The Board of Supes approved Mayor Lurie’s Rich Family Zoning Plan today after rejecting an amendment that would protect all rent-controlled housing.
The vote was 7-4, with Sups. Connie Chan, Chyanne Chen, Jackie Fielder, and Shamann Walton in opposition.
By the same vote, the supes rejected a Chan amendment that would have removed from the upzoning any existing housing units that are under rent control.
Newly appointed Sup. Alan Wong opposed the amendment and supported the plan.
The vote was no surprise: The conservative pro-development forces control the Board of Supes, and the Land Use and Transportation Committee had already rejected amendments to protect existing housing.
Sup. Bilal Mahmood insisted that the city already protects most housing from demolition, and Principal Planner Lisa Chen told the supes that any demolition requires a conditional use permit that the Planning Commission often rejects. The Eastern Neighborhoods Plan allowed much taller and denser housing, but didn’t lead to a lot of existing housing demolished, Chen said.
But the Eastern Neighborhoods had a lot more places to build tall housing without demolishing existing units. Adding more housing on the Geary, Clement, Judah, and Taraval corridors, where height limits would rise, would almost certainly require some demolitions.
Plus: During the early 1980s, the Residential Builders Association easily got permission to demolish dozens of existing (historic) residential buildings in the Richmond to put up cheaply built and high-profit “builder’s special” apartments that were not under rent control. The rules are tighter now—but there is no ban on destroying housing, just a requirement that the Planning Commission hold a hearing and approve each application.
So I’m not entirely confident in the ability of a developer-friendly Planning Commission to save existing housing.
The discussion at the board made clear that this entire process has been driven not by San Francisco, but by a small number of state legislators, led by Sen. Scott Wiener, who are strongly supported by the real-estate industry and the Yimby organizers.
Several supervisors, led by Bilal Mahmood, argued that if the Rich Family Zoning Plan doesn’t get approved as presented, with no amendments, the state Department of Housing and Community Development could reject the city’s housing plans and usurp all local land-use controls.
Sup. Shamann Walton called that state “bullying,” and said he doesn’t think the administration of Gov. Gavin Newsom “is going to attack San Francisco over arbitrary goals that no county and no city will be able to reach.”
He said that “this is about people who have never built anything trying to set policy for San Francisco.” Walton, who formerly ran Young Community Developers, which builds affordable housing, is the only member of the board who has actually built any housing.
He said the plan is utterly unrealistic: “Not one of these [affordable] units will be built. Not one.”
When Chan introduced her amendment, Sups. Danny Sauter and Stephen Sherrill were both incredibly dismissive, as was Mahmood. They tried to portray her tenant protections as political posturing—and I don’t say these things lightly (or often), but two white guys acting like a woman of color shouldn’t be taken seriously was more than a little offensive.
I’ve spoken to several women at City Hall who were involved in the process, and they agreed with me.
As Fielder noted, almost every group that works with or represents vulnerable communities of color opposed this plan. The supes ignored them; apparently, the supes and the developers know better than the people who will directly feel the impacts.
But the biggest issue here got mangled in a debate that continues to boggle my poor old brain.
Over and over, supervisors like Matt Dorsey, Sauter, Melgar and Mahmood spoke about “affordability,” and the need for more housing to help young people and families stay in San Francisco. Sauter talked about the 8,000 people who applied for affordable housing in his district and didn’t win the lottery. Mahmood even talked about people moving here to escape repression and bigotry.
Nothing, nothing, nothing in the Lurie plan provides affordable housing for those people.
Nothing, nothing, nothing in Wiener’s legislation provides money for affordable housing for people who aren’t rich.
Also: Nothing provides any financing that could make even market-rate housing feasible unless rents go up even higher.
Every statement about affordability is based on a mind-bending faith in the free market today to provide a solution to the affordable housing crisis. Too say this is a fantasy is wildly unfair to fantasies.
If a three-bedroom apartment for a family now rents for $5,000 a month, the city’s conservative economist says that at best, this rezoning could bring down that price to $4,500. This is “affordability?”
The Rich Family Zoning Plan is going to be a political issue this spring. Chan voted and worked with community groups like the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition and the Anti-Displacement Coalition to modify the proposal to protect tenants and small businesses. Wiener is the author of most of the legislation that is forcing this plan on the city.
Both are running for Congress.
Sup. Alan Wong voted for the plan on his first day in office. He has to appear on the June ballot, and Natalie Gee, who works for Walton, is also running. She told me today:
Yes, we need to build housing, but passing a family-zoning plan without real protections for our rent-controlled homes two units and below is a letdown to so many vulnerable people in San Francisco. In District 4 alone, there are more than 2,200 rent-controlled units occupied by middle and working class families, seniors, and educators that are now at risk of displacement. It’s not what I would have done, but I’m sure that’s why he was appointed. We can grow our housing supply and still protect the people who are already here. That balance is what District 4 deserves, and I’ll always fight for it.
None of this is “posturing.” It’s an honest, and critical, debate about the future of the city. And as the impacts of the Rich Family Zoning plan become more clear, it’s going to be a big deal.
I will make one more point. Several supes, including Melgar and Sauter, talked about the 1978 board vote that set height limits on the west side of town. Melgar even disparaging spoke about people opposing the “Manhattanization of San Francisco.”
I wasn’t here in 1978, but I arrived three years later, and worked for the Bay Guardian, which created that term. Housing was never the issue.
The slow-growth movement that we were a part of was all about limiting new office development. We argued that building tens of millions of square feet of office space would attract tens of thousands of new high-paid workers—and that there was no housing for them. The anti-Manhattanization movement fought every day to force office developers to pay fees for housing for their workers, so the influx wouldn’t displace low-income residents.
“Create a job, build a housing unit” was part of our mantra.
But then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein didn’t want to do anything that would (to use the Yimby word) “constrain” the profits of office developers.
In 1971 and 1973, measures to limit office developers made the ballot and almost passed. Another one was headed for the ballot in 1979, and was likely to win (when even west side conservatives like Sup. Quentin Kopp supported it).
So Feinstein, who was running against Kopp for mayor, and the developers cut a deal with the neighborhoods. The supes would agree to limit height and density on the west side, to undermine the anti-highrise movement.
There were, indeed, Yimbys back then who wanted to protect single-family zoning. But this was not primarily about housing. It was about office creep, about downtown expanding into the neighborhoods (which was normal in Manhattan). The Feinstein deal mollified enough west side voters to defeat Prop. O in 1979.
The end result wasn’t perfect, or even good. But let’s be real about what happened. The organized activists who were fighting “Manhattanization” were always, always, in favor of more affordable housing. In fact, the entire nonprofit affordable housing infrastructure that exists today was born from that same movement, which also fought the racism and displacement of redevelopment.
Same folks who, by legacy, are fighting the Rich Family Housing Plan today.
For the record, Sups. Melgar and Sauter.
