Hundreds and hundreds of Mission residents and community activists demonstrate the massive anger over displacement — and some folks at City Hall didn’t listen. This isn’t over

The mayor refuses to accept a "good faith" shirt from the Mission moratorium activists
The mayor refuses to accept a “good faith” shirt from the Mission moratorium activists

By Tim Redmond

JUNE 2, 2015 – The San Francisco supervisors rejected the pleas of hundreds of Mission District residents and community and faith leaders tonight and refused to put even a 45-day halt on luxury housing development in the Mission.

The vote was an encouraging 7-4. Although the measure needed nine votes, Sups. John Avalos, David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, London Breed, Malia Cohen, and Norman Yee voted yes.

Sups. Scott Wiener, Julie Christensen, Katy Tang, and Mark Farrell voted no.

It came after a long hearing that was one of the most powerful statements I’ve ever seen of the pain, suffering, and loss that the tech boom, encouraged and driven by Mayor Ed Lee, has caused. It was a profound statement of the failure of the city’s development and housing policy.

And it’s stunning that four supervisors rejected the cries for help of the Mission community.

Sup. David Campos proposed the moratorium as a way to get a grip on a the wave of displacement in a part of the city that has become ground zero for tech-driven gentrification.

Campos introduced the measure by showing a map of 90 luxury housing projects that have been built or are in the pipeline for the Mission. There are, he said, only 13 sites left for affordable housing.

There is, he said, a huge deficit between affordable and luxury housing, and “we need to address the imbalance.”

The measure was co-sponsored by Sups. Jane Kim, Eric Mar, John Avalos, and Norman Yee. They all spoke in favor. Mar said that the city “is facing the same ethnic cleansing [in the Mission] as the Fillmore and Manilatown. … If you rely on the market forces alone, more people will be forced out.”

Kim argued that the measure “isn’t about a moratorium, it’s about a plan.” Community groups in the Mission are working on a proposal to rezone the area to promote affordable housing. In the Soma area, she said, the city’s getting closer to the 33 percent affordable housing rules that were put in place with Prop. K. In the Mission, it’s way, way below that.

Yee said that he had lived in the city longer than anyone else on the board, and had seen plenty of changes. “But this is the most radical change I have ever seen.”

Rev. Amos Brown -- a former supervisor who was never a foe of development -- spoke in favor of the moratorium
Rev. Amos Brown — a former supervisor who was never a foe of development — spoke in favor of the moratorium

Sups. Scott Wiener and Mark Farrell had both already announced their opposition to the plan. Wiener said what he has said repeatedly: Yes, there is a housing crisis. The city hasn’t built enough housing in the past 30 years, And as the population grows, we will need even more housing.

“There’s a lot the city can do, with in-law units, group housing, student housing,” he said. “The moratorium isn’t the way to get there.”

Wiener has consistently said that he thinks the private market will help with the housing crisis. He argues that the fees pays by the developers of luxury housing are a key source of funding affordable housing.

I thought that some of the undecided supes would listen to the testimony from the public before coming to a conclusion. I know, silly – that’s how it’s supposed to work, but too often, a call from a lobbyist or the mayor trumps everything that more than 100 people, many from the Mission, most overwhelmingly in favor of the moratorium, had to say.

Sup. Julie Christensen announced, before public testimony started, that her office had done “a lot of research” into the issue. She said she had planned earlier in the day to vote in favor of the moratorium because “these people want it.” But somehow, she changed her mind, and said that the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, supported by the board in 2008, set the rules for development in the area.

“What I do not see here is a plan to solve the problem,” she said. Addressing the overwhelming majority of Mission residents and activists, she said, “I don’t want any of us in the room to think that I don’t care about you.  … We understand that it’s an issue and we are listening to you. But I’m looking for a plan.”

Kim responded: “How are we going to get a plan if we don’t do this?”

She added that the moratorium is not just about protecting housing, it’s about protecting industrial jobs.

Hundreds go to the mayor’s office

The hearing began just as several hundred demonstrators, including some religious leaders, formed a circle in front of the Mayor’s Office to call on Lee to support the moratorium. Among the speakers: Rev. Amos Brown, a former supervisor and pastor of Third Baptist Church who is also president of the local branch of the NAACP.

Brown, who as a supe was in no way a foe of development, spoke of the displacement of African Americans from the Western Addition, and said that “injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.”

The activists asked the mayor to open the door, and chanted as sheriff’s deputies blocked the entrance. Nobody from the Mayor’s Office came out. The faith leaders were unable to deliver a “good faith” T-shirt to the mayor.

The sound of their chants echoed in the board chamber, and at times drowned out the testimony.

For more than seven hours, a long line of speakers told of the crisis in the mission, of the evictions they’re facing, of the destruction of community and families, of mental health issues, of the need to take a break so that the Mission can plan for itself.

Brian Basinger, who founded the AIDS Housing Alliance, pointed out that “I begged this board to come up with a housing plan when you approved the Twitter tax break. … This body owns this. You own it and you have to fix it.”

There were people speaking against the moratorium, but they were a very small minority. The overwhelming majority, including many Latino residents of the Mission, argued for the measure.

I met some of the opponents standing in the line waiting to talk. Sonja Trauss, who founded SFBARF, didn’t argue with the premise that private developers won’t build middle-class housing, that all of the private construction in the Mission will be for rich people.

That’s fine with her: “Build housing for rich people,” she said. “New stuff is always for rich people. If you build housing for them, they won’t want to take someone else’s apartment.”

She told me that she doesn’t think luxury housing increases property values in the surrounding area.

She also said that the Mission should be rezoned to let developers build “anything that pencils out – 16, 24, 30-story buildings.”

One other speaker said that he “took issue with the idea that the private market can’t be part of the solution.” I didn’t get his name, but he said upzoning the Mission would “set a precedent for upzoning other neighborhoods.”

That’s one perspective.

Of course, we have seen that much of the high-end housing isn’t occupied by rich people – or anyone else. So it’s a stretch to say that turning the Mission into midtown Manhattan will actually prevent evictions and preserve the existing community.

It’s clear what the community wants

I have to say I saw a certain amount of patronizing here: There is overwhelming support for this plan among Latinos, low-income people, and longtime Mission residents. It’s not a radical concept, just a short-term halt in development that’s tearing a community apart.

There are at least two competing perspectives on the economics of a moratorium, but there aren’t two perspectives on what the community wants.

One woman who spoke discussed how “the city is being taken over by a white elite. Not everyone in the city can make $100,000 or more. We want to have economic diversity. There are enough luxury units, we don’t need more.

Kimberly Alvarenga, a longtime community activist, said that her mother and father, both immigrants, met in 1963 at 24th and Florida, and when she was growing up “it was a working class neighborhood. Working class people can’t stay here anymore. If you don’t do something today, you will have failed them.”

It was painful to listen to some of the testimony. A woman who works as a domestic violence advocate talked of how abused women can’t leave their intolerable situations because there is nowhere else affordable to go. Young people talked of how they can’t afford to live here and go to school. People who were born in the city spoke of being forced to leave. The idea that this situation is tolerable — that it can continue without something dramatic happening — is beyond comprehension.

There’s been only limited attention in the news media to the role this measure would have in protecting industrial buildings and jobs. The Campos measure would, among other things, prevent the conversion of what’s called production, distribution, and repair facilities to office or restaurant space.

All over the Mission, PDR – which offers space for artists, space for jobs that don’t require a college degree, and space for neighborhood services – is being converted to other uses. In many cases, it’s happening illegally.

There’s also the much larger question: Should the Mission, and San Francisco, be forced to accept the consequences of every type of commercial growth that venture capitalists want to foist on the city? There was a time, in the 1980s, when commercial office development was out of control, and urban environmentalists came up with the concept of “reasonable growth:” It’s okay for the city to get bigger, but not without some thought. Not as fast as the developers and the investors want. Not faster than the city’s transportation and housing infrastructure can handle.

So now, after all of this, we know where some of the supervisors in the center stand on this. We have also seen the beginning of a movement, of anger and organizing on a scale I haven’t seen in a long time. I don’t think in 30 years I’ve ever seen this many people from one neighborhood testify at City Hall on a development issue. It isn’t going away. If anything, it is going to get more intense.

“In my seven years on the board, I have never seen anything like what happened today. To my colleagues, I have to ask, what would you do if this many of your constituents came out today?

“I know this is not the end because we have started something a movement.”

It was amazing to hear hundreds of people stand up and say: We can’t tolerate what’s happening in the city any more. We want something to change – right now, today.

If nothing else, I hope the supervisors, and the mayor, and the rest of the city, got that message.

  • Andy M

    I don’t think the moratorium is a good policy, but it seems really lousy to me that Katy Tang voted against the moratorium even though D4 already has a de facto moratorium in place. http://lordofthefails.com/2015/06/02/why-if-i-were-a-supervisor-i-would-vote-for-the-moratorium-even-though-i-think-its-a-bad-idea/

    • Rod_North

      That’s not true. There is a long-term plan to build several thousands new homes in the west-side. But more generally we cannot build with the same density on the west-side of town because of topology and poor infrastructure. That is why density and height was upzoned in the eastern neighborhoods plan.

      More surprising, perhaps, was that Breed and Cohen voted for. There may have been a deal made where the black Supes were allowed to vote for because it was known that there were four votes against anyway. Helps them save face with the race-card plaers, who were out in force yesterday, sadly.

      • folderpete

        Don’t forget, the eastern side has 1) – nice weather, and 2) – access to 101/280/BART/Caltrain, plus 3) – its flat and near to the rest of town. Who wants to mildew in place while taking a 45 min commute on transit?

        • Rod_North

          Yes, we build homes where the demand exists and where the infrastructure supports it

          • Andy M

            Demand definitely exists everywhere. Infrastructure can and should be improved. All of SF has pretty nice weather (try living anywhere else in North America), the Sunset is pretty flat, and I would argue that being 4-7 miles from downtown is pretty close by most people’s standards. The Sunset is very much in the urban core of the bay area, it just doesn’t look like it.

          • folderpete

            The Sunset is not flat, earthling. Sunnyside has terrible weather (not the only place). And I’d say that if you could save an hour a day commuting (30 min x 2) by living in the Mission vs Richmond/Sunset/Ingleside, then I’d say that s worth MONEY. Certainly is to me.

            Might explain why demand is greater in the Mission, as opposed to westside, or across the bay.

          • Fishchum

            You can be in downtown SF from Oakland faster than you can from the west side of SF. And it’s cheaper.

      • Andy M

        I think speculation of that nature is pretty unfair Sups Breed and Cohen. I don’t think a single member of the BoS took their vote last night lightly. Sup Cohen’s questions really demonstrated that she took the issue seriously. I think any person faced with hundreds of citizens pleading for help, would find it difficult to vote against the moratorium. I think Sup Christensen could have been moved to vote for it, had she not already stated her position. But that’s purely speculative on my part.

