It’s no secret that San Francisco has been grappling with a severe affordable housing shortage for decades. As housing prices soar, people like teachers, nurses and other essential workers can no longer afford homes in the city.
Hardly a day goes by without local or national news articles or social media posts about the “crisis,” including proposals, and more often platitudes, from politicians from City Hall to Sacramento. As the November election approaches, the lack of affordable housing is topmost on voters’ minds and has led to intense jostling between Mayor London Breed and her opponents for who will best address this shortage.
This past February, in a prelude of things to come, after a dust up between Breed and Supervisor Aaron Peskin over proposed housing in the northeast corner of the city, in an attempt to paint him as anti-housing, she responded that:
“Restricting new housing runs counter to the goals of our Housing Element, which the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved just over a year ago. It also runs counter to what we need to do to make this city a place that creates opportunities for new homes for the people who need them today and for future generations growing up in San Francisco.”
“We will not move backward. Our lack of housing is at the root of so many challenges in San Francisco and California. Poverty, homelessness, economic revitalization, climate change. … This is why I’m standing for San Francisco to be a city of yes on housing.”
In announcing the opening of Shirley Chisholm Village, built with 135 affordable homes for teachers, Mayor Breed went on to say:
“San Francisco has a housing shortage that is holding us back from being a thriving, affordable city, but we are making significant changes to get more homes built. Shirley Chisholm Village is an example of our work to make this city more affordable. We must continue to build on this momentum to find every opportunity to bring housing solutions that are affordable so all working people can live in the communities that they work so hard to support.”
The approval this past March of Proposition A to allow the City to issue $300 million in bonds for affordable housing shows that San Franciscans overwhelmingly agree with the mayor’s expressed sentiments.
As far back as 1999, San Francisco voters, cognizant of our growing housing crisis, made a compact with the city to replace the Central Freeway in Hayes Valley with Octavia Boulevard AND new housing, much of it affordable, on land formerly occupied by the elevated highway.
Yet more than 20 years since the freeway was demolished in 2003, several former freeway parcels owned by the city that were slated for housing remain vacant. They include Parcel K, an 11,000-square-0foot former parking lot at the corner Hayes and Octavia, that was specifically designated for 100 percent affordable workforce housing. Given current zoning, architects have estimated more than 100 units could be built there.
Parcel K is the poster child for affordable housing development. When the Central Freeway was demolished in 2003, the state gave it and 21 other former freeway parcels to San Francisco specifically for housing development. The city owns Parcel K and the site is essentially “shovel-ready.” It sits in the heart of Hayes Valley proximate to many services including several transit lines. The Market/Octavia Plan, which the city adopted in 2008, calls for construction of affordable housing there. It is also consistent with the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association’s “core values” that encourages the development of affordable housing in the neighborhood.
In March 2023, the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development announced it would begin the process to build the housing on Parcel K by the end of last summer. Yet suddenly, without explanation, the project was pulled and more than a year later there has still been no progress.
After MOHCD’s sudden and unexplained reversal, a neighborhood-based group of residents called Hayes Valley for All, began advocating for the affordable housing. The group has spearheaded a petition drive that has gathered more than 1,600 signatures from fellow San Franciscans, as well as the support of community organizations including the Sierra Club and the San Francisco Tenants Union, urging the mayor and MOHCD to move forward with affordable housing with complimentary open space on Parcel K.
Breed has declared unequivocal support for affordable housing, the state has mandated we build 47,000 units of affordable housing in the city by 2031, and countless political and community leaders are advocating for what the majority of San Franciscans support, which begs the question: Why have local neighbors been forced to lobby and petition MOHCD to build affordable housing, on a lot that was set aside decades ago for this explicit purpose?
Judging from all the other candidates’ public statements, it appears there is near unanimous agreement among those running this November for the Mayor’s Office and Board of Supervisors that more affordable housing must be built. Yet when Hayes Valley for All recently surveyed candidates about their position on building affordable housing on Parcel K, only mayoral candidates Sup. Aaron Peskin and Sup. Ahsha Safai, Danny Sauter and Moe Jamil in District 3, Jackie Fielder in District 9, and Sup. Dean Preston and Bilal Mahmood in District 5 where Parcel K is located, responded in favor.
As we approach November’s election, San Franciscans should demand that all the candidates, including Breed, commit to end the foot dragging and take action to actually address our affordable housing crisis. If we can’t commit to building on Parcel K, what was promised to voters 25 years ago, what does that say about our commitment to reach our 2031 goals, especially when the Funding is available?
In the Mayor’s own words in a press release issued by her office last February:
“Our housing shortage drives out families, forces workers into long commutes, puts seniors at risk, and is a significant contributor to the top challenges we need to tackle, including homelessness, climate change, and our economic recovery. The causes of this shortage are broad, and they include blatant obstructionism.”
“…we must implement policies and actions so we can truly be a city that delivers on a vision of Housing for All. I am directing departments to find long-term solutions for creating more affordable housing.”
“As a critical first step toward accomplishing my goal of providing Housing for All…I am pushing each of my departments to find new ways to streamline, rather than obstruct, the construction of housing.”
“Much work remains as we push to fully implement the plans set forth in our Housing Element, and this is just the beginning.”
How about starting with the housing on Parcel K? All it takes is political will.
