Affordable housing in Potrero Hill
20 Dec 2006
“We do not have a housing crisis in San Francisco. We have an affordable housing crisis.”
- Sophie Maxwell, Dec 12
The SF Guardian ran an editorial and an article about the resolution on development in the eastern neighborhoods put forth by Sophie Maxwell:
Sophie Maxwell has introduced a resolution that would make it official city policy that all new housing built in the eastern neighborhoods — ground zero for new development in the next decade — meet the goals of the San Francisco General Plan. That would mean that city planners could only approve new housing if 64 percent of the units were sold for prices that working San Franciscans can afford.
Her legislation isn’t perfect — for one thing, it’s just a policy resolution, which means that Mayor Gavin Newsom and the City Planning Commission can ignore it. But it’s a powerful statement about the extent of the city’s housing crisis, the utter failure of the mayor’s housing policy, and the complete inadequacy of virtually every new private housing development proposal now on the table.
Supervisor Chris Daly has criticized the resolution, blasting it as unnecessary during a Dec 12 meeting.
Daly said he supports the basic goals of the resolution — and even said at the meeting that he will ultimately vote for it — but he told the Guardian he would rather find creative ways to work with developers on increasing the amount of affordable housing than draw bright lines that might block market-rate housing.
“I’m not sure it’s the right resolution at the right time,” Daly told us.
• The Next Big Fight [SF Guardian]
• Pass Maxwell’s Bill [SF Guardian]
• Plan Potrero Hill SF
Search
New! View historical photos.
I think this is totally dumb and exemplifies the worst of SF politics. There is available land in this part of the city and we can use it well, not stop development altogether.
I grew up in Chicago, which nowadays gets everyone’s nod as the best run city in the US, and there this proposal wouldn’t get discussed for even one hot minute. It’s ludicrous.
I grew up at a time when there was disinvestment and white flight, and we lived in fantastic apartments and houses for cheap. The point is, just build the housing. It won’t always be expensive! If you don’t build it at all because of this totally dumb rule what you’ve got is NOTHING. Thanks for nothing, Maxwell.
I also have a question for Maxwell: she is one of the supes that stopped that redevelopment on Market that was packed with affordable units. why the * !@&!! did she do that? What’s up with this geek?
I’m a working artist, live in Potrero Hill, and have managed to buy a home (yes, it was very difficult). I come from a broke family, I went to college here (racked up a load of student loans), have lived in every part of the hood (even the TL), struggled, and have managed to find a way to make it. Giving away housing at controlled prices does not help the situation at all. It makes it even worse for the rest of us and it just slows things down which makes people even more angry. I am in complete agreement with Camille, just start building!! We can’t get anywhere if we are constantly behind the increase in demand. And why in the F would you decide that any one area of the city should have more low income housing than the next??? That is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of. All it does is create ghettos.
What if Maxwell said that “the Castro is majority gay white men so lets make it a policy that 64% of the housing available there must go to gay men because we wouldn’t want the area to become gentrified.” We’d call BS right? I’m gay, and I’d say the idea is insane. It is not okay to impose your idea of who should get housing. We all have to pay, we all have to work, and if you want to live in SF bad enough, you will find a way to make it work. If you want cheap affordable housing and the ability to live on minimum wage I know a place… it is called Indiana.
We all need a home in this city and that the rest of us are just as deserving, we work our assess off, and are also struggling to stay in the city just like everyone else.
To Maxwell… Stop the red tape and facilitate building please!!
Also.. I drive through the projects on top of Potrero Hill every day… it ain’t pretty no matter what line of BS the city planners try to give us. I lived next to the projects off of Cesar Chavez that were “re-modeled.” They looked great for about a year. Now they are a mess. Prime real-estate in the city, and it is a complete mess. The same thing is already happening at the lovely “Valencia Gardens” as well. They looked great, but are already going down hill. Don’t fool yourself Maxwell, affordable ghettos are not a solution so please stop creating them. They are screwing up everyone’s lives. The children who grow up within them face incredible circumstances, and the neighborhoods around them are treated like dirt.