        In regards to Katy Tang and D4, her blueprint had about 1000 new homes over 10 years, which is practically a moratorium in and of itself. The neighborhood is pretty unified against changing the zoning, but they’re going to have to join the party sooner or later. Any increase in density will need to accompany infrastructure improvements, but that isn’t a reason not to upzone.

    • Kim P

      Didn’t Ed Lee appoint her too?

  • GarySFBCN

    What a shock – Julie Christensen is a rubber stamp for what the mayor wants and not what the people – we, her constituents – want.

    Put the moratorium on the ballot and we’ll see just how San Franciscans feel about the moratorium.

    And kudos to Amos Brown for evaluating the issue and changing his mind. Being a conservative and a Baptist preacher, when he was on the BOS, he was somewhat ‘anti-gay.’ But during prop 8 he evaluated and decided that the anti-gay arguments were nothing more than the racist anti-black arguments recycled and he decided to support same-sex marriage. He gave a poignant speech at one of the anti-8 rallies.

    • stitch94133

      Julie Christensen is a self serving tool and every time she opens her mouth it becomes more obvious.

    • Fishchum

      How do you know the constituents of North Beach are in favor of a moratorium in the Mission?

      • Rod_North

        Yes, it’s an area not affected by this alleged “problem”. Moreover it is wealthy, whereas most of the pro speakers yesterday looked like they didn’t have two nickels to rub together.

        • GarySFBCN

          I’m not affected by earthquake in Nepal. I’m not directly affected by the displacement of thousands of San Franciscans. But I care and have empathy, and I act accordingly. So do most people.

          • Fishchum

            Then will you acknowledge the root of your empathy when Mission landlords start evicting tenants as their property values skyrocket if this moratorium passes?

          • GarySFBCN

            Nice try, but no.

          • Fishchum

            So no empathy? You’ve repeatedly stated on this board you have empathy for those being displaced. Is that not the case now?

          • redbeardsf

            Blind empathy is blinding.

          • North Beach Phil

            Fishchum, you are a sanctimonious idiot.

          • Fishchum

            Resorting to insult means you have nothing left to contribute to the discussion.

          • North Beach Phil

            Let’s see your data about “skyrocketing” property values, please.

          • wcw

            Zillow tracks property values by neighborhood [CSV].

            Mission values are up 16% YoY (average: 4%) and 12% a year over 5 years (average: 2%), #1 among SF neighborhoods.

          • North Beach Phil

            There isn’t a moratorium to get data from. The person posted that a moratorium would cause skyrocketing property values. Data please.

          • wcw

            Sorry, misunderstood the question.

          • Fishchum

            It’s basic economics. A moratorium will do nothing to curb demand, thus driving up values of existing housing.

          • North Beach Phil

            In this case that is not true. There are 70,000 lots in the city and this moratorium covers only a part of the city for a limited time. This isn’t a citywide ordinance. The moratorium actually focuses on 13 lots. If one of these 13 lots is no longer available the price will go do as developer will move to other available lots in the city. You are mistaking the proposed Mission moratorium for the citywide growth management moratoriums that have existed from time to time around the state. In growth management moratoriums the city, for example, shuts down all new building permits for new homes. Now THAT will raise prices of existing homes. We don’t have that kind of situation here.

          • Fishchum

            You haven’t addressed the fact that the moratorium will do nothing to curb demand. People want to live in the Mission. Period. Stop building in the Mission and they’ll drive up the prices of the existing housing stock. It’s very simple.

          • StrixNoctis .

            Actually, luxury housing drives up the rental prices and home values of the other housing as well.

          • Fishchum

            Not to the effect a moratorium would.

      • Jonathan Bonato

        I am in favor of the moratorium, and I live on Columbus Street in District 3.

        • Rod_North

          Why would you care about a local matter elsewhere?

          • North Beach Phil

            Rod, so you think Julie should have abstained from voting because she shouldn’t care about a local matter elsewhere? Just because you haven’t figured it out- everyone in the city is concerned about housing because it affects all of us not just people in certain districts.

        • Fishchum

          Great – except one or two people on an internet message board really isn’t indicative of an entire voting district.

          • GarySFBCN

            And the city-wide polling.

          • North Beach Phil

            That “one’ would be you, then?

      • Ragazzu

        How do you know that North Beachers support the lackey of a VC-subservient mayor?

        • Fishchum

          I don’t know what the constituents of North Beach support. I’m curious as to where Gary gets his data from, which is why I asked him a question he has failed to answer.

          • North Beach Phil

            Why should anyone answer your unending meaningless questions? What at egoist!

          • Fishchum

            Gary made a claim and I was curious as to what data he has to back that up. Apparently he has none.

        • folderpete

          “a VC-subservient mayor”

          This is a popular Prog slur. But what would be the motivation for a former Tenant attorney, a highly paid civil servant with vested rights (i.e, doesn’t need the money) to kowtow to someone who appears to be antithetical to what he’s longed valued? In the absence of a motive, I’m left to believe Lee feels he’s doing the best he can for the City he’s long fought for.

          • Ragazzu

            What motivation? Reelection, silly. He’s neither a popular nor a strong candidate. And “former” best describes all of Lee’s activism.

          • GarySFBCN

            “. . . highly paid civil servant with vested rights (i.e, doesn’t need the money). . .”

            The most ignorant post in the Internets today.

          • folderpete

            Thank you.

            Motive??

        • North Beach Phil

          I certainly don’t support her.

      • GarySFBCN

        Then you have nothing to worry about if it is on the ballot.

        • Fishchum

          I don’t have anything to worry about if this passes at the ballot or not. That’s a separate discussion.

          But you still didn’t answer my question.

    • Jorge Carolinos

      Do you live in her district?

      To you does “constituents” mean everyone on the city or the people in her district?

      Do you consider yourself a constituent of Nevada? Canada?

      • GarySFBCN

        Yes, I live in her district. To me, constituents mean first those of us in her district then those in the rest of the city.

    • DavidinSF

      Campos lost to Chiu, now losing this who ever is advising Campos needs to be fired.

      • GarySFBCN

        Let’s be clear: Campos lost to Conway.

        • DavidinSF

          It should have been impossible for Campos to lose the 17th district.
          Yes Conway was a factor, Conway was not the sole reason why Campos lost to Chiu, it was a badly run campaign.
          Do you want me to list all the points that added to Campos losing the 17th District.

          • Rod_North

            The Conway money is just an excuse used by Campos apologists. He lost because he was the more polarizing candidate in a district which is becoming more moderate

          • Ghost of the gipper

            “Money has no effect on the outcome of elections”-No political scientist ever.

        • sffoghorn

          The reason why this crisis is bubbling up now is because Campos could not be bothered to get in the way of developers because he was relying on them for contributions to his AD17 race.

          Now that he lost that race, all of a sudden he is willing to cross developers. How many families have been displaced since 2009 due to Campos putting his own advancement in front of the interests of his constituents, our neighbors?

          We lost the Mission on Campos’ watch, and his hands off approach diminished his electoral appeal in his district and that is what cost him the election.

          • wcw

            Dude, man, the Mission gentrified in the early ’90s. Campos is a rounding error on the process, at best, and best anyone can tell he means well and is reasonably smart.

          • sffoghorn

            Eastern Neighborhoods is 90s gentrification in steroids.

          • wcw

            Really? Let’s see some numbers. What are the data?

          • sffoghorn

            Most all of the numbers you need showed up yesterday at City Hall, the rest will show up in November.

          • wcw

            That straw pile on the number pad must be deep.

          • jj johnson

            If that pile exists as all, it probably isn’t nearly as deep as the pile on your libertarian consciousness.

      • Ghost of the gipper

        Yeah, because politics is all about winning, not about taking principled stands…..

        • sffoghorn

          Politics is about winning on principled stands that resonate with a majority of voters, not being seen as taking a stand.

        • Pvt. Hudson

          American politics is all about winning. An unfortunate side effect of how our government is organized. Winner take all elections, the electoral college, gerrymandering, and campaign finance all create two party gridlock with little incentive to build coalitions.

    • Rod_North

      And yet 70% of black voters supported Prop 8.

      • GarySFBCN

        Not in San Francisco. Or Oakland.

        • Rod_North

          Across all California

          So if it was less in the Bay Area, then it was even higher elsewhere.

          Point being blacks still have more of an issue with gays than whites do

          • GarySFBCN

            Actually, the vote was 57% statewide, not the 70% initially stated, from exit polls. Regardless, religion, not race, is the factor that determined the prop 8 election results. And who cares? I was discussing how Amos Brown changed his mind on same-sex marriage, like he did on the moratorium.

          • Rod_North

            Amos was playing a race card. He doesn’t like the fact that Hispanics are getting all the attention here, not blacks.

            And anyway, there are still about 50,000 blacks in SF. It is simply not true that they have all been driven out of SF.

  • GarySFBCN

    Also, were 9 votes needed to override a veto?

    • Rod_North

      No, it was because Campos chose to present this as a “committee of the whole” meaning he wanted to fast-track it and bypass the usual committee phase. A dumb move on his part IMO.

      So it needed 9 votes. Had he gone the regular route, he would have won by the necessary 6-5 majority but then would not have had the 8 votes to beat the Lee veto anyway

      • RealFakeSanFranciscan

        Part of me suspects that Campos is responding to anger within his base but knows he can’t actually follow through on the promises that he packaged this moratorium with, and the fast tracking was intentionally setting it up to lose.

        • Rod_North

          Campos got what he wanted – an eight hour meeting where he was the central figure. He knew he would lose but calculated that it would elevate his profile among his narrow constituency

  • chompsky

    The last public commenter, Roberto Hernandez, really showed his true colors tonight. “… instead we have 3000 white techies move into the Mission…what do they do for the community and San Francisco?.” Imagine if a white guy was bitching about Latinos moving into his neighborhood. The racism is sickening.

    • Wagnerian_thrice

      The idea is that the techies aren’t invested in the community, and it’s true that they aren’t. They are only here to make money, and they bring their white entitlement with them. This is an obvious thing to point out, and it’s not racist.

      • Zyclon

        The George Wallace left rears its head again.

        • Tod1732

          Well put.

        • Wagnerian_thrice

          Says the guy with the anti-Semitic handle.

          • Rod_North

            One pro speaker last night made anti-Semitic comments about Wiener. Disgusting.

          • Jorge Carolinos

            Wagner was a huge fan of the Jews bro.

            You are shooting for entertainment value here right?

      • Fishchum

        It absolutely is. Imagine, people wanting to move to an area where they have a well-paying job – the nerve of them!

