Mission District Moratorium Summary

While the legislative push for a market-rate housing moratorium failed, the official summary for the proposed ballot measure to impose a Mission District Housing Moratorium has been filed with San Francisco’s Department of Elections.

The proposed measure would impose an 18-month moratorium on the issuance of any building permits for the demolition, conversion or construction of any housing project with 5 or more units, or the demolition, conversion or elimination of any existing Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR) space, within the Mission unless the permit was for a “100% affordable” housing project.

With the stated goal of enhancing and preserving affordable housing in the Mission, “such that at least 50% of all new housing be affordable to low-, moderate-, and middle-income households, and to ensure that those units would be available to residents of the Mission,” the measure would require the City to develop a Neighborhood Stabilization Plan by January 31, 2017.

And while the measure would specifically impose an 18-month moratorium, it would also authorize a simple majority of the Board of Supervisors, versus the super-majority which was needed to pass the legislative action, “to extend the moratorium for another 12 months.”

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by bill

    Apparently SF cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. We need 18 months to think about a solution.

  2. Posted by 4th Gen SF'er

    Campos & the other 6 members of the board that voted for this are far removed from reality.

  3. Posted by parklife

    Would this encourage developers of smaller buildings to plan on building 4 truly “luxury” units rather than 10 or so smaller units? Is there a market for larger units in the Mission?

    • Posted by bwana

      Ask Zuckerberg.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      Bingo. And this says nothing about subdividing – create some air-rights parcels and place 4 units in each one.

  4. Posted by Sierrajeff

    So if a building were to burn down, does the literal-ness of this measure mean that the empty shell has to stand there for 18+ months, because no demolition permit can be issued?

    • Posted by bill

      That’s what I was reading as well. What about people who own but want to do a gut reno?

    • Posted by Oakland Logic

      Or you know, one of those pesky earthquakes!

    • Posted by Amewsed

      Was thinking the same thing. Fire and then go on vacation for 30 months while owner’s hands are tied. Displaced tenants are left to fend for themselves.

      Better yet, amend the legislation to put a five year moratorium on any rebuilding post-earthquake. Why cut off your nose to spite your face when you can jump off a cliff?

    • Posted by zig

      really in SF it is guaranteed to sit much longer than 18 months anyway

  5. Posted by

    More of these hair-brained ideas is good, not in the short term, but in the long term. Each one has an economic ripple effect, usually counterproductive to raise the cost of housing, and every one pushes more working poor out to be replaced by working professional, over time making electorate more rational and moderate. Over time this electorate, should it be engaged in the process, will handedly dismiss the idea of urban planning by ballot. Soon.

    • Posted by sammy

      In a very dystopian way that makes a lot of sense… sad but perhaps the only way to get out of this cycle of constant ignorance cycle of san francisco

    • Posted by GoBlueInSF

      Yeah, because all those high wealth, highly educated professionals in Atherton and Marin and just oh so progressive when it comes to zoning & density.

  6. Posted by BobN

    Did the proposers double-exclude 100%-affordable-housing projects because they’re stupid or because they think the voters are stupid?

  7. Posted by Jackson

    So what happens to City residents desiring affordable who are not currently “residents of the Mission?”

    • Posted by Mark

      You are not welcome here.

    • Posted by Backtotheburbs

      You’re in the same boat, no? Meaning neither the city nor developers are interested in your problem.

      What prevents from joining forces with other neighborhoods? Is YOUR affordable housing somehow different than what people in the Misison want? You can also recognize that the amount of displacement in the Mission is orders of magnitude more then elsewhere. I think every hood in SF now wishes to have a community such as here, willing to organize and band together.

      The other option is to flee, but the longer you wait the further you will have to go.

    • Posted by zig

      How brown are you?

  8. Posted by Orland

    This is all so, so bad for the City.

    It was idiotic of Wiener and Farrell not to profess even the appearance of good -faith by not getting behind a lousy 45 day pause.

    • Posted by Greg

      It would have been idiotic for them to vote for a 45 day pause that was extendable for 2 YEARS — which was what was on the table yesterday.

      • Posted by Orland

        And who would have had to vote to extend it?

        • Posted by anon

          could you point to the language, there? the point you’re standing on? you seem to be saying that the same group would need to re-vote a 9-2 extension. Where is that clause?

          • Posted by Orland

            I made the likely safe assumption that the same controlling provision requiring a super majority that applied to the original emergency measure would apply to any extensions but I will defer to the City Attorney for a ruling.

          • Posted by kbbl

            Few assumptions seem safe in this environment. My presumption would be that if the same supemajority were needed to enact the extension, then the language of the extension carries no practical weight at all. Moreover, were I a developer I’d rather not bet large sums of bank money thatthe point wouldn’t be litigated over, the hearing judge wouldn’t issue an injunction extending the pause pending trial, etc.

