What a difference two weeks and a different venue makes.
The three leading candidates for mayor all said they supported, more or less, Sen. Scott Wiener’s housing bill that would upzone almost the entire city in the first mayoral debate, orchestrated by the economically conservative United Democratic Club. Now they all say they are against it.
That was one of the key takeaways from Wednesday’s debate, hosted by progressive organizations.
Sup. London Breed skipped the event. Angela Alioto, Mark Leno, Amy Farah Weiss, and Sup. Jane Kim all tried to burnish their progressive credentials.
Alioto said she wouldn’t back SB 827; in fact, she said she’s against higher density on Geary, an area many say is perfect for more housing. “I don’t think so,” she said. She also talked about the loss of flower stands and the denial of a permit for the 50th Anniversary of the Summer of Love.
Leno said that “as it is written” he “could not and would not” support the Wiener bill. Kim was more nuanced, saying she supported more density on transit corridors — but in the end, she said she would not support the bill in its current form because it gives tremendous new value and wealth to property owners but doesn’t include any requirement that they provide additional affordable housing.
That comes in the wake of a scathing report from the SF Planning Department and a growing grassroots movement to block the market-driven measure.
There was, like the first debate, a lot of agreement: All the candidates who showed up support a tax on vacant apartments and storefronts. They all support a municipal bank. They all want to see the city reach 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. They all want to see “dark money” out of politics and want better disclosure rules for superPACs. Leno and Kim both said that addressing the homeless problem starts with preventing evictions.
This is something the left in the city should cheer: Many of the ideas that progressives have been pushing for years are now in the mainstream of the debate.
But Alioto lost any progressive credentials she might have had when she talked about how wonderful the San Francisco Police Department is and how the cops should all be armed with Tasers. “On the whole, SF has an excellent Police Department,” she said. “You want the police to come when your baby is choking and you call 911.”
Actually, you don’t. You want the Fire Department, which is staffed with trained paramedics. That’s who responds to 911 calls involving medical emergencies. But never mind; after the Taser comment, nobody took her too seriously.
Leno offered two policy ideas that appealed to the audience. He suggested that the city create a mental-health justice center as an alternative to arresting mentally ill people and putting them in jail. And he said that he would sue speculators who are using the Ellis Act over and over again to clear buildings of rent-controlled tenants and flipping them for profit.
He said that he has always been critical of Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb. He talked about how the “radical” amendments that then-Sup David Campos proposed on then-Sup David Chiu’s Airbnb legalization bill now seem to make perfect sense.
Leno did not support Campos over Chiu in that race.
In fact, he had the most trouble when he was asked about his endorsements. He’s running as a progressive – but in the past, supported Willie Brown over Tom Ammiano for mayor, supported Gavin Newsom over Matt Gonzalez for mayor, and supported Wiener over Kim for state Senate.
That’s one of the biggest challenges for progressives thinking about Leno: He has a solid record in Sacramento, was a leader in affordable housing legislation on the Board of Supervisors – and has repeatedly supported people who have undermined everything the progressives have tried to do.
Leno said he supported Brown because Brown appointed him to the board, and that loyalty is important to him. That’s why he endorsed Wiener, who has always endorsed and supported him.
“Like it or not, I prefer to be judged on the work I do,” he said.
He also said that his recent endorsements have included Hillary Ronen, Sandra Lee Fewer, Rafael Mandelman and Matt Haney.
Kim pointed out that 400,000 people have left San Francisco in the past 15 years, and that our growing economy has also created radical wealth and income inequality.
She offered the bold proposal of a $1 billion bond act for the November 2018 ballot that would go for building affordable housing and acquiring existing housing to take it off the market.
She also suggested that the city create a rental-registry so that the city knows exactly how much rental housing exists and how it’s used – which would make it easier to impose a tax on vacant units.
She talked about the medical-respite shelter that she helped open as a 24-hour facility people facing health issues, and putting nurses in every homeless shelter. That has cut the number of 911 calls from shelters.
She wants to raise the public-funding match to 6-1.
She questioned the “build-build-build” mentality, saying that while we need more housing, we also need to make sure the infrastructure is in place. But she stopped short of saying that we are growing too fast and didn’t offer a financial plan to make sure that developers pay the cost of growth.
So we got some more information on the candidates. But we still haven’t heard anyone say that the policies of the past seven years have been a mistake. I am waiting.
The campaign continues.
Because even if one city has an acceptable jobs housing balance a neighboring city not building can have spillover effects.
Nobody? SB 827 doesn’t affect demolition controls.
Toxic Boomer and early GenXer mentality on full display here. “I got mine so screw everyone from now until the end of time that might want to br able to afford make a life for themselves in SF.”
It’s a garbage opinion and garbage worldview and most who hold such opinions lack the self awareness to even be classified as sentient being.
The one and only plausible remedy to high prices is more hosuing stock, including market rate, affordable, and public.
What city law are you referring to which allows a public servant to have two jobs at once?
It wasn’t a “move,” it was a dual status that resulted from city law.
