Rev. Norman Fong is stepping down as the head of Chinatown Community Development Center after 30 years of organizing leadership. He was, and is, one of the most popular people in Chinatown and in San Francisco politics: I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who doesn’t love Norman Fong.
He’s worked hard for a long time serving others, and he deserve to relax and have some time for himself. But I doubt that’s going to happen: Norman is a born organizer and he’ll still be part of the local political scene.
The mayor’s monthly scheduled appearance before the Board of Supes is Tuesday/11, and is the custom, none of the board member submitted any questions. What I hear from the supes and their staff is that they find the process useless, since the mayor has to be told in advance the subject of the question, and she simply reads a prepared answer full of spin and deflection.
Which completely undermines the intent of the measure that created “question time.” The author, former Sup. Chris Daly, envisioned a vigorous period of policy debate between the mayor and the board, with both branches of government discussing in public the issues facing the city.
The law, passed in 2006, doesn’t say specifically that the board members have to submit questions in advance; that’s up to the rules that the board sets. And at first, then-Board President David Chiu cut a deal that required all questions to be submitted first in writing.
But since then the Mayor’s Office has pretty much refused to offer anything but stock answers.
This is a waste of what ought to be an important part of SF politics and policymaking.
I don’t know who the next board president will be; Sup. Norman Yee is termed out, and the board the city elects this fall will then choose a new president in Jan. 2021. But top on the agenda for anyone who wants the job should be new rules:
The supes submit nothing in advance to the mayor. The mayor shows up, the board members ask questions, and there is a policy debate for at least 15 minutes.
In the past, mayors have said they need to know the subject matter in advance so they can be prepared to answer. That’s so ridiculous: If the mayor of San Francisco can’t answer policy questions from the supervisors without their staff first vetting the material and writing out a prepared statement, then the mayor is woefully ill-informed and the public has the right to know.
The supes will also vote on an ordinance that would add teeth to the rules around landlords buying out tenants so they can vacate the units.
With rents soaring and greedy owners desperate to get rid of long-term rent-controlled tenants, it’s increasingly popular for owners to offer sums of cash to convince renters to leave.
These buyouts used to amount to stealth evictions; the tenant was gone, but the city had no record of it. Now, the city requires buyout agreements (typically in Ellis Act evictions) to be recorded with the Rent Board.
But there’s a loophole: If the landlord files an eviction lawsuit, and as part of the settlement the tenant agrees to accept money and leave, that’s not recorded; it’s just part of a lawsuit settlement.
Scott Shafer’s conversations with former Gov. Jerry Brown are running as a series on KQED, and the section on his work in Oakland, which aired Sunday afternoon, makes very clear something that Brown’s critics (including me) have hinted at for years:
Mayor Jerry Brown didn’t care about poor people.
His words were shocking, except that they weren’t. For all his prior manifestation as a populist who blasted big campaign donors and fat cats, by the time he was running Oakland he was all about capitalism, down on government assistance, and a huge fan of real-estate developers.
At times in the interview he sounds almost like Donald Trump.
Brown told Shafer he wanted no affordable housing in the downtown area when he was mayor. His goal of bringing 10,000 new residents to Oakland was really about bringing 10,000 rich new residents. He said that if he allowed affordable housing, the people who lived there wouldn’t have enough money to spend in the upscale restaurants and entertainment venues he wanted to see spring up.
He said he didn’t want to require builders to add subsidized housing because “people who want the government to pay for their medicine and their housing, that’s not how we’ve been doing it in this country.” Yes: He said that.
He spoke of hearing from an African American woman who complained that his policies were driving up rents and forcing Black people out of Oakland. His response: Rents were going up because Oakland was getting more popular for rich people. That was a good thing.
In one of the more shocking segments, he seems to be defending the “riders,” a group of rogue cops who were accused of beatings, planting evidence, and a wide range of other offenses. The city wound up paying more than $10 million to settle civil suits in the scandal.
Brown first talked about how tough it was to be a cop, and how much he liked the OPD. Shafer pushed him and asked if he was defending the planting of evidence and police brutality.
Of course not, Brown said dismissively; those things were illegal. But he said that the cops were “at war,” that very bad people (at that point he sounded like Trump again) were trying to kill the police, and that, apparently, a bit of brutality was in order.
It’s pretty amazing. Except that for low-income people and people of color who lived in Oakland during that period, it’s not going to come as a big surprise.
City College is very much on the agenda this week: The supes will be voting Tuesday/28on whether to give the school the $2.7 million it needs to restore class cuts for this spring.
Mayor London Breed has shown no indication that she supports the supplemental appropriation, so it will need eight votes to pass with a veto-proof majority.