        • Rod_North

          Not one who spoke for the motion yesterday stated that they worked in the private sector. If they said what their job was, it was always the public sector or else welfare ff the public teat

          These people hate success

        • RealFakeSanFranciscan

          Race issues aside for a moment, it is pretty myopic to complain about newcomers supposedly only coming for the money. Many of the residents who came up and proudly touted their umpteenth-generation San Franciscan cred last night were born and raised here because their parents and grandparents came here seeking better job opportunities in their day.

          • Rod_North

            And many of them will eventually inherit their parents’ nicely appreciated and Prop-13’ed real estate

      • chompsky

        Bullshit. You have no evidence of this. If fact there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. You’re just racist.

        • Wagnerian_thrice

          The evidence is everywhere you look. White supremacy is a factor in the gentrification of the Mission and the Bay Area in general. One can bloviate against that idea all they want, but it remains a fact. Articulating this fact does not indicate prejudice or ‘racism’.

          • Rod_North

            It was trying to make this a race issue that caused it to fail.

            You need to get off your racist high horse and instead approach the housing issue from an economic perspective. Either building more expensive homes creates funds to build affordable homes or it does not.

          • Backtotheburbs

            There is not a single mention of race in the moratorium. You love to inject race everywhere, but at this point you are in a sinking ship with Rush Limbaugh.

            And people of color showing up at the hearing? Well, that is simple statistics governed by median income per ethinc group …

          • chompsky

            “White Supremacy?” HAha, wow. Paranoia is a real concern. Better get that checked out.

          • DavidinSF

            Racist pig !!

          • Scotty Miles

            You didn’t actually state any evidence. You just restated the same uninformed ignorant racism you stated earlier.

        • North Beach Phil

          And you have no evidence of him being a racist your hypocrite.

          • CleanuptheHaight

            His post is the evidence.

        • Backtotheburbs

          I’ll assume you just returned from a isolated retreat in the wilderness. Just do a search for ‘technology workforce diversity’ and we’ll move on …

      • Ken Rogers

        We should view this as an economic problem to solve. I work in tech with MANY Latinos and people of color. Saying that it is all white privileged folks who don’t care about the community is just catering to your own narrative and is an extreme generalization. Many who work in technology have lived in the bay area for decades, and love their communities. The economic problem is causing a displacement of many people of a certain ethnic background, that is a fact. But generalizing the people who work in tech is ignorant and only serves to divide us.

        • Rod_North

          The left love their stereotypes

          If they cannot classify you, then they cannot hate you. And if they cannot hate you, then they have nothing left.

          • Ken Rogers

            “The left love their stereotypes” is also a generalization and divisive. You are not one to talk about classifying things. You just committed a logical fallacy by doing exactly what you accuse others of, in the same breath. I agree with the rest of your statement in that erroneously classifying groups of people make them easier targets. But you just did exactly the same thing.

          • Rod_North

            Classifying people based on their behavior is reasonable.

            Classifying people based on age, race, gender, occupation etc. is not.

            Big difference.

          • Ken Rogers

            You just made zero sense. Review your logical fallacies.

        • Backtotheburbs

          Hmm, so where is the tech industry and tech worker support for affordable housing? You guys have the money and apparently the political power. It’s in your best interest that housing works in this area.

          The tech industry is among the most white dominated industry in the history of this country after institutionalized racism was dismantled. Multiple studies have shown this and at least large tech companies have been put on the spot and are paying some lip service. If your case is different kudos, but ‘MANY’ is very vague – my guess is < 10% and that their positions are on the low end. Please prove me wrong …

          The Bay Area has some deep racist roots, including SF so I would be cautious there …

      • Scotty Miles

        Because everyone who works in tech is white? Have you ever seen what tech people actually look like? Get a grip and stop fighting imaginary demons.

        • Backtotheburbs

          There are actual employment numbers, why not quote data?
          Ah, but data is only convenient sometimes …

    • Rod_North

      Some of the racism in the comments of the pro-moratorium mob was chilling. One bitter Hispanic woman bleated that the speakers lined up behind her had “white privilege”. Another speaker accused Breed of being a “bought slave”. Others mindlessly cited “athnic cleansing” conveniently ignoring that the area used to be white anyway. Stunning and shocking.

      The pro crowd had clearly been bussed in. Many had scripts on their phones, but mispronounced words and were lost if their phone failed. Few were educated, articulate or persuasive. Indeed, many looked like they had been recruited in shelters or off the streets and paid $5 each to recite investive.

      It was a bad idea that thankfully failed by a margin

    • notadvised

      not unlike the racism captured on video at the Mission playground, when Airbnb and Dropbox drones called the local kids, “homies” and tried to push them off the soccer fields the locals had fought and paid for.

      • Fishchum

        Right, that’s an apples-to-aples comparison. The Dropbox guys (there was no one from AirBnB, IIRC) went through the legal channels and got a permit, as required. The soccer fields were upgraded from taxpayer funds paid by everyone in The City, not just the Mission.

        • notadvised

          Fishy.. get your facts right. Airbnb was involved. Those kids have played there all their lives… Rec & Park’s pay-to-play program was note vetted by the Mission… just more backroom deals thanks to Phil Ginsburg, Rec & Park mger who was given his job by Newsom, in spite of the fact that Ginsburg has no park experience…. He was Newsom’s chief of staff during the Newsom scandal when Newsom was caught using “substances” and sleeping with his friend’s wife, Ruby Tourk.. so it’s fair to say Ginsburg got his powerful position for keeping quiet and for agreeing to follow Newsom’s orders to make sweet deals for Newsom’s donors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awPVY1DcupE
          or http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/dropbox-airbnb-fight-san-franciscos-public-spaces

          • Fishchum

            Despite what you think about Ginsburg or Newsom, that doesn’t change the fact that the “techbros” followed the legal channels and got a permit, as was required. Again, it’s nowhere near an apples-to-apples comparison to compare this altercation between a bunch of twenty-somethings and teenagers to a bunch of middle age adults displaying the racism at a public forum that the supporters of the moratorium did.

            Why don’t you go ask London Breed how she felt when one moratorium supporter referred to her as a “bought and paid for slave”?

          • notadvised

            Fishy, nice try trying to divert from the fact you were deadwrong. Airbnb is a bully that controls this city in many ways … thanks to the bromance between Ronnie Con and Mayor MonopoLee .

          • Fishchum

            Agreed, there were AirBnB employees as part of the altercation on the Mission playground. But that doesn’t change my point at all.

        • notadvised

          Fishy, get your facts straight. Google Mission Playground and Airbnb…. one link http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/dropbox-airbnb-fight-san-franciscos-public-spaces

          And Rec & Park promised these same kids they’d have INCREASED playing time if they supported the toxic tire turf fields plan foisted on us by Newsom’s donors. They used soccer kids as shills to get the votes they needed, and then tossed the same kids to the curb. It took the Mission Playground kids descending on Rec & Park Commission to get this fixed. Those kids are heroes and the tech bullies, zeroes.
          City Fields Foundation is the partner with Rec & Park on all this toxic crap… GAP, Schwab and Bechtel all “donating” money so their buddies in the turf construction biz can have their way in SF. http://www.cityfieldsfoundation.org/about.php
          Follow the money to understand how our parks have been turned into toxic waste sites so these fat-cats can make more money.
          To understand why SF now has hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic tire waste in our parks go to:
          http://qwrt4.weebly.com/

          • Fishchum

            Doesn’t change the fact that the situation is not an apples-to-apples comparison to the BOS meeting. Congrats on completely missing my point.

  • CleanuptheHaight

    I think the moratorium has a decent shot at the polls, but it won’t really help anything. The Mission will be gentrified. There’s no stopping it. Maybe Campos will get a few projects built, but a lot of the rent control apts will be TIC’d and a lot of Latinos are gonna be moving out of SF.

    • Rod_North

      Hard to say. Anyone who lives outside the Mission who dislikes development might see more of it if it is pushed out from the Mission into adjoining areas.

      A big problem with this idea is that it treats just one neighborhood as if it is more special than the others. So why would others support it?

      • CleanuptheHaight

        Good point. I personally will be voting against the moratorium because of it’s racist agenda. I’m shocked to hear about the comments from last night.

        • Backtotheburbs

          Nice work cleaning up the Haight though. How did that sit and lie thing work out?
          And hey, any dense housing appearing in your area? Didn’t think so …

          • CleanuptheHaight

            We’ll gentrify the Haight eventually, just like we’re doing to the Mission. The Progressives are dying in SF.

    • 101SF

      Don’t believe the hype. SF’s Latino population is doing just fine.

      Citywide, the Latino population has been growing steadily for decades, and continues to grow. Even between 2010 and 2013, it continued to grow. Check the data:

      http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html

      The Mission is not SF.

  • Kraus

    The (pro) Moratorium Folks represent our own “progressive/leftist” version of the nation’s “rightwing” Tea Party.
    They are both examples of a logic-challenged, reactionary and emotion-driven mindset.

    They are both the unwitting handmaidens of the rich and powerful.

    In the case of the Tea Party, they are working against their own self-interest by supporting the economic agenda of the laissez-faire capitalists such as the Koch brothers and their ilk.

    In the case of the Moratorium Folks, they are working against their own self-interest by supporting a halt to housing construction. Ironically, this will only play into the hands of the Landlords and the Property Owners as it will make existing housing stock more scarce, hence making it more valuable and more expensive.

    Just as the Tea Party denies the scientific consensus on Global Warming in spite of overwhelming evidence, the Moratorium Folks deny the economic reality of supply and demand in spite of overwhelming evidence.

    Both are problems caused by decades of bad policy.

    In the case of Global Warning it has been wasteful and polluting lifestyles.

    In the case of SF’s Housing Crisis, it has been the incrementally well-intentioned –but cumulatively disastrous — anti-housing policies of the past 40 years that have made it increasingly expensive and difficult to create housing in this city.

    This is a problem many years in the making and — given how long it takes to create housing — it will take many years, if not decades of focused effort to solve.

    The only way to solve a housing shortage is to create more housing — for everyone.

    Delay will only exacerbate the problem.

    We need to come together to figure out how we can building more housing, more efficiently and more economically — as fast as we can.

    • Ragazzu

      “The only way to solve a housing shortage is to create more housing — for everyone.”

      For everyone? Well, that ain’t gonna happen!

      • Rod_North

        I think he meant that we should build homes at all possible price levels.

        That doesn’t mean we will ever build enough new homes so that everyone will have a cheap home, but no reasonable person expects that anyway.

        • Ghost of the gipper

          Since apparently scarcity doesnt exist anymore, along with building all those types of housing, how about everybody gets a BMW and their own island?

      • Fishchum

        How do you think BMR properties get funded?

        • Ragazzu

          Gee, everywhere I look in SF: brand new below-market housing–as far as the eye can see…

          • Fishchum

            If you have an issue with the way SF’s government spends the fees paid into the BMR program, well, that’s a different problem.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            No, look up the word moratorium- it means stopping something problematic temporarily in order to study the problems and solve them before resuming the action.