I have been hearing for 50 years that only the wealthy will live in SF. It has not happened yet. It is true that for 50 years, employers with middle-class jobs have been leaving the City replaced by employers with higher skilled, higher paid jobs. On average higher socioeconomic status people have been replacing lower socioeconomic status people.
We need workers of many different occupations, but we don’t need them to live in the City. And SF workers don’t need to live in SF to work in SF. Most SF workers, 60%, don’t live in the City. By comparison only 30% of SFUSD teachers don’t live in the City.
However, as a young person all the young single teachers I knew had roommates, and as an older person, all the teachers I knew who lived in the City had an employed spouse.
I also had firefighter friends. Senior SFFD employees make good money, and generally have an employed spouse. Many can live in the City if they want to. However, my firefighter friends did not want to live in the City. With the kind of shifts they worked, they could live almost anywhere to enjoy a lifestyle they could not find in SF.
London Breed tried to become both the Acting Mayor of San Francisco and keep her job as Board President. I don’t know if this move was legal; however, it’s an autocratic move for one person to consolidate power this way.
Interesting that Leno endorsed Brown rather than Ammiano for Mayor. Perhaps that endorsement explains why Ammiano endorsed Kim in the current Mayoral race. However, Leno’s explanation, that he endorsed Brown because of loyalty, may be true. I hope the progressive candidates in this race, including Leno and Kim, can agree on who is most likely to win and that the candidate who is less likely, drops out. I support Leno because he has held both city and state office, favors Single Payer health care and has enacted some laws that I support. I would not like to see London Breed benefit from a possible split in the Progressive vote.
Don, there is turnover, but only for the very wealthy. The city can’t just keep it’s doors open only for the wealthy. We need teachers and fire fighters living in the city.
You have good points regarding parking and the lack of demolition controls, though I believe those controls are already in place and there’s nothing to say that local legislature can’t strengthen them. Or strengthen protections / guarantees for rent controlled tenants. I’d be for the bill AND protecting the currently rent controlled tenants.
Regarding it creating a new bubble… I don’t think so. I do not see how any speculator would want to double down on California when the flood gates are open to overbuilding. Why speculate on an asset that is guaranteed to increase in supply in massive numbers over a short period of time? The risk of the bubble popping becomes too large. If anything, the passing of this bill would scare speculators and trigger a correction in the market. It’s already overdue for one.
So because there’s no guarantee that rent would *fall*, then lets just continue to let rents *rise* at unsustainable rates? How about we build enough housing so rents stagnate or just rise with inflation so that people can catch up and less people have to move? This is the most unrealistic “gotcha” when discussing this. Just because rents may not go back in time doesn’t mean building more housing doesn’t work or that the idea surrounding supply and demand is a fallacious theory made up by the realtors.
No, there is not. There is a LOT of opposition.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to tell, in part because the YIMBY organization is taking money from developers, big business, and speculators who view this as a chance to get rid of basic legal protection for longterm renters and rent-controlled spaces, to tear down everything and build it up, even higher and yupscaled. It will gut requirements for affordable housing, and actually encourage well off renters who don’t use or need public transit to take over the neighborhoods closest to public transit, with no restrictions on their car ownership, on new parking, etc.
It also creates a whole new bubble for San Francisco real estate, in that it would encourage people parking their money from overseas into the S.F. real estate market, holding on to property and driving up prices, just like we’ve seen in London, NYC, etc.
The whole premise that this is going to actually lower rents is flawed. There are no guarantees for that, at all… and the YIMBYs are deluded, because they are getting paid off by realtors and speculators.
Jymmy,
Alioto for Mayor!
Tell me I’m wrong?
Go Giants!
h.
Do you do standup? 🙁
Is there any mayoral candidate who supports SB827? In other words, is there any candidate willing to make the hard choices that will bring great amounts of housing to San Francisco? Because when the rubber hits the road, it seems to me every brave Progressive folds in the face of current residents’ dislike of new building and greater density. Constituents who say they want affordable housing raise dozens of issues (preserve Victorians, keep height limits, disallow luxury units, “we don’t have the infrastructure to support more residents here, etc.) that together prevent the increase in supply overall of housing units.
Affordable housing should be affordable to someone on Social Security not rich retirees or tech people making over $100,000 a year. This is why everyone is so disillusioned with those running for mayor. They have all been in office for years and DONE NOTHING. AFFORDABLE HOUSING, $100,000 A YEAR INCOME. YEAH RIGHT.
Chinatown *does* have fresh blood. The Chinese-American community is growing in San Francisco. And they would have more fresh blood, if they had smart, LOCAL development. I am absolutely not opposed to that… but it can’t be done from the state level, if the proposed legislation at the state level absolutely overrules existing local housing decisions, or doesn’t address the very real concerns of community destruction AHEAD OF TIME.
Shrugging and saying that the answer is ethnic cleansing doesn’t cut it.
He also failed to point out that the previous mayor defined it as:
“units … affordable for those earning less than 150 percent of area median income – $101,950 for one person, $116,550 for two and $145,650 for a family of four.”
So… how many of the old retirees in Chinatown who live right next to the new Central Subway project and face eviction if the YIMBYs and their developer and realtor friends make $101,950 a year, d’yathink?!
“Affordable” housing is a criteria that many long-term renters in San Francisco don’t even meet.
The previous mayor defined it as:
“units … affordable for those earning less than 150 percent of area median income – $101,950 for one person, $116,550 for two and $145,650 for a family of four.”
So, what you are talking about is basically evicting people — no settlement payments being required anymore — in disproportionately in older, rent-controlled neighborhoods, many of them retired, relying on a single income, and longtime renters… and telling them they should be able to afford a place affordably… all they need to do is make $101,950 a year.
Now, imagine potentially attractive neighborhoods like Chinatown, with significantly older residents, lots of grocers and businesses that rely on serving their particular needs, a new subway line going in and high rental housing density already, with the city’s most consistently packed public transit routes. An easy, fast commute to places like Twitter, etc. Who’s going to get that housing in a competitive market? Will they bring their cars with them? Will there be any requirements from the builders in question not to create more parking garages and to make sure that well-heeled people who move next to the most expensive units — due significantly to their proximity to public transit — actually *use* that public transit, to the same extent as the people they displaced?
What will happen to those displaced individuals, without access to the support infrastructure in their neighborhoods, and to the businesses that rely on those customers? Have you actually shopped in their neighborhoods, and seen them *ALREADY* making difficult choices in their life, between dodgy 70 cent/lb. produce and nicer produce? In what way does dictating S.F.’s solutions from Sacramento, on a cookie-cutter level, keep their heads above water?
If you can’t answer those kinds of questions in a way that isn’t amoral and doesn’t sound like something that Ayn Rand would say, without state protections in place *AHEAD OF TIME* to guarantee that Chinatown continues to exist as a community, rather than soly as a tourist trap, while still allowing the neighborhood to grow up… then might I kindly suggest a big, brimming cup of STFU?!
YIMBYism should not be a cult of amoral ideologues… and yet, it’s gone that way. You even have your own superPACs, phony “newspapers”, lots of money flowing your way from developers and realtors, who pay for the astroturfing of San Francisco, and who obviously know there’s a lot of money in it for them if they can only evict more people, quicker… it’s a very dangerous echo chamber.
Campers,
Here’s a comment I missed getting published on this thread …
Tim,
Why are you continually mocking my good friend, Angela Alioto?
Her legislation banning smoking from bars and restaurants spread from SF to a good deal of the world and has probably saved a few million people over the last few decades.
Here’s the shrine she built to our City’s patron saint …
https://www.google.com/sear…
I wonder if Amy Weiss has been there?
Go Giants!
h.
How can the City determine no one is living there? Bed checks?
Employers with middle-class jobs have been leaving the City for decades.
The growing economy has provided jobs for Blacks, Hispanics, and those with limited education living in San Francisco. Between 2010 and 2105 there are 4,437 more steadily employed Backs, 7,607 more Latinos, and 8,436 more with less than high school living and working in SF.
Gentrification brings life to SF. Urban decay is death.
What is wrong with benefiting those already here over those who want to be here. Anyone can come to SF. There is turnover in all neighborhoods that makes room for new arrivals.
What is your vision of an upzoned City? Is there an SF neighborhood that can be used as a model. What is your favorite neighborhood?
Yawn.
Much better comeback – that was funny.
While I agree that Tim’s and Calvin’s interpretations of the data are biased, your interpretation is more so.
What they claim is displacement has increased. You are constantly interpreting the data so as to best minimize this.
Have you looked at SF county trends for Latino population compared with the state, or with other counties in northern CA?
I don’t care to argue the stats on Jane Kim’s behalf.
Lotta property owners voting in elections in SF!!
Never Breed. She’s all about herself and DOES NOTHING FOR ANYONE.
Yeah right, like I believe the planning department.
London Breed is only interested in London Breed.
SnapsMcKenzie, oh please. Weiner is a two faced sell out taking money from developers and then showing up at eviction demonstrations against those same developers acting as though he cared. Everybody knows he is a republican at heart. The only people who voted for him were property owners out to make huge profits. You do not fool anyone.
Problem is the candidates have been in office for years and San Francisco is still the most expensive city in America and many people are still being evicted, so why should anything change under these people who have been in office for years.
I found the data (and you’ve seen for yourself that it isn’t easily accessible) and eventually found the documentation needed to interpret it correctly. People who do the work sometimes don’t get it perfect on the first shot. Even the famous detective Jack Spade sometimes needs to try again.
But meanwhile we now know how misleading Calvin Welch and Tim Redmond have been. They’ve claimed that outward migration exploded under Ed Lee when in fact it declined slightly. But they are just pundits.
Jane Kim wants to run the city and what she stated as fact is an utter non sequitur. 400,000 people over 15 years is 27K a year or 3.4%. For a 49 square mile city that would be an awesomely low figure and would indicate that everybody is doing great.
What else does Jane Kim state factually without having the slightest clue as to its validity? We know that she did it in this instance.
Awesome comeback.
Why can’t you admit when you’re mistaken? Is it that painful?
You misinterpreted the numbers the same way as markkraft, and can’t admit it. You need to do your ten fucking push-ups.
And you, apparently, aren’t smart enough to read and understand census data yourself.
