAY 8, 2015 — At least 500 people, maybe more, packed the City Hall Rotunda today and then marched through the second floor hallways to the Mayor’s Office demanding an end to the evictions in the Mission and halt to market-rate housing.

“Mayor Lee, can’t you see, this an an emergency,” they chanted as they called for the mayor to come out and talk to them.

But Lee was nowhere to be found.

In fact, the only three elected officials I saw at the mass rally were Public Defender Jeff Adachi and Sups. John Avalos and David Campos.

Campos has introduced legislation calling for an emergency moratorium on market-rate housing in the Mission.

The rally was scheduled to start at noon, but the Sheriff’s Department had (for reasons that were never clear) blocked off the front steps of City Hall and left a narrow path for people who wanted to enter. It took quite a while for the crowd to get through security, and as the speakers began, more people kept arriving.

The Rotunda was packed by 12:30
The Rotunda was packed by 12:30

Organizers wanted to send a loud message to Lee and to the supervisors who are still wavering on the Campos plan: Residents of the Mission want some dramatic action to end the hyper-gentrification of their neighborhood.

One of the main targets: The giant development plan for 16th and Mission known as “the Monster in the Mission.”

A banner saying "enough" in three languages survived for a few minutes, before deputies ripped it down.
A banner saying “enough” in three languages survived for a few minutes, before deputies ripped it down.

At one point, the demonstrators unfurled banners from the second floor railings, but sheriff’s deputies, citing a long-time ban on signs inside City Hall, tore them from the hands of the activists and carried them away.

(That’s an odd law, by the way: I can understand why you can’t mount a poster or a sign on the walls of the historic structure, but why can’t you hang one for a few minutes over the balcony?)

SF Poet Laureate Alejandro Murguia got the crowd going
SF Poet Laureate Alejandro Murguia got the crowd going

Then the crowd went upstairs.

The 16th and Mission development is a major target of Mission activists
The 16th and Mission development is a major target of Mission activists

The mayor has been unsupportive of attempts to limit high-end housing, arguing that more housing of all types will eventually bring down prices. But it’s pretty clear that the longtime residents of the Mission don’t buy that. Rising land values fuel gentrification — that’s been the case for decades all over the country. And luxury housing fuels rising land values.

After a couple of loops around the second floor, where most of the supervisors were nowhere to be seen (although Avalos opened his door and his office to the protesters), the march wound up in front of the Mayor’s Office, where the door was tightly closed and blocked by deputies.

Nobody made any effort to enter, although Mission community leader Roberto Hernandez knocked on the door and announced: “Mayor Lee, open the door so we can pay you a visit.”

At one point, the door cracked open just a tiny bit — but nobody came out.

A tiny crack in the door is the closest the activists got to a meeting with the mayor
A tiny crack in the door is the closest the activists got to a meeting with the mayor

Among other things, Hernandez  said the activists wanted the mayor to call a State of Emergency and use those powers to halt the evictions. He called on the mayor to take all the tax money coming from Airbnb in the Mission and put that back into affordable housing in the neighborhood. And he said “no more luxury condos for the Mission.”

After SEIU Local 1021 bought pizza for all, the group sat in front of the Mayor's Office to wait for him
After SEIU Local 1021 bought pizza for all, the group sat in front of the Mayor’s Office to wait for him

Even Senator (and former Mayor) Dianne Feinstein got into the act
Even Senator (and former Mayor) Dianne Feinstein got into the act

By 2pm, a huge stack of pizzas supplied by SEIU Local 1021 arrived, and the protesters sat down to wait for the mayor. But it became clear he wasn’t going to show.

“He’s waiting for Mayor Ron Conway to tell him it’s okay,” one activist quipped.

Still, the message was delivered, and below the general festivity of the event, the anger was clear. This isn’t going away.

Sup. David Campos, who is fighting for a temporary halt to luxury housing in the Mission, was on the scene with his aide Hilary Ronen
Sup. David Campos, who is fighting for a temporary halt to luxury housing in the Mission, was on the scene with his aide Hilary Ronen

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. This event demonstrates the most outstanding feature of housing activists in San Francisco, and that is that they are unpaid City Hall functionaries. This event, ignored by all who didn’t participate in it, is proof positive of this. Among other things, the best way to get politicians to ignore you is to go out of your way to tell them how very much they mean to you. The activist set in SF have spent many years refraining from engaging in the only kind of strategy and tactics that could save San Francisco from being turned into a combination gated community and office park — and that’s to make specific parts of the city that are currently under siege very unpleasant places for bourgeois interlopers to shop, dine, quaff, and dwell.

    Only actions that do visible damage to the economic interests of the cyber-gentry and the cyber-Babbitts can make a difference. No San Francisco housing activist has ever attempted anything like this. An endless series of hissy-fits pitched at surrogates for parental authority at mommy and daddy’s place might get this or that “organizer” a job with benefits in Nancy Pelosi’s office, but it won’t keep the city from being ruined, keep those currently under threat from getting their housing ripped off — and it won’t bring back any of us who have already been driven out of San Francisco.

  2. The real story is that Sam/Sybil has hijacked this discussion board with his trollish nonsense, just as he did the previous one.
    Wasn’t there supposed to be a 3 post limit or something?