Asking “What’s up with this geek” is not a question - it’s an angry comment that tends to stop all discussion. But, discussion is what all of us who live on Potrero Hill need. My view of what Supervisor Maxwell did is that she introduced a resolution requiring all projects to address certain issues, all of which are already issues listed in the Housing Element of the General Plan. I see nothing wrong with at least requiring those issues to be addressed. Not all will be attainable, but maybe some will be. Then, when the facts are known decisions can be made. There can be reasoned discussion about whether the resolution is the best policy, but reasoned discussion doesn’t include public name calling; that gets nobody anywhere. What a lot of people on Potrero Hill want to avoid is a repeat of what happened with the building of the lofts, i.e. unregulated building where the builders put up what they want wherever they want, then walk away and leave us with the problems caused by the development. It is far better to have the plans before the building, rather than have the building first and then force the neighborhood to deal with the problems then. Specifically, we need to plan so that neighborhoods are built, not just the building of isolated building where people drive to their condos and then drive away to eat and socialize elsewhere. An example is the richness of 18th Street at night vs. the emptiness of 3d Street at night. We want to encourage more 18th Streets and the way to do that is through planning. And, good planning only happens if there are requirements for thoughtful development that benefits our community, not just benefits the developer. There is a great deal of community planning going on right now and many hold the view, as do you, that Supervisor Maxwell’s resolution is flawed. Others think that the resolution is absolutely needed. If you are not already involved, come be part of the process; you can learn more, including the date and time of the next community meeting, at the website the community recently set up at www.planpotrerohillsf.org. And, even if you cannot make the meetings you can keep up to date at that same website through the listserv or the blog.
Chris - I agree with you in part. Discussion and planning are necessary; however this has been going on for more than 10 years. Maxwell has effectively stopped development and forward momentum. That is not what we need. It is political grand standing and is not based in reality. Yes we need a plan, but as I understand, there have been several. At some point the discussion does have to stop and development needs to move forward.
And Camille has a right to express her frustration. Asking “what’s up with this geek?” got you to write didn’t it? It is her comment that also got me to write. Passionate voices deserve a voice as well. And perhaps with a little more passion we can move Potrero Hill into the next century at a reasonable pace. The longer we wait to make a decision the bigger our problems become.
“The richness of 18th street” is a soothing line, but I don’t see that as a make or break housing issue, affordable or not.
The truth about what Maxwell did is she stopped ALL housing dead in its tracks in the affected region.
What is the truth here? Randy Shaw said this:
I also still want to know what the the geekster was doing when she stopped Trinity Plaza? Why, for heaven’s sake????? This was the largest affordable housing development in 50 years.
link:http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=3903
I hate to say this but Maxwell needs to take a basic economics class. Can anyone say “rent control” or “farm subsidies”? Sorry but these types of programs never work. Just makes the areas worse off and more ghetto.
Now if you really want to do something about the price of homes in SF, then BUILD MORE MARKET RATE HOMES!! It’s basic supply and demand.
Let’s assume that this 64% requirement is financially feasible (it isn’t by the way). Then all this will do will still increase the value of market rate neighborhoods (Nob Hill will look even better to new buyers). Regardless, developers wouldn’t even try to build these units as it would be a money loser. What a shame.
Randy Shaw is hardly and uninterested observer. He has done tons of good in this City and is committed to his issue, but he should not be the one to say how our neighborhood is developed. I can’t speak to Trinity Plaza, but what happened there or didn’t happen there should not control what happens in our neighborhood. I think 18th Street has lots to do with housing issues. 18th Street is rich and vibrant and successful because it is part of a neighborhood. The streets where lofts were built are do not have that same activity because where the lofts were built does not have the same type of nighttime neighborhood feeling or activity. With planning there can be other 18th Streets and less nighttime dead zones.
I also think there may be misunderstanding about affordable housing. Affordable housing is not low income housing. Affordable Housing is a federal government definition. It’s complex - as are most federal government definitions - but a fair summary is as follows:
According to the federal government, housing is considered “affordable” if no more than 30% of the monthly household income is spent for rent and utilities. If your household income is $60,000 a year, you should pay no more than $1,500 monthly for your mortgage or rent and utilities. If you are in a sales job, making $12.00 an hour, you should be paying no more than $624 dollars a month in rent and utilities. I got this definition from the following website: http://www.nonprofithousing.org/about/affordablehousing/default.aspx
The rental figures change depending on income and also depending on number of persons in the household and the number of bedrooms in the housing.
But, the point is that affordable does not equal low income.
Market rate housing is priced at whatever the market will bear. In my view we don’t need more $800,00 to $1,000,000 condominiums. Anyone who wants one of those will have no trouble finding one. It’s the affordable housing that is difficult to find.
This discussion is a very important one and the Potrero Hill and Dogpatch neighborhoods are very involved in the plans for the future of our area of the City. Not everyone agrees with Supervisor Maxwell, as is evident from the above posts. The participants in this neighborhood planning speak with many voices and include not only those who agree with Supervisor Maxwell, but those who do not, including architects, developers, property owners, renters, etc.
We are all coming together to discuss the issues and hope that you continue to join in the discussion. There is a new website created to summarize the meetings and provide valuable links. You can find it at www.planpotrerohillsf.org. As shown on that website, the next meeting is Jan. 16 at 6:30 p.m. at the Neighborhood House, 953 DeHaro Street (at Southern Heights). The discussions are certainly not limited to housing issues and are wide ranging, having to do with child care needs, useable parks, pollution issues, bicycle access, Muni and other transportation issues, a plan for the 16th Street and 17th Street corridors, etc. and whatever other issues neighborhood residents believe is important to the future of Potrero Hill. If you can’t be present at the meeting, you can stay up to date through the website.
i agree the 64% figure is high, but maxwell did not come up with that # herself. that’s sf “plan” already. and she is proposing this mainly to please the majority of her constituents in the bayview and hunters point areas who will still most likely not be able to afford these so called affordable units even if they do manage to get built.
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/moh_page.asp?id=5838
do you think the average family in the eastern neighborhood makes enough to buy a $250,000 condo? i seriously doubt it. that’s a lot of money if you make $10 an hour part time at home depot with no benefits, isn’t it?
it should be noted the cost of construction did not rise nearly as much as the demand for housing did, so there is still plenty of money to be made by building. but there’s little motivation in it for the developers who’ve become accustomed to making so much profit from all those cheap, leaking, drafty, unfinished yuppie kennels they’ve been building around here and selling for such high profit.
it’s kind of loose-loose this one. i smell a big compromise coming, and a lot more displaced low wage families.
without even knowing it, she’s selling out those people too.
can’t someone smarter run against her, please??
I think there are a few smarmy influences here:
nimbyism, as in ‘don’t build any housing because I like my views and my parking as is’. These types go along for the ‘we want affordable housing’ ride, because it means no housing, and that’s what they want. A lot of potrero types are in this boat, under the liberal rhetoric.
Then there’s the fact that Maxwell totally supported the redevelopment out in Bayview. That’s where the low income displacement will largely come from. Overall that seems to me like a reasonable plan because the need for redev is so great. But it’s hypocritical for Maxwell to support it and and then slap this 64% affordable restriction on development elsewhere.
Then there’s the fact that Maxwell nixed the Trinity Plaza redev, the biggest affordable housing dev in 50 years.
Then there’s the fact that the SF Plan doesn’t have a 64% affordable restriction in it - it has an estimate that SF needs 64% of new housing to be affordable. It’s an estimate, not a restriction.
Maxwell’s proposal is just bogus. It’s a bad approach, cooked up in secret, and motives are questionable.
I think that we should build sensibly, but BUILD. The notion that we can freeze our town and continue to provide decent jobs for our residents is dumbass.
Nothing wrong with saying “not in my backyard” when what is proposed for our backyard is unplanned and unwanted and thoughtless - unless the thought is for the developer to pocket as much money as he or she can and then move on to the next project, without a care about what is left behind for all of us to live with.
Calling it “smarmy” for people care about what is built in our backyard is just wrong - sounds like the developer lobby talking, trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with what they see as their right to build whatever they want wherever they want and the neighborhood be damned. That developer attitude just doesn’t fly anymore.
I have no idea whether it is financially feasible to build and sell condos for $250,000, but if they could be sold for that price it would certainly bring more people back to the market. At that price, with $25,000 down payment, a 30 year mortgage at 7% (higher than today’s rate) the monthly mortgage is a little less than $1500, an amount that is affordable to many. If the down payment is $50,000, the monthly payment drops to $1330, even more affordable. When you consider the tax savings from being able to deduct mortgage interest on a tax return, those monthly amounts are even more affordable. There are plenty of websites that allow anyone to calculate their monthly payments, based on any interest rate they choose and on a 15 year or 30 year amortization. An easy to use calculator is at http://www.bankrate.com/gookeyword/mortgage-calculator.asp?