Critics – including the chancellor – are saying that this is just a band-aid, and that the school needs to downsize for the long term. But Leslie Simon, an Interdisciplinary Studies Department faculty member and former chair of Women’s and Gender Studies, said that’s the wrong approach: It’s a bridge, not a band-aid. By next fall, two ballot measures, one local and one statewide, will offer voters a chance to provide a steady stream of new revenue for the school.
City College of San Francisco has been under attack for the last seven and a half years by conservative forces whose goal is to shrink the college. Education “reformers” seek to turn community colleges into junior colleges removing from the college’s mission “cultural enrichment, civic engagement, and life-long learning.”
Here is a sampling of what was cut for the spring:
Older Adults serving low-income elders lost 90 percent of its classes.
In the era of #Me Too, City College lost its last Women’s History class and both of itslast remaining self-defense classes. Art lost 51 classes and PE/Dance 45. Music, Journalism, Child Development, and Culinary Arts suffered serious losses. Engineering lost 40 percent of its classes
Paralegal Studies students lost the elective (Immigration Law) they needed to graduate from the college’s proud ABA approved program. The coordinator had to scramble to find the students classes elsewhere in the Bay Area.
Since enrollment reductions this year become permanent, cuts set the school in a downward spiral. Fewer classes means fewer students means less state funding – which means more downsizing.
Then on Friday/21, Sup. Shamann Walton, who is sponsoring the $2.7 million measure, has called a hearing at the Joint City, School District, and Community College Committee to discuss the impact the class cuts have had on low-income and communities of color and high-school students.
He tried to do this earlier this month, but none of the key people from City College (including the administrators and the trustees) showed up. The hearing starts at 10am in the board chambers.
The supes are going to vote Tuesday/28 on a settlement agreement in a law-enforcement-abuse case that would cost the city $160,000.
The case involves a boy who was arrested by SF police at 15 and held in juvenile detention in defiance not only of the city’s own risk-assessment tools but the orders of a Superior Court judge:
This case arises from the unlawful incarceration of K.R., an African-American teenage boy, in San Francisco’s juvenile hall. The San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department booked K.R. into the county’s locked juvenile facility on Thursday, June 29, 2017, overriding a risk assessment indicating that he should be released. On Friday, June 30, a judge of the San Francisco Superior Court ordered K.R.’s release. Officers of the Juvenile Probation Department received that court order, but failed to release K.R. Instead, the Juvenile Probation Department held K.R. in custody until the following Monday, July 3, when the judge again ordered him to be released.
As a result of the actions by the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department, K.R. was held against his will in a locked cell, deprived of his freedom, separated from the care and love of his family, and subjected to the control of the custodial officers.
The new SF district attorney is likely to change that – although everything he does is getting attacked in the news media. The latest: Boudin has decided, for now, that he can’t charge Jamaica Houston with a crime while he is deciding whether the police officer who shot him also committed a crime.
That actually makes sense, from a legal standpoint: Boudin was a public defender, and he knows exactly what would happen in a trial if the prime witness against an accused assailant – the cop who shot him – is also under investigation (and potentially indictment) in the incident. The defense would shred that witness.
Boudin hasn’t decided “not to pursue charges.” He has withdrawn the charges without prejudice – meaning that any time in the next three years, after he has decided what to do about the officer-involved shooting, he can refile those charges.
And Hampton isn’t going anywhere anytime soon: He’s still in SF General Hospital, where he just had his leg amputated.
Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing the biggest budget in state history, $220 billion,which is a huge number, and it shows that Newsom, unlike his predecessor, wants to restore some of the cuts and repair that damage that was done in the lean years of the Great Recession (which was only about a decade ago, but seems like ancient history).
By some accounts, the budget in these boom times will include a surplus of as much as $7 billion.
There are so, so many priorities in the state, so many things to spend money on. But I have to say: If every poll says that housing and homelessness are the biggest issues, why is there so comparatively little money for affordable housing?
The state ought to be spending $10 billion a year, minimum, on helping cities build non-market housing. Over five years, with some local match (and a little federal money, maybe more after next year if a Democrat who cares about housing beats Trump), we’re talking perhaps as many as 150,000 units of affordable housing. That’s housing for almost 300,000 people (at current average household sizes).
It would be more than enough to house every one of the roughly 120,000 homeless people in the state.
This is not worth 4.5 percent of the state budget?
Sup. Shamann Walton is asking the board to approve $2.7 million (that the city can well afford) to prevent the cancellation of 345 classes at City College. The money would come from the city’s reserves, which are healthy enough at more than $130 million to take a modest hit.
The measure comes before the Budget and Finance Committee Wednesday/15.
The chancellor has made it clear he doesn’t want the money.
I have been talking to City College trustees about this. They say that this is just a pittance, a way to stave off for a semester a much bigger funding problem, and that’s true.