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            I agree, there isn’t enough BMR housing. Hopefully we’ll see some legislation soon that attempts to right that, instead of a moratorium that will only kill the 150+ BMR units currently in planning for the Mission.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            NO NO NO. BMR housing IS NOT BANNED UNDER THE MORATORIUM YOU UNINFORMED IDIOT. Stop arguing against something you clearly haven’t even bothered to understand, idiot.

          • Fishchum

            And where does that money come from? From developers of market-rate housing.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            What money? I didn’t mention money. Space is what is scarce idiot.

          • wcw

            If San Francisco were the density of New York, all five boroughs not just Manhattan, it would have 1.5m people.

            There is plenty of space in San Francisco.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            There are 13 lots left in the mission that can support sizeable bmr projects. You are uninformed, stupid, and should feel ashamed of your ignorance. It’s not about how many people are here, it’s about how much space is left to build. Are you guys paid trolls by Conway et al? How would you know that density statistic while simultaneously “not knowing” the hugely publicized fact about the 13 lots left.

          • wcw

            ..ad hominem arguments are the last refuge of people who have the sneaking, nervous-making suspicion that they are about to lose an argument on the merits.

            The Mission is not particularly densely built up. For that, have a look at the Tenderloin. The ‘loin isn’t so bad, is it?

          • Ghost of the gipper

            That wasn’t ad hominem. The argument was me bringing up the well-publicized fact that 13 lots are left that can support bmr projects. Then, separately, I shamed you for either being very ignorant or intentionally dishonest in this debate. Again, I will reply to your comment: 13 lots left.
            Also, there is such a thing as the “fallacy fallacy” which states that an argument which focuses on the problems of the argumentation of the opponent and ignores valid argument has failed in their reply. You failed by relying on the fallacy fallacy, and by bringing up an argument which I have already debunked.
            Now, aside from the argument, you are stupid, uninformed, and out of your league in this discussion.

          • wcw

            Man, that was a lot of ‘you’ not to be ad hominem. Nice!

            Back on topic, if the Mission is not particularly densely built up, then the number of buildable lots is unimportant: you can knock down a few single-family homes and build a few towers. Bam.

            Not to use the second person, but did you ever explain your deeply false characterization of the moratorium above?

          • sffoghorn

            Ad hominem is the argument that an argument is faulty because of the individual making the argument.

            In this case, the fallacy fallacy argument is that the other person is not arguing with validity therefore their argument is invalid. That is not an ad hominem argument.

            I am sure that I can link to an image that illustrates that for you.

          • wcw

            If the Mission is not dense, does the number of lots matter?

          • sffoghorn

            The lots are a priority of the nonprofit developers but are in reality less important than getting the inclusionary right, fixing the parking and transportation as well as protecting small businesses.

          • wcw

            Sure. All of this is part of the normal planning process.

          • sffoghorn

            The “normal” planning process got it wrong.

          • wcw

            How should Planning change?

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            It should always do what marcos wants it to, of course.

          • wcw

            Funny thing, sffh/marcos appears not to know what that is.

          • sffoghorn

            It should be transparent, open and community based rather than secretive, closed and corrupt.

          • wcw

            Every building permit is public. A few dollars gets any person a review. How much more transparent can things get?

          • sffoghorn

            You don’t understand the differences between planning, approval and entitlement do you?

          • wcw

            Oh, look, ad hominem masquerading as argument! So cute.

          • sffoghorn

            “You are a bad person, therefore your confusion of planning with approvals and entitlements so you are wrong” does not preclude “You confuse planning with approvals and entitlements so you are wrong.”

            Either way, you are wrong.

          • wcw

            Sure, why not.

            How should Planning change?

          • North Beach Phil

            When plans don’t work, then a moratorium is a reasonable response.

          • North Beach Phil

            As if you know.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            It’s one of the most densely populated areas in the second most densely populated city in the U.S. your premise is flawed

          • wcw

            The Tenderloin is around three times as dense as the Mission.

            What’s flawed about describing it as ‘not dense’?

          • Ghost of the gipper

            The fact that a neighborhood is denser doesnt change the fact that it is incredibly densely populated, and as zoned is almost entirely filled. China town is the most dense, but do you expect them to tear down the entire neighborhood, shrink street space, and replace every house with an apartment complex? It’s not as simple as “more people live in other places so more can fit here”

          • wcw

            No, it is not. Nor is it as simple as ‘there are N lots’.

          • Backtotheburbs

            You and many others argue that height = density. However, that is incorrect. Density is people per sq ft. If you have 6 people in a 1br and 6 individuals in a 6 story luxury ‘tower’, which is more dense?

            When you mention to people from other parts of the world that SF is ‘solving’ it’s housing crisis by building 1500 or even 1000 sq ft 1br, most likely occupied by 0-1-2 people, they have a good laugh.

            That is why the luxury tower up zoning solution is not helping with the housing crisis in SF, assuming that even someone lives there after the property investment is made. That is why a (temporary, selective, localized) moratorium on luxury housing in the single neighborhood most affected by displacement, makes perfect sense. The city has historically used moratoriums in other neighborhoods ( eg Chinatown) with great effects.

          • North Beach Phil

            The Mission does have a high density, almost twice as high as the city itself : http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Mission-District-San-Francisco-CA.html

          • Ghost of the gipper

            Ad hominem is a type of fallacy, idiot. Not all fallacies are ad hominem. Lets remember, I never said he is wrong because he said it, I explained why he was wrong, then called him stupid for such a weak argument

          • sffoghorn

            Ad hominem is a fallacious argument, poindexter.

          • wcw

            Guys, guys – same team, same team!

          • sffoghorn

            C’mon, poindexter is funny, idiot is mean.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            Correct, and a square is a rectangle. But not all rectangles are squares, and not all fallacies are ad hominem. Get it?

          • sffoghorn

            Where did I assert that all fallacies were ad hominem?

          • Ghost of the gipper

            Right here: “In this case, the fallacy fallacy argument is that the other person is not arguing with validity therefore their argument is invalid. That is not an ad hominem argument.”

          • sffoghorn

            Asserting that “The fallacy fallacy is not an ad hominem argument” is not the same thing as saying that “all fallacies are ad hominem.”

          • Ghost of the gipper

            Oh wait, you weren’t replying to me there. In this case, I am the fool

          • Ghost of the gipper

            “Knock down a few single family homes and build a few towers”- zoning laws don’t work like that.
            Cut the fallacy fallacies out.

          • wcw

            Sure, whatevs, pops. Still waiting for the explanation that the opposite of 100% affordable is luxury.

          • North Beach Phil

            Ok, we don’t need any more evidence of your being pedantic. We get it. Do you have anything substantive to say about the moratorium or are you going to stay focused on articulating nothingness.

          • North Beach Phil

            The Mission has twice the density of the city as a whole.

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            Sweet Jesus. Since you’ve made it abundantly clear with your braindead posts that you don’t know a thing about what you speak of, I’ll recap what was reviewed in the BoS meeting for you, very plainly.

            Right now, there are 500 or so units in the Mission this moratorium would affect.

            ABOUT 150 OF THEM ARE BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS. These are units that are being produced as a by market-rate developers, who have to develop them because of city mandates if they build the other units. There are funds for them. There are plans for them. They can be built.

            THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS WILL NOT BE PRODUCED IF THE MORATORIUM GOES THROUGH.

            Furthermore, right now THERE IS NO CONCRETE PLAN TO REPLACE THEM IF THE MORATORIUM GOES THROUGH.

            13 lots, whatever. The 13 lots are irrelevant. Because not only does the city not own them right now, but the city also currently doesn’t have any money set aside to buy them right now, nor does the city have a plan to build on them right now. A moratorium will not enable them without a plan for funding and building as well.

            That plan does not exist. Campos hasn’t even begun to articulate that plan. That affordable housing is imaginary.

            Right now, the moratorium, if passed, will kill already funded affordable housing.

            Do you understand yet?

          • sffoghorn

            “THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS WILL NOT BE PRODUCED IF THE MORATORIUM GOES THROUGH.”

            These affordable units will not get produced until the moratorium expires is what you meant to say.

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            Replace “until” with “unless”, since we all know that any moratorium will be stretched out for as long as progressives can possibly get away with. The real plan calls for two years. But yes, until it expires.

          • sffoghorn

            Two years is the maximum, get a grip on yourself.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            500 units in an area with scarce land with only 150 BMR units means that there is an opportunity cost of 350 units. In economics choices have to be made as a result of scarcity, creating 350 market rate units means that the space for BMR units goes away. With the moratorium all space would need to be BMR. So, those 350 units are currently going to be lost as market rate, thus the opportunity cost is 350 potential affordable housing units. The opportunity cost is higher than the gain of 150, thus making it worse for the BMR situation. I’m done arguing with you, as basic economics goes over your head, OR you are somebody paid to troll Redmond articles. Either way, it’s really not worth arguing with you about economics if you genuinely refuse to accept its basic tenants either out of ignorance or stubbornness.

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            “thus the opportunity cost is 350 potential affordable housing units.”

            There’s no opportunity cost if there’s no opportunity.

            Find the money.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            You don’t understand what opportunity cost means. And here the anti-moratorium people claimed their views were based in economics! Hahahahaha

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            Your notion of opportunity cost assumes that the alternative you are leaving behind was ever actually viable. And that is the flaw in your argument.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            Your assumption that property will go undeveloped if it must be BMR is the flaw in yours.

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            Prove it.

            Find the money.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            What money? You really think no money exists that can be used to develop bmr housing?

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            Nothing is set aside for the hypothetical plan the moratorium is supposed to enable.

            Find the money.

          • Pvt. Hudson

            I’m on your side, really. I just want to know who in their right mind would develop these 13 lots as 100% and lose money in the process. Surely no private developer. The non profits? The city? They’ve had decades to acquire land, and haven’t done much with the parcels they already own.

          • chompsky

            Just because you think you know what you’re talking about doesn’t mean you do.

          • chompsky

            Exactly.

          • Backtotheburbs

            There is no money here? That is the most absurd statement I have heard. This is exactly the type of 1% rhetoric that is hastening decline of this country.

            The city is sitting on developer fees. It has a 9B$ budget. There are loans and financing to be made, just like any developer does. There will be bonds on the ballot. There are opportunities for federal funding for BMR for the most destitute. And more if you can be creative, something for which the Bay Area is supposedly know for worldwide.

            It’s clear you simply don’t want BMR or any type of affordable housing. Meaning you are defending personal interests. Good luck with that … My sense is your are seeing unwanted changes that are gaining momentum. You know, the Mission has been pushed to gentrification multiple times already and the current situation just shows how resilient the community is. The money interests are having a hard time gaining ground here ….

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            “Personal interests”, my ass. It’s a statement of fact – there is no money geared towards the projects proposed, moratorium or not. So many sources you mentioned, and yet no one’s actually said “We will intend to set $X aside from Y to do this.” If it’s so easy to find the money, why didn’t Campos just bring a specific plan along with his proposal?