Building condos that cost $250,000 or even $400,000 won’t line the developers’ pockets with money, but it will be better for the neighborhood and the people who live in this City who might be able to afford $1500 to $2000 per month for a mortgage (instead of paying that same amount in rent) but can’t find a place to buy for that price.
Potrero Hill knows there is going to be development - and a lot of it. Few, if even anybody, is saying “no” to any development at all, and anyone who says that is fooling themselves. But, Potrero Hill is insisting on development that fits into the neighborhood and builds community and neighborhood. We got dictated to during the Brown administration when loft development was unchecked and the neighborhoods were basically ignored in the planning process. No more will that happen.
Since you are quoting me here, I have to assume you think you are addressing my points, but your arguments are straw man.
You are addressing points that I didn’t make, as if you are countering my arguments. You’re not countering my arguments. This is a trick Bush does all the time in interviews.
I never said it is smarmy to care about what is built in your backyard.
I think it is smarmy when to support no development at all over a large area because you don’t want development in your ‘hood. The fact is Maxwell’s proposal includes SOMA, Potrero, the Mission, and more. The fact is there is a lot of empty land down there, not so much up here, have you noticed this? I think it is smarmy to push the agenda of some homeowners up here over a large section of the city. It is NOT appropriate. The homeowners up here (I am one) have it made. It may suit us to freeze development elsewhere. But the city has to provide employment and housing for people who don’t have it made yet. That is what development is for. It is a good thing, not a bad thing. Planning, with community input, is a good thing. A total freeze is a bogus dumbass bad thing.
I love this:
You have no idea, but you support this 64% affordable requirement. No idea. Hmmh. You have ‘no idea’ and yet …. something does not compute here. Is this the strongest argument you can make?
Obviously if you (and for the sake of argument, others supporting this resolution) have NO IDEA whether it will be financially feasible to build, shouldn’t you be doing some homework before slamming on the brakes? Talking to people who have ’some idea’ possibly?
This is one reason I say this idea is not only bogus but dumbass. What we have in Iraq, in Katrina, are examples of bogus dumbass policies crafted by Republicans. Maybe, just maybe, we-who-are-not-Republicans could learn that policies should be crafted with some balance, research, attention to the whole picture, etc?
For heaven’s sake.
Chris, you make a really good point when you talk about how builders in general can be short sided by building a development without careful thought about the surrounding community and how this new community will fit in. There are many developments that just look out of place because there’s nothing surrounding it. Certain developers need a bit more accountability on this.
Having said that, I’m not sure how a 64% affordable housing requirement would solve this problem (assuming it is financially feasible for developers). In fact I think this problem would be magnified as developers would have absolutely NO INCENTIVE to be creative at all. Think about it, if a developer knows that he/she will have to sell a certain unit for 250K no matter what, they will try to build that property as cheaply as possible because their upside is limited.
Fortunately (or unfortunately?), a 64% requirement is not financially feasible AT ALL. Trust me, it’s not. If a developer can find a way to make it work, then you will probably see a building that will crumble (poor quality) if I leaned on it too hard. Then you’ll have this whole community of ugly crappy buildings (can anyone say public housing?, I know this is a little different, but it’s a little same also) that look will look depressing.
The worst thing about it now, is that there will be very little we can do about it as it would be very difficult to say “sorry this didn’t work out, let’s make it market rate housing to improve the quality of the area”. Think about how hard it is to do anything about the projects. That’s a perfect example of prime real estate that is used to the worst of its capability.
I could probably write a very long book on this topic but I’ll finish with this idea. The BOTTOM LINE is that trying to control the market has negative long-term consequences that people sometimes forget. This measure will only fill short-term goals. If you really want to find a way to help out the community, charge the hell out of these new developments and find a way to capture all that new revenues coming into the city (real estate taxes, etc..) and put it back into the schools here. If you really want to help the disadvantaged, then educate them. There’s no better subsidy than that. And it will be sustainable. Trust me.