  3. The Plan took 10 years to develop, during which it was open numerous times to public input. Where were these protesters then?

  4. Ken Rich only consulted SPUR and HAC when considering how to rezone the North Mission during Eastern Neighborhoods.

  5. On Transit, arrive at 8:20

    From 20th and Mission to Oakland, 44 min. > 30 min.

    From 20th and MIssion to San Jose, 103 min. > 70 min.

    From 20th and Mission to Sunnyvale, 94 min. > 80 min.

    Three for three is pretty good no matter what .

  6. Residents were getting excluded, marginalized and rolled during the “planning process.”

  7. Sorry, I meant that the Mission is not underdeveloped compared to many of the other neighborhoods in the city. I agree the Mission should be upzoned, but there’s plenty of less dense areas in the city that are just single family housing.

  8. The Mission is part of the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan which took what, 10 years of planning to implement? And only now are some residents protesting for a moratorium? Where were they during the 10 year planning process?

  9. Rents have risen but not doubled in ten years as we’ve seen recently. Housing prices have risen, but not doubled as we’ve seen in the past ten years. Thanks for playing.

  10. OK, well my point is that people like foghorn think parochially. Housing should be approached as a BayArea-wide problem. Not just SF and certainly not just the Mission.

    Some people currently in the Mission might be better served by living elsewhere. In that way we can house the new workers we need without building an impossible number of homes in 94110.

  11. Yes, the Mission could be considerably up-zoned and should be. It has everything needed for greater densities

  12. This is objectively true. We haven’t built much new housing of any kind in the Mission for the last 10 years or so, and Campos loves to remind us, the Latino population has been falling. If not building were the answer, the reverse would be true.

  13. Yes, and the fact that some lefties didn’t anticipate macro economic trends doesn’t mean that all of us failed there. Some of us made serious scratch from precisely predicting what foghorn failed to predict.

  14. Stopping one single development when 999 others have proceeded doesn’t make NIMBYs like you winners. You have lost.

  15. Local production will make a difference. Zero local production will make even more of a difference

  16. Yes, once you realize that the real city is the Bay Area and not just the most desirable parts of it, then the problem falls away

  17. Logically the Mission should bear that brunt because it is large, flat, under-developed and has good transportation

  18. That seems roughly right. Land use regulations start to tighten then, too, and by 1970 had changed significantly.

  19. Fascinating graph on historical rents. Thank you for sharing that. Interesting thing to note is that the graph starts to go up sharply just around the time when San Francisco completed its build-out. After around 1960, there just wasn’t that much more empty land to fill.

  20. I don’t think the moratorium is a good idea, but I also don’t think it’s surprising given that the Mission has had to bear the brunt of the population increase. Given that displacement is happening now and any development is going to be too expensive for a while, the Mission residents are using their political clout to try to generate a better solution that’s more in their (rational) self interest. You better believe it’s what the folks in the Sunset or Pac Heights would do.

  21. Thinking about funding is an unnecessary distraction. Simple inspection of the BLS employment data is all it takes.

    Tech employment is a very small component of employment growth in the Bay Area. It has not driven population growth.

  22. Union City is:
    – 70 minutes to San Jose
    – 30 minutes to Oakland
    – 80 minutes to Sunnydale

    One for three is pretty good in baseball.

  23. Substantially every sentence in that paragraph that can be tested against the data is false. What is nonfalsifiable is in the realm of faith, not reason. Faith can and does sustain the spirit, but it is a terrible way to analyze policy.

    To take just the first, here are relative rents for 100 years:

    Relative rents have gone straight up for six decades. 60+ years is plenty of time to anticipate and build.

  24. Union City/Newark to San Jose or Oakland or Sunnydale is less.

    San Francisco is not the center of the Bay Area job universe.

  25. There was no way to anticipate and build to the bubble in the decades leading up to it. The capital was not in place to do so. In fact, the way we know that the capital was ready to build is that there enough after finance deregulated and was given a safety net post-crash, to purchase government and change the rules to allow more housing production. There was enough capital in place as soon as it could effectively rent seek.

  26. VC firms throw capital into the local market, much of which goes to house employees of firms funded by VC. A good chunk of the $11b in VC in SF last year alone goes to housing and is but one component to hyper demand. Thanks for playing.

  27. What percentage of Bay Area jobs are in San Francisco, 15%?

    Clearly, the only important metric for housing construction is commute time to Montgomery and Marker, not to the other 85% of job sites.

  28. Housing is durable and its supply changes slowly, while demand can change quickly, making it appear to the post hoc economist that only demand matters.

    Post hoc thinking is a good way to make mistakes.

  29. This line of argument is appealing, but wrong. VC firms do not use residential housing, people do. Residential prices rise for one reason only: when demand outstrip supply.

    The BLS tracks employment. It is easy to check the data. Tech and VC employment is a very small component of employment growth in the Bay Area. It has not driven population growth.

  30. BART from Union City to SF is 50 minutes, not 80.

    The L from 46th is 35 minutes.

    BART from 16th & Mission is 7 minutes.

    The efficient solution is to build in the Mission.

