October 5, 2011
Supervisors Reject NIMBY Appeal Against Transitional Housing
As we reported earlier this week, Supervisors Avalos, Campos, Chiu, Mar, Mirkarimi, and Kim were all sponsors of the proposed Special Use District legislation which would pave the way for the previously approved transformation of the Edward II Inn from hotel to group housing for transitional 18 to 24 year olds while Cow Hollow Supervisor Farrell was not.
And as a plugged-in reader reports today, the Board of Supervisors unanimously rejected the Cow Hollow Association’s appeal of Planning's approval for the project and only one Supervisor, Farrell, voted against the creation of the Special Use District in Cow Hollow.
Whether or not the project makes financial sense is a valid debate, but it wasn’t the basis of the Association’s appeal or stated in the opposition to the spot zoning for the corner of Lombard and Scott.
∙ NIMBY Opposition To Transitional Cow Hollow Housing Continues [SocketSite]
∙ Support For Supportive Housing...Just Not Here [SocketSite]
∙ Appealing The "Unappealing" Neighbors To Be At Scott And Lombard [SocketSite]
∙ The Cow Hollow Association Might Say Both Are For The Birds... [SocketSite]
First Published: October 5, 2011 2:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
I understand that a last minute compromise was worked out, when the nonprofit agreed to add in a medicinal marijuana retailer on the ground floor.
Posted by: tipster at October 5, 2011 2:58 PM
the medical marijuana retailer might make this somehow more logical. The objection is and was NWMTD- Not With My Tax Dollars, not NIMBY.
Posted by: nanon at October 5, 2011 3:07 PM
I believe Supervisor Farrell's position on this dating back to his fist campaign event had everything to do with the financing and not the fact it is in his district. He has said publicly many times that every district, including his, has to be open to these types of projects as part of being a San Franciscan.
Posted by: whatiknow at October 5, 2011 3:30 PM
$20 says the property gets burned down - twice - during the course of renovation.
Still don't think we ever see this Transitional Housing arrive.
Posted by: Hmmmm at October 5, 2011 4:21 PM
now that the nimby variable has been removed, i'd really appreciate readers feedback regrding costs.
no question, foster kids need and deserve every possible assistance. id like to set that aspect aside and work only the numbers.
1) $3.54M acquisition cost, by chp.
2) $9.9M total development, with $4.4M coming from (presumably non-recourse) city funding.
i understand chp has lots of dough, and is politically wired from on high, and im sure this will be all union work, but damn, almost $1700 per sf by my calculations.
kinda makes you wonder who the gc is.
Posted by: billyballs at October 5, 2011 8:47 PM
As a resident of district 2, I am thrilled that this failed!!!
Posted by: sf at October 6, 2011 12:52 AM
It's a huge taking from the property owners in the area. The value of property for blocks around has dropped by millions. It may lead to more of the same and the creation of a mini-Tenderloin.
What I was warning about the other day is: don't go in front of St. Peter some day and tell him that you deserve admission because you so kindly gave away other peoples' property for a good cause. He'll pull the trap door lever.
No religion advocates charity with other peoples' property.
Posted by: unwarrantedinlaw at October 6, 2011 8:46 AM
I'm not so sure a change from an ugly motel to a group home is going to affect anyone's property values. It may raise them. Changing a use that hypothetically affects nearby property values is not a taking, in any event, which is a legal term of art and does not apply to this situation by any stretch.
Billyballs is right. The costs are ridiculous. That is the real outrage here - with real, needed services being cut right and left - not the change of use.
Posted by: A.T. at October 6, 2011 9:23 AM
"No religion advocates charity with other peoples' property."
All government spending "redistributes" wealth.
Usually, the redistibrution goes from those below to those at the top. We have the greatest inequality in this country since the Great Depression, and have even exceeded that. It's propaganda that our government takes from the rich and gives to the poor--on average the exact opposite is the truth!
We need these types of services all over the city. Putting these services only in segregated ghettos has a negative effect for all San Francisco. Sure, a few neighbors may not like it, but it's for the greater good of the City.
If we really wanted to be fair we (society) would be taking a lot more from these rich property owners.
Posted by: SFHawkguy at October 6, 2011 9:26 AM
this is an absolute hogwash. these services are only needed for the kleptocrats that administer them. For most of this country's history we had anti-vagrancy laws and big sticks.
Posted by: wrath at October 6, 2011 9:57 AM
The best part of this project is seeing (and reading) the area NIMBYs squirm. That alone is worth the high price. Keep whining, folks.