The state has taken the position that all community colleges should focus on getting undergrads the credits they need to transfer to four-year schools. That’s a good focus (and something that many community colleges have not been good at). But serving those students and the larger community are not mutually exclusive – and when and if the voters change Prop. 13 next fall, and provide more than $12 billion for education, this could be moot.
In the meantime, though, if the money’s there, why not take it?
The meeting starts at 10am in Room 250, City Hall.
The full board will consider Tuesday/14 a resolution that is a major step toward the city taking over PG&E’s distribution system and creating a full public-power operation.
There’s nothing binding about the legislation by Sups. Aaron Peskin and Hillary Ronen that calls for
conditionally authorizing the issuance by the Public Utilities Commission of Power Enterprise Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,065,395,000 to finance the cost of acquiring certain Pacific Gas and Electric Company electric distribution and transmission assets to provide affordable, safe and reliable electric service, consistent with environmental and climate goals, throughout the City and County of San Francisco, subject to specified conditions, as defined herein.
Upon further study, the resolution notes, there will be some additional costs:
In addition to the purchase price for the Proposed Acquisition, the PUC anticipates that additional funds will be required for the PUC’s transition to ownership and operation of the PG&E Assets, including but not limited to work to separate the PG&E Assets from the remainder of the PG&E grid; expanding personnel capacity; acquiring equipment inventory and software; and establishing operating reserves; and
WHEREAS, The City has a long history of working productively with its unionized workforce, and will work in good faith to transition current PG&E unionized employees to City employment.
So the $3 billion in bonds would be enough to cover all the transition costs.
This is not going to happen immediately, since PG&E has rejected the city’s offer. But the resolution puts both the private utility and the bankruptcy court on notice that San Francisco is completely serious about taking over PG&E’s local infrastructure.
And when the judge looks at a company scrambling for cash, and sees $3 billion on the table for just a fraction of PG&E’s system, there’s a chance that the court will push for the company to accept it.
If not, once the complex bankruptcy dealing are over, the city’s next step – if PG&E still refuses to sell – could be to initiate eminent domain proceedings and take the system by force. That’s perfectly legal (in fact, I could argue, it’s required by federal law), and while it would take a while, we’ve been fighting over this for almost 100 years.
Eminent domain may be the only option.
The supes will also vote this week to settle for $225,000 a lawsuit that alleges profound racial discrimination by SFPD during drug busts in the Tenderloin.
The suit, filed by the ACLU, alleged that
In 2013 and 2014, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California (“USAO”) partnered with the San Francisco Police Department (“Police Department” or “Department”) on a joint operation (the “Operation”) to enforce certain drug laws in the Tenderloin. Police Department officers decided which individuals to target for buy-walks and surveillance in the Operation. Those officers targeted 37 people for federal prosecution for selling small amounts of drugs. Yet despite Police Department officers knowing, at the time, that people of many different races engage in drug sales in the Tenderloin, all 37 people those officers targeted were Black.
Prosecutors ended up dropping all charges against the 12 people named in the suit.
The case, filed in 2018, charged that the SFPD was well aware that some of its officers were racists, but didn’t take adequate action:
The Department has refused to implement reforms to begin responding to its long history of racially biased policing or to counteract a culture that tolerates racism by some officers and fails to discipline adequately officers whom the Department knows have demonstrated racial bias.
So the taxpayers are going to be on the hook for yet another in a long list of abuses by the SFPD. I have always wondered why this kind of settlement doesn’t come directly out the Police Department budget.
State Sen. Scott Wiener will hold a press conference and rally in Oakland Tuesday/7 to announce that he’s re-introducing a new version of his housing deregulation bill, SB 50. It will need to get through committee and off the Senate floor this month.
The East Bay Times calls it a Zoning Reform Bill, but it’s much more than that. It’s a measure that, in essence, would force California cities to rely even more on the private sector to address the housing crisis.
It does not offer a penny of state money for affordable housing. It doesn’t do anything to mandate that cities limit office development until they have adequate housing for the workforce. It starts and ends with the assumption – unproven and by some accounts just wrong– that greater density will lead to lower housing prices.
SB 50 seeks to encourage more density on transit corridors – but doesn’t provide any state aid for cities that will need to spend far more money than the get from developers to add transit infrastructure (and schools, open space, police, fire, affordable housing or anything else that has to be expanded when you increase the population).
California’s tax structure (mandated by the state Legislature and the likes of Prop. 13) makes it close to impossible for cities and counties to recoup from developers the real cost of serving their projects. The big transit measures tend to be sales taxes, tolls, and fare-box fees – hitting the hardest on the poor and working-class, and barely touching the developers and billionaires.
The supporters of SB 50, including the Yimbys, say that zoning that allows single-family neighborhoods is exclusionary and that it’s far more environmentally sound to build density close to jobs.
That’s true – if the housing that’s built is affordable to the workforce.
But the data is really, really clear – the private market has built plenty of housing in San Francisco that’s not affordable to the workforce, and almost zero that is. And with the cost of land and materials and labor, and the demand for return on investment from the speculators who fund housing these days, there’s no way that private-sector housing will ever be affordable in San Francisco. The minute prices come down to the level that most SF workers can afford, the private developers will stop building.
That’s just reality.
But longtime housing activists point out that SB 50 most likely would increase gentrification and displacement in vulnerable communities. Wiener acknowledges that possibility, and the current version of the bill allows some vulnerable communities to be exempted for a few years. There is no provision for the state putting up the money to stabilize these communities.
Nor is there any provision for the state to repeal the Ellis Act or Costa Hawkins, which prevent cities from passing effective laws to prevent displacement.
Now: for those who argue that the local housing marked has any relation to supply and demand, I asked Wiener if he is supporting Prop. E, which would link supply to demand by limiting office space until there’s enough affordable housing for the workers. He didn’t respond.
The Yimbys in SF haven’t taken a position on Prop. E either.
The rally, which will also feature Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff, is on the steps of City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza.
The Board of Supes will considerTuesday/7 deal that could be the final chapter in a 20-year battle between the city, community activists, and the Academy of Art University.
AAU is one of the greatest planning scofflaws in the history of San Francisco, a massive private institution that has grown fast and furious, taken over housing without the proper permits, and built a sprawling campus without submitting the required institutional master plan.
Most of City Hall seems to be on board with this, including longtime AAU critics like Sup. Aaron Peskin. Land-use lawyer Sue Hestor, who has been fighting with AAU even longer than Peskin, says the process is moving too fast, during the holiday season, without enough time for full public scrutiny of an immensely complex legal settlement and changes in the city’s zoning laws.
That meeting starts at 2pm.
The City Planning Commission will hear a presentation on the Sustainable Neighborhoods ProgramThursday/9. It’s all about healthy air, clean energy, clean water, and zero waste – and resilience to climate change – all of which are critically important.
It does not, however, address in any way the sustainability of existing vulnerable communities.
In other words, the commission will hear about ways to make parts of San Francisco that have had serious problems impacting the health of local residents better. That’s actually a pretty ambitious project. But it won’t hear about how to make sure that the people who live there aren’t forced out by high rents and speculation (and by some accounts, bills like SB 50).
There is, at this point, no Planning Department initiative to create economically sustainable neighborhoods; that would conflict with the department’s longtime position that its job is to facilitate private commercial development, even if the impacts on the city are, well, unsustainable.
See, it’s not about these particular cuts, bad as they are. It’s about a massive policy change in the way San Francisco looks at its community college – and that’s something the board needs to have a long, detailed, public discussion about.
A lot of policy-makers at the state level want to see community colleges shift from, well, community colleges to old-fashioned junior colleges whose entire purpose is to get young students the credits they need to transfer to a four-year institution.
That’s a great goal – but for at least half a century, for City College, it’s only been one part of the mission.
The additional cuts were not made randomly despite appearances. They were made primarily to cancel the Community College mission and replace it with the state chancellor’s push for a return to the California Junior College system of 50 years ago, but now to be run by the State.
Vast numbers of people have taken classes at City College not to get an AA degree but to learn something new that would help them improve their lives or their careers. For seniors, it’s a lifeline, a free place to keep interacting and learning and meeting others.
San Francisco voters have supported taxes and bonds to fund City College, over and over. If the chancellor wants to fundamentally change the mission, it can’t be through a series of annual cuts. The city needs to have a long conversation about this, in public. And the City College board needs to start it – now.
Dennis Richards has been a good member of the San Francisco Planning Commission. He’s often the only person who brings up major, serious issues when commissioners have a chance to speak at the start of a meeting. He was an outspoken voice against state Sen. Scott Wiener’s SB 50. He’s always accessible.
Richards is going to have to step down, with all of his progressive allies in agreement that you can’t have a member of the Planning Commission who is actively speculating on property and turning rental units into the equivalent of condos.
What he’s doing (other than his permit issues) is legal. But it shouldn’t be. One of the worst problems in this city is the removal of rental units by speculators who want to make money getting rid of tenants (in this case, buying them out, but it doesn’t matter) and turning apartments into condos.
When Richards resigns, as he should, the next planning commissioner will be appointed by Board President Norman Yee. There are so, so many great candidates.
But since Richards is taking a leave of absence, which means he’s on the way out, the commission will be choosing a new planning director without him. Better he should step down now, let the supes appoint a replacement, and have that person involved in one of the most important decisions the commission will make in the next decade.
A personal note: The Calendar is just numbers on the wall and on my phone, but it’s about to be 2020. I started this decade as the executive editor of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, and as it ends the Guardian is no longer a weekly publication and I am the editor of 48hills.org.