  31. RE values will increase so long as macro trends continue, local production has nothing to do with it.

  32. The voters want a pause, I agree with the voters. You disagree with the voters because you hate the voters.

  33. And the people have made their decision on the leaders they elect via the ballot box on measures. That scares the shit out of you.

  34. And in 3-5 years, half the people in this crowd will be gentrified out or priced out. These protests fall on deaf ears, because Ed Lee/Ron Conway/Rose Pak run this city. If you can’t afford the rent, move to a place where you can. Stop bitching and whining about something you can’t afford and just leave for a different city. Upward mobility is NOT that hard when you clearly have the option to better your situation. Oakland is still affordable because people are moving to the DESIRED neighborhoods, and not East Oakland/North Oakland/certain areas by Lake Merritt. Leave!

  35. Evidence? All you have is hope that the electorate are as stupid as you are, and dont understand supply/demand

  36. The majority think it is massively dumb idea, and you well know that

    Get out more and you will learn that

  37. The financial reality is that if we build no new homes, RE values will increase by more than if we aggressively build new homes. Basic supply and demand is the real financial reality.

  38. Existing residents already have homes.

    The question is about the 200,000 people who will move here. And whether we will build homes for them or whether they will displace those already here.

  39. I am aware of little support for it. Have you read the local blogs on this? They are universally opposed. You should get out beyond your little coterie of like-minded NIMBYS

  40. No I support diversity rather than allowing one race to never have to suffer any slight loss of population. you want to install racial preferences; I am color-blind

  41. The majority supports a moratorium, you are the one opposing what the majority wants because you are a hypocrite.

  42. The economic realities are what they are irrespective of the individual financial position of any single person.

  43. A moratorium is a temporary halt pending a reconfiguration of land use regulations and you know that. You’re just being a trolling little shit now.

  44. There is no best way to lessen SF RE prices. The best we can do is to tilt the arrangements so that existing San Franciscans are not subsidizing gentrification.

  45. Politics is not always realistic. You just lose your shit when the tilt is towards the people away from developers.

  46. The moratorium conveys the seriousness with which the people demand fair, equitable, honest and comprehensive planning.

    Clearly the prospect of a moratorium has commanded your feeble attentions.

  47. So you support ethnic cleansing via economic means?

    Clearly the nonprofiteers do not and they have failed thus far to forestall it.

  48. Sffoghorn, please explain why the Mission should have racial quotas in the manner you suggest?

    Why do you prefer some races to other races, and what does that tell us about your biases and prejudices?

  49. Lee cannot lose if nobody challenges him.

    Why don’t you run against him on a “build nothing” platform since you are so confident?

  50. If you want a debate on planning then we can have that.

    No need for a moratorium to have a discussion

  51. It is not realistic to have cheap homes in an expensive town for anyone other than a few lucky lottery winners

    The real need is to build enough new homes in SF so that we can house the successful knowledge workers that we need AND in the east bay for the service workers and lower paid

  52. That depends on who we care about.

    SF RE may well inflate forever. All the more reason to invest in SF RE.

    The best way to lessen SF RE prices is to add to supply, both in SF (for wealthier folks) and in Union City (for poorer folks)

  53. Except that there is zero evidence that the voters want no new homes forever. You made that part up. Heck even on this left-wing blog almost everyone disagrees with it.

    Personally I dont care because my RE will inflate if it passes, but I think it’s a shame for all the extra tenants who will be evicted as a result.

  54. You should be less obsessed that a few people are being successful and more concerned that we are not building enough homes for those who are moving here anyway, ensuring that housing will continue to be allocated by price rather than by sufficiency.

  55. But the people do win because they get to elect the decision-makers. The fact that you personally don’t like the decisions the majority approve of doesn’t matter.

    We the people choose to elect people who support development

  56. There is no way to know how many people want no new homes, but I’d guess it’s around 500.

    Although I would be far from “fucked” if by some flook it passed. I own RE in the Mission and will see it become more valuable.

    I win either way.

  57. A thunderous increase in demand via profitable global tech giants headquartered in the region, global capital seeking investment opportunities and $11b of venture capital pouring into the region over the past 7 years is what has caused prices to rise.

    There was no way that public policy could have anticipated this kind of unprecedented increase in demand before hand and built out to proactively accommodate it.

  58. The fact that the nonprofiteers did not stop any developments is a bug, not a feature.

    What Sam hallucinates as the worst case scenario should have happened but did not.

    When Eastern Neighborhoods was approved in 2008, the nonprofit class signed on approvingly, awaiting their crumbs.

    When their crumbs proved insufficient and 10% of Latinos were extirpated from the Mission, now, all of a sudden they realize their error.

    It is nice that they realize their error seven years after the fact, but should these people who signed onto crap deals be at the head of figuring out how to get this right this time?

    Can the Mission really afford for them to fuck it up again which odds are, if given the chance, that they will?

    They sure can, as they get paid no matter the outcome.

  59. It is all about other people and the cooties they have.

    How can “the people” win when developers buy the government out from under the people?

    Like the progressive nonprofits, you boosters hold San Franciscans in utter contempt.

    That is why the two groups cut deals to benefit them and screw most everyone else.

    Good riddance to the lot of you.

  60. But better zoning crafted during and put in place after a moratorium would create more affordable housing over a longer time.