When Leno was Supervisor, people used the m-word instead of the p-word, but his stint in the Assembly somehow transformed him into a capital-P Progressive. And in this article, the p-word has been officially disdained for Alioto.
Thank you for your correction and confirmation. Personally I eat fish on Fridays like a good Catholic.
So who’s the better Heartbreakers front man, Johnny Thunders or Tom Petty? Tough call.
London Breed’s silence is deafening. Her failure to attend critical community meetings or to use her oft touted “immense power” as Pres. of the Board of Supes on the matter of Midtown and the 139 families who are threatened by demolition of their homes is damning.
Clearly, you’re a mind reader, “Heart.” I’ve been aware of the Midtown Rent Strike for nearly 3 years, and I offer no apologies for anyone. The fact that she already had an event scheduled on the night of this debate isn’t an excuse. The D5 residents that feel her no show at their meetings don’t like her. That’s clear. If you could truly read my mind, you’d know how I think about rent control, the need for better protection of disabled and elderly residents on fixed incomes. The displacement that has fueled income disparity and the rubber stamped development that creates it.
That is such an unbelievably cruel statement.
Two out of two. That makes 100% in case you subscribe to alternative math like the YIMBYs do.
It is one cause of temporary homelessness but not the cause of chronic homelessness.
Most of what we see is replacement not displacement. But with rent increases the actual displacement could be 10% or more of the reasons for moving.
There are so few Ellis evictions they are not the major factor of anything.
During the urban renewal of the 60’s in the Fillmore, the Black population increased citywide. The Black decline started in the 70’s with the decline in defense industry related jobs; “The second great migration.”
As Zhoosh mentioned the Latino population citywide increased. Also, looking at those who live in SF with steady employment, the number of Blacks and Hispanics have increased since 2010; probably due to gentrification.
I fully support local control of zoning. The comment was that evictions are not the cause of chronic homelessness. Few are being thrown out onto the street.
As for ethnic enclaves, they all eventually disappear without a steady supply of fresh blood. All of the North Beach old Italians moved to Marin or Millbrae. If you live long enough the neighborhood culture leaves you. In my 75 years all of my relatives and most of my childhood friends moved out of the City. None of my original neighbors are still here, and all of the local businesses changed purpose or ownership. Nothing is the same.
This is fucking hilarious. Two months ago you were insistent those same numbers were not ‘per year.’ Now you’re patronizing Mark for interpreting it exactly as you did.
Regardless, you’re too biased to accurately interpret the numbers – especially on Latinos.
Because the state legislature is realizing that local planning has done nothing but benefit those that are already here. The balance of control is off. So all of those that got in early are reaping the benefits by having restrictive and asinine rules put in place to selfishly benefit their own living spaces in what is supposed to be a growing, evolving, progressive city/state. Every homeowner or neighbor who’s had a new building’s size reduced because they just didn’t like it is complicit in this housing crisis, and now the state is looking into taking away those privileges in order to think long term. To think about the next generation that will be even more screwed without a huge uptick in housing production.
When affordable housing units are jeopardized because a tiny neighborhood group is afraid of “bulk” (talking about the Haight McDonalds development and the HANC letter, as one very particular example) then there’s a problem with the amount of power local planning extends. Since cities don’t want to change it, then I suppose the state needs to. Whether or not it will pass? I’m not sure, I’m probably a skeptical as you are. But I think it should in some capacity.
Clearly you, an apologist for Breed, haven’t been following Midtown. And your minimalizing Breed’s chronic lack of availability to her own constituents (and many People of Color) guts her rhetoric. D5 residents don’t like her becsuse she has left us high and dry as she did on this particular evening in order to press the flesh and shake her moneymaker at John’s with Willie Brown et al.
Yes, as I mention above, if you can evict people, they have to lay off the drugs and booze, take their meds, get jobs, and pay their rent. How very un-progressive.
Eye roll. What alt-left drivel.
“the economically conservative United Democratic Club”
For those not familiar with alt-left blogging, “economically conservative” means “not ready to immediately overthrow the bourgeoisie and create a Venezuelan-style socialist paradise”. In fact, the UDC is a liberal organization of Democrats whose arch-enemy is Trump.
“Kim calls for $1 billion bond at for housing”
Progressivism is often a race to the bottom – see how many freebies I can promise the electorate with money we don’t have. Hey, it worked for Greece until the bills came due.
“[Kim] said she would not support the bill in its current form because it gives tremendous new value and wealth to property owners”
Yes, yes, Comrade Kim. Private property ownership is the enemy. You know your Marx and Lenin well. Hugo Chavez would be proud.
“a growing grassroots movement to block the market-driven measure”
Free markets? How un-Soviet! They must be stopped!
“All the candidates who showed up support a tax on vacant apartments and storefronts.”
Right. Higher taxes, and restrictions on what people are allowed to do with their private assets. That’s how you grow an economy….
“They all support a municipal bank.”
And we’ll turn banking over to the public sector, natch. Did Marx even call for banking?
“Leno and Kim both said that addressing the homeless problem starts with preventing evictions.”