Among other projects, we are working with the Internet Archiveon digitizing every back issue of the Guardian (thanks to a major grant from Rainbow Grocery!).
This digital daily newspaper would not exist without you, the readers and supports who contribute to make community journalism happen. Thanks to every one of you.
The Chamber of Commerce will apparently be leading the opposition to Prop. E, the measure that would link office growth to housing– and the group’s ballot argument, which just became public, shows the approach the business and development interests will be taking to preserve their right to build more office space than the city’s existing and projected infrastructure can handle.
The argument: Prop. E will mean less affordable housing.
“Prop. E would cut $600 to $900 million in affordable housing fees paid by office space over the next 20 years,” the ballot argument states.
Oh, and if Prop. E passes, “the city stands to lose more than $1 billion in property and gross receipts tax revenue that is used to pay for street cleaning, police officers, navigation centers, Muni service, public toilets, and park maintenance.”
Note the choice of services listed here – this argument is designed to convince progressive voters that Prop. E is bad.
But there are, of course, a few key things missing from that discussion.
Office developers due, indeed, pay affordable housing fees, and if we don’t allow more offices, the city will get less affordable housing money from them.
The buildings the Chamber wants to see constructed would create a demand for $1.8 to $2.7 billion worth of affordable housing; the fees would cover about a third of that. Not building those towers would do more for the housing crisis than building them (at the current fee rate).
And the evidence is also really, really clear that new office buildings create more demand for Muni, police officers, and other city services than they pay for. By far.
The ballot argument is signed by Rodney Fong, president of the Chamber, along with Stephen Adams, the president of the Small Business Commission (whose members are getting priced out by the office-tech boom), Larry Mazzola, Jr., business agent for the plumbers’ union (which has long supported development of pretty much any type because it creates jobs for plumbers, even though the tech boom has made it impossible for many of those workers to live in San Francisco), and Sup. Catherine Stefani.
It will be interesting to see if the Chron, or any other local media, simply report these arguments or analyze them. It will also be interesting to see if the Yimby folks – some of whom have told me in the past the they agree office development is making the housing crisis worse — join the Yes on E campaign.
She also threatened unspecified cuts to other programs the supes have put forward.
Her remarks came at her monthly appearance before the board.
The decision to fully fund the mental-health program will require “a significant amount of resources,” the mayor said, “and we still don’t know where the money will come from. To add layers and layers and think the money will fall out of the sky is … irresponsible.”
She noted: “I will balance the budget, even if you layer on additional responsibilities.”
This is, of course, one of the richest cities in the history of civilization, and with the mayor’s support, it would be relatively easy to increase taxes on the very wealthy and the biggest businesses to fund not only Mental Health SF but a lot of other programs.
But it sounds like she is pushing for cuts.
Also: This isn’t something I have heard anywhere else, but at the meeting, the mayor suggested that outgoing Sup. Vallie Brown might run in fall 2020 to get her seat back.
In a lengthy thank-you speech for Brown’s community service, the mayor said to Brown: “This may not be your last board meeting – there’s an election next year.”
I wonder if that’s the new play by the Breed team.
The measure has five co-sponsors. It it’s close, Preston could be the sixth vote.
The supes will also vote on a proposal to mandate that the city provide an annual report on the fit between job growth (by wages) and housing availability.
And maybe Preston, who ran as a candidate who would “stand up to the mayor,” can change something else that’s been bothering me. Question Time – the right of the supes to ask the mayor policy questions in an open forum – has been largely wasted of late. The right to ask questions rotates, no not all 11 supes get to ask questions every month, which I suppose is fair. But it seems as if most months, nobody asks anything.
In the last board meeting, there were no questions submitted by the supes from districts 5, 6, 7 or 8.
Seriously? With all the issues facing the city, nobody wants to ask the mayor (for example) where she stands on Prop. E, whether she agrees that the jobs-affordable-housing balance is unacceptable and whether she things office developers should pay the full cost of the impacts they have on the city?
Nobody wants to ask about homeless sweeps, or when the body-camera footage of the police shooting in the Mission will be released?
The idea that the supes could have no questions at all for the mayor is beyond belief. Question Time exists for a reason; why is nobody using it?
UPDATE: The item on the Hines tower has been updated to reflect new numbers.
Sup. Matt Haney is pushing legislation that would extend eviction protections to buildings constructed after 1979. It’s a major new step in extending tenant rights to some 35,000 apartments in the city.
The city’s first rent-control law was passed in 1979 – and landlords howled that it would end new housing construction. That was an excuse to block the law, but it had an impact – the supes, with Dianne Feinstein as mayor, were only able to pass a law that exempted all units built after the ordinance took effect.
State law also bans rent control on pre-1979 buildings.