  61. Voters want a time out, they will get a time out. You are losing your shit at the prospect of losing at the ballot three times in a row on land use and housing matters.

  62. So long as demand increases faster than supply nobody we care about will see lower housing prices.

  63. Progressives are seeking the holy grail. Much like the foolish endlessly seek a method of turning trash into gold, they think that all homes in SF can be made cheap if only they could come up with the perfect solution.

    Trouble is they have tried every possible solution e.g. rent control, zoning, public housing, building, not building etc. And it just doesn’t matter because you can’t fit a quart into a point glass no matter how you try.

    So their latest desperate idea is the best yet. Build absolutely nothing and homes will be cheap again! Genius! Oh, and instead build lots of cheap homes, without a word about where the money is coming from. Even more genius.

    If that kind of thinking (with some old school racism thrown in) is what Campos got from his Yale education, he should ask for his tuition money back. Except of course he probably had that all paid by some scholarship.

  64. People should move to places like Union City. That is a perfect location for people who find SF to be too expensive for them. A 30 minute BART ride wouldn’t hurt anyone and is environmentally friendly.

    Not everyone can afford to live in the world’s favorite city.

  65. Demand need not exceed supply as long as the price is allowed to move up and down to balance the two.

  66. On the contrary. Almost all the new homes get sold or rented very quickly. So clearly they are affordable – just not by you.

  67. Yes, those people are moving here anyway. SF will have over a million people by 2040. We need to house them somewhere and large, flat, under-developed tracts of land like the Mission with good transit and infrastructure is the best way to build more height and density.

  68. Salaverry, it would greatly increase the chances of you not being humiliated again the next time you run for office if you can learn how to address criticisms and differing opinions without attributing mental illness to your adversary. That would be a good starting point for someone seeking public office.

    You ask “new housing for whom?” Well why should anyone be in the business of deciding who lives where? Do you want a “political correctness validation committee” deciding who is worthy to live in SF? Would there be a points system? With extra points for being non-white, a poet, having near zero job skills and not showing very often? Who puts you in charge of that.

    And yes, upgrading the populace is something every city is engaged in. SF is competing with other cities for investment $$ and we want the brightest and the best, and not some misfit loser who craves “tolerance”.

    And of course a moratorium will increase evictions. How do I know? Because there has always been a shortage of new homes in the Mission, meaning that people like me have bought buildings and removed the tenants, one way or another. Stopping the construction of even the small number of homes currently planned will simply accelerate that process.

    Interesting that the same people who criticize Lee for not building enogh new homes are now arguing to build none at all!

  69. Yes, the hatred of developers, tech workers, realtors, landlords and anyone achieving success is a big factor here, AKA envy.

    Then there are the NIMBYs who have theirs and don’t want anyone else to climb on board.

    Moratorium = NIMBYs + the envy mob. The majority want more new homes

  70. All those people you cite, plus Hestor, own SF RE and financially benefit from NIMBYism as it drives up their property holdings. Foghorn isn’t in their elagure but he owns Mission RE as well. They are all hypocrites.

    Luckily there is no way this dog wins

  71. Montrouuge, what sffoghorn isn’t telling you is that he owns a condo in the Mission, and so has a vested personal interest in seeing RE values inflate.

    And the best way to inflate RE is to build no more of it.

  72. If that were true, Ed Lee would be heading for an election loss in November.

    He is not. Nobody wants zero new homes

  73. David, you seem to gloss over the basic economics. Existing stock in the Mission will be purchased and evictions will increase if the job market stays the way it is. People who have no option to buy new market rate developments will move on to existing units and still buy up whatever is out there. Owners who sit on properties with rent controlled units will get a better return by selling. My unit has gone up 66% in 3 years and I’m currently refinancing to an even better interest rate. Until the stock/tech market crashes and/or interest rates go up, this will not get better. No amount of fantasy changes the basic equation that there are a lot of people sitting on cash ready to jump in this market.

    It’s disingenuous to say that the market is “over-heated” when interest rates are low and people are coming in with 50% to all cash offers. That’s like saying all the top 10 cities in the world are “over-heated” based on no reason. SF isn’t Des Moines or Wichita Falls.

  74. “I’ve watched this crowd fight development every step along the way.”

    This isn’t true. Sorry. What developments were stopped? Name one.

    The reality is developers didn’t want to build when the market wasn’t sky high and the housing they could have built would have been more affordable. They sat on properties until the real estate boom and now they want to build nothing but luxury-priced units that no one but local multi-millionaires and rich overseas investors can afford.

  75. “building luxury market-rate housing is good for existing mid-to-low income SF residents is likely false”

    Existing residents, by definition, already have housing. New housing – whether lux or “affordable” are most likely not for existing residents; although some wealthier residents may chose those new (lux) units.

    So what the argument really is about is this – do we want more new residents who are wealthier, poorer, or mid-income? And I suppose to answer that one should look at what kind of jobs are being created. Nobody wants to dis jobs (a major issue a couple of years ago, which is where Ed Lee first cut his mayoral teeth). If we (really) want to increase low-income jobs at a greater rate, it must be realized that those jobs will require services that most likely will cost more than the value the low-wage jobs bring – especially to an expensive platform like SF. Sure, you will probably need more service jobs (dining, housecleaning etc) to supply newer wealthier residents. But maybe there are enuf current residents who could fill those jobs. Whats the turnover for teachers, nurses, etc where new bodies will be needed (thus new residents). But that begs the question of keeping residents who’ve migrated out of the job economy but continue (either RC or Prop13 homeowners) to reside here due to financial calcification.

    And yet the “affordable” builders have all kinds of money sitting at City Hall, yet have their thumbs in a dark place. They don’t need a “moratorium” – they just need to get moving.

  76. But halting development doesn’t stop new people from moving to the Mission. That’s the flaw in the plan. The new people will force out existing tenants unless they have newly built apts to move into.

  77. A rolling time out on housing is more or less what has led to the existing problem…

    Just because they’re on BART doesn’t mean it’s not suburban. It takes an hour and twenty minutes from Newark to get to downtown SF by BART. That’s hugely inefficient for people and in terms of energy usage.

    I’m a born and raised San Franciscan, went to only neighborhood schools. I don’t think having people spend 3 hours out of their day to travel between home and work is a good idea.

    How about this. Upzone and lower restrictions on building in the Richmond and Sunset, expedite the process in exchange for developers chipping in to a fund to pay for transit development along the major corridors? We need to incentivize building outside of the Mission instead of simply just saying “no” to building in it.

  78. The City should take a hint from the voters, call a time out and figure out how to do it better.

    Newark and Union City are on the BART line, not suburban, central, not sprawl. Remember Transit Oriented Development? You’ve not lived around these parts long, have you?

    I support identifying billions to build a comprehensive rapid transit system in San Francisco. Nobody has even begun that process.

  79. SolAlex, the new Disqus moniker for that old troll Sam Aspergers (SA, get it?) is mostly a waste of time to argue with. SA really ought to head over to to self-diagnose, and then find professional help… but he won’t. So here’s my one stab at refuting his and similar nonsense.

    “the same failed policies that created the displacement crisis in the first place.” The displacement crisis has many roots. The failure to build is one of them, but the real question is Build for Whom?

    The assumption that building luxury market-rate housing is good for existing mid-to-low income SF residents is likely false. Much more likely is that unregulated MR development will empty what remains of mid-low income people and create a non-diverse, high-income-only SF in a few short years with service workers commuting from Vallejo and Stockton.

    “won’t a moratorium increase evictions?” No. A moratorium cools the over-heated RE market by making the Mission less profitable for speculative developers whose business model is displacement of low-to-moderate income tenants with high income tenants. A moratorium decreases evictions, temporarily, but doesn’t solve the underlying problem, demand pressure and supply constriction.

    “but they are motivated more by envy than anything else. They just hate that some people are successful and can buy things that they can’t afford.” The 500 people at Mission Takes City Hall were motivated by many passions and concerns. But I saw little envy and much outrage.

    Envy assumes the protesters WANT what SolAlex has: a portfolio of properties, a rentier income and a superior economic position as an exploiter. But to those who follow his antics on 48H, SA is a pathetic creature, a Golem motivated by greed who seems himself envious of those whose wealth is in community and relationship.

    To prove the point in SAs own words, “More rents and evictions are highly acceptable if the populace of the city is being upgraded. The last thing this city needs is more parasitic leeching losers demanding subsidies.” YUCK!

    “Tim doesn’t seem energized. He’s smart enough to know that the moratorium is a loser.” On the contrary, Tim seemed quite animated when I said hello. The event went off flawlessly. 500 people showed up, organized by a new leadership cadre who are NOT professional activists and not being paid by nonprofits.

    With the Mission at a gentrification tipping point, a strong counter-attack to developers is coming from the bottom, not from Campos though he will push the ball in the BOS. And polling shows a moratorium might be a winning issue city wide. Why else would HAC be pushing hard for an email counterattack?

  80. So the city should just sit on its hands? That’s not a solution.

    Why would developers build in Newark or Union City, the demand is for centralized locations in the City? Encouraging more suburban sprawl is not the future, and people should live where they work ideally.

    The best way to lower demand for the Mission would be to push for better transit to the lower density areas of the city, and to build housing in those areas. Too bad Campos also opposes developments in those places too, because of XYZ reasons.

  81. So long as demand grows faster than supply could ever grow, adding supply will provide incremental gains while causing all manner of negative and unmitigated impacts. Build this crap in Newark or Union City.

  82. Building more is not a cure, but it can alleviate the symptoms. A moratorium does either nothing or actually adds fuel to the fire. It’s kind of like anti-vaxxers, who in trying to protect their own kid, manages to screw them over AND everyone else.

  83. Incremental solutions to rampaging problems are not solutions be they nonprofit affordable housing or chasing affordability via increased supply. All is magical thinking.

  84. This is true, but hardly is more than none, which also doesn’t add anything to the affordable housing fund for the developments that opt out.

    This moratorium cannot be effective so long as the demand for the Mission exists at current levels. So plan on destroying some BART stations, destroying Dolores Park, and blocking out the sun.

  85. Hardly any of the new construction is affordable. Nobody knows how many units will need to be built to drive down price.

  86. I don’t, but these activists unintentionally do.

    What developer in their right mind is going to develop anything in the Mission during this moratorium.

  87. That’s because they can’t choose whether they actually want more housing/affordability or whether their hate for developers and tall buildings/shadows is more important. Seems like they continue to choose the latter, because then they can say they’re fighting “the man”, which is more fun.

  88. If this wins, people like Campos, Peskin, Calvin Welch, Daly, and
    Redmond win, but the people lose. They’re all home owners and have
    nothing to lose, and everything to gain by keeping housing stagnant.

    I say good riddance though, since this will just further complete the migration of “progressive” activists to the east bay, who will themselves inadvertently cause the displacement of more blacks to places like Antioch.

  89. The interim controls exempt affordable housing from the moratorium. Building affordable housing will make housing more affordable.

    Why should Mission residents submit to economic blackmail?

    Why do you oppose affordable housing?

  90. Along with all the unintended consequences.

    Demand for the Mission already exists, and it’s not going down. Doing nothing about supply now will only exacerbate the current situation and incentivize landlords to find more ways of evicting their tenants, as well as raising rates even higher on vacant units.

    Developers will simply wait out the moratorium, and in the end no affordable housing gets built.

  91. The people want a moratorium on market rate housing in the Mission.

    The people are going to get what they want.

  92. Lee built more homes than your presumed preference, Avalos, would have done.

    And anyway, I thought you agreed with Campos that building zero homes will create multitudes of cheap homes. Good luck with that.

  93. More rents and evictions are highly acceptable if the populace of the city is being upgraded. The last thing this city needs is more parasitic leeching losers demanding subsidies.

  94. “Various polls and focus groups” is not an acceptable citation, even in a discussion thread. Where’s your scholorship? And just how many new homes did Lee build?

  95. Oh, so there’s only one way to deal with SF’s housing issues or could we have a debate about how to deal with SF’s housing issues? With soaring rents and evictions, I don’t think it’s a settled question.

  96. The Mission isn’t the waterfront. Nobody cares if a few thousand more homes are built there. Your plan to boost the value of your condo is doomed.

  97. Evidently you need to study the history of the last election more. Various polls and focus groups indicated the top priorities for a new mayor. Based on that Lee outlined his approach and he got 50% more votes than any other candidate.

    Nobody can control the number of new homes built but Lee built far more than the zero homes that Campos evidently wants

  98. So you are predicating your credibility on the theory that less supply = cheaper prices? Good luck with that.

    “Affordable” housing = subsidized housing. How uch are you personally willing to contribute?

    What do i envy? Whiners? Tenants? Be clear.

  99. You are still talking in generalities Sam. How did he query the voters about their priorities? Is there an article that explains? What were his housing plans? Is there a document? How many new units did he promise and how many did he add?

  100. “Yes, if they really wanted more affordability, they would want more housing”

    They do want more housing, more affordable housing.

    It is you who is motivated by envy.

  101. Let’s flip that around. The Campos legislation is a the latest salvo in a citywide debate about progressive ideas to deal with the housing crisis. And there is a very good chance that the progressives will be defeated, and badly.

  102. The Mission moratorium and rezoning are headed to the ballot and they will win just like on the waterfront.

  103. It’s a few thousand. Probably about 20,000. And they are all newcomers? How do you know?

    And even if true, so what? Why are you prejudiced? Weren’t you a newcomer once too? didn’t you buy a condo in the Mission?

    It’s obvious why you lost that debate years ago.

  104. Who cares what the few hundred newcomers think when tens of thousands of existing residents have been silenced?

  105. I can’t really add to the comments re: the illogic of protesting housing construction because of mass displacement caused by housing scarcity. But it is worth pointing out that as a disciplined (and consequently well behaved) protest focused against elected leader, rather than foolish showmanship directed against tech workers and the companies that employ them, the protesters have probably done something to arouse public sympathy and awareness to their plight. Hopefully (for the current Mission residents’ own good) the result won’t be the enactment of their proposed ban but rather an intensified effort to increase housing supply accross the board, throughout the city.

    (I know, I know. But hope springs eternal.)

  106. Refute what, Mr. Humanity-Loving Paragon of Intellectual Honesty? Your unsubstantiated claims that offer no supporting evidence or your mean-spirited attempts to assess the motives of people you despise?

  107. Again, do the people now living in those new homes think it was “shit”? Have you asked them? If not, why not?

    Why do you advocate for vacuous ideologies rather than for real people who wanted those real homes?

  108. They kept the game going for 8 years, wearing everyone out until the nonprofits were forced to cut a crap deal for their survival, a deal they now admit was for shit.

  109. What does that have to do with housing? Or even Ed Lee?

    If someone in your office gets arrested for kiddie porn, does that make your opinions invalid?

    You sound desperate.

  110. Lee asked the voters what their top priorities were and they said jobs (first) and then housing. He outlined his plans for those and was overwhelming elected over the no-growth NIMBY Avalos.

    Lee has built a few thousand more homes than Avalos would have done, and probably as many as he could. The NIMBYs keep getting in the way, else we would have far more new homes.

  111. IOW, you could not refute their arguments and so you ran away.

    Why don’t you ask some of the thousands of people that plan has housed whether they would prefer that their home had never been built?

