Supervisor Jane Kim’s watered-down ballot measure “to affirm the City’s commitment” to a set of Affordable Housing Goals, a non-binding Declaration of Policy, has been approved by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors and submitted to San Francisco’s Department of Elections.

The five Housing Goals which the policy would affirm, but on which the City would not be obligated to act:

  1. Address the current housing affordability crisis;
  2. Support production of 30,000 units of new housing in San Francisco, including at least one-third of those to low and moderate income households, and over 50% within financial reach of working middle class San Franciscans by 2020;
  3. Create a Housing Action and Neighborhood Stabilization Plan, including funding strategies;
  4. Ensure financial support of public housing; and
  5. Review the ratio of affordable to market rate housing.

At the same time, Supervisor Kim’s “Housing Balance” initiative, a proposed ordinance which would have created actual hurdles for developers anytime the percentage of affordable housing in San Francisco’s housing pipeline dropped below 30 percent, has been removed from the ballot along with the Mayor’s “Build Housing Now” counter-measure.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Bob

    Good. Kim’s entire proposal was probably dictated over the phone by a drunk Peskin. Stick with what you know Jane!

  2. Posted by Sam

    30,000 units over that time frame is nothing. We needed that last year

  3. Posted by jill

    How would they ensure that “over 50% of built housing within financial reach of working middle class San Franciscans by 2020;”

    is she also encouraging artificially setting the price.?

    • Posted by SFCitizen

      None of these goals have to be enacted. It’s all just smoke and mirrors.

    • Posted by Wai Yip Tung

      Exactly. Sounds like an empty declaration without a realistic plan to accomplish it.

  4. Posted by bee

    SFCitizen is correct. There are dozens of these non-binding declarations of policy, including one that requires members of the Board of Supervisors to ride muni. They are completely meaningless.

    • Posted by Wai Yip Tung

      To have the board of Supervisors to ride muni sounds like far more practical than declaring 50% of house should be affordable to middle class.

  5. Posted by EcceMorons

    I hope all the new folks moving to SF get politically involved (or at least get informed and vote). They’ll be a nice counterforce, especially in Jane Kim’s district 6, where the majority of voters are junkies and winos and people totally on the dole, who have given us the likes of Chris Daly, and now the astoundingly idiotic Ms. Kim.

    • Posted by Conifer

      Do not forget Christina Olague who sacrificed herself to save the sherrif. She was had been a planning commissioner, to the left of K. Moore.

    • Posted by NativeCalifornian

      Your an idiot! I have lived here all my life in SF, and I have moved from the Mission where I grew up to the TL because it was the last affordable place to live in my hometown. I’m certainly no wino, nor am I a junkie, but I am a kindergarten teacher that voted for Jane Kim. I’m sick and tired of all you newbies that have come to the city with your pro-development, anti-local, anti working class elitists mindsets. You care nothing about this city. All you seem to care about this money and profit. Why did you republicans even move to our city. Why don’t you just go back to the right wing places that you came from, and leave our treasure of a city to those of us that actually built it, take care of it, love it, and love the people that live here in SF, all of them, not just the rich monied white ones.

      • Posted by LibertyHillDweller

        Wait, “your” a teacher? And “your” calling someone an idiot? Don’t know whether to laugh or cry…

      • Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

        I am sure people in Oregon are “sick and tired of newbies” who are trying to change the state to fit their needs and aspirations.
        It’s a free country. SF was altered when you or your parents moved in. Embrace change or become as bitter as the people you probably ridiculed when you were 20.

      • Posted by Jack

        Thanks for that comment calnative. I get sick of these whining droning righting developers on here too sometimes. They should all just move to Houston and shut up.

        • Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

          Yeah, but this being a free country you can’t force anyone out. I know you’d love to kick people out. That tells a lot more about you than the people who annoy you.

      • Posted by Jake

        To be fair to your forebears, every generation of San Franciscans has had to endure a share of selfish get-rich-quick newbies.

        Afterall, the Gold Rush wasn’t exactly some locally produced bright-colored LSD from the Summer of Love era. That would be Orange Sunshine.