But the city’s rent law doesn’t just address prices. It also sets specific limits on when a tenant can be thrown out. Those “just-causes” for eviction include non-payment of rent, illegal use of the building, and owner move-in, or violations of the lease.
That law prevents landlords from simply announcing at the end of a lease period that the tenant has to go – or finding ways to force a tenant out at any point.
And it’s legal to expand those protections to post-1979 buildings.
Haney’s bill is backed by the Housing Rights Committee and the Tenants Union, and it comes before the Rules Committee Monday/2. The hearing’s at 10am, and Haney and advocates will meet at City Hall at 9:30 for a rally and press conference. The event’s on the steps unless it rains, in which case it’s in Room 278.
And while some of the supes are trying to prevent more displacement in the city, the Planning Commission is poised to make it worse.
The commission will meet in closed session Thursday/5 to continue considering candidates for the job of planning director, and while advocates have pushed for someone who has an equity agenda, Mayor London Breed, who will make the final decision, has not even responded.
And the same day, the commission will meet in public to consider, among other things, another giant commercial building that will rival Salesforce Tower in height – and add to the city’s housing crisis.
This is just lunacy. And it keeps on happening.
Gerald Hines (a Houston developer) wants to build an 800-foot-tall tower next to the Transbay Terminal that would include 274,000 square feet of office space, 189 hotel rooms, and 165 housing units. Given the location and the plans, those housing units will be exceptionally expensive.
According to a city study, the office space alone would create a demand for between 203 and 340 affordable housing units. Then the luxury units would create a demand for another 66 below-market units, and the hotel rooms would create new jobs that would require another 144 non-market units.
The 181 market-rate Mercy units would add a demand for 72 more affordable units. Remember: Luxury housing creates a demand for affordable housing.
That’s a deficit of 294 units — just to meet this project’s demand. So it will make the crisis worse, not better.
The quote the classic Developers’ Lament, this thing just doesn’t pencil out.
Oh, and since this monster of a project is in the Transbay Terminal district, the city won’t even do a full environmental impact report.
Why does a project that hurts the city more than it helps (if it helps at all) even make it to the commission? Why doesn’t the Planning Department staff tell the developers that growth has to pay for growth, and that the rest of us taxpayers aren’t going to keep subsidizing a Houston billionaire?
You would think that would be the job of the planning director. You would think that would be a criterion for the commission and the mayor in hiring a new chief.
If Sue Diamond is approved by the supes this week, she will be in a position to help choose the next planning director.
Diamond’s resume states that she has spent the past 28 years
managing the permitting process for some of the largest and most complex real estate projects in San Francisco and the Bay Area(e.g. high-tech and biotech campuses, alternative energy, downtown office buildings, industrial projects, gas wells, assisted living, mixed use) and advising large companies expanding nationally on site acquisition and permitting strategies.
(Gas wells? In the Bay Area? I didn’t know there were any.)
She has a master’s in urban planning from MIT and a law degree from Harvard. She clearly has experience – promoting development.
“We have never, never, had a development attorney on the Planning Commission,” Sue Hestor, who has represented community groups before that panel for more than four decades, told me.
The choice of the next planning director will be huge. Under the outgoing director, John Rahaim, the department was all about facilitating growth and development, no matter what the consequences to vulnerable communities. Activists are calling for a new director who has an understanding of economic equity– but the final decision will be up the commission and Mayor London Breed.
“We are concerned that this candidate doesn’t represent the equity framework,” Jon Jacobo, vice-president of Calle 24, the Latino Historic District, told me. “She has not reached out to any of the communities of concern.”
Diamond’s nomination goes before the Rules Committee Monday/18 at 10am, and will come to the full Board Tuesday/19.
Some activists are pushing the supes to reject the nomination – in part because that would keep Diamond from participating in the hiring decision. But there’s always the danger that if the board won’t accept this nominee, the mayor will come up with someone even worse.
The full board will also consider putting on the March 3 ballot a measure that would impose a new tax on vacant commercial storefronts. It’s an attempt to address a growing problem in some neighborhoods, including North Beach, the Castro and the Mission: Property owners are evicting tenants or refusing to renew leases at any reasonable rent and then leaving the place empty.
Some may be waiting for rents to go up even higher, and some may be hoping that they can get the rules changed to allow more chain stores that will pay higher rent.
The city economist says that it’s partly because of the decline of brick-and-mortar retail – but I am hearing constant stories about small businesses that are getting force out with huge rent hikes that would be thrilled to have a place to go. So I don’t think it’s a lack of demand.
“Some landlords have unreasonable expectations of the value of their property and the rent they should get,” Sup. Aaron Peskin, who is sponsoring the bill, told me.
The bill, cosponsored by Sup. Hillary Ronen, would tax the owner of any storefront that is empty more than 182 days a year. The tax would start at $250 a linear foot of street frontage and after three years go up to $1,000. (Since a typical commercial storefront is about 25 feet, the annual tax on long-term vacancies could reach $25,000 a year – enough to encourage landlords to sign reasonable leases.