            Find the money. Consider it a challenge, not a refutation.

          • chompsky

            I doubt he does.

          • Fishchum

            I doubt he does. All he appears capable of doing is spewing nonsensical rants and insults.

          • Backtotheburbs

            Hmm, a lot words here with just a few facts which are confused. It makes me think you shouldn’t be the person summarizing this BoS hearing….

            The numbers you refer to are not for future units but instead refer to what has been built in the last 5 years in the Mission. And that is about 600 units of housing of which 9% were BMR. So during these amazing boom times a still mostly working class neighborhood received about 60 BMR units. In the same period thousands of people have been displaced, 6000 market rate people have moved and about 500 luxury condos. Since 6000 doesn’t fit in to 500 you have direct proof of what kind of pressures have been elicited on the existing housing stock.

            As for future developments, that number is about 1500 units in the pipeline. In theory this means a minimum 12% BMR but the reality is this will be ‘off-site’ meaning no where. You probably don’t know that the city is sitting on hundreds of millions from developer fees. I wouldn’t expect it to be able to compete even logistically with market rate developers. Hence the moratorium to out exiting money to use and to ensure that SOME site is available I the neighborhood for building BMR. Otherwise I think it’s obvious that we can expect about 100 more BMR units in the Missioj in the next five years, likely hijacked by the next economic down cycle anyway.

          • sffoghorn

            If the Sunset and District 7 were upzoned to the density of The Mission, Tenderloin and Chinatown, then your problem would be solved!

          • folderpete

            No they wouldn’t. A parcel in the Miss with a SFH will go for $1,5M. A parcel in the TL/Chinatown with a 5 or 8 story bldg on it will go for multiples of $1.5M.

            I suppose you could up zone one area for 80′ and another area for 880′, but both being equal the Miss is gonna be developed. And that doesn’t even include all the organized political opposition from CT & TL interests.

          • sffoghorn

            So the Mission is weaker therefore it gets screwed more.

          • folderpete

            Weaker?!? In what sense?

            You don’t seem to recognize my categorization that one area (Miss) is much less expensive than another (TL & CT). Or do you mean the Sunset & D7, which might be competitive per parcel? Note that I’ve said that the Mission is attractive in so many other ways: geographic (weather, proximity, transit) PLUS being relatively inexpensive by comparison to D4/D7 as well as TL/CT.

            If you mean by ‘screwed’ that the Mission is gonna change, then I guess you’re right. Are you opposed to all change? What change would you be willing to accept, recognizing you’re a resident/owner?

          • sffoghorn

            The Mission is weaker politically so it takes on the burden of the City’s housing production and accrues fewer benefits.

          • folderpete

            Ok then, its cheaper and its politically weaker; and its more attractive for weather and proximity.

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            That’s typically how the NIMBY game is often played, yes, with shit rolling downhill. But the better answer would not be to try rolling it further, but to end the stalemate and push other neighborhoods to accept new development.

            If Eric Mar really wanted to relieve pressure on the Mission, for example, he could start by getting D1 to upzone. Let’s see if that ever happens.

          • chompsky

            There’s plenty of space in the Mission. Just look at all the planned developments the progs are getting their panties in a twist about.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            13 lots left big enough for BMR projects. At the beginning of the week there were 18. You don’t know what you are talking about. Oh, and Potrero is between the mission and the ports. Paid to troll Redmond articles? Because you aren’t making sense

          • chompsky

            Any development over 9 units has BMR inclusion. Why don’t you want affordable housing built in the Mission?

          • sffoghorn

            Why settle for fractional inclusionary when you can go for 100%?

          • chompsky

            Are you going to pay for it?

          • sffoghorn

            As taxpayers, sure we all are.

          • folderpete

            Exhibit 5: Locations of Available Sites to Develop 5 or More Units in the Mission

            Source: Planning Department data

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            See my above reply, and check your caps lock.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            There is no above reply from you.

          • sfister

            RealFakeSanFranciscan is right; it does ban any housing development that isn’t 100% BMR. In other words, if a building project that is 30 MR and 10 BMR is proposed, it will not be built. So, effectively, the moratorium does ban the building of the BMR housing we could be getting in the short-term.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            You keep saying “if” because no project like that does or has existed in the current circumstances. And the short term small amounts of bmr units will result in less overall bmr units, as on e those 13 lots get developed its game over. Again, scarcity, opportunity cost. Again, you don’t understand basic economics.

          • folderpete

            If its only 98% BMR, then, yes it’s banned, er delayed for “45” (cough) days

          • Ghost of the gipper

            What 98% bmr project are you referring to? Oh, right, no such thing is being planned or built. If anything even close tothat existed, we wouldn’t be here.

          • folderpete

            “here”

            Well, I don’t know where you are, but this here Moratorium sez that if a plan contains anything other than 100% BMR, then its stopped (held up). Thus my example of a (imaginary, but possible) proposal of 98% BMR being declined.

            Other posters have made this point about the Moratorium; get a grip.

          • chompsky

            Wow, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. The 150+ BMR he is referring to is the amount that wouldn’t be built because of the inclusionary mandate in building market rate homes.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            Again, there needs to be a higher percentage of bmr units in the limited space that exists. How do people enter an economics debate and not understand basics like scarcity and opportunity-cost? The opportunity cost of those units you brought up makes it a net bmr housing loss.

          • Rod_North

            Why does it bother you that some people can buy a home that you personally cannot afford?

          • Ghost of the gipper

            Its not a personal issue. You clearly are stupid, selfish, and sociopathic. ME! ME! ME! WHY THINK ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE? Let me guess, you are a talentless drone writing code for a company and think it makes you special because of the bubble-influenced paycheck.

          • sfister

            Wow, the pro-moratorium guy is also anti-tech. What a surprise.

          • Rod_North

            They just want some class of people to blame for their own failures

          • sfister

            Yep.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            Wow, the guy who doesn’t understand economics is pro-unstable economy based on for profit companies that haven’t produced profits.

          • Ghost of the gipper

            Why do you think it’s okay to displace an entire community when such an scion is unnecessary and can be stopped?

    • folderpete

      “The only way to solve a housing shortage is to create more housing ”

      Or, get rid of the people. So, we could also
      1) eliminate or destroy jobs
      2) make the area unattractive thru crime. So, if, say, gang activity were to increase – maybe targeting whites – then that might dampen enthusiasm for the neighborhood. Or the Sheriff could release a bunch of MS13 bangers with a wink/nod whatever.

      After all, these are tactics that have been used successfully in the past. I’m sure the voters would be interested – if only the proper ballot measure could be crafted.

      BTW, I prefer none of these options. But they are probably easier than creating more housing.

      • wcw

        Rationing can happen in different ways. Rent control and just-cause eviction requirements ration housing by tenure, sophistication (both owner and tenant) and luck. Market rents ration by price. Redlining rationed by neighborhood. Crime rations by demand destruction.

        Rationing is never pleasant. Difficult though doing it even halfway right may be, the best housing policy is abundance.

    • Ghost of the gipper

      You clearly don’t understand the moratorium. It doesn’t ban the building of all housing, just luxury housing, which if you really pay attention to economics (not just parrot the words supply and demand) is about SCARCITY. Certainly, a person who is so concerned with economics understands the basic concept that is the foundation of all economics….right? Scarcity forces tradeoffs- its one of the basic rules in economics. Unregulated capitalist scarcity results in only the wealthy being able to control resources in the community. Now, gentrification is when only the wealthy can control resources in the community, the continued use of scarce/limited resources to serve only the wealthy results in further pressure on the poor, and no places for them to go as only housing for the wealthy is being built, and no space is left for moderate/low income housing, thus furthering the squeeze.
      So basically either:
      you don’t understand the Mission Moratorium and the fact that it only temporarily halts only luxury housing. This is not an actual threat to supply.
      OR
      you don’t understand the economics you claim to have mastered, and only are vaguely aware of supply and demand based on what other people have told you.
      Either way, drop the arrogant attitude- just because you don’t understand an argument doesn’t mean it is stupid. In this case, it means you are….pretty embarassing.

      • RealFakeSanFranciscan

        Time and time again, this is the response: “It doesn’t ban housing, just luxury housing”

        Except that it actually also kills affordable housing – because developers are mandated to create some (or contribute to the BMR fund) along with market rate housing. And the moratorium will replace these funds and affordable units with … nothing, yet.

        So yes, the moratorium _is_ a threat to the affordable housing supply – until the relevant parties actually identify a way to pay for and build all this subsidized development they promise.

        (There’s also the fact that much of this market rate housing isn’t “luxury” housing, it’s just normal housing that’s really expensive because building here is expensive. But that’s another matter.)

        • Ghost of the gipper

          “I don’t understand scarcity” – the main thesis of your rant.

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            Do you even understand where most of the little BMR housing that is currently being built in the Mission comes from? And _why_ it gets built at all? Jesus, if anyone is uninformed here …

        • Ghost of the gipper

          Also “they won’t create those bmr units unless…” …pigs fly, in our current circumstances

      • bob

        If you theoretically had a proposal for 500 units in the building and 2 units were luxury, with the remaining being 100% affordable – the proposal WOULD BE BANNED under the moratorium. This is pretty black and white. This moratorium bans every proposal that is not 100% affordable

        • Ghost of the gipper

          You use the word “if” because you know damned well in the current circumstances that project hasn’t and won’t exist

          • bob

            doesnt matter.. under the moratorium proposal it would not be allowed. So you were saying the proposal ” It doesn’t ban the building of all housing, just luxury housing”

      • wcw

        The mooted moratorium would have suspended issuance of permits for housing projects of 5 or more units, or to demolish, convert, or eliminate PDR. There is one exception: 100% affordable projects

        Almost everything between 100% affordable and luxury stops.

        A statement that the moratorium, ‘doesn’t ban the building of all housing, just luxury housing,’ is either deluded or seeking to mislead.

      • Wagnerian_thrice

        Logic!

  • wcw

    Planning looks at PDR. What’s the evidence that Planning has things wrong?

    Not that it matters, but production, distribution and repair is a ship that has sailed.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1dfo

    • sffoghorn

      Clearly SF residents and the economy will benefit from siting repair facilities in the suburbs because nothing ever needs fixing and nobody has a problem with driving or paying those transportation costs. Transit oriented development is only for high priced condos with parking, not for anything that benefits residents.

      • wcw

        Who invited the straw man to the discussion?

        Oh, wait: is the same straw man the one who can put numbers to the ‘barrier’ method of low- and moderate-income housing development?

        • sffoghorn

          You said that repair was going the way of the horse and buggy and that there was no reason to preserve PDR, including repair land uses.

          • wcw

            The only assertion that PDR is going to zero can be found in this comment.