      • Posted by Wai Yip Tung

        @NativeCalifornian, yeah I like this. JANE KIM, go back to where you come from! We are sick of all your Stanford elites. Leave the city to those of us who are entitled to be here!

  6. Posted by Bob

    Agree that the number of units we are talking about is pretty minuscule. We should be looking at 100k units.
    This is, however, the city that allows a single person to block a project no matter what size.

  7. Posted by SFRealist

    Oh good, I was hoping we would get to vote on nonbinding goals. That will really make a difference.

  8. Posted by Joseph A

    Part of the issue is the ratio , it should be closer to 1 out of 10 units vs 1 out of 3 when it comes to subsidized housing , so if the goal is 10k units of subsidized housing the base goal would be closer to 100k units which is very possible , IF there is sufficient labor to build it

  9. Posted by soccermom

    At the risk of saddling up a dead horse beaten in another thread, the following occurred to me on tenant buyouts and affordable housing. TIC’s are essentially going to become the ‘affordable’ ‘entry level’ home ownership opportunities in the city. If the median house is over a million, where does a young family look to get in the home ownership door?

    New condos will be built with luxury buyers in mind.

    You can’t build up.

    You can’t condo-convert existing stock.

    The only ‘price-finding’ mechanism will be Ellis->TIC conversions of existing multifamily.

    What the supervisors have wrought is Ellis evictions as a fairly essential ingredient the best the city can offer people who want to own their own homes. I know Ellis evictions are a tiny fraction of the housing stock, but dollars to donuts that percentage will keep climbing.

    • Posted by soccermom

      Also the longer condo conversion is in legal limbo, the more TIC’s happen.

      More TIC’s in the market breeds buyer and lender familiarity with the concept.

      TIC prices normalize (increase/discount decreases).

    • Posted by Jack

      That’s a pretty silly analysis. It just moves the pain from less well off home buyers to even less well off renters if it is that simple. In reality adding lots of new apartments will eventually devalue existing stock via oversupply. The trick of course is how to add enough supply to meet demand.

      • Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

        The silliness there is assuming that there is a difference between the renter and owner population. Also you are assuming that renters are not as well off as owners. Some new tenants today are in better financial shape than some long term homeowners. Not everything is carved into stone, but there is one reality in America today: purchasing your own home is a step towards stability.

        A friend of mine got kicked out of his rental (non rent-controlled, all the landlord had to do was double the rent). After shopping around he realized the better option was to become a homeowner. He is in his late 50s and a first time homeowner. You can’t hammer it enough times:

        Want stability: buy your own home!

  10. Posted by modernedwardian

    nothing silly in soccermom’s analysis at all. it is essentially what we did in buying our duplex and becoming mom and pop landlords – without the landlord part.

    the real estate app that i’m waiting to see is one that will pair up like minded middle class would be owners to take advantage of OMI/Ellis opportunities bypassing the developer and entering at a better price. then let’s see how upset our supervisors can be.

    add classes on foundation upgrades, plumbing and electrical, heating, insulation, and solar options. maybe put in a basement guest unit/shared airbnb unit to assist w/ the mortgage.

    it takes more and more creativity for middle income people to buy but it should still be possible.

    • Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

      yes, you could do that. One issue is that individual buyers like the certainty that the X dollars they will spend will provide them with the housing they expect.
      Another issue is financing. If banks look at the raw numbers (ROI pre-Ellis/OMI) they might not finance you. You would need to be self-financed.

      But otherwise I think it’s a genius idea. Some of the best apps are the ones that make a tedious process flow seamlessly.

  11. Posted by P&M

    Remind again how much time and taxpayer money Kim has wasted on her stupid proposed legislation now “housing goals.” Calculate that amount and I want to see her pay docked. I am not paying for her stupidity and now attempts to save face. Here are my goals, gratis: 1) get rid of homelessness, petty crime, and drugs, 2) zero tolerance for graffiti vandals, 3) zero tolerance for people who illegally dump garbage onto public property, 4) replace half of City Hall with technology and use the money saved for further efficient government; and 5) look at other countries worldwide with effective governments using least amount of taxpayer money.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *