While legislation to streamline the approval process for developers of below-market-rate housing in San Francisco to build up to three stories higher than zoned was adopted last year, the biggest component of San Francisco’s proposed Affordable Housing Bonus Program, which would have allowed market-rate developers to build up to two stories higher than currently zoned in exchange for pricing 30 percent of the development at below-market rates, was effectively abandoned.

But the bonus height program for market rate developers is about to re-emerge as “HOME-SF.”

And in addition, the HOME-SF program would expand the income range of households that qualify for the newly built below-market-rate units to families earning up to 150 percent of the Area Median Income, which is currently up to $140,000 a year for a family of four.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

    This re-branding will completely change people’s minds about the attractiveness of large tall buildings crowded with high proportions of subsidized residents being built in San Francisco. The name and the logo are super-unique. The way the home looks like an arrow, but with people inside. It’s amazing work.

    • Posted by Boher

      Your smug, cynical commentary contributes little to what is a crisis housing situation.

      • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

        Crisis for whom?

        • Posted by folderpete

          A crisis, obviously, for all the automobiles that will be left out in the cold; as our ‘Transit First’ policy is waiting for a critical mass of bldgs and residents before construction on those service-providing systems starts.

        • Posted by cfb

          It’s a crisis because there isn’t enough housing to meet demand, which has caused market rate prices to skyrocket beyond the reach of most existing SF residents, as well as any newcomers who aren’t wealthy.

          • Posted by Sabbie

            The problem is that the demand is temporary in nature, or in the words of our new president, a big fat ugly bubble created by the Fed.

          • Posted by Cynthia

            That’s not exactly true, cfb. There is no shortage of housing for the wealthy.

      • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

        Thanks for your feedback on my commentary. For what it’s worth, the Syrian people are in physical crisis. The Venezuelan people are in economic crisis. People who want to move to San Francisco but find that rents are expensive, are inconvenienced.

        Here is a remodeled 1 bed / 1 bath condo with a view of the water, and an outdoor deck, in walking distance of a ferry to downtown San Francisco for $275K / $271 per foot. That’s nice, safe, affordable housing served by public transit. Get on the boat.

        Most of the incumbent residents of the city don’t want a lot more housing built right next to them. Having an intern in the mayor’s office do a clip art re-branding of a dubious program isn’t going to change anything.

        • Posted by Cynthia

          Nice try, bachman. That “affordable” housing costs, with mortgage and required HOA dues, $2050 a month, requiring a $71,000 annual income. Not so “affordable” now, is it? And as a one-bedroom, it’s not ripe for having a roommate to share it with — so it’s only affordable to single people making upwards of $70,000, or to couples without children.

          Except wait, that “served by public transit” requires a 1-hr, 15 minute commute to the first SF location, the Embarcadero. If you have to commute to the southern part of the city, add 15-45 minutes each way.
          So a 3-hour daily commute.

          And then the costs run between $10 and $12 each way, depending on where in SF you are commuting to. So monthly commuting costs of $800-960 per month, making that nice “affordable” condo actually closer to between $2,850-3100 per month to own. For a one-bedroom apartment.

          Hey, now that’s more like that average $3100 cost of a one-bedroom in SF!

          So now that “affordable” condo is only affordable to people earning $111,000 or more per year. Not so affordable now.

          Also, I’m always amused at people who respond to any given problem with “hey, someone else has it worse!” That says nothing.

          • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

            What price would qualify in your mind as ‘affordable,’ if $275K is too high?

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            that is definitely affordable.

  2. Posted by Cynthia

    Affordability is defined as no more than 33% of gross income. If you’re going to accuse folks of just making stuff up, I’m not your best candidate.

  3. Posted by Cynthia

    moto mayhem & bachman:

    Everything is affordable to someone. However, these are only affordable to people making around $110,000 a year.

    I’m asking you both of that’s what *you* mean by “affordable.”

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      110K per year is not a lot in Bay Area. thats less than median for a couple

      • Posted by Cynthia

        Okay, so a couple, each making $65,000 per year. That eliminates all working-class people right there, except for the highest-paid union workers with the most seniority.

        That “affordable” condo is also not possible for people with children, being one bedroom and all.

        Oh, and if both people work in SF, you can add that monthly commute cost of $800-$960 to the cost of owning that condo, making it now only affordable to a couple whose combined income is $146,000 a year, or $73,000 per person per year.

        • Posted by Cynthia

          Oops, each making $55K, not $65K. (At least before I added the commuting costs of the second half of that couple.)

  4. Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

    I’m not allowed to answer any more, apparently. I had a response for you and dear leader deleted it.

    [Editor’s Note: We haven’t removed any comments from this thread.]

    • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

      “We haven’t removed any comments from this thread” is a lie. You removed a lengthy comment that I submitted, just like you removed lengthy responses of mine in other threads like the 151 Liberty one. You edited my redfin link and inserted comments here. I get it, it’s your site and you do what you like.

      My summarized response to Cynthia is that no one has a “right” to housing in San Francisco at a price she deems affordable. People make all kinds of sacrifices to live and/or work here. That’s part of life, not a crisis. Good luck.

      • Posted by SocketSite

        “You removed a lengthy comment that I submitted…”

        No, we didn’t.

        “…just like you removed lengthy responses of mine in other threads like the 151 Liberty one.”

        Yes, we did. And as you never responded to the emails we sent you with respect to the flagged comments, they remain unapproved.

        “You edited my redfin link…”

        That’s correct, we shortened the link (which remains in place above).

  5. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    San Francisco Health Improvement Partnership, whose data is refreshed more often than the census’, holds that the median income for San Francisco households in 2016 was about 84k, so Cynthia is correct that a home requiring a $110,000 yearly household income is not really affordable.

    I am always amused by glib real estate agents and other commentators who say “well, so what if the median household can’t afford the median home, buy something in the suburbs and commute.” This just reinforces the real point here: people routinely underestimate the costs of commuting. The Census Bureau reports the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metro area has more workers than anywhere else in the country who travel at least 50 miles and 90 minutes (one way) to work.

  6. Posted by Sebra Leaves

    We heard that the ABHP was coming back. thanks for letting us know the new name of the program.

Add a Comment

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