            Isn’t it hard to type with all that straw covering the keyboard?

  • Rod_North

    Kim argued that the measure “isn’t about a moratorium, it’s about a plan”

    Except that there is no plan. The only plan is to build nothing.

    And if Kim can make a plan in 45 days, she can do that with or without a halt.

    Speakers kept saying “but it’s only 45 days” implying that it would have little impact. Well, if it has little impact, why do it at all?

    Just make the plan already and we can debate it. Some of is can do two things at the same time.

    • chompsky

      They have no plan. It’s a ruse. 45 days will turn into 2 years where they’ll use it as leverage to extract as many concessions as they can.

      • RealFakeSanFranciscan

        They keep saying this is about getting a chance to buy land in the Mission for building BMR housing, but it’s still unclear to me why the city couldn’t use eminent domain to claim land in the Mission for that end. Public housing has been built using eminent domain claims before.

        The moratorium then only makes sense if you’re trying to shove out other people you view as undesirable.

        • Rod_North

          No need to use ED. The city can just offer to buy the land

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            Perhaps not, but if owners are reluctant for whatever reason, the city should already have the legal tools to get what they need – assuming they can make a coherent case that it’s needed that badly.

            What they don’t seem to have right now, of course, is the money, which is why Campos is trying to kick that particular can down the road and sell a moratorium as the One True Solution in the meanwhile.

          • Rod_North

            Maybe but I would want to see a very high bar for forcibly taking someone’s property

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            Well, it wouldn’t just be confiscation – they’d still have to pay fair market value.

          • Rod_North

            Agreed, but it is still a big deal to forcibly lose your property

            Or at least that is what those who oppose evictions always argue

        • Pvt. Hudson

          Developable land will depreciate if a longer term moratorium is passed. Perhaps the idea is to tank the value of empty lots and for the purpose of acquiring them cheaper for BMR development. I think the whole purpose is to increase costs so much for developers that they will cut their losses and sell the land to the city or the non profits. It’s the only rational reason to pass up all the in lieu fees from the pending projects.

          • VivaShotwell

            So the Mission mob is using a classic Scooby-Doo Strategy: Get everyone to think the neighborhood is haunted, so they won’t want to live there. And they would have gotten away with it too, except for al that meddling representative democracy

    • Jorge Carolinos

      Having lived in the Mission for almost 25 years, the same plan as before, all the local activist groups will rant and rave and nothing will get done.

      After 40+ years the activists were complaining that they needed more time and options when the armory got bought.

  • Tod1732

    “Ethnic cleansing.”

    Love it. Did hippies practice “ethnic cleansing” when they moved into The Haight in the 1960s and sent all the black folks who had been living there for two generations packing?

    • chompsky

      Yeah, the “ethnic cleansing” line was really the most repugnant of the night.

      • Rod_North

        And they conveniently forgot how Hispanics displaced whites 50-75 years ago

        • Wagnerian_thrice

          The Irish left of their own accord. They were not ‘displaced’. That’s absurd.

          • Rod_North

            There were Italians, Germans and others too.

            Moving because of an increase in crime and blight is being displaced as much or more than being outbid on homes

  • chasmader

    These renters are just like the Southern T-Baggers. Both groups are racist, low information voters.

    • Rod_North

      They were a very one-dimensional and rather depressing crowd, to be sure.

      Not one of them appeared to be successful. Just a bunch of over-emotional whiners and losers.

    • Ken Rogers

      Another illogical generalization to feed your narrative.

  • bob

    I watched this on SFGTV.
    1) 8 out of ten pro moratorium folks mentioned that it was a black/brown (good) vs white (bad) issue
    2) There were lots of veiled (some barely so) threats to the BOS that they would need to do the right thing. “Malia, you better step up! And Scott Weiner..mic cut”
    3) This was mob rule
    4) I don’t care what political role theater plays in the history of the SF people, there is no reason that anyone should be standing at the mic and screaming (Mr Avicolli Mecca)
    5) There is profound cognitive dissonance evident in the pro moratorium folk – so many of them spoke about their family being able to emigrate to San Francisco. The only reason they were able to do that is because housing was relatively cheap. It is no coincidence that these emigrants came to SF before the white baby boomers decided SF was perfect and unchangeable and should forever be preserved in amber
    6) Lots of people were very angry about consequences that had nothing to do with building housing in the mission
    7) This is extremely similar to the Newsom vs. Gonzalez saga – which was a very unpleasant time to be in SF. Not looking forward to the next 6 months.
    8) Even if there were 1000 people testifying for the mission moratorium, its less than 1.5% of the overall mission population. Sorry! you are not speaking for the entire community.

    I am solidly against the moratorium. I think the anger and anxiety displayed last night is about the failure of several generations of Mayors to set a goal, plan for SF housing. It is a colossal failure in leadership. You cant be the artsy refuge for queers, folks of all colors, etc. and NOT build housing. I recognize ,though, that this moratorium will pass eventually. If the mission wants to shoot itself in the foot, then we provide the mechanism for them to buy the gun and load the bullets.

    • Ragazzu

      “Mob rule.” More bogus hysteria! What is your term for city policy by venture capitalists?

      • Rod_North

        They did come across as an angry mob, just like they did at the DCCC last week. These people need to learn how to express passion without sounding bitter and twisted, if they want influence and credibility.

        • Backtotheburbs

          A good majority of the board didn’t think so – instead they made direct references to social justice and a movement.

          If you want people to be nice and play nice you should start with the forces wreaking havoc on this city.

      • bob

        Sorry, I watched it, and it was the very definition of a mob. Why do you think there was such heavy police presence there? People were screaming into the mic, screaming after their mic was cut off, standing at the entrance to the BOS seating area and pointing and screaming. If city hall didnt have metal detectors, there surely would have been many a pitchfork.
        I didnt see a single person anti-moratorium scream anything, or threaten anyone.

        • Ragazzu

          And how many arrests? STFU! It’s called political pressure. Angry shouting is not violence.

          • bob

            You have to have violence to have an angry mob? “An angry mob is a group of people who form a group (“mob”) and protest, either violently or non-violently, against a common theme, object, policy or ruler which the “mob” finds offensive. Such “mobs” can take many forms, such as picketing, rioting and silent vigils.”
            You sound like you were clearly part of this angry mob.

          • Ragazzu

            Why don’t you listen to what they’re saying instead of incessantly pontificating? These people are angry, scared, marginalized, trying to keep a roof over their heads and trying to keep their families together. And their numbers are great indeed.

          • bob

            I dont disagree that people are angry, scared, etc.
            The best way to ensure change is by screaming at elected officials, attempting to intimidate people, shouting down anyone who disagrees with you?
            are we talking about adults or children?

          • Louie Louie

            Good thing you didn’t fight in the American Revolution. Did you learn about that in school, by any chance?

          • bob

            yes, this is clearly an apples to apples comparison. Building housing and achieving independent democracy from another country.

          • Rod_North

            They should learn to better control their emotions in a public place

          • folderpete

            If they’re trying to keep a roof over their heads, this measure will do exactly the opposite. The trouble is that they’ve been convinced this is good for them – without thinking it thru.

            Now maybe if you want to GET a roof, some of this “affordable” housing might actually fall into your hands (good luck). But if you’re already a resident – this change will make that less likely.

          • chompsky

            I did listen and not one made any realistic economic sense.

        • Backtotheburbs

          You watched it? All 7+ hours? Everyone was screaming? Into your ear?

          Sorry, your lies are garrishly colored by a deep bias.

          Or maybe you have trouble dealing with people becoming emotional. Because momentum caused by deep, popular emotion is difficult to stop.

          Maybe the anti moratorium crowd wasn’t nearly as passionate because the only affect on them is to cut a little into their massive profits? Getting kicked out of your home, watching your network get displaced is a whole nother level, isn’t it?

          And metal detectors were added after Moscones murder by a deranged white SF cop …

      • VivaShotwell

        They were a mob. Their goal was to intimidate. They failed.

        • North Beach Phil

          You should go to a hearing in any small rich city. Del Mar, La Jolla, etc. You will hear the most vulgar language every week from the residents concerning the most mundane permits. You apparently don’t have enough public hearing experience to make the comment you made.

    • Jonathan Bonato

      Bob, San Francisco has a bad history of racist housing policies, so its not surprising what people of color say at BOS meetings. SPUR actually advocated to replace minorities with a white, anglo saxon protestant population in the late 1960s, and the Mission District had to fight hard in the late sixties, early seventies to save itself from demolition and displacement by SF Redevelopment Agency. The African American Fillmore, Japan Town and Manila Town were destroyed, thousands of homes demolished, land siezed by white people. Manila Town was wiped from the map, nothing exists anymore, except a ground floor memorial to a community purged and pushed out at Jackson and Kearny. It breaks my heart to see so many people being evicted, to see people of color unable to afford even the so called low income “BMR” inclusionary units, some of which require a minimum $5,000 monthly income.

      • chasmader

        Before the Fillmore was Black, housing there was owned by Japanese people who were sent to concentration camps and had their houses stolen from them and given to War workers.

        • Rod_North

          And the Mission was white long before it was Hispanic.

          • notadvised

            and the whites weren’t forced out of the Mission… they left. Complete opposite is true now for the minorities in the Mission, who want to stay, need to stay…

      • sfparkripoff

        In 1966 The San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association (SPUR) produced a report entitled “Prologue to Action” arguing that, to enable the city to compete effectively, city government should influence growth so that San Francisco’s population “will move closer to ‘standard white Anglo-Saxon Protestant’ characteristics.” (Hirten, Farrell, and Weese 1966)

        And here’s the actual document itself, from our California Historical Society at 678 Mission Street: https://books.google.com/books?id=XWluiz9JesUC&pg=PA134&dq=spur+%22white+anglo+saxon+protestant+characteristics%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DS1vVdPOKdTsoATk1IOIBA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=spur%20%22white%20anglo%20saxon%20protestant%20characteristics%22&f=false

        • folderpete

          “with a white, anglo saxon protestant population in the late 1960s”

          You forgot to mention that this is a quote from Chris Carlssons “Shaping San Francisco”. IMHO, take with a grain of salt.

          Don’t forget that most of the (white) population of SF was Catholic or Jewish. White ethnics ruled this town outside of the Boardroom, though earlier changes had brought in Black and Latino populations. And of course the Chinese, Japanese and Filipino peoples had been here for decades (had to be, cuz a 1923 law forbade Asian immigration to the US). The ‘characteristics’ referred to have to do with ‘clean industries’ they were proposing – i.e. white-coller jobs demanding education. This, as opposed to ‘working class’ jobs (manufacturing, shipping, warehousing).

          But, hey, don’t let me get in the way of your demonizing.

      • bob

        I am well aware of the history of “racist housing policies” – some were clearly wrong, some were due to forces that SF had no control over. Regardless, how can we ever move forward if we are always looking back and citing mistakes that we made in the past. Dont forget what happened, but MOVE FORWARD.