Chris, I understand you have the communities best interest in mind and are speaking from what you feel like is a reasonable place but there is one major flaw with what Maxwell is proposing. You wrote:
“Building condos that cost $250,000 or even $400,000 won’t line the developers’ pockets with money, but it will be better for the neighborhood and the people who live in this City who might be able to afford $1500 to $2000 per month for a mortgage (instead of paying that same amount in rent) but can’t find a place to buy for that price.”
Here is the issue. The reason prices are so high in the city is because demand for housing is high. Instituting “rent controls”, “fixing prices”, and stopping development may make some people feel better but this solution is incredibly short sighted. Fixing prices and stopping development only makes the problem worse. Prices across San Francisco only go up at faster rates, demand only becomes more constrained and housing for the rest of us becomes even more expensive. Do you think that I wanted to pay $500K for my flat? Of course I didn’t, but dropping the price for “those who qualify” doesn’t help. Instead it makes prices increase at a faster rate and makes things even more expensive in the long run. The bottom line is that people want to live here. They come from all over the country to live here. Affordable housing is not even real until we can build enough to keep up with the demand. If there are more low income houses available all we are doing is drawing even more people from across the country. And guess what? More people equals higher prices for all of us. Stopping development is absolutely insane. We will NEVER get what we want by stopping everything.
But let’s not forget the ulterior motives of Maxwell. She has been in the back pocket of a selected few business men in the area for a long time. Stopping development is exactly what Fritz Maytag (of Anchor Steam) wanted so that he could make money by purchasing property for a lower cost, and expand. Forget about the rest of us. Maxwell’s political grandstanding is simply about pleasing the people who scratch her back.
Maytag believed that the construction of new housing near his site would limit his ability to expand, but he had the opportunity to simply acquire the Keighran property (next to him) when it was offered to him. He simply did not want to pay the price. Instead he went to Maxwell and magically development has been halted on the adjacent blocks.
I’m concerned about Maxwell. I don’t believe she is a stupid person and her motives seem to be to help those who help her. Unfortunately that is not most of the residents of the Hill. It is a select few. She gives out development exemptions to those who scratch her back, halts developments of those who don’t, and plays cat and mouse with the rest of us by getting us to fight amongst ourselves over hot button issues. But don’t be fooled. She is doing exactly what her friends want her to do and is trying to get us all to believe that it is in our “community interest”.
I must say that so far I am not impressed with how she is handling things.
Did the Sureño and Norteño gangs form a lobbying group that sponsored this one? Housing already isn’t getting built in San Francisco because the “affordable housing” requirements can’t be profitably met. The only way to reduce price is to increase supply. This policy will just create designated ghettos. Unbelievable.
the classic supply/demand curve simply doesn’t apply to san francisco housing prices.
since the dot-com boom and bust, the City’s population has gone down.
how have housing prices gone since then?
enough said.
it’s really a shame that more of you weren’t at the Plan Potrero Hill community workshop this past tuesday evening, there was a very good discussion about ‘affordable’ housing at it.
Could you explain? I don’t get your point.
Does your point relate to the Maxwell proposition? How?
Are you saying you think the Maxwell proposition would result in more housing?
How?
Your data point is correct, but data is just data. It’s not clear to me how you are interpreting the data in terms of recommending a specific policy.
thanks.
“An example is the richness of 18th Street at night vs. the emptiness of 3d Street at night.”
The richness of 18th St. was not due to planning (or grandstanding) by the Board of Supervisors– it happened organically, over time, and influenced by market forces– a demand for the services provided there.
The 64% affordable housing requirement is ridiculous–there’s no way to fund it. The major funding mechanism for building affordable housing is the current requirement of 15-20% affordable (below-market) units in market-rate developments. Also, Maxwell has supported a moratorium on building housing in the eastern neighborhoods. This will just serve to drive up prices, and reduce the number of affordable housing units built.