The Budget and Finance Committee considers Wed/20 legislation that would create an Office of Emerging Technology to consider regulations for the next generation of Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, robots on the sidewalks and whatever other tech concepts that have the potential to make the city worse off for everyone except the investors.
It’s something the city has been missing for years. Airbnb caught San Francisco by surprise. The city let Uber and Lyft operate illegally for years. Suddenly we have scooters all over the sidewalks, and robot delivery vehicles on their way, and who knows what else Big Tech will foist on us in the next few years.
So the idea of this office is to get ahead of the regulatory game and set rules in advance – to make the new ventures seek permission, not forgiveness. If the office is competent and aggressive – that is, if it is on top of the new trends and makes sure nothing happens in the city that will impact the residents and businesses without getting vetted – it could make a huge difference.
A progressive neighborhood group called D4ward, formed in the Sunset in the wake of Sup. Gordon Mar’s victory last year, is holding a forum Wednesday/20 on housing – and specifically, on SB 50, Sen. Scott Wiener’s deregulation bill. Speakers include Dyan Ruiz and Joseph Smooke of People.Power.Media, Ozzie Rohm of the SF Land Use Coalition, and Mar. 6:30pm, Lycee Francais, 1201 Ortega.
The City Attorney’s Office and the Planning Department just released some details of the legal settlement between the city and the Academy of Art University after years of violations by the school that led to a city lawsuit.
The documents are complicated, and it will take a while for advocates to go through the more than 100-page development agreement and the settlement documents. Among other things, AAU will pay the city $37.6 million for affordable housing mitigations and will cease using nine properties that have been operating illegally for years.
This will all have to come before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supes – and right now, the commission is short-handed (there’s a vacancy that the mayor wants to fill with a developer lawyer) and Rahaim is retiring, so the commission is looking for a new planning director.
The commission was set to hear this immensely complicated development agreement and settlement Nov. 21.But it’s not clear that the seat vacated by Rich Hillis will be filled by then (the Rules Committee appears in no hurry to hold a hearing on Diamond’s nomination) and critics of AAU are going to push for a delay.
In the meantime, there’s a fascinating element to the settlement. We have known for a long time that AAU has a battery of lawyers – but while there have been rumors that former Mayor Willie Brown was working for the school, his name has never appeared in any of the records.
An Oct. 25 letter from David Millstein, AAU’s primary lawyer, to the City Attorney’s Office has cc’s at the end – including “Willie L. Brown, Jr, esq.” So yeah: The Chronicle columnist is also a lawyer helping negotiate this deal for AAU. He has not, I believe, ever disclosed this fact to his readers.
Following the eviction, Dessman and her son, Williams, traveled a more circuitous route. For months, Williams says, they lived hand-to-mouth in a Bayview motel on Third Street. The forced relocation to the other side of town, Williams said, took the shine off his graduation from John Muir elementary to Everett Middle School. “We lived in a hotel and didn’t have much in the way of a refrigerator,” he recalled. “We pushed bottles and recycled to get money to buy groceries.
Dessman and her son eventually obtained a unit in the notoriously tough Sunnydale Projects. “I grew up in a family-oriented neighborhood and I went to a poverty-stricken neighborhood,” he told Mission Local. “I went from a place where I didn’t see too much negative stuff to a place where I could look out the window and see a person chasing another person and shooting at them …
He becomes emotional when told that his mother and her fellow tenants are being described by Brown as freeloaders. “I don’t know how she can have the audacity to make those accusations against hard-working people who struggled for years,” he says. “She put my family in the position of being in poverty. She ended up ruining my childhood.”
The story has been in 48hills. It started in SF Weekly. It’s been in Mission Local. It’s been in the Examiner. By any standard, it would seem that there’s news here.
But so far, the Chronicle, which endorsed Vallie Brown, has not said a word.
A final note: Buck Delventhal, who was a deputy city attorney for almost half a century, died this weekend. His current boss, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, put out a statement:
“San Francisco lost a piece of its heart today. Buck Delventhal was not just the oracle of the City Charter, a highly accomplished courtroom attorney, and the go-to person for tough legal questions. Buck was a beacon. He was a beacon of inspiration, trust, and boundless optimism. He was a legal lion and an even better person. Over nearly 50 years at the City Attorney’s Office, he quietly helped millions of San Franciscans in countless ways, even though they probably didn’t know he was the one to thank. Buck wouldn’t have had it any other way. City Hall – and San Francisco – will never be the same without him.”
Herrera has been a progressive city attorney. But Delventhal also worked under George Agnost, who was a horrible right-wing pro-developer city attorney, and Louise Renne, who I used to argue with on a regular basis (particularly about PG&E).