    • North Beach Phil

      So, your antidote for dealing with the failure of previous plans is to have no plan at all? Taking a few months to put a good plan together to deal with all of the social and economic issues that the SF boom has created, makes sense to me. The city needs to also get land rezoned in the Sunset along transit corridors to get more land available for housing. That too would help the mission. But a moratorium won’t run up property values, etc, that is nonsense that people come up with everytime there is a moratorium (I am a planner and have been through several).

      • chompsky

        They can put a plan together regardless. Why don’t they do it?

      • bob

        There is no way that two years of no building in the mission will not raise property values. The moratorium will not stop people from coming to the mission. Instead, they will outcompete existing residents for housing as landlords jack up the rent on what is legally the only supply available.

  • sfister

    Damn, I was hoping this would pass. I was looking forward to the value of my property being artificially inflated over the next couple of years while the pro-moratorium idiots suppressed supply. Ah, well. Next boom cycle, then.

    • bob

      You wont have to wait. I predict this passes in citywide polling at 75% for

      • Rod_North

        The Planning Commission can fast-track enough projects between now and then in the Mission for that to be moot

      • chasmader

        Not so fast; many in the Campos crowd cannot vote.

        • redbeardsf

          Doesn’t matter. White guilt is a powerful thing.

          • sffoghorn

            Not as powerful as it used to be.

      • sffoghorn

        This all depends on whether the Community Leaders Of The Mission have the guts to put their city funding on the line and risk a ballot measure.

        • bob

          Are you kidding me? They made it clear at last nights meeting that they would do anything it takes to get the moratorium

          • sffoghorn

            I’ll believe it when I see it. I want to see it. But I’ve seen the clique in action, seen the work. There is always some reason why they won’t pull the trigger.

          • Rod_North

            Those leaders achieve at least some of their goals through compromise. A rigid policy imposed upon them will tie their hands and the result may be they achieve less than they would and could have done through negotiation and compromise.

            The best solutions involve nobody getting everything that they want

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            From what I heard, the ballot measure will only prohibit larger market-rate projects exceeding a higher unit threshold.

            Maybe that will change, but if it doesn’t, they’ll have managed to make the whole approach even dumber, since it will just allow lots of small _really_ high-end housing to get built (and contribute less to BMR housing).

          • Rod_North

            And it will be harder to change that later, so it will be baked-in ineptitude

    • sffoghorn

      Property values will rise until macroeconomic forces compel to the contrary.

      • Rod_North

        Yes, you will personally gain from a moratorium

        • sffoghorn

          We are all at the mercy of macroeconomic forces.

          • Rod_North

            Maybe so, but local factors affect prices too, and zoning is a local factor.

        • sffoghorn

          Property values will not go down due to new construction.

          • Fishchum

            Property values will not go down with a moratorium on new construction.

          • sfister

            No, but they will rise at a slower rate. Freezing the supply will guarantee a rapid, immediate increase.

          • sffoghorn

            There is no evidence of that assertion at all in the record.

          • sfister

            The assertion is not an opinion; it is dictated by logic and economic forces. Try wrapping your head around this purposefully simple analogy:

            If there are 10 widgets that cost $1 each and 15 people that want them, it stands to reason that if someone else doesn’t build additional widgets to satisfy the demand, the mathematical truth is that there will be a surplus of 5 people that will be left with nothing. It also stands to reason that the longer time passes without newly manufactured widgets, the higher the value of those widgets being held by the lucky 10 people who were able to snatch them up first. If you are one of the widget-less 5 and you want to acquire one, the going rate is $2. Why? Because 10 people have them, 5 people don’t and the supply is non-existent. The have-nots are understandably angry about the short supply and the high prices so when a plan to open a manufacturing plant to build and sell $2 widgets is proposed, they protest, saying that all widgets should continue to cost $1 and no more and that the government should take over all widget manufacturing to ensure that those who can’t afford $2 widgets are not left out in the cold.

            Now let’s say that the population increases to 20 and promises to double in the coming year. Should the factory open or not? The longer it doesn’t exist, the higher the prices for the existing widgets become and the more attractive it becomes to go into the widget-making business because, hell, in a year, widgets may go for $3 or $4. The more attractive the widget-making business becomes, the more difficult it is going to be for the government to find a contractor willing to build widgets that will cost $1.

            So what do you do? Never open the factory? Delay it until the government can talk someone into making widgets for less profit?

          • sffoghorn

            Demand for housing during booms is practically infinite and supply will always be constrained. The best you can do is nibble around the margins of the margins on price.

            This all begs the question of the other variables besides housing in this set of urban planning economic equations and what maximizing solely the housing variable does to other key variables like transportation, water, wastewater, open space, etc.

  • sffoghorn

    Now that everyone has told their story, has been heard and that the supervisors have been pinned down, after the catharsis is over, does this “movement” have the capacity to put a meaningful moratorium and rezoning measure on the ballot and run a campaign to win?

    • Rod_North

      Based on the unruly behavior and incoherent words we saw and heard last night, I’d say not.

      • sffoghorn

        Nobody cares what you say.

        • Rod_North

          Nor you, evidently..

          But we are all free to express opinions here.

    • chompsky

      They don’t have economics on their side so they need to rely on emotion as evidenced by the display last night. The problem is when emotions run high, ugly things emerge as we saw last night. The large swath of the middle may not respond too well to this.

      • sffoghorn

        You don’t have economics on your side either, as it would have taken 100K units to have begun to address affordability if construction began several years ago.

        • Rod_North

          Just because it would take 100K new homes to make prices cheap does not mean we shouldn’t build 1K if people want them

      • Rod_North

        They tried to intimidate the Supes just like they tried with the DCCC

        Very ugly.

        • sffoghorn

          The Supes, DCCC and Planning were proven wrong on 8 Washington and on waterfront height limits. They will be proven wrong on the Flower Market and in the Mission as well.

          • Rod_North

            Those weren’t about an entire neighborhood

      • sffoghorn

        The tired organizing techniques of the nonprofiteers have little to do with public support for a moratorium.

        • VivaShotwell

          And all the people they usually bus in can’t vote in San Francisco

          • sffoghorn

            No, the people they mobilze can vote, it is most of the nonprofiteers who don’t live in the neighborhood (but can still vote) and a surprising number who don’t live in San Francisco.

  • danimalssf

    “We have the funds,” he said. “The affordable housing trust fund is generating $50 million a year, in addition to funds from the inclusionary housing program.” So said Scott W. in the Examiner yesterday. Why isn’t the City buying these available lots with this money? Where is Campos on this issue? or Weiner? or any of the BOS? WTF is stopping them? Buy them and then decide what to do with them. If nothing pencils out, sell them (they’d probably make a profit). I don’t see why a moratorium is needed in order for the City to go out and buy these properties. Just. Friggin’. Do it.
    And Tim, the irony of you, the owner of “luxury housing,” scolding others about being patronizing? Ya gotta love the complete lack of self-awareness

    • Rod_North

      This isn’t ultimately about building affordable homes. It is about socially-engineering a community so that the Campos constituency (losers, whiners, Hispanics” can perpetuate their power base and win elections

      • redbeardsf

        I’m convinced that the whole moratorium idea is/was nothing more than a last ditch attempt to stop the development at 16th and Mission. It had nothing to do with buying property for subsidized housing. So-called “Activists” have been trying, but failing to stop it from happening. I guess now they’ll have to wait until an election to try to pull an 8 Washington trick with voters.

    • Pvt. Hudson

      $50 million, frankly is hardly anything. When land in desirable areas is going for $2,000 a square foot. they can’t really build much with that.

      • danimalssf

        The old garage on 16th/Guerro, 10,000 square feet, sold for $8.7M a few months ago. That’s $870/sq.ft, and they are going to build 25 units above retail space. Get rid of the retail and there are more units that could’ve been included. I’m curious where you got the $2,000/sq.ft. number? Did the threat of a moratorium drive prices up that drastically in the past few months (ahh, the law of unintended consequences…) And try as I might, I can’t find the budget analyst’s report that detailed the 13 lots available and their size/cost. I wouldn’t seer at $50M annually (using your data, that’s still 25,000 square feet and I disagree with you, you can build a substantial amount in that footprint), and besides, that’s only one pocket the SF govt could reach in to in order to come up with $$.

        • Pvt. Hudson

          The $2,000 a square foot was a bit of an exaggeration, although a few lots zoned for office towers have gone for that much (e.g. 50 1st street). I still contend that $50M is a drop in the bucket. Even with land purchased at $800/sq ft. they can’t even buy 80,000 sq ft of land, and that’s just the land without construction costs (which are very high). If they’re building 25 units per 10,000 sq ft., all $50M gets you is enough land to build 200 units, without the money to actually build them. It’s peanuts, we need 200x that much housing.

          • danimalssf

            well, seeing as how a total of 75 new units went on the market in the Mission in 2014, 200 units actually doesn’t sound that bad. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that’s enough, but it is certainly better than nothing. Regardless, I suspect that we both agree that our government here in SF is not being aggressive in purchasing the needed land, and I think that’s where our energy should be being spent, not mocking “techies” and saying divisive crap like “ethnic cleansing” and that people in luxury housing never come out of it and are ruining SF (on the one side) and that these people should just STFU and deal with it, on the other side. Tiresome, counter-productive, etc. etc.

          • Pvt. Hudson

            Agreed. I’m not saying don’t build them. What really needs to happen is across the board up-zoning and expediting of the permitting process, while allowing variances for even taller towers in exchange for large in lieu BMR fees.

  • sfparkripoff

    The continued ethnic cleansing of San Francisco aided and abetted by our elected leader in City Hall. The “colonization” is happening according to what was laid out by SPUR back in 1966. The San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association
    (SPUR) produced a report entitled “Prologue to Action” arguing that, to
    enable the city to compete effectively, city government should influence
    growth so that San Francisco’s population “will move closer to
    ‘standard white Anglo-Saxon Protestant’ characteristics.” (Hirten,
    Farrell, and Weese 1966)

    https://books.google.com/books?id=XWluiz9JesUC&pg=PA134&dq=spur+%22white+anglo+saxon+protestant+characteristics%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DS1vVdPOKdTsoATk1IOIBA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=spur%20%22white%20anglo%20saxon%20protestant%20characteristics%22&f=false

    • Rod_North

      Why is it OK when non-whites replace whites but not the reverse?

      Why the double standard?

  • vratrm

    As others have mentioned,the governing dysfunction on display last night was pretty appalling. Even as much as I sympathise with many being displaced in the Mission, the agitprop antics of many of the activists make that sympathy hard to summon.