Lastly, Maxwell and McGoldrick’s efforts to kill Trinity Plaza, with its hundreds of affordable rental units, have been counterproductive. Why not let Chris Daly take the lead on this– it’s in his district.
actually, dan, the major funding mechanism for building affordable housing … is affordable housing money. that money goes to support new construction, acquisition and rehab of existing housing, and Care Not Cash/supportive housing. and all of that funding builds a lot more affordable housing than the inclusionary requirement in market-rate housing.
the city’s general plan, housing element, and Mayor’s Office of Housing is very clear about all of this, and i wish folks would be more familiar with it AND the resolution before making assumptions about supply/demand curves and the like.
what’s more, there is funding available to build more low and moderate-income housing; but nonprofit housing developers can’t get their hands on any sites to build that housing. THAT is what the maxwell resolution is about, and it says so very clearly.
another point: the 15-20% below-market housing requirement on market-rate housing doesn’t help us meet the demand for affordable housing. all that does is mitigate the impact of the market-rate housing itself. the recent Keyser Marston study of market rate housing shows that. (here’s what they found in their analysis: new market rate housing brings new residents, with new disposable income, requiring new workers to provide goods and services for that income; those new workers are generally paid less, and need housing somewhere in the vicinity of the new housing, and therefore … you need new below-market housing.)
lastly, no one is trying to kill Trinity Plaza; they’re just trying to make it comply with the new law mandating a proper percentage of affordable units. sheesh.
camille, the maxwell resolution - which passed unanimously a few weeks ago, after the disinformation campaigns faded away - isn’t about restricting development, it’s about good planning.
have you read it? from your comments here, it seems that you haven’t.
it’s a resolution directing the planning department to attempt to meet its own goals, as stated in the city’s general plan, when developing area plans for the eastern neighborhoods. it never supports or proposes a stop to development.
the planning department’s own documents quantify both the need for 64% of new housing to be affordable, and the capabilities of various planning efforts and policies to meet that goal. the need to develop affordable housing, and provide SITES to develop affordable housing, has never been solely a burden on market-rate developers, and the resolution doesn’t ban any kind of development at all.
really, there are so many misunderstandings, incorrect assertions, and flat-out whoppers in this thread, it would take too many hours to dredge all of it.
In this era of manipulated argument and manipulated ‘intelligence’ I expect progressives to exercise good faith in presenting their/our positions.
Your argument above does not meet that standard.
It is disingenuous to assert that requiring 64% of new housing be affordable does not put a stop to development.
I could say, we are going to improve San Francisco’s high school education by requiring all students to go to schools with high test scores. That would be a disingenuous argument, because there isn’t room in those high schools and some students wouldn’t get to go to high school at all.
That is like what you are doing. Yes the goal of
64% affordable new housing is a great goal. But since it can’t be done,
it’s grandstanding and a sound bite, and the policy has destructive effects
of stopping new housing in its tracks.
link: http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4000
camille, you are re-posting disinformation. i am sorry that you bought into that disinformation so strongly.
it’s already been mentioned here that the Beyond Chron article you linked is incorrect, and closely tied to a particular developer’s (false) argument that was advanced in december.
at the board of supervisors vote earlier this month, a number of supervisors made clear that that argument - that the resolution requires private builders to meet a 64% affordability standard - was incorrect and a misreading of the resolution. that was one reason why the resolution was passed unanimously.
again i ask, have you READ the resolution? did you watch or listen to the supervisors’ debate on the resolution this month? it really sounds like you haven’t.
the resolution does not burden any developer, because it can’t. it does instruct the planning department to come up with area plans for the eastern neighborhoods that satisfy the city’s general plan - and that includes identifying SITES sufficient to meet the demand for affordable housing specified in the general plan’s housing element.
that is very different from your claims of the resolution does.
the planning department has said publicly, on numerous occasions, while creating the housing element of the general plan and since, that the 64% affordability goal is difficult but attainable, using a variety of methods and policies that go well beyond one requirement placed on market-rate development. the resolution simply instructs them to stick to that standard. and, since the passage of the resolution, the department has been working on ways to accomplish those goals. i hope we’ll see their progress on that and other goals the next time they present their area plans to Potrero Hill in late march.
please, do not accuse me of not arguing in good faith when you don’t have the facts.
“it’s already been mentioned here that the Beyond Chron article you linked is incorrect, and closely tied to a particular developer’s (false) argument that was advanced in december.”
I find no clear explanation of this ‘here’. I have no idea of the substance of your point. If you *argue* that the Beyone Chron article is incorrect, and you can point out where, and substantiate your views, I will credit that. But assertion and short cut are not convincing.
“the resolution does not burden any developer, because it can’t.”
This is rhetorical. If the resolution tells the planning dept to burden the developer, than the effect is the same. This is disingenuous.