Yeah, you start allowing evictions, people will have to get a job, lay off the drugs and booze, take their meds, and pay their rent. Most un-socialist.
“But Alioto lost any progressive credentials she might have had when she talked about how wonderful the San Francisco Police Department is and how the cops should all be armed with Tasers.”
Oh NO! Respect for the police and rule of law? Progressive dissent cannot be tolerated! I call for a Stalinist-style purge! Off to the gulag with her.
“He said that he has always been critical of Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb. ”
Corporations are the natural enemy of all true socialists. The state will provide all the jobs in the paradise to come!
“but in the past, [Leno] supported Willie Brown over Tom Ammiano for mayor, supported Gavin Newsom over Matt Gonzalez for mayor, and supported Wiener over Kim for state Senate.”
So, in other words, he’s supported some of the most liberal politicians in America. Which makes him…not radical enough for the far left.
“Kim pointed out that 400,000 people have left San Francisco in the past 15 years”
This is one of the most bizarre ideas of the alt-left – that we all have to live in a single, dense, megacity a la Blade Runner, and anyone who leaves is a traitor. 400,000 people have left, and 500,000 have come in. So?
The name of the Dashiell Hammett private detective in Maltese Falcon was Sam Spade, not Jack, “Rosh HoshHosh. And yes, there was a London Breed event at John’s Grill for the night of this debate. Jon Konstin is very supportive of her. I’m sorry, “Heart” that it actually was a scheduling conflict, in spite of your incredulous ??????? As for the two community meetings she missed with the Midtown rent strike group. Wow, TWO meetings!
The increase and decrease in Blacks is part of a national trend “the second great migration” that has nothing to do with gentrification per se. The decrease started in 1970. Tthe
“scathing report from the SF Planning Department”
(ahem)
“The upzoning proposed under SB827 … would likely result in the production of *more* affordable housing due to overall significantly greater housing production under SB 827 than under existing zoning.” [emphasis theirs]
This makes sense if you actually think about it and our inclusionary zoning laws for a second. Unfortunately, everyone except Breed seems to be in denial about the fact that our stratospheric rent is not Evil Techies or Evil Landlords, it’s a catastrophic housing shortage forty years in the making.
I think it appeals to those reflexively outraged and motivated by hyperbole, just to try and establish credibility by volume or zealotry. Of course the number of lost rentals is higher, Airbnb is just that evil!
True. Leno misrepresents the number of Uber drivers and the number of homeless people who have been Ellis-ed. I haven’t heard him exaggerate the Airbnb totals the way that Tim and Calvin Welch do (they claim that the number of lost rentals is greater than the TOTAL number of Airbnb listings).
it’s the same reflexive “there’s 50,000 Uber drivers here!!!” nonsense.
Even if your zoning idea is right (which I disagree with), Wiener’s bill does not deserve the support of any city politician. It’s an attempt to take away zoning controls from cities, and establish uniform one-size-fits-all zoning policy for the entire state. Why would even the most build-happy city want to just hand over local planning to the state?
Trump says he’s not a racist and I say he is. Am I guilty of “othering,” too?
She’s “othering” and that’s not her place. If someone says they’re a Democrat, they are.
I’ll take that as a ‘no comment.’
We’re all entitled to express our opinion, silly.
Also, the census dept numbers don’t show a “large spike” in Latino outflow. In 2010 the city was 14.7% Hispanic, that number as climbed steadily to 15.3% in 2016.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
(You’ll probably have to search for San Francisco County on your own)
They do show a reduction in African-American from 6.1% to 5.1%. My understanding is that the trend started in the 1970s and is why we no longer have a Justin Herman Plaza.
I’ve linked to the census data several times. You can choose to accept them or make up your own numbers if you wish.
Again. You’re not the judge of who’s a Democrat and who’s not.
You know, your attempts to appoint yourself chief justice of the “Who’s a
Democrat and who’s not” star chamber are becoming tiresome. Scott
Weiner is an effective and ascendant SF politician who’s interested in
results over ideology, which is one reason he’s never lost a race and
he’s authored so much successful legislation. That may make him a “DINO”in your view, but in the view of most people that makes him a success.
Here’s your problem, Mark. The data is per year, not a five year total:
Source:American Community Survey Migration Flows
Wanna try again?
Also, you can’t just throw in another 15K for moving abroad.
Directionally, the per capita outward migration has declined slightly from the 2005 to 2009 figures.
And silences anyone who points out the disconnect between her speeches and attack ads and her actual record while in office.
What you are theorizing, basically, is essentially the ethic cleansing of Chinatown, where old people of limited means will be thrown out onto the street.
Sure, these longtime San Francisco citizens might be able to get a place somewhere outside of S.F., but the neighborhood would be destroyed, as would the local businesses and rich culture it supports.
…all because you lack the thought process and sensitivity needed to grow up *and* grow intelligently and compassionately at the same time. Nobody is denying the need for growing up… but you’ve forgotten what it means to be a San Franciscan, if, indeed, you ever knew it in the first place.
You’d rather trust Sacramento to solve San Francisco’s problems…
Kim’s data seems to be essentially correct.