With luck, the project may even attract more services for society's marginalized, finally giving the parts of the city where such things are always stuck some relief.
Posted by: BT at October 6, 2011 10:14 AM
@BT: how is that toll-collecting at the bridge going? got enough for rent yet?
Posted by: wrath at October 6, 2011 10:28 AM
The people of that area made one fatal error: they bought property under control of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, who intend to use it for their own social engineering agenda.
While this is very good for a handful of foster children, it is of course not going to be good for the area. A quick view of the research indicates that if jobs are UNavailable to these kids, 80% will turn to crime for a living. The boys will enter or form gangs and sell drugs. The girls will sell their bodies.
If jobs are available, the percentage of kids going that route will drop to 60%, most likely the kids who are in foster care because their parents are themselves criminals and it's all they really know. So the money spent by the nonprofit is certainly going to be worth it, they will absolutely be *saving* 5 kids a year from a life of prison, but the 60% who drop out each year and start selling drugs to the local kids (who, the former foster kids will realize during their year there, have an awful lot of money) will be a source of continuing problems for that neighborhood. You are basically importing 10 kids a year who are going straight into gangs and prostitution.
Some will stay in the area after they get kicked out of the program. There is just too much money in that area. And eventually, the problems will boil over in the form of gang turf wars, with guns and innocent people being killed. And that will be the beginning of the end of the safety for that area. It may not be Western Addition II, (you'll still be able to get Pizzas delivered there) but it's going to be a continuing source of problems.
But such is the cost of pursuing a liberal agenda. It will be refreshing to see the residents of that area, who formerly believed that being a liberal meant driving a Prius and hobnobing with Obama, now get to see first hand how redistributing wealth can affect people. It will have benefits for sure, but now they'll get to see the costs (other than money, which grows on trees for them) in all of their glory.
I read the articles, and particularly loved the quotes from the supporters stating how wonderful it would be to have these kids in a *safe* neighborhood. The only reason the neighborhood is safe is that the residents have fought to keep gang bangers like these kids OUT of the neighborhood. From now on, they'll be living among them like the rest of us. But at least there's this: the gangs in the Mission are murdering innocent residents practically in front of the police station and it hasn't seemed to hurt property values there.
It may not be the "lubeless deep dicking" referred to earlier (quote of the year by the way), but at least it wasn't pushed into a neighborhood that Obama DOESN'T visit when he comes to SF. Good for the supes.
Posted by: tipster at October 6, 2011 10:30 AM
Posted by: wrath at October 6, 2011 10:54 AM
Wow... lol. If you're going to embrace your role as "Emotionally Unbalanced Permabear", could you at least try to be consistent with it? Because this small essay you just wrote is in stark contrast to the post you wrote just three days ago.
So now, 60-80% of these kids will turn to crime and/or prostitution and gang turf wars will develop "with guns and innocent people being killed". That is so weird, because 72 hours ago you wrote that, "Jobs will keep these kids out of trouble. These aren't going to be your usual former foster kids. Great use of funds". And beyond that, you told us that "These kids are going to do very well competing for those jobs just because of their proximity. I'd hire these kids in a minute."
What happened tipster? - Link to 72 Hours ago
You are a mess, woman. Can't even keep your hate and negativity in a straight line. The reality is:
- It's a crappy use of funds
- This area is marginal, and has been for years. Sketchballs on government assistance have been occupying the Lombard motels for 10-15 years. 24 transitional youth are not turning anything into a war zone.
- Did I mention it's a crappy use of funds? And politically motivated so the supes can't paint themselves as anti-NIMBY and stickin' it to the rich Marina crowd?
Posted by: Longtime Lurker at October 6, 2011 11:00 AM
While it's probably best just to ignore the town nutjob, I like that Lurker has recently taken on the role of addressing tipster's endless fail rants. lol @ 72 hours ago.
Posted by: Agent415 at October 6, 2011 11:15 AM
I read tipster's prior comment as an attempt at sarcasm. I leave up to the readers why it has failed.
Posted by: wrath at October 6, 2011 11:51 AM
Just to correct a few previous posters, this isn't exclusively for foster kids. It's for "transitional youth" which in my mind is a lot different. Transitional youth means young adults coming out of detention centers, drug/alcohol problems, and so on.
It will be a giant mess for the neighborhood if this project succeeds. But what else is new...both the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Education are corrupt and instead of serving their constituents are only interested in advancing their Green Party-esque agendas. It's almost as if they're trying to ruin the city on purpose. "I know! Let's chase all of the hardworking middle-class families out of San Francisco and reward the drug addicts and homeless!"
Posted by: Gigi at October 6, 2011 12:49 PM
Portraying a charitable facility as being against Christian values is mind blowing.
Posted by: Mole Man at October 6, 2011 1:07 PM
It's "redistributing" wealth to allow a charity that houses disadvantaged youth to move into a somewhat wealthy neighborhood? Good grief.
These may be troubled kids or kids in transition,, but they are still kids and therefore need and deserve a "foster" parent or guardian of some sort. You are just dividing children into two classes--those that deserve basic human dignity and get to have a guardian and those that aren't even worthy of being considered children but are simply "transitioning" into crime or life in the Ghetoo, according to some like Tipster (and I agree with Lurker, his rant is out of character but not completely surprising in a Obama-supporting neoliberal type way).
Why is this community so special that it doesn't have to pull it's fair share and help take care of the least advantaged in our communities. Why are they so special that they alone get to put up a fence to keep out the undesirables to keep up their property values?
And how short sighted is it, Tipster, to basically write kids like this off? Forget the morality of it, your attitude guarantees more crime and will even end up costing you more than not providing this type of housing.
Posted by: SFHawkguy at October 6, 2011 1:25 PM
And I guess I missed the whole age thing. These aren't children, but young adults.
Posted by: SFHawkguy at October 6, 2011 1:28 PM
can't they just be used as munitions against the Taliban or something? Even in a sllightly emaciated state, dropping off a gangbanger from 50k feet should do some damage.
assuming it hits of course.
Posted by: wrath at October 6, 2011 1:39 PM
Tipster's previous sarcastic comment didn't get read as such because Earnest Liberals lost their ability to detect sarcasm several yoga retreats ago.
Regarding this facility, and the presence of Bad People in the neighborhood..... these kinds of things aren't really what drags down a neighborhood. Good neighborhoods go bad when something huge happens to kill its small-scale life (multilane through streets/freeways, huge all-residential housing complexes, etc...). A halfway house here, a detox program there, scattered around... these things just kind of get absorbed.
As for Tipster's concern that these kids will sell drugs to the local kids -- those kids don't need to deal with 'youth in transition' when they can buy whatever they want in the comfort and privacy of their own high schools.
Now the cost of this thing -- there, the mind kind of reels, but that is a separate issue -- I am sure there are plenty of ways to build 1.7K/sf facilities in Potrero, too.
Posted by: around1905 at October 6, 2011 1:39 PM
Yesterday I was addressing whether this was a great use of the nonprofit's funds. It is. Spending less and losing 20% of those kids (100% of the ones who could be potentially saved) would not have been a good use of funds. Now, all 20% of the ones on the fence will likely be saved.
But no one believes this is anything but bad for the neighborhood. It's a positive for the employers in the area: they will get 40% of those kids that they otherwise would not have had access. But the other 60% will cause problems for the residents. Lots of them.
I wasn't addressing that issue yesterday. yesterday, the residents were focusing on the "use of funds" because they thought that was the least politically incorrect way of preventing gang bangers from being integrated into the neighborhood. I was only addressing that issue as misplaced. What I was saying yesterday is that "your only politically feasible argument doesn't hold any water. It isn't cheap to pay less and lose all of the 20% of the kids you could have helped."
No one believes this is going to be good for the residents any more than they believed your silly "too expensive" arguments were anything other than a smokescreen for "we support helping foster kids, but only if someone else deals with all of the problem it causes".
20% will be fine. The reality is that you HAVE to do this to save another 20%. The statistics are such that 60% will not work out. I'm not writing them off, that's what happens. I think you bring all of them into the most supportive environment you can, do the most you possibly can to help them, but some people cannot or will not be helped. The stats are that number represents 60%.
By the way, I once dated someone in one of these programs. Not a positive outcome for my ex, I'm sorry to say, and my ex's parents are rich, rich, rich. My ex had every advantage and still got kicked out and went down hill.
But I agree that this community is not so special that it should not have to face the pain in a manner other than writing a big check. That's what my post today was about: there WILL be problems and in the past, those problems got buried in an area that already had lots of other problems because it was easier to send them there. But had they done that, there wouldn't have been much of a point to the project at all. 20% will be fine no matter where you put them, but the 20% that could be saved are not going to end up in the tenderloin just because of the excuse that it would be cheaper there.
As for redistributing wealth: the residents will be worse off and the youth will be better off. That is a redistribution from the existing residents to the youth.
Posted by: tipster at October 6, 2011 1:47 PM
re-dist-ri-bu-ting? that's a mouthful;
why don't you just say "theft"
And speaking of "Christianity" - I think there is something against that in one of their books.
Posted by: wrath at October 6, 2011 2:04 PM
ummm, a couple questions:
1) Any law preventing me from photographing every kid that goes in and out of here and distributing pics to the neighbors? There will be a few vacant condos across the street from where to set up a camera for quite some time.
2) Why did one of my best childhood friends who was in a foster home not need an $1100/sqft handout upon reaching 18? How did she manage to go to a state college with zero financial help from her foster family or her city government?
3) Do upper middle class SF families with young kids need yet another reason to flee to Marin? Will politicians continue to scratch their heads on why there are so many more dogs than toddlers in the city?
4) What exactly is wrong with being a NIMBY?
5) Anyone want to do the math on (# of neighboring properties affected) x (average loss of property value) x property tax rate = lost revenue to state and local government = lost handouts to all you social liberals that supported this project?
Posted by: marinaspandexrunner at October 6, 2011 2:12 PM
at least as to 1, possession of such materials would automatically qualify as evidence tampering;
Posted by: wrath at October 6, 2011 2:35 PM
What's wrong with NIMBYism? I'd say that's pretty self evident, but to spell it out: the burdens of our society need to be shared among all of us, not just offloaded to the poor and politically powerless.
Generally, kids are not in foster homes through any fault of their own. Their parents fell into drug abuse, they were orphaned, abandoned or abused or some other familial calamity befell them. Just dumping them in the Tenderloin when they age out of foster care is the last thing they need. Why shouldn't they live in a halfway decent neighborhood-- and that part of Lombard is hardly upscale.
I suggest you NIMBYs examine your consciences, assuming you have them, get out your calculators, and figure out where you fall on the continuum of human v. property values.
Posted by: steve at October 6, 2011 2:47 PM
San Francisco is small, it has a liberal government, you all know that it has a liberal government, and most other neighborhoods have either a project a halfway house or something similar. Freaking deal with it. Or yes, leave. It was liberal when you moved here. It will be liberal when you leave. Don't let the giant neon letters that read "LIBERAL" above the swinging door hit you on the way out. Get real.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 6, 2011 3:03 PM
err, don't let the swinging door marked with giant neon letters reading "LIBERAL" hit you .... wow. cruddy turn of phrase up there ^
Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 6, 2011 3:13 PM
Just as long as the "nice" suburbs can continue to resist these sorts of silly and inefficient guilt palliatives, I've got no problem with another one in SF.
Posted by: El Bombero at October 6, 2011 3:16 PM
Tipster, your response in absolutely embarrassing to read.
You got called out on your incredibly contradictory posts, complete with links and quotes, and it's plain as day. Nowhere in your original post - when you were talking about how all these kids would turn out super - did you make any mention of any sort of 60%, 80%, 20%, whatever %... Get real.
You're entire purpose here is negativity - 24/7. And you've made it clear that nobody is safe from your delusional rants (homeowners, sellers, contractors, supervisors, foster kids, employers...). You got owned - absolutely owned - and nobdoy wants to hear your stupid backtracking. I have no idea what made you so miserable, but I know your daily blabs on here aren;t helping you get any better.
Posted by: Agent415 at October 6, 2011 3:17 PM
Ha ha, yes I'm nuts. But i'm not talkiing about taking photos 24/7, or dropping kids from planes. Nor did I think your transparent "concern for costs" was going to convince anyone I may be crazy, but I'm not that crazy.
I do know it sucks to lose, so feel free to vent your frustrations on me. I'd be mad too.
Posted by: tipster at October 6, 2011 3:31 PM
Tipster - I never took place in any discussion regarding the cost of the project. I haven't had a position on this contraversy since it started on here way back. So you whiffed on that one. I just came on here to laugh at you getting your butt handed to you.
So yeah, I didn't lose anything... but your life still sucks, lol. Thanks for being today's message board piñata - it was fun.
Posted by: Agent415 at October 6, 2011 4:00 PM
the solution is quite clearly getting rid of the BOS - transferring power to the mayor's office. otherwise the nutcases will continue in power. A well-crafted proposition to that effect might get some traction.
Posted by: wrath at October 6, 2011 4:06 PM
Good point, wrath. They just handed every nonprofit an easy path to success:
1. Find a politically correct cause, or use the right angle. The home for underprivileged axe murderers, formerly abused registered sex offenders, etc.
2. Select a spot. Make sure it's one of the nicest neighborhoods in the area so that you can appropriate the benefits of the neighborhood for your own cause.
3. All but one supe will support it, if only to keep it out of THEIR districts.
4. One supe will oppose it, with some ridiculous argument made in order to remain politically correct.
5. Automatic rubber stamp pass.
This could happen anywhere in SF. And it probably will. If they can get past the Cow Hollow Neighborhood Association, toughest in the city, the others are a piece of cake.
Posted by: tipster at October 6, 2011 4:44 PM
the solution is quite clearly getting rid of the BOS – transferring power to the mayor's office. otherwise the nutcases will continue in power. A well-crafted proposition to that effect might get some traction.A proposition to that effect, however well-crafted, would be thrown out by the California Supreme Court, so good luck with that.
The solution is quite clearly NIMBYs getting over themselves and their sense of entitlement. Or they could just vote with their feet and move to some Libertarian dream country such as Somalia.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at October 6, 2011 5:59 PM
"If they can get past the Cow Hollow Neighborhood Association, toughest in the city, the others are a piece of cake."
Aquatic Park Neighbors has a bone to pick with that assessment. Nob Hill Association is angry that they are no longer regarded as the toughest, most monied, most pro-bono, and most retired lawyer-rich too. So is www.rhn.org. Shoot man, Bernal Heights Design Review Board wants to weigh in. They think they're NIMBY-rific as well.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 6, 2011 8:57 PM
Anon.ed, are you keeping a league table of neighborhood pressure groups? Don't keep it within your agency; if you can't do so yourself, please get in contact with someone with mad web technical skills and put it on the web!
I'm imagining a dynamic web page that would recalculate rankings of every group every time there was a municipal agency hearing and one group or another either delayed or waylaid a proposed project, with a discrete scoring algorithm a la the first reel of the movie The Social Network that would take into account via appropriate weighting whether said impact was at the zoning administrator, planning commission, or board of supervisors level.
Also, you'd have to take into account how effective after-the-approval lawsuits were on changing the course of a particular action, including stopping a project altogether.
Extra points would be awarded every time a group got the pc to send a project back to the sponsor for a meeting to address a particular group's "pressing concerns".
Please do proceed, that'd be awesome!
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at October 6, 2011 10:55 PM
What you ask is impossible. I would have to implicate the prorietor of the website. AND IN NO WAY would i coincider doing that!
Posted by: [anon.ed.] at October 7, 2011 1:23 AM
You can easily go to the SF Planning Dept. website and download an exhaustive list of ALL neighborhood groups in the City. I believe you can find it under the category of 311/312 Neighborhood notification.
Real easy. Public info.
Posted by: Modernqueen at October 7, 2011 8:58 AM
can you tell us why?
Posted by: wrath at October 7, 2011 9:26 AM
ahhhhh..... there it is:
Article 11 4(a) of the CC:
SEC. 4. County charters shall provide for:
(a) A governing body of 5 or more members, elected (1) by district
or, (2) at large, or (3) at large, with a requirement that they
reside in a district.
and same in 25000
Of course, "25000 (b) says "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the board of
supervisors of any general law or charter county may adopt or the
residents of the county may propose, by initiative, a proposal to
limit or repeal a limit on the number of terms a member of the board
of supervisors may serve on the board of supervisors."
Can we fil in ZERO FOR SF? Probably violates the Constitution.
So short of a CA constitutional amendment, Alternativey, change the number of supes back to 5 and change the city charter to go back to at large elections.
Posted by: wrath at October 7, 2011 10:01 AM
Modernqueen, yes, I know that one can obtain a comprehensive list, but I was suggesting a way to keep track of their levels of respective political clout.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at October 7, 2011 11:11 AM
wrath, yes, you beat me to the punch. I was also going to cite some case law that I didn't quite have at hand, but that's the ca con law basis.
Changing back to 'at large' elections at this stage of the ballgame would run into lawsuits or other interference from people who would have their political representation diluted from such a move, although this is a guess on my part and I certainly don't have a handle on the state-level legal arguments for or against it.
But, think Rose Pak and what she would do.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at October 7, 2011 12:24 PM
Location. Location. Location. This is Lombard Street. Not the Marina/Cow Hollow. It is a building on the freeway. Highway 101. The street of Motels, burgers, bad bars and IHOP. This one tiny project will have zero impact on housing values in the neighborhood.
Young adults, children, the sick, the disabled the mentally ill, the infirm, (some values come co-bundled in one package. Whoever winds up residing in a group home here is getting a chance at a step up. Minimal impact on their neighbors. This project could save lives.
Yes I drive a Prius and have a photo of President Obama in my home. I am such a bleeding cliche.
Posted by: kathleen at October 16, 2011 6:09 PM