    What is really at stake is trying to save an ethnic neighbourhood. A laudable goal (in my opinion). The way to have saved that would have been initiatives to dramatically expand SF housing supply in other areas of the city so that the workers of 40,000+ new jobs SF has added would had some place to live. Of course all SF progressive have banded together to ensure that didn’t happen. So, now we left with a transparently futile effect to try and keep new arrivals out of the Mission by banning new construction.

    So, housing advocates are going to spend the next six months fighting a battle to stop new construction in the Mission? OK. Good thing they spent the previous 18 months protesting Google buses, otherwise they might have actually worked on solutions for creating affordable housing that would have kept people in homes in SF. I wonder what next year’s Quixotic quest will be?

    • Rod_North

      The purpose should not be to save an ethnic enclave because that implies that one race is better than another race, and that there are optimal racial quotas.

      It’s about having an economic mix. The race stuff detracts from the proposal

      • Peter Snarr

        Race, economics and class are inherently tied together though. If you change the conversation from minority/ latino and white to rich and poor, we’re still talking about the same issues and the issue is that the poor are being pushed out.

        • Rod_North

          They are different because targeting race specifically is always open to the accusation of racial discrimination, as we have seen with affirmative action and school busing

          Basing policy instead on economics might help poor whites more while not helping rich Hispanics, which is surely more fair?

          • Backtotheburbs

            You fool, there are no racial quotas from BMR housing.

  • Ragazzu

    My goodness, Sam, the Chump and the rest of the Troll Patrol lecturing others on civility. Thanks for the laugh, fellas!

    Shocker—this is what democracy sometimes looks like. From the May 2015 issue of Harper’s magazine:

    “Assistant chief Paul McDonagh was the man with the unenviable task of explaining the Seattle Police Department’s drone program to the public. In October 2012, a lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed that the department had secretly purchased a pair of camera-equipped Draganflyer X6 drones two years earlier. Soon after, McDonagh stood in a local community center before a roomful of citizens who were shouting ‘shame’ and ‘murderer’ and ‘no drones, no drones, no drones!’ One woman, who stood next to a man wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, yelled, ‘This is a whole fascistic direction that needs to be stopped.’ As McDonagh continued with his presentation, the crowd shouted, ‘Fuck you, Mr. Police Officer’ and ‘You’re full of shit!’ […] A few months after the meeting, Mike McGinn, Seattle’s mayor at the time, announced that the drones, which had been bought with federal funds, would be returned unused to their vendor.”

    • Rod_North

      No idea what you are on about there, but the purpose of yesterday’s meeting was clearly an opportunity for those on the very lowest rung of SF society to endlessly bleat about the fact that they cannot afford to be here and want a handout

      • Ragazzu

        A little slow today, Mitt, er, Spam, er, Rod? [Unsubscribed.]

  • Scotty Miles

    What is luxury housing?

    In the context of these debates, what is the definition of luxury housing? Is it based off of price, such that any unit above $X in cost per square foot is considered “luxury”, or is it based off the amenities and features of the unit (marble counters, concierges, etc)?

    If luxury is determined by price, at what point does a regular unit become a “luxury” unit?

    • Rod_North

      Evidently “luxury” is defined as any home that the speaker/whiner cannot personally afford

    • sffoghorn

      The stuff is marketed as luxury.

      • wcw

        The moratorium defines it as anything that is not 100% affordable.

        • sffoghorn

          Definitions in the legal text of the moratorium was not the topic of this thread.

          • wcw

            Is that a fact-free exercise as well, to go with the barrier-based low-income housing policy?

            Facts are stubborn things.

          • sffoghorn

            These units are marketed as luxury, they self define as luxury.

            The moratorium bans all but 100% affordable housing from the Mission.

          • wcw

            They are? They do? Do tell.

          • sffoghorn

            here are two

          • wcw

            NEMA’s not in the Mission, is it?

          • sffoghorn

            Many real estate sites have scrubbed luxury from their websites after it became a dirty word.

            1501 15th Street had a big banner advertising “luxury living in the Mission” on its South Van Ness frontage post-completion.

          • wcw

            When did marketing become fact?

            Wait, never mind me. I have straw particles in my eyes.

          • sffoghorn

            So you agree that these luxury condominiums are marketed as luxury condominiums. Progress!

          • wcw

            There is that pesky second person again.

            Could we get some numbers to the profit-barrier housing plan?

          • sffoghorn

            Yep, you paid the premium for Michelob.

          • wcw

            Aha! So, the plan is:
            – cease all market rate development
            – ask AB InBev for money
            – build subsidized housing in the Mission

            The Underpants Gnomes must be green with envy.

          • sffoghorn

            Seems like you actually drank the unexpected pleasure.

          • wcw

            That sounds downright unwholesome.

            How many below-market units does San Francisco need?

          • sffoghorn

            The answer is 42, right?

          • RealFakeSanFranciscan

            So did you ever drink a Budweiser and think that it actually _was_ the true King of Beers, marcos?

          • sffoghorn

            I bet you drank Michelob.

          • sffoghorn

            1880 Mission.

          • bob
          • sffoghorn

            And then there’s this…

          • sffoghorn
      • Scotty Miles

        How something is marketed reveals very little about the actual product. Marketing is not reality.

        • sffoghorn

          Yes, realtors lie but they are appealing to the luxury market and that is what drives gentrification and displacement and not enough affordable housing in return.

  • Kim P

    Where will the water come from for all these new units and their fountains?

    • sffoghorn

      And where will their shit be treated?

      • bob

        people who live in affordable housing do not defecate

        • sffoghorn

          Their shit stinks less than the shit of the luxury condo dwellers.

          • bob

            How much is your condo worth ? Over a million according to zillow. Does the millionaires shit stink?

          • sffoghorn

            You hate the environment and want to poison the ocean with excess human filth.

    • chasmader

      The City’s dirty little secret is that Hetch-Hetchy is at 90%. I know this because the PUC lady who came to EVPA meeting last week was forced to disclose this after repeated questioning. Coincidentally, the current level at H/H is no longer published in the Chronicle. We in San Francisco have plenty of water.

      • notadvised

        another dirty little secret is that our highly rated, clean HH water will be merged with aquifer water, under the soon to be toxic tire crumb fields in Golden Gate Park. The soccer fans could give a shit that we’ll all be on the hook for water testing and water purification just so they can play. Poisoning our drinking water… priceless.

  • North Beach Phil

    Moratoriums and property values. If there are 70,000 lots in the city and if a moratorium of limited duration and of limited geographic area is instituted, and this moratorium affects a small number of parcels (essentially 13) then the price of those parcels should go down and now up as developer would go elsewhere. This isn’t a citywide ordinance so there would be plenty of other places to build in the city. Now, if the BOS says that they want to buy those 13 lots, then what is going to happen? Those lots are going to go UP a bunch.So, the actions of the anti-moratorium BOS are actually increasing prices. What people are confusing is info about city-wide moratoriums where all residential building permits are stopped in the city. In San Diego in the 80’s they had the Interim Development ordinance that was instituted when there were over 12,000 residential building permits pending. Now, if the city stops the 12,000 and then approves only 400 residential permits, then the value of the existing houses will go up-especially with that kind of demand. So, all the talk about the proposed moratorium raises prices is not true. What is true is this truly nutty idea to announce to the world that the city is going to buy those 13 lots. If the city took a few months to develop an ordinance that required certain zoning changes and if the city rezoned the Sunset transit corridors, that would increase the total number of lots available for development thereby decreasing costs.

    • chompsky

      No, the ban would affect all market rate projects, not just 13. And it would’ve stopped PDR zoning variances as well.

  • DavidinSF

    If one was to take this comment section as a poll, the mission moratorium placed on the upcoming ballot won’t pass.
    A new strategy needs to be put in place.

    • GarySFBCN

      This blog is a dog whistle for libertarians and VC-paid interns for developers and others, so it is hardly an accurate measure.

      Keep in mind that the moratorium has 65% city-wide support and that 8 Washington and waterfront height limits easily passed in the last 2 elections.

      • chompsky

        That poll is BS. It’ll go down just like prop G.

        • GarySFBCN

          Then you have nothing at all to fear if it is on the ballot.

          • chompsky

            No, not personally. I do I’ve in the Mission, though, and I don’t want to see evictions increase as a result of this ill conceived initiative.

          • GarySFBCN

            You’ve shown no concern for those being evicted and displaced AT ALL in your other posts. I know that it isn’t easy for libertarians and conservatives to be truthful. But don’t think you can get away that nonsense forever.

          • chompsky

            I’m not a libertarian or conservative, but thanks for playing.

    • sffoghorn

      And to think, the guy who is suggesting that internet comment sections be read as scientific random polling is the one who was trying to pass himself off as a political consultant once upon a time.

  • John

    San Francisco has really gone to hell, and our mayor and board of supervisors no longer care.

    • Fishchum

      How so? Because they understand that halting construction in a popular neighborhood will only drive up prices for existing housing?

  • DavidinSF

    A good read that makes sense.
    BAY AREA & STATE

    No way to slam door on S.F. housing boom

    By C.W. NeviusJune 3, 2015 Updated: June 3, 2015 5:11pm

  • Bill Sauro

    The actual problem in quite simple. The City’s cumbersome and out-dated process for buying up land anywhere in the City for affordable housing needs to be changed, so that the City can buy land quickly and for a fair market price. If this policy had been in affect, the developers would not have been able to purchase virtually all the available land. I’m not sure how a “Moratorium” would help with this. You can’t turn back the clock on all the land that has already changed hands. Too little; to late.

  • Hobo Catsuit

    2.5 % of new units are vacant, non-primary: http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdfs/SPUR_Non-Primary_Residences.pdf

    Here is a quote from you, Tim:

    “It’s unclear how much time they spend in their San Francisco condo homes, or if the properties sit empty much of the year.

    Some might be rented out to full time residents, but San Francisco doesn’t keep records sufficient to identify rental units.”

    All your article identified was that 40% of new condos are investment properties. Let me quote you again, “Some might be rented out to full time residents, but San Francisco doesn’t keep records sufficient to identify rental units.”

    MIGHT BE RENTED OUT TO FULL TIME RESIDENTS, BUT SF DOESN’T KEEP RECORDS.

    —-> RENTED TO FULL TIME RESIDENTS <—-

    You KNOW you had NO IDEA what was happening in those condos, whether they are empty or not. Turns out, 2.5% of them are empty.

    But whatever, you already have yours, new entrants can go to the wolves.

  • sffoghorn

    Campos introduced the measure by showing a map of 90 luxury
    housing projects that have been built or are in the pipeline for the
    Mission. There are, he said, only 13 sites left for affordable housing.

    Let’s see, Eastern Neighborhoods was passed in late 2008, Campos took office right after in 2009, when might those 90 luxury housing projects have been built?

    Where were Campos and his “base” when these luxury projects were approved? 1501 15th Street? 490 South Van Ness? They were cashing Community Benefit checks.

  • Pingback: SF Elections 2016()