Also, the data for just 2011-2015 said:
Movers to a different state:
18,027
Movers to a different county, same state:
45,026
… and presumably about another 15K moving abroad.
That comes out to about 78K over a five year period, where S.F.’s population has grown substantially. It doesn’t show the large spike of African-American and Latino outflow that peaked before 2011, due to gentrification of the Mission, Fillmore, etc. It was so severe that S.F.’s population decreased around 2010, despite a large influx of high tech workers. Many, many people went from S.F. to the East Bay in that time period, coinciding with the gentrification and exodus of many African-Americans in that city.
Not sure who told you that everyone automatically benefits from the tech boom. The people who sold ferry tickets lost their jobs to Clipper Cards. Many bank tellers probably lost their jobs. Toll takers took it on the chin.
But lots of new jobs have opened. People doing these jobs buy stuff, they go out to eat. Their offices need bookkeepers, maintenance, assistants.
But the problem is that it is 2018, not 1978 and a lot of jobs are going to be centered around computers. Very sorry, but you are just going to have to find a way to deal with that.
I’m not sure anyone is claiming that eviction is THE cause of homelessness, but it is one of the causes, and one that can be dealt with through legislation. There is not a lot we can do to curb arguments between friends, relatives or partners that lead to displacement. And homelessness is just the worst result of evictions. Another is displacement far from a person’s job, community and/or support systems.
Stats on evictions can be deceiving for the reasons I stated earlier and also because there are many, many buyouts taking place. These are now supposed to be recorded, but many are not. Tenants who don’t feel they have a case, or don’t have the resources to fight an OMI or Ellis eviction, or any eviction they believe to be unfounded, will often take a buyout.
From a person living near there: A lot of Geary *ISN’T* perfect for high density, largely because it’s still slow going using the 38 bus on that street, and there isn’t a dedicated muni line. Geary is very much a main thoroughfare with a lot of public transit going on, but the speeds are still too slow, compared to things like muni.
Trying to suggest that every bus corridor — or all of a bus corridor — is ideal for high density overlooks the time it takes to get from there to where people tend to work. It also overlooks the long waits for load-in / load-out at stops using conventional buses, largely because the city hasn’t adequately implemented the features that work in cities like Curitiba, with people paying ahead of time, rapid boarding tech for people with disabilities, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhZxFrGFjv8&t=196s
That’s the problem with the new express lane on Van Ness: It fails to fully implement the needed changes, so will only improve the horribly slow bus speeds on Van Ness by about 3mph, according to the city.
As for housing, my advice would be to target around BART stops for about 3-4 blocks, Muni routes for about 2 blocks, and the areas immediately around express bus stops for a block, with actual protections, planning, and alternative housing for people who are displaced by new construction in place first, with guarantees they can move into something comparable in the new structure, so that we don’t gut entire local communities and their local support structures. (And yes, by all means, once we have these things in place, then build without delays, because people’s lives are going to be uprooted.)
Without basic protections in place, neighborhoods like Chinatown, right next to the new MUNI line, will be decimated and turned into yupscaled housing for rich software developers. Lots of the locals are old and fairly poor, and will be either out on the street or forced to share already grossly overcrowded housing.
What is also needed is a real plan for real transit corridors from the Sunset to the downtown, designed in such a way to not be stopped by cross traffic, people turning in front of them, etc. Geary isn’t suited for this, though streets to the north or south of it could be converted appropriately. All this will take money, of course… and the desire to get it done right.
As it stands, the YIMBYs threaten the safety of everyone who needs rent controlled housing just to skate by in S.F., threatens the destruction of places like Chinatown, North Beach, etc. Growth absolutely needs to happen, and that will entail some pain… but its foolish to believe we would be safer leaving the safety of our neighborhoods up to dictats from Sacramento.
In his security box at the bank (with the loot).
Thanks. I remembered wrong. Actually, it’s 22% in 2017 who lost their job — but it would be fair to say that you get 23% if you add the argument and divorce/separation categories together. Pretty amazing that in 2013, as the boom was heating up, 29% went to loss of a job, and job loss continues to be the highest category. Kinda puts the lie to everyone benefiting from the tech boom.
Congratulations. 100+ words without putting the word affordable in quotation marks.
Goodien’s law state Kraus will use the word affordable in quotation marks at least per every 5 comments.
We don’t know if they can afford their rent, but the odds are they were paying below market.
There is a high probability they would pay more for less to stay in the same neighborhood or move. Some will choose to leave the City. Alameda may be a more attractive option to the Bayview and Marin better than the Outer Sunset.
You need to get your story straight. Your numbers have changed .. why is that?
I think you’re broadening the definition of eviction, but the idea that tons of people getting displaced due to rent increases beyond their means is definitely true. If you live in a non-rent controlled apartment and the landlord brings the rent up to market rate and you just can’t afford it, you’re out, and it doesn’t really count toward any statistic. Whether or not that’s an “eviction” is debatable, but definitely counts toward the displacement problem.
h. brown and I determined she was having filet of sole at John’s Grill with the ghost of Jack Spade.