    Many of them are white male tech workers who bought a condo in the Mission. Can you relate?

  112. Consultant to S.F. Mayor Ed Lee arrested in child-porn case, our mayor is not having a good weekend

  113. You no doubt have evidence that Lee won his first election on jobs and housing issues. Please share it.

    If he runs on his housing performance during the last 3+ years how do you think he’ll fare? I suspect he’ll try to bury that issue. That’s the point of the 250M housing bond.

  114. So true. The average beneficiary of rent control is an under-employed, semi-educated white boomer who came to SF a few decades ago because they thought it would be “cool” to live here. And they hoard the crappy unit they moved into back when they were young and consider their sweetheart rent control deal to be the crowning achievement of their lives.

    The non-whites and younger folks are generally far less obsessed with rent control, and do not hog housing out of feelings of fear and inadequacy.

  115. No refutation then? Just abuse? No wonder progressives cannot win this or any other debate.

  116. Lee won on two major issues – jobs and housing.

    No moratorium is on the ballot and that would be a terrible way of doing neighborhood planning anyway.

    Nobody claims we can 100% build our way of the housing shortage. At least not while the NIMBY’s hold sway. But equally, nobody claims that Campos’ “stick your head in the sand” ostrich solution will help at all.

  117. The evidence is overwhelmingly that people want new homes.

    That is why Ed Lee won easily and will win again, while Campos can’t even win the east-side of town.

  118. The eastern neighborhoods plan (unlike this dumb moratorium idea) was reached after a long and careful consideration by and consultation with a broad constituency of interests. That is how planning should be done, and not by mob rule as Redmond is suggesting here. People want new homes and the purpose of Planning to to effectively provide them, and not to provide nothing.

  119. Ed Lee is really having a bad weekend no wonder he is hiding. First the folks from the Mission invading city hall and his advisor Enrique Pearce arrested in a child-porn case, with all this shit happening it’s understandable why the mayor is hiding.

  120. These commuter activists are making informed choices to not win and are deliberately orienting themselves towards that end and shutting down any criticism of it as personal attack.

    We need a moratorium and we need comprehensive community based planning to replace the developer-centered Eastern Neighborhoods and Market Octavia luxury condo plans.

    But there is no way that the advocate cadre will trust the people to act in their best interests.

    They will cut a deal with the developers and political conservatives to preserve their interests.

    This is what neoliberal cooption looks like.

  121. There is no way to know how many developers decided to avoid building in the Mission because of the misguided but noisy NIMBY and ENVY elements.

    I see no evidence that a majority of ordinary people oppose new homes, and the non-profits do their job in seeking some affordable units in the mix. But the actions of a small militant minority give no clue as to how ordinary decent people think. People want new homes at all price points.

  122. Sam, you old troll, did you not realize that there are multiple items on the November ballot? In addition to Lee, whom you love, there are Lee’s $250 million housing bond (needs two-thirds) the moritorium in the Mission, and probably a few others.

    Not everyone who will vote for Lee supports what’s happened in housing in the past three-plus years. In fact, probably few do. That’s why Lee proposed the housing bond and will run on a platform that he says will fix SF’s housing issues.

    The debate will be can and should we build our way out of this situation and if so, who suffers collateral damage in the meantime.

  123. What housing have they deterred? Name one project.

    Their goal is to go through the motions of opposing development but to roll over for whatever the developers want so long as they get their crumbs.

    They see an opportunity to increase the amount of crumbs they get and are taking that now.

  124. Maybe you’re the one consumed with envy and hatred. That’s why you hump the legs of your progressive betters day in and day out on this site. Don’t have many friends, do you?

  125. The fact that the crowd’s arguments have never been persuasive enough to convince the silent majority does not mean that the crowd don’t do harm by deterring the provision of vitally-needed housing.

    We will continue to prevail against NIMBYism but it is sad that people could be that negative and spiteful in the first place. So you and I must remain vigilant.

  126. Name one housing project in the Mission that this crowd successfully fought to the point where it was cancelled?

  127. San Francisco has ALWAYS been expensive. Some (mostly white now middle-aged boomers) got a sweetheart deal when rent control was enacted and then later expanded. That’s why you see white people in the background, pushing a few token elderly Latins front and center at these demos.

  128. The people who are making SF unaffordable are the people out-bidding you. And they are tenants and home-buyers just like everyone else.

    Landlords and developers do not set home prices. Tenants and homebuyers do. What you are really complaining about is that some people have more money than you. Deal with that.

  129. We get a city-wide debate on Ed Lee anyway. He is up for re-election this year. So why aren’t you confident of winning that vote?

  130. Got a phone survey last night. Main questions were support for Ed Lee, direction of the city, and yes or no on an initiative to halt market rate building in the Mission. My guess is that the survey was sponsored by developers. We’ll see who leaks the results, if anyone, but I expect the Campos legislation will be the first salvo in a citywide debate about Ed Lee’s housing policies.

  131. Yes, and Roberto Hernandez, the one who wants a state of emergency declared, owns a home on the Mission. So he stands to have his home value increase by this. Also, isn’t he the one who almost bankrupted Carnaval?