          • Posted by Orland

            @kbbl The “emergency” measure which was before the SOB and any initiative which might appear on the ballot are two completely different animals each subject to controlling procedural rules.

          • Posted by anon

            which you clearly don’t know

    • Posted by The Crankster

      @Orland, I must have misunderstood – It was idiotic to not get behind something dumb that would last 45 days in order to forestall something dumb that will last 30 months…? The appearance of good faith is supporting something dumb for 45 days? Come again?

      • Posted by Orland

        First of all, from the POV of its proponents, the moratorium on the building of market rate housing in the Mission is hardly “dumb.” Something most here appear to fall to appreciate. Until they do they will not fully understand what they’re up against.

        And, by doing so they may have forestalled the extremes on the issue from fully entrenching while seeking common ground to workable solutions . Seems too late for that now.

        I know they like to tout themselves as “voices of reason ” on the BOS. Syncophantic idiots mouthing the same old bromides constantly repeated here is more like it.

        • Posted by 4th Gen SFer

          The only thing is when you say “Syncophantic idiots mouthing the same old bromides constantly repeated here is more like it.” sounds exactly like the 60’s radical types that you profess to love and defend. That mentality has been around in this city for several decades and I can’t say that it’s very “progressive” in fact it’s quite NIMBY.

        • Posted by Orland

          Any insiders know if there was even the beginning of negotiations at trying to find a formula that might have placated the opposition to development while remaining feasible?

          • Posted by Orland

            Why am I not surprised apparently nobody here is in the know politically,?

            From the express language of the proposed ballot measure, it is evident that an increase in the BMR requirement to 50% would be acceptable to the forces purportedly trying to stop building of housing in the Mission. Actually, that is obviously just an initial negotiating position subject to give-and-take.

            Wiener and Farrell are either total idiots for not getting a deal done or simply tools of the developers following their marching orders.

            “Voices of reason ” Yeah, right!

  9. Posted by Alice

    I just don’t even know what’s going on in this city anymore

  10. Posted by Jason

    If the goal is to get at least 50% of on-site units as ‘affordable’, why is the ballot measure’s 18-30 month ban on anything less than 100% units? If the ballot measure simply forbade anything under 50% affordable, then it might actually incite some developers who had been considering 15%-30% on-site affordable to build a 50%-affordable development. I’d still vote against the measure, but at least if it passed it would have a chance of doing some good.

  11. Posted by Tom Colvin

    Horrible, simply horrible. And a simple majority at the BoS to extend? — because they can’t get a super-majority! A proposal this extreme should need 9 votes. After David Campos is termed out maybe there will be a job waiting for him in Greek government

  12. Posted by JayJay

    Awesome. It’s going to pass. Can’t wait. So glad David has taken on Goliath. Respect!

    • Posted by Mikey

      LOL – I wouldn’t hold my breath. The level of idiocy being displayed in the Mission these days does not extend city-wide. A city that cannot house its residents will not vote for less housing.

      The “anti” campaign flyers that will be coming almost write themselves. The money that will rain down against this proposal will crush this measure like a bug.

  13. Posted by Formerly Native

    This is totally asinine….what about all of the other San Franciscans, native born or otherwise who have had to make the choice, due to the cost of housing in San Francisco, to relocate? What is so special about the populace of The Mission that makes them eligible for a statutory exemption to the real estate economics of San Francisco?

    So what do the proponents of the moratorium want? A halt to the physical imporovment of the streetscape in The Mission? Do they want housing projects? I’m not sure what else there is out there that they could want. One thing for sure, if the moritorium is enacted stagnation will ensue, nothing else…..BUT lets grant the concept that a couple to a few thousand units of below market rate housing are built, how will the construction of those units in general, on average help lower the cost of rents in the Mission?

    • Posted by Backtotheburbs

      Well, maybe they should have said something? Voted reasonably? Held their politicians accountable? And when that failed, organized, marched, rallied, and brought their own proposal to the BoS? And made them vote on it? At least you would have made the news, got people seriously talking.

      It’s easily to flee. Yes, sad. But too easy …

      Obviously 1000s of BMR units would help tremendously, that is obvious. In the last 5 years we have had 60, and less than the city mandated 12% — so 500 luxury condos on top of that. The city is city on developer fees money, 9B$ budget etc

      • Posted by Hola

        According to the planning dept., we’ve had 141 in the last 5 years.

    • Posted by Hola

      They want the taxpayers to pay for their housing. … This is too extreme to pass.

      • Posted by 4th Gen SFer

        @Hola – totally agree 100%, this has about a 0% chance of passing.

        • Posted by Orland

          More likely, the scope of it will grow with time.

          This is going to get so ugly, and be so, so bad for the City.

          • Posted by 4th Gen SFer

            No, it won’t get ugly. The trustfunder left hates the new people who actually work for a living. And the pathetic attempts at “organizing”, “mobilizing”, which we’ve all seen in the past few years fueled by a LW press have all come to zilch.

  14. Posted by James

    YES!

    Because we all know the best way to increase housing is to stop building it!

    • Posted by Orland

      That old bromide. The vast majority of the electorate are figuring out that building housing they will never be able to afford does them precious little good. Maybe you would like to explain the “trickle down” musings of an old fool to them once again.

      • Posted by Chris Brown

        So, share with us some of the new bromide:

        I ask you or anyone else to offer a detailed explanation of how this moratorium will generate affordable housing or lower housing costs, rather than simply lead landlords who will now have less competition from new developments to simply jack-up their rents higher than ever before in the Mission? Also, since most affordable housing in SF is financed by fees developers pay on new market-rate housing developments, how will this help the city to finance more affordable housing. If you cut off market-rate housing, you cut off all the millions of dollars of affordable housing fees, too.

        If anyone can rationally explain how this moratorium will create a single new unit of affordable housing, I would love to hear it–no joke, I am being perfectly serious.

        I think Ronald Reagan was a joke, too, but I also think the same thing about this moratorium on new development.

        • Posted by Orland

          If you would bother listening to the position of its proponents, you would realize that it in itself is not meant to create any housing units, affordable or otherwise. It is simply a pause in the gobbling up of prospective housing sites which are being built out totally beyond the means of the vast majority while the promised (and insufficient) affordable housing ostensibly to spin off simply is not materializing in any meaningful fashion. In the interim, there would supposedly be a concerted effort at prioritizing the building of “affordable” housing on sites identified for that purpose.

          Flaws? Many. For one, how does the mere stopping of issuing permits protect those remaining parcels from passing into the hands of developers who want to proceed by the current (former?) rules? Expect even more draconian band-aids as things unfold.

          This all should have been avoided.

          • Posted by SFRealist

            “the interim, there would supposedly be a concerted effort at prioritizing the building of “affordable” housing on sites identified for that purpose”

            Ha. No. In the interim, housing costs will skyrocket (along with evictions). People will still want to live in the Mission and if they can only choose existing housing, that’s where they’ll go

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            “the interim, there would supposedly be a concerted effort at prioritizing the building of “affordable” housing on sites identified for that purpose”

            prioritizing – how? by whom? to be paid for by what? Your feel-good inclusive-speak does nothing to meet the real-world questions being asked of you – at the end of the day – at the end of the 18- or 30-month period, in what way, shape or form does this increase any housing availability in the city, let alone affordable housing?

            If the people on here supporting the moratorium would step back for just one second, they’d realize that they *actually* talking here with *actual* developers and *actual* landlords. If the people who actually build and lease housing in this city think that this will do *noting* other than raise rents further, it simply and honestly begs the question of why you believe differently – why you somehow know more, and see benefits that people who do this for a living do not.

          • Posted by Chris Brown

            So, what does the “pause” accomplish? The sites are privately owned, and they will be sold to the highest bidder, “pause” or no “pause.” Even if that ends up being the city, the city still needs to come up with the money to build affordable housing on them, on top of the several millions of dollars just one site would cost to purchase. It is not as if developers or property owners mind waiting to cash in–many sites that could be developed have been held empty, or under-utilized, for years by their owners until the conditions are right to build on them. So, a lot owner or a developer can easily wait 18 months, or 3 years, or more until the market conditions are right, and any moratorium has expired, to build and/or sell. (And, I think you have pointed out this flaw). For example, there was an empty hole in the ground on a prime lot in the Castro for over 25 years, and now it holds luxury condos. There was no moratorium preventing construction, the owner (the last one was actually a non-profit entity) just waited until the time was right to sell, and the developers waited until the time was right to build.

          • Posted by Orland

            Sierrajeff: listen to the movers and shakers here on SS who make things happen and get things done here in San Francisco.

            Thanks for the best belly -laugh I’ve had in a very long time.

          • Posted by Fishchum

            @ Orland – you realize by mocking SierraJeff and not answering any of his questions you’ve essentially proven his point, right?

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            @ Orland – you’re clearly living in a fantasy world, and you (still) haven’t addressed the basic point, as underscored most recently by Chris Brown: Who is going to build all this miraculous 100% affordable housing? Private developers aren’t going to do it. The City can’t afford to do it. (Even *if* the voters pass a bond, that would barely be enough to buy the land, and you’d still have to build the structures and subsidize the rents.)

            So I say yet again – Laugh all you want, but many of the people on here are the ones who actually do construction work. If they are saying that this moratorium is counterproductive, I ask yet again for your concrete, real-world arguments to the contrary. Your arguments are like that of climate change deniers – all the experts say one thing, but you’d rather trust your feel-good ‘truthiness’ than the experts.

          • Posted by anon

            @ Sierra Jeff, Orland ,

            Didn’t you see where Orland laid out a fantasy patchwork quilt of developers receiving subsidies from what would amount to a new bureaucracy? One that would determine how much to pay participating builders, from an oh-so-well funded hypothetical bond? no no, Sierra Jeff. In between telling people to get out of gutters, go back under rocks, with their bromides, etc, Orland has done some really, really, truly, awesomely deep thinking on the subject.

      • Posted by BTinSF

        A moratorium intended to give time for the city to buy housing sites it will never be able to afford to build on unless market rate units that can fund affordable housing are built on them does even less good.

  15. Posted by Absolut

    Seems like this would increase the demand for Ellis Evictions in the mission as there would be no new inventory to compete with.

  16. Posted by sassyboyfrisco

    Mission residents will only be accelerated out via Ellis Act evictions.

  17. Posted by EcceMorons

    SFS isn’t actually benefitting from other people’s misery – that was just a joke, obviously. He is benefitting from people who move to SF and need a short term (say 30 to 60 days) place to stay – and they are HAPPY to pay him for that short term place to stay.

    He’s providing a service to satisfied customers. No need to criticize him for that.

    He just obviously loves to laugh at how insanely stupid SF politicos are reinforcing the out-of-balance supply-demand that keeps his rents high. And I’m laughing right along with him. (or her??? sorry SFS, if I got that one wrong)

    • Posted by san FronziScheme

      EcceMoron,

      Well, I have mixed feelings about all of this.

      On one hand I am aware that insane rents like the ones we can witness today WILL lead to a crackdown. For instance Berlin this week enacted a rent cap (in Euros/sqm). France has one too since last year, with local numbers for each area. The issue is always the same: too many people chasing too few places and the locals are being priced out.

      On the other hand I do welcome the extra income. I am fast-paying down mortgages at a pretty decent pace. This has always been my strategy (for the ones following my antics years ago) but now it is reaching new proportions.

      My conclusion: for people who like a mom-and-pop pace of things like me, SF is a lot crazier than I expected. I would love a “normal” market where relationships between tenants and landlords are balanced. I need you, you need me, let’s do business. Bring me lower rents any time as long as I can do my stuff the way I want to within reason of course. But SF tenant interests don’t seem to cooperate. Well, that extra risk deserves extra reward.

      • Posted by EcceMorons

        I’m in a similar boat as you (getting market rents for my units), and I think that if rent control miraculously disappeared, my rents would drop (lots of new units would come on the market – ones kept off by owners who prefer to keep them vacant, units used as pied-a-terres because why give up your $500 apartment, units kept by tenants who really would prefer to move but why give up your cheap rent, etc.)

        BUT, even though ending rent control would mean I get lower rents, I’d happily exchange that for being able to manage my units in a reasonable, adult-to-adult way, without the insane rent control laws overriding every little detail. Let me evict a tenant who is a nuisance to me and my other tenants without fear of losing a wrongful eviction suit, and I’ll gladly live with lower market rents. Allow the usual “this agreement is terminable by EITHER party with 30 days notice” clause to remain in effect without the Rent Board amending that to “only the tenant can terminate this agreement”, and I’ll gladly live with lower market rents.

        I bought a 4 unit building before Prop I (when 4 unit owner occupied buildings were exempt), with a feeling of “I want to run a fair business where I treat my tenants like gold”. Once I got put under rent control, the whole notion of running a business in which you treat your customers like gold flew out the window. Now the relationships are 11-dimensional chess, with ever-changing rules.

        Yeah, give me normal laws, and I’ll gladly live with lower rents. But give me what Rent Control has given me, and I have to play the game in a very different way – much to the detriment of every new tenant I get, who’s basically paying 25% or so more than what he/she would be paying if there was no rent control here.

        It makes doing business here a huge headache, and yeah, I charge for that headache.

        • Posted by SF resident

          Another Landlord here, and I share the same sentiments.
          New tenants need to tell the BoS to reform rent control. Been doing this close to 2 decades and I am charging for this headaches mentioned above.

    • Posted by Medalist

      Same for developers, costly and time consuming entitliment process, expensive land, pricy labor coupled now with the risk of political instability imlpoding your project equals higher than usual expected returns or only super luxury units for sale

  18. Posted by EcceMorons

    I give this measure close to a 0% chance of passing. Most SF voters want to see more housing – preferably NOT in THEIR neighborhood – so even if the Mission voters vote “yes”, everyone else will vote “no.”

  19. Posted by Cody

    It smacks of racism. San Francisco has always been a dynamic city with different people moving in and out of neighborhoods. Do the citizens want to mark boundaries as to who can live based on culture or race? Is there going to be a glass dome over the Mission District to protect the culture? Will the city become a fossil? This is social engineering at it’s worst. It does not sound like the America that I want or knew. If this is the best that the supervisors can do we need to replace them with a plan that works.

    • Posted by Hola

      It’s going to turn into a Vegas style “Latino Land” before they’re done with it. But with all the grit Campos loves so much like gangs, prostitutes, muggings, etc. to keep it “real”.

  20. Posted by Hola

    I’m suprised there’s no mention of building a wall around the Mission as well.

  21. Posted by Hola

    So, the afforable housing that will (maybe) be built is only for existing Mission residents? Will they have to be Latino as well?

  22. Posted by Pablo

    “Not apply to 100 % affordable housing” ?
    Because the Govt public housing projects have been such a roaring success that everyone want to live (or die) there?

  23. Posted by grumpy

    I know this City is a little kooky, but that used to be in a good way. Now it is just effed up.

  24. Posted by grumpy

    The city should stop building affordable housing, there are enough people subsidized already. No new luxury towers either, they are all just being built to see who can beat the pdf of each other and are for foreign buyers, these do nothing to help the local housing problem. The only new building and lots of it, should be market rate “standard” housing. A mass production approach in terms of city planning approvals to lower the cost. The city does not need to be adding costs just to fund its bureaucracy, at least not during this housing crisis. Condos should be priced between 300K to 1000K and let the market set its own new San Francisco demographic.

  25. Posted by Dubocian

    If they want a moratorium on market-rate development in the Mission, then there also needs to be a moratorium on ANY city funds being spent on affordable housing projects in the Mission during the same period.

    Market rate projects are where the money in the city’s affordable housing fund comes from. So if the Mission folks are not going to contribute to the fund, they definitely shouldn’t be able to draw out of it for their neighborhood. They want other neighborhoods to bear the brunt of all the market rate development, while they get all the money to maintain economic diversity in their neighborhood. Well, sorry Mission — that’s not fair, and your neighboring ‘hoods want diversity too.

    This seems like common sense to me, to cut off affordable funds for a neighborhood which chooses to cut off its contributions to those funds — and yet I haven’t heard it proposed. I wonder why?

  26. Posted by don

    I got down to “This measure also makes findings regarding the need for the measure” and suddenly wondered if I’d been duped into thinking an Onion article was real. Then I read it again and got a more Monty Python feel; there’s a certain air in this of everybody thrashing around with all their arms and legs cut off, trumpeting an imminent victory.

    However, Is this the actual ballot measure language? What exactly does “roughly bounded to the west by Guerrero Street…. and to the north by US Route 101” mean, when Guerrero and 101 don’t meet?

  27. Posted by ElitistPig

    Isn’t it the City of San Francisco’s job to build said affordable housing? If the Camps Circus wants affordable housing, shouldn’t he be doing something internally to get more?

  28. Posted by SFrentier

    What makes city officials sure that the 13 parcels, which are privately owned, would be sold to the city? Think of it, city places a moratorium, then goes to these owners and basically says, “so now you can’t built on it, so how about selling it to us?” I can imagine a giant middle FU finger being raised by the owners. I know I would.

  29. Posted by Orland

    What is totally stupid beyond comprehension is insisting upon doing more of the same. It ain’t workin’. In one of the most affluent, well-compensated societies in one of the most prosperous “First World” countries on Earth, 12% can to purchase a home and market rentals consume something like 50% of a household’s income. Do you really maintain that we continue down this path?

    KILL the “Market” (all now genuflect in holy reverence) which currently builds only for the low-hanging fruit of over-priced properties artificially inflated by the demand of a few very affluent.

    REWARD achievers and innovating performing developers who build housing within the means of one of the most generally affluent markets in the country. Give them a virtual monopoly and rights to parcels (preserved by the Moratorium) and finally change the same-old, same-old non-performing model that has been failing us.

    Who’s going to pay for it? The purchasers of reasonably priced housing created by innovative thinking and priorities favoring the interests of the City as a whole rather than enriching an already too wealthy few.

  30. Posted by Michael

    The entire point of the moratorium is to develop a solution/plan. Arguing against the moratorium because the solution/plan/answer hasn’t yet been identified (see previous sentence) is willfully ignorant of the ballot measure’s intent (not that I agree with it).

    I don’t have the solution either, but I bet I we could come up with one in (less than) 18 months.

    • Posted by R

      If the solution is so easy, then why haven’t we already figured it out?

      • Posted by Michael

        It hasn’t been figured out yet so there is no solution? That’s more of the same willful ignorance and rhetoric.

        I never said it would be easy, I said I bet a solution can be found.

        • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

          Solution to what? What is to be solved?

          • Posted by parklife

            I think the “solution” that is sought by the proponents of the moratorium is to have readily available, low cost housing without fear of eviction. IMO, this is not viable on any scale without widespread public financial support (subsidized housing). If SPUR figures are to be believed, it takes $470k to build a 640 square foot unit in a 100 unit building. I think you are going to have a tough time selling many of the activists on the idea that they need to pay either the purchase price or rental equivalent of $470k on top of HOA, Property Tax, etc. to live in a smallish unit.

          • Posted by zig

            See we can’t even agree there is a problem

        • Posted by R

          But what does the 18 month moratorium buy anyone? Nothing. It doesn’t help find a solution, it will only exacerbate the problem.

        • Posted by zig

          there is no solution to public policy problems most often. There is competing interests

    • Posted by soccermom

      I think people have been finding solutions to housing cost challenges for eternity.

      My parents moved to the bay area in the late 1960’s from the midwest. They would have liked to have lived in a cool or fun neighborhood in the city. But they didn’t – it was too expensive. They moved to an inexpensive rental in Emeryville for a couple of years and saved their pennies. Then they bought a house in a small town outside of Sacramento and have never moved. They couldn’t afford to live in a neighborhood, and so they chose not to live there. They worked and saved and bought.

      I moved to New York in the late 1990’s. When I say “Moved to New York” I mean I worked in Manhattan and took a bus into the Port Authority from Suburban Jersey every morning for a year. Then I moved to Queens when I was more established (!) I moved to the bay area in the very early 2000’s. I would have liked to live in a fun cool neighborhood, and I was employed, so I guess I could have spent all of my income on a cool apartment in SOMA or the Marina or wherever. I chose not to afford those places and I moved to San Rafael and found a roommate through Craigslist. I worked, I saved my money, and I bought a place.

      This is only the millionth time that a poster will relate the high cost of housing to rent control, but here I go again(!) San Francisco has unfairly given people the idea that by renting a pre-1979 building they have a lifetime estate right in that property (And yeah know, it’s the rules and they might not be fair but those are the rules and we elect the people and you gotta play by them, etc. I get that.) Those are how the rules work in San Francisco. They are not how the rules work in the rest of the world, and the court system does actually override crazy San Francisco laws ultimately (see relocation payment drama). Ultimately any building is owned by people who own the building. You can be the person who owns the roof over her head or not – it’s a choice. The entire tax/financial system provides huge incentives for people to purchase their own homes.

      Go do that. Move somewhere you can afford. Pay your bills on time. Find a place to buy.

      [Insert your favorite stereotype] privilege has a lot to do with being thrifty, and saving your money, and being willing to put up with some long hours IMHO. At least those things came before home ownership for me.

      • Posted by zig

        Things are much worse now and unacceptable. We do need solutions but not to be centered around the Mission only. We have way too little housing like the Mission and too many SFHs and very poor transportation planning which is almost totally disconnected from land use planning

        In the 1960’s so much of SF was undesirable that living was easy

        • Posted by EcceMorons

          There are plenty of places in the world that are “undesirable”. I hope that making much of SF “undesirable” again isn’t your suggestion.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        My mom did the same thing as yours and I did the same thing as you. people want handouts to live in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the most expensive city in the US. Its just ignorance. What people need is financial education, and that needs to start with educating our local politicians. This all boils down to ignorance , lack of education and racism on the part of Campos and Ilk. there are plenty of affordable places to live in the Bay Area. Why people feel so entitled to be subsidized in their most desired neighborhood is beyond me.

      • Posted by 4th Gen SFer

        @Soccermom – completely agree. In fact, in SF, one of the reasons people went to live in the Sunset & Richmond & outer Sunset & Richmond, as well as Little Hollywood, Viz Valley, Hunter’s Point, BayView, Outer Mission….Daly City, even down as far as SJ was due to affordability issues. People moved around to what they could afford. They did not whine when they were bought out, evicted, priced out, etc by LGBTQ, nor when the Mission had tons of Latinos moving into areas that were previously held by the Irish, they moved to safer areas.

        The ONE time I remember things got bad is when LGBTQ were buying tons of places in the Lower Haight & Western Addition as well as Divis & SF/USF, but again people moved to other areas of SF like Ingleside, HP, Little Hollywood, Viz Valley, or to the E Bay.

      • Posted by SFrentier

        I agree with all of you, but I don’t think SF will learn these lessons anytime soon. Strictly for entertainment purposes I listened to some of the public comments on this issue. Entitlement is rampant in this city, and now the mission is the crown jewel of entitlement! All those people are so convinced that the city owns them something, simply because they already live here. And the BOS for decades has been crafting policy to enforce this POV. It ain’t changing anytime soon.

        But I do expect for this city to continue to box itself into a corner of a housing paradox. Basically you’ll continue having very wealthy living cheek by jowl with entitled poor. It simply will get more extreme. Around the corner from me in the Mish you have the epitome of income inequality: a couple of $2 million condos literally next to a crowded triplex, where the inlaw unit has six compansinos that collect recyclables. You stand on the deck of the slick condos, and the yard to your right has a collection of black garbage bags full of recyclables. But this is now becoming accepted as San Francisco hi and low culture- coexisting extremes. And the wealthy here have no problem with this; it’s basically achievement/success/culture to them. Matter of fact, for urban dwellers it’s a significant point of pride to get their “private Idaho” here in the city. Just like the phrase “if you can make it in New York City…” For if they want every neighbor to have the same generic upscale quality, they can live in Los Altos, Walnut Creek, etc. Basically we have set up a game where city government and hordes of activists set up entitlements and roadblocks, and the high achievers work very hard to pierce that exclusive, ephemeral goal of owning RE here. And personally speaking, it’s quite convenient to be a supplier of that limited housing gold.

        From a social POV, ultimately we get the culture we deserve in SF, for its creation is very intensional. And personally I’m up for partaking in this 21st century social experiment of SF + tech boom. The phrase “may you live in interesting times” certainly rings true here.

        • Posted by Orland

          What lunatic drivel. You know you can safely stop reading at “entitled poor.”

  31. Posted by JustLooking

    The fear of Campos and his comrades is that not just that people are being priced out of the Mission and, therefore, policies are needed to protect the ability of people to stay. The fear is that the Campos liberal voting block of the Mission is getting priced out and steps must be taken to stop this. Could this actually just be a new form of Gerrymandering?

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      BINGO!!

    • Posted by san FronziScheme

      It’s not only that he would lose voters, it’s also that his district would gain voters who would not vote for him.

      Plus there’s nothing like adversity to bring people together. Wave the red flag, make everyone afraid of the boogyman, and you’ll be the people’s hero.

    • Posted by Lula

      The Mission was gerrymandered in 2000 to carve out districts for both Chris Daly and Tom Ammiano. Daly was living on Stevenson (SOMA) and Ammiano in Bernal at that time. Resulting district map = Mission bisected, incumbent progressives protected, no Mission resident on the BOS, Mission hispanic population split between two districts. Also, note that “population” does not equal “voters.” Districts are technically and legally mapped based on census records. Gerrymandering happens when political factions carve up the map based on voting blocs. What any of these politicians cares about is re-election.

  32. Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

    I have my doubts that this moratorium ballot initiative will ever see the light of day once the hard work begins of actually drafting the law (rather than an empty statement like the “summary” posted here), getting signatures, and financing the election. And I’d bet on it going down even if it gets that far, as it should. I will certainly vote against it.

    That said, those attacking this concept as “dumb” and “laughable” because you can’t reduce housing costs by building less housing are attacking a strawman. The point of this initiative is not more, cheaper housing (indeed, if I’m wrong and that is the point, then it is properly dismissed as “dumb”). Here is what the objectives are, as far as I can discern.

    1) Stop gentrification to protect existing, low-paying renters. Gentrification creates incentives to evict existing low-paying tenants and/or raise rents because there is now a population that can afford more. It also causes commercial entities to change and/or close as the neighborhood tastes change and rents rise along with the more well-heeled populace. Any new building of market rate units brings in more moneyed newcomers and increases gentrification. It also removes the possibility of using that particular lot for low-income housing forever.

    2) Stop the displacement of Latinos. This is related to point #1 as a lot of the low-income tenants affected are Latino. In addition, as non-Latino newcomers move into the Mission, it changes the types of commercial entities (fewer Latino markets, more coffeeshops and higher-end restaurants). This, along with the influx of white and Asian residents, makes both current mission Latino residents and potential new Latino residents feel less welcome.

    The concept is that a 30-month “moratorium” will at least stanch these two trends for a while, and hopefully something can be worked out by then to halt the trends permanently — maybe a bond that results in loads of subsidized housing with preferences for Latino residents.

    From reading an awful lot about this from all viewpoints, these are the real objectives, as far as I can tell. If anyone thinks I’m wrong about this, please correct me. This is what the proponents should be trying to support with facts and argument. And this is what opponents should be trying to discredit with facts and argument.

    Imho, it is very easy to point out why both the goals and the means are horribly flawed (and almost certainly illegal). Indeed, the reason these objectives are never stated so bluntly is because doing so makes their flaws so readily apparent, which is why, I suspect, proponents strive to keep it vague (protect the character of the mission, support affordable housing, etc.)

    • Posted by Orland

      What a cogent analysis of the current situation. And what a damning indictment.

    • Posted by katdip

      I think you are mostly right but miss a critical point: the goal of the moratorium and follow up plan is to find a way to significantly change the balance of any new housing development toward “affordable housing” (which, BTW is not defined in the summary – “100% affordable housing” means nothing without defining affordable to whom). Doing so MAY accomplish the 2 goals you mention, both directly and indirectly.

      Directly, it provides housing for existing Mission residents (Latino and otherwise) who may get evicted/displaced and can’t afford the new reality of market rates. I doubt it would be possible or legal to aim that housing for current residents and/or Latinos, but they may get a share of it just because.

      Indirectly, it is argued that by reducing the availability of high-end market rate housing, you could stem the rapid price/value increases of neighboring properties. There is some rational basis for this – after all, most sale and rent prices are based on comps – if new units sell for $750K or rent for $5K, then values in neighboring properties will reflect those high prices. But I have not seen any reputable analysis that these “benefits” wouldn’t be offset by increasing demand for now-limited market rate housing, which everyone on SS points out. Restrict supply and the ongoing demand will also increase the value/price of those precious few market rate properties that are available.

    • Posted by san FronziScheme

      That’s a lot of words for very simple concepts.

      In 1 line: latinos renters are displaced. New affluent people move in and old latino businesses are replaced by more upscale ones, which compounds the issue.

      I think the only way you can stop gentrification right in its track is to invite the Zeta and the Mata-Zeta cartels. White is not afraid of brown anymore, just like straight is not afraid of gay (what a wonderful world!) but they’re fleeing gang violence big time.

      Just kidding of course.

    • Posted by san FronziScheme

      The terrible movie “La Mission” had it summed up: “Stay Brown: La Mission”. I recall seeing one of the production Smart Cars with the words tagged on it as a publicity stunt.

    • Posted by EcceMorons

      Mr. Dobbs- I have a lot of respect for you and the knowledge you bring here. But I really have to question why you would think it’s a good idea to subsidize housing with taxpayer funds – and then base who gets that subsidized housing based upon….RACE????

      Oh, Geez….

      Y’know, there’s a long history of people getting upset that people from a different race are increasingly moving into their neighborhood and altering its character. We have various terms for those people. Racist springs to mind. Bigot. Prejudiced.

      Would you have proposed that the White folks who didn’t like to see their neighborhood (the Mission) changing as more and more Latinos moved in create new laws to keep this from happening?

      • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

        Well, I never said anything that even hints that I agree with any subsidies based on race. In fact, I noted that this was almost certainly illegal.

  33. Posted by Mark F.

    Why are people in the Mission such special snowflakes?

    • Posted by san FronziScheme

      Unique, irreplaceable, the soul of the City, the Salt of the Earth…

      Until someone comes with a big pile of cash to buy them out, just like the Noe Street tenant who now enjoys 100F dry summers.

  34. Posted by katdip

    How come no one in the media or on the BoS has pointed out the Campos has been office for 5+ years and still has done nothing to come up with a “plan” that is now so desperately needed? He should be fired for incompetence before being rewarded with a ballot measure. The current boom has been apparent for the past 3-4 years at least – look at the rise of Valencia Street – so there is no excuse for him to have neglected this issue for so long. Oh yeah, maybe it was because he was too busy running for the Assembly, which unfortunately for us he lost.

  35. Posted by anon

    Another thing is that Campos is only reactionary. The ENP has been changing the Mission for some time now, by design. By design. By long hours of thought, and planning. SF chose to upzone in the Mission because it has heavy rail, among other things. Doesn’t anyone understand that? SF ALREADY CHOSE TO CHANGE THE MISSION, after thousands of hours of study. A real mayor would step in here, and kill this nonsense.

  36. Posted by Jaded SF

    This is just good, old-fashioned shakedown by Campos. You people who think it’ll make one bit of a positive difference are deluded. Campos thinks of himself, and how he can benefit his cronies. He doesn’t care about the Mission or any other neighborhood, for that matter.

    • Posted by 4th Gen SFer

      And enrich himself in his place in Bernal that’s probably worth $2m+ right now. Bottom line, $ lining his pocket of course.

  37. Posted by Hitman

    I love how all the pro-moratorium idiots think that it will serve as some sort of “break”. It will not be a break because try as you might, you cannot constrain markets. Sharks need to eat and when you take away the fresh meat they will just turn on the rotting carcasses. Do you smell that? I smell all those rotting rent controlled carcasses and they stink! Time for them to be digested into something new. Bring in the moratorium. It is the small fish that will suffer and that is the price they shall pay for listening to Campos and the other disingenuous politicians leading the gentrification.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      we have already been on abreak for the past 20 yrs, and especially in last 5, by not producing enough housing

    • Posted by Orland

      More ugly, evil venom from the unworthy. The Mission is a small patch. The carrion eaters will move on to other victims when stymied administratively.

      • Posted by Hitman

        I might be unworthy but my money is as worthy as anyone else’s. You think Campos can stop me? He is newcomer to SF, I was born here. I am 10 steps ahead of [him] and I already have plans for the mission moratorium. The truly unworthy will be relegated to Pittsburgh/Bay Point. They can take BART to the eviction protests after the moratorium starts.

  38. Posted by Louis

    It will win.

  39. Posted by formerly%whatever

    There’s a hearing at the Planning Commission for a Planning Dept initiated “interim controls” on July 9.

Add a Comment

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