But always, from my first days as a reporter in this city, back in the early 1980s, Delventhal was friendly, polite, and helpful. There were times in those early days when nobody else in Agnost’s office would talk to me; Delventhal always took my calls. He explained city laws, he was always completely honest and straightforward, and at one point (and I never asked if his boss knew what he was doing) he filled me in on how San Francisco could get around state law and create a city income tax.
We were not always on the same political page, but everyone who knew him agreed: Buck was a person of immense integrity and principle.
The studies behind both items are clear and hard to dispute: The tech office boom is creating a huge demand for affordable housing, and the city is not even close to keeping up.
In fact, the report by the budget analysis on future housing needs makes clear that the city doesn’t have a “housing crisis;” it has an affordable housing crisis. And while politicians like Mayor London Breed and state Sen. Scott Wiener talk about the need to build “housing at all levels,” the real need is not luxury housing – which is getting built – but housing for everyone else.
Between just 2016 and 2018, the number of jobs in the San Francisco areaincreased by 96,360, a 9% increase. Job growth was concentrated in high-wage and low-wage industries though housing production was concentrated on market rate, or high income, housing. Jobs in moderate-wage industries remained steady.
That is: the boom is creating high-paid jobs and low-paid jobs, and not a lot in between. We are seeing the top-end tech jobs, and the service sector jobs that don’t pay enough to cover the cost of housing.
For just 2016 through 2018, we estimate that 27,546 new low- and moderate- wage jobs were added in San Francisco. During the same time, 2,913 affordable housing units were produced for a jobs to housing ratio of 9.5.
To meet the need created by this office boom, the city should have provided 14,491 affordable housing units – “11,585 more that were actually produced,” the report states.
Housing needed at “all levels?” Well, not really:
Based on the State-defined Regional Housing Need Allocation goals set in 2015 for San Francisco for 2015-2022, as of 2018 San Francisco has produced 96% of the housing target goal for high-income households but only 39% of the target for low-income households and 15% of the target for moderate-income households.
Over the next ten years, the report finds,
Based on the number and types of housing in the development pipeline in San Francisco as of the second quarter of 2018, there will continue to be a shortage of housing units for low-income households while there will be enough housing constructed for the projected growth in high-income households.
Now connect that with Haney’s proposal. New office buildings, the study that backs up his legislation shows, create a massive demand for affordable housing. Some of the workers in, say, the Salesforce Tower are earning top wages – and developers have built, and are building, housing for them.
But at least a third of the office jobs will go to people who are low or moderate-income workers. Just to keep from making the affordable-housing crisis worse, the city should be charging developers about $190 a square foot for the housing impacts of new office space.
The current charge is $28.57. Haney wants to raise it to $69.60.
Six other supes are co-sponsoring the legislation, which so far the mayor opposes. Instead, Mayor Breed is trying to make it easier to build more offices. The four supes who are not on board are Vallie Brown, Ahsha Safai, Catherine Stefani, and Rafael Mandelman.
If Breed vetoes the bill, it would take one more sup to oppose the mayor and the developers.
The hearing starts at 1:30 pm in Room 250, City Hall.
Sup. Aaron Peskin wants to limit the impact that bond pass-throughs have on tenants. When the city sells bonds backed by property taxes, landlords can pass half of the tax increase onto their tenants – something the real-estate industry demanded in exchange for not opposing every single bond act ever to go on the ballot. But Peskin has proposed that tenants facing serious financial hardship have the right to appeal that passthrough to the Rent Board – and to spread the additional costs over a longer period of time.
That will be heard at the Rules Committee Monday/21 and (assuming is clears that committee) at the full board Tuesday/22.
The full board will also hear a detailed report on what progress the SFPD is making toward implementing a long series of reforms urged by the Obama-era Department of Justice. I hope that the recommendations of an independent blue-ribbon panelare also part of the discussion, and that the supes discus the role the Police Officers Association plays in creating what that panel called a “toxic culture.”
From a 2016 press conference releasing the report:
“The SFPD is, for all practical purposes, run by the POA,” [retired Judge LaDoris Cordell said]. “The POA leadership sets the tone, and historically, it’s an ugly one.”
She described how hard it was for the panel to find cops who wanted to talk. The POA “intimidated officers who wanted to talk to us,” she said. “The officers were told they had to go through the POA.”
In fact, the report consistently describes two visions of the department: One that comes from officers who were suggested and provided by the POA, who spoke with a POA lawyer at their sides, and who said that the department had no culture of bias or insensitivity – and a very different one that came from officers who agreed to testify only confidentially because of their fear of reprisal.
The officers who were not sent and approved by the POA described a demoralizing climate of racism, sexism, and homophobia perpetrated by a culture that promotes insiders who play the game and isolates reformers.