  132. The new market-rate housing that is in the pipeline would fund far more BMR homes than the Airbnb taxes anyway.

    A moratorium would mean LESS affordable homes. But the activists are so consumed with envy and hatred that they will never admit that

  133. Yes, if they really wanted more affordability, they would want more housing. But they are motivated more by envy than anything else. They just hate that some people are successful and can buy things that they can’t afford.

    Throw in some local property owners whose RE portfolio is worth more if nothing new gets built, and you have a coalition of the deluded. Even so, most people see through this BS.

    The leading source of funds for BMR housing is new MR housing. Oops.

  134. After a while you recognize the same faces at many of these protests. And of course many are the “usual suspect” trouble-makers from outside the Mission and outside the city, who also show up in Oakland and elsewhere, protesting whatever is the topic de jour.

  135. The real story?

    799,500 people in a city of 800,000 don’t attend a protest.

    That is over 99.9% of the city’s population.

  136. Just re-read this article. Sounds like Tim is going through the motions. His heart isn’t in it. A bunch of activists from the mission shouted in city hall today, just like the old days, but Tim doesn’t seem energized.

    he’s smart enough to know that the moratorium is a loser. Tim said it is a long shot in the BOS, and reaction to it has been negative around town. It’s a long shot at the ballot box too. SF’s progressives have done something really amazing. They have introduced a series of ideas that are so bad they are actually generating grassroots opposition. Eventually Conway and big developers will throw lot of money at making sure the moratorium goes down. But they haven’t done that yet. Meanwhile Campos and these activists have become a laughingstock. “Oh right. These are the geniuses who want to solve the housing shortage by blocking new housing.” That is the storyline now. This week liberals all over town realized progressives mean well but they are actually part of the housing problem.

    The progressive base is shrinking, the moratorium isn’t catching fire and progressive activists have become a joke. Tim probably understands all this. Today’s thing in city hall was street theater for his friends, and Tim had to cover it, but if you read the article he knows his team is losing.

  137. Not a troll. Just someone who has lived here for a few decades, and it is my neighborhood too. I’ve watched this crowd fight development every step along the way. We could have built more housing years ago, but they opposed it time and time again. The city is growing, but they just want it all to go away. Not going to happen. Displacement is terrible, but these nativists are its enablers . That’s not stupid. That’s reality. And much of the rest of San Francisco realizes this.

  138. BTW, troll, I challenge you to find one crowd picture from the event where the majority are white. ONE.

  139. “Most of the activists present were white.”

    I know you obviously weren’t there and that you’re just trolling and making shit up. But yeah, there were many hundreds of people of color there. Many hundreds. And it was amazing and beautiful.

    Did I mention it was amazing and beautiful?

  140. Yes. Indeed. THESE people created the displacement crisis. [facepalm].
    As I told the other troll up there. No one actually believes you’re as stupid as you’re pretending to be. Because no one could actually be this stupid.

  141. “so few people actually from the Mission”

    I have no idea why I’m dignifying this nonsensical troll comment with a response. But there were obviously many hundreds of people there from the Mission. Duh. That’s who was there. The people from the Mission. Why would all 800 people come from other neighborhoods? I know you’re not really as stupid as you’re pretending to be. No one is *that* stupid.

  142. These are important questions. I assume this will end up on the ballot and I just don’t think I could vote for something with a racist agenda behind it.

  143. Yeah, the action was good, the demands are good but this is all about positioning certain people to keep getting paid.

  144. This was an interesting idea:

    “He called on the mayor to take all the tax money coming from Airbnb in the Mission and put that back into affordable housing in the neighborhood.”

    Airbnb is paying $12 million a year , so if the Mission is 10% of that and a housing unit costs $500K to build then we’re talking 2.4 new units a year right there.

  145. But Campos is the one who brought up race, not me. It really seems like he’s advocating for racial quotas. Do you support that as well? I’m just asking questions here. Is that threatening to you?

  146. Haha so few people actually from the Mission, INCLUDING the two fakers in the bottom photo! Supervisor David Campos (Bernal Heights) and his legislative aide/endorsed candidate to replace Campos as District 9 Supervisor…..District 7 resident Hilary Ronen of Diamond Heights! Hahahaha

  147. Yes. A parade of the NIMBYs, pursuing the same failed policies that created the displacement crisis in the first place.

  148. How is not building going to stop Whites from moving into the Mission? Won’t they just force people out of existing homes?

  149. Correction: Supervisor Kim was also present, with Supervisor Avalos (wearing a No Monster in the Mission tee shirt) and Supervisor Campos (as always, in a suit). I spotted all three on the front stairs during the speeches.

    Will a moratorium increase evictions? 500 Mission activists & residents believe that gentrification creates eviction, that the invasion of the highly paid into what has historically been a working class neighborhood creates evictions.

    NIMBY parade? No. A Latino community parade, with artists, political activists, and assorted “riff raff” in tow.

    Another note: The opening ceremony calling on the spirits from the four corners, west, east, north and south with the blowing of the conch punctuating each was well done and moving, for those moved by these sorts of things.

  150. People fighting for their neighborhood and their neighbors … what a beautiful event! Kudos!

  151. Won’t a moratorium increase evictions? Also, are these people saying they don’t want Whites moving into the Mission?

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