While I’d love to see the entire city upzoned I can see why local politicians and neighbors would want it negotiated for the city. It can see how it is drastic, but on the other hand I still believe drastic measures are needed. I’d like to see the same map that details where the upzoning would take place in SF (which is like 95%) over laid over the entire Bay to see how much areas in the Peninsula will be effected. If SF is bearing the vast majority of the upzoning “burden” then I can totally understand the push back.
In regards to infrastructure, the SFTMA just needs to come to bat. Their incompetence and mismanagement can’t be used as an excuse to not build more housing. Just because they’ve sucked in the past doesn’t mean the public and/or state cannot hold them accountable for not being able to keep up. The western half of the city has plenty of room for housing, they’ll also have plenty of room for increased public transit. If something needs to be added to the bill to ensure a higher level of accountability/results then so be it!
Still, I think there is an overall consensus is that the premise of Weiner’s bill is needed.
I can provide links if you like. I can only provide links to official data however, not unrecorded transactions. The issue is whether evictions are the cause of chronic homelessness. Where are the data to support that?
The twenty-year eviction trend is down, as are OMI and Ellis evictions. Therefore the homeless trend should be down if evictions cause chronic homelessness.
The heading is “Argument/ Family or Friend Asked You to Leave”.
http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Point-in-Time-Count-General-FINAL-6.21.17.pdf
Thank you for covering the event 48Hills, and thank you for this write up Tim!
Here it is… 2017 San Francisco Homeless Count & Survey
It does contain the 70% ‘previously housed’ figure, and the 12% eviction pct. Page 27.
It’s not the landlord’s fault if the tenant can no longer pay the rent. Perhaps they can give them some time but you can’t expect them to keep paying RE taxes and mortgage indefinitely and not get rent money.
Please provide that link again. I recall respondents saying that they were previously living with a friend, partner or relative. This does not mean that the friend, relative or partner kicked them out. They may have been kicked out by the landlord at the same time as the friend, relative or partner.
She’s not really a Democrat either.
Yes, exactly. Breed learned well from Brown-Newsom-Lee.
Nice dodge. The issue is not “buying homes,” but is evicting people from Housing they can afford.
Someone linked the survey where the 70% figure came from and I read it that way. Others read it differently. Maybe someone has it handy and can link it again here.
It may surprise you to know that many evictions, even ones where a “proper notice” was given, are never registered with the Rent Board. Many more are illegal evictions where people move because they don’t know their rights. Others are non-payment evictions, not because the tenant suddenly decides to screw over their landlord, but because they received a huge rent increase they could not afford, or because they lost their job after already being barely able to pay rent before this. No, I don’t have a handy link to provide — this is from many years of experience working with tenants, my own and others who I have regular contact with.
You too don’t have links either. What experience do you have to say all these things that are too numerous to repeat here for your convenience?
No one has a lease and no one is living there. That is why a registry has been proposed.
What a total,load of crap. The “growing economy” in San Francisco has done NOTHING for the poor and middle-class. They have been pushed out by greedy landlords, and older people are not hired, even if they have the requisite skills, and far more experience than the prized “tech bros.”
Spelling flames are the last refuge of scoundrels.
He is a true DINO. Democrat In Name Only.
Kraus aka Trauss is just prone to throw her crap, hoping something sticks. No consideration that people might learn stuff.
Right…because things were so great under Brown-Newsom-Lee. Insanity is doing the same thing but expecting different results.
You’re just mad because they turned on you. And in serious denial.
Ah, tap dancing around the truth.
It is a well established fact. But it is an inconvenience for you.
Yes, that is a known fact. It is denied by ignorant bigots because it does not fit their view.
People who become chronically homeless start out as “temporarilyl homeless. No one wakes up one morning saying “Oh joy! Today I will become homeless! I can hardly wait to sleep on the sidewalk, eat out of garbage cans, and use sidewalks for bathrooms! And I love being hated and reviled by ignorant bigots.”
Which claims?
The annual homeless report says their sample was not representative and they show chronic versus non-chronic data. They don’t provide the survey instruments and instructions, however.
There is also some data on where those who are evicted move to in a survey done by the anti-eviction project. Most of their data is from low-income people who seek help. More affluent evictees are less likely to use those services.
The City has reports showing evictions by zip code.
The census has data on the reasons why people move.
Looks like you are so hot to discredit Kim that you assigned a position to her that was clearly given to Alioto — re. Geary.
And if you are going to make a big deal about typos in a full article, you may do well to look over your, albeit rather lengthy, comments. Some, like the one you and Porfirio are so hot and bothered about in Redmond’s article, don’t get caught by spell check.
Weiner shoukd just own up and change his party afiliation to “Republican”, a la Reagan deregulation of corporations and corporate cash. Or, for that matter, the TeaParty since he’s such a flaming free market economist.
Where is the data to back up your claims?
I’m glad to hear that the candidates have come to their senses about SB827. Too bad this is a state bill that is likely to win, as so many of the legislators voting on it will be relatively unaffected by it. The steady drumbeat of gentrification will continue in the “hot markets” until developers choke the life out of SF, Oakland, LA, etc. But Wiener is deaf to that drumbeat. He marches to a different drummer, that of his Big Moneyed donors.
I agree, he has no data to back him up.