The issue really is, what is the effect of a 64% affordability requirement on development? Does it stop development?
You say the resolution tells the planning dept to ‘identify sites’. It’s hard to know what this means in the real world. Sites owned by the city? Sites purchased for affordable housing? One of the biggest expenses for housing is land. who pays for this? What does it mean - that the planning dept identifies ’sites’ for private developers?
If your intent is to make this resolution seem sensible, you have a chance here to make your case. Short cuts don’t make your case. Lack of substantive arguments & explanation don’t make your case.
My understanding of the 64% requirement is that it was based on an understanding of the need for affordable housing, and not an understanding of what could actually be built with existing resources. In the real world, this distinction matters - alot.
You say that the planning dept says “that the 64% affordability goal is difficult but attainable, using a variety of methods and policies that go well beyond one requirement placed on market-rate development.”
What you’re saying here is that we’ll get our affordable housing not only by restricting commercial development but also by “a variety of
methods and policies”. Now I really know what you’re talking about (NOT).
Let’s see: we don’t need to worry about shutting down development because of ’sites’ and ‘a variety of methods and policies’. Huh?
“the classic supply/demand curve simply doesn’t apply to san francisco housing prices.
since the dot-com boom and bust, the City’s population has gone down.”
Uh… your example proves that supply demand applies in SF. When prices for housing was going through the roof (no pun intended), INVENTORY (supply) of housing was at an all time low. Look at inventory now, it’s relatively high and housing prices have softened.
Tony, you are correct and I DID NOT ready Maxwell’s plan for affordable housing. Maybe I should but whether this plan requires developers to set aside 64% affordable housing, or to designate certain cites for affordable housing, it will not work.
Anyways, what’s wrong with market rate housing? I’m so confused. BMR housing is just another form of public housing. There are so many restrictions on how much you can sell your house for and all that other crap it’s so stupid. You’re not really wholly owning the house then.
The current 10-15% requirements for affordable housing is fine as it is. If Maxwell’s resolution will keep BMR housing at 10-15% then I have nothing to complain. Otherwise, this resolution sucks. It will not work.
Even if they find ways to INITIALLY fund this stupid 64% requirement, there will be dire long term consequences for the community that will not be reversable. Looks like the Eastern part of SF will be forever be the bad part of SF.
i really, really think y’all should read the resolution itself before continuing this unproductive discussion.
http://sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/resolutions07/r0020-07.pdf
wouldn’t that be better than relying on a six-week old beyond chron blog post?
bonus question: why do you think beyond chron ignored reporting on the resolution when it passed?
then, i suggest you check out the supervisors’ meeting on january 9, where they passed the resolution unanimously, and acknowledged that some of the exact same arguments you present in this thread … are incorrect.
http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=10&clip_id=2953
then, if you really want to talk productively about housing policy, i suggest you check out the state law that requires cities to have a housing element in their general plan that actually meets quantified objectives for affordable housing. (it isn’t really an option to throw your hands up and say it’s impossible. if the state finds out, they can suspend your general plan … … and therefore bar your planning and building departments from issuing any building permits. check out what they’re doing to the city of pleasanton sometime.)
here’s one quote from section 65583 of that law:
“The housing element shall identify adequate sites for
housing, including rental housing … and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community…”
and then, check out the housing element of the city’s general plan, where fully eight of the twelve Objectives listed in the Housing Element (Objectives 1,3,4,5,6,7, 10 and 12) and 41 of the 69 supporting policies commit the City to a multi faceted program of increasing affordable housing opportunities.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=41412
maybe then we can actually discuss the issues involved with this resolution, which does nothing more than commit the City to following what it promises in the housing element of its general plan.
or, you can just be lazy and continue to argue against this resolution (that has already passed by unanimous vote, and that the planning department is already working on compliance) because you think it does things that it doesn’t. your choice.
I have read many of these posts with great interest. I can only say one thing. You all deserve each other. I will watch with joy as the market there comes down over the next 24 months. For both homeowners and soon-to-be homeowners. What a bunch of self-inflated egos, bogus ideas, and proposterous notions. My only regret is that your ideas are supported by taxpayers throughout the rest of the union.
Ted: what are you talking about and what makes you so angry at so many people? Pretty grinchy of you, hoping the worst for so many people. Got any ideas other than to call names?