That 70% is based on a non-representative sample (1,000 of 7,000 homeless) biased toward the temporarily homeless, not the chronic homeless.
As I recall from another survey it was 1% of Ellis/OMI evictees that became temporarily homeless. Most evictees found another place in the same neighborhood or in the City. The highest percent (of total rentals) of Ellis evictions are in White, educated, affluent neighborhoods with high home values. I don’t think the Bayview had any Ellis evictions. I am guessing most who live in White, educated affluent neighborhoods are not poor minorities. Following, newspaper articles on Ellis/OMI evictions in the Mission they were all White. In one case a Latino landlord had a problem OMI evicting White Millennials.
It does seem that she has given up claiming to be a Progressive as that ship has sailed for her, particularly since she has so clearly allied herself with the YIMBYs. But it should also give one pause that Breed refuses to be clear about where she stands — she cited a scheduling conflict instead of just saying that this was not her crowd, or coming and facing the music despite it not being her crowd. She talks big about being her own person and yet plays the passive aggressive game.
Leno does this thing where he says that 70% of the homeless once had a place in SF. Then he goes into his anti-Ellis speech as if to imply that Ellis is a major contributor to the problem.
Just to compare what Leno says to the truth, only 13% of the homeless say that they were evicted, and that would be for all evictions, including non-payment of rent. A much larger percentage, 22%, say that they were kicked out by a friend, partner or relative, not by a landlord.
According to the SF Rent Board there were 127 Ellis evictions last year, throw in another 397 owner moved ins and you have a total of about 525 no fault evictions. Certainly not all of these people wind up on the streets. Most actually feel that living in a small place in, perhaps, Vallejo is actually better than a tent on a San Francisco street.
Leno is being highly misleading to the voters when he points to Ellis as a major factor in homelessness.
What would the ideal San Fransisco look like? You mentioned Rincon Hill before, but then the City would have few families and few children and Rincon Hill is not affordable. Can you come up with another model neighborhood San Francisco should look like?
Too bad the 400,000 were replaced. If they were not, housing would then be affordable.
“Kim pointed out that 400,000 people have left San Francisco in the past 15 years, and that our growing economy has also created radical wealth and income inequality.”
It true everyplace that a growing economy creates income inequality. But a growing economy also helps the poor and middle-class. We should have an economic downturn so that more people are unemployed and more equal? Typical Marxist thinking. We should all be equally poor.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill
And yes. There’s that.
Run London run!!!!!! As far and as fast as you can from your actual record after 5 years in City Hall. Questions from voters will not be entertained.
“All the candidates who showed up support a tax on vacant apartments and storefronts.”
How will they determine if an apartment if vacant?
“Leno and Kim both said that addressing the homeless problem starts with preventing evictions.”
Maybe one or two percent of those who are evicted become temporarily homeless. Evictions have little to do with chronic homelessness, mental illness or drug addiction. Or for that matter those who choose a semi-nomadic lifestyle.
“And he said that he would sue speculators who are using the Ellis Act over and over again to clear buildings of rent-controlled tenants and flipping them for profit.”
Why else would someone buy rent-controlled buildings and convert them to owner occupied if not for a profit? The problem is there are too few Ellis conversions to make much difference in the price of buying a home. It may help some in the middle-class get into the market a little earlier,
but not very many.
I’m guessing she skipped it because she’s not a Progressive.
Londn Breed had a “scheduling conflict” ??????? Say it isn’t so. Oh well. I guess when you have as much money from political donors like Con Wrongway and DeeDee Wilsey, you don’t need to attend these types of events.
“Supervisor Breed skipped the event.” Now why could that be?
1. Historically Breed ducks any event where the public will ask questions about her record. Photo ops and ribbon cuttings are her preference.
2. Breed prefers speech making over any discussion of her actual policy plans for stopping things like illegal and fraudulent evictions, homelessness, and developer/speculator giveaways.
3. independent expenditure attack ads are so much more effective than actually listening to and engaging with San Franciscans about their concerns.
Who knows?
I get the impression that Leno is breaking Tim’s little heart. Unless it is a strategy to spare Leno the political poison of being a true progressive.
Kim doesn’t seem to know which way to flail.
“Alioto loses [sic] and [sic] possible left credibility”
Did you mean to say “Alioto looses any possible left credibility”?
Wait…it is 400,000 people in the past seven years, under Ed Lee, not 15 years. We need to get our stories straight!
The truth is that, according to the census approx 60K people have been leaving San Francisco a year going back to 2005, which is as far back as they go on this data.
If it was 400,000 over 15 years it would be 3.3% a year, which ain’t bad. People do get married, have kids, retire, get married, etc.
Kim tends to offer misleading information even more frequently than other progressives.
Clarity?
This bunch is so squirrelly.
Depending upon the audience, they’re just telling you what you want to hear
(Hope springs eternal, dontcha know?)
Re: SB-827, merely a week ago they were all for it before they we’re against it.
And on that topic, a rather caging answer from “as-it-is-written” Leno — boy, isn’t he the the consummate politician?
(Weiner’s a big supporter of his and the feeling’s mutual.)
So much for “clarity”.