FROM THE EDITOR:
Dear readers: Reacting to the urgency of the existent housing crisis that is displacing our long-term residents – entire families from all ethnic groups – in the San Francisco Mission District and everywhere in San Francisco, El Reportero ran into the following article – written by Keren Moros – that describes point by point what Proposition I is all about and why every San Franciscan must Vote Yes on Prop I.
And we also take the opportunity to endorse for Mayor of San Francisco, a gentleman that has demonstrated his love for our community and housing rights for all San Franciscans: Francisco Herrera.
And in addition we also ask you to also vote for another great human being who is running for re-election and who has demonstrated during his past term, to be the right person for the job of Sheriff of San Francisco: Ross Mirkarimi. And in the name of the spirit of Liberty, we ask you to Vote no on very proposition that calls for more taxes. More taxes means bigger government. Bigger government means more repression against the people, less wealth and more government dependency. Election Day is November 3.
by Keren Moros
Once known for its up-and-coming artistic community, San Francisco’s Mission District is now a hot topic in the conversation surrounding the city’s growing housing crisis. Gentrification in the Mission has led to rapidly rising rents, forcing long-time residents out of their neighborhood. On Nov. 3, San Franciscans will vote on the controversial Proposition I, which aims to address the issue head-on. But what does this mean for the the neighborhood and what would be the consequences? Here’s what you should know about Proposition I before checking the ballot box on Nov. 3.
What Does Proposition I Say?
Proposition I calls for the suspension of market-rate housing development in the Mission for at least 18 months. Additionally, it proposes the City develop a Neighborhood Stabilization Plan by Jan. 31, 2017, which would “propose legislation, policies, programs, funding, and zoning controls so that at least 50 percent of all new housing would be affordable to low- and moderate-income households.”
If passed into law, Proposition I would put a hold on not only construction but also the demolition and renovation of market-rate housing developments with five or more units. It would also suspend construction and development of buildings that the law determines are used for production, distribution and repair such as businesses like furniture making and auto repair.
What Proposition I does not propose is to stop those seeking permits to build low- and moderate-income housing. Rather, if passed, it would allow for the suspension on market-rate housing to be extended for another year if the Board of Supervisors approves.
What Led to Proposition I?
Since the tech boom of the late 90s, San Francisco has become increasingly gentrified. As people continue to move into the city’s developing sectors, SF hasn’t produced housing to keep up with demand. The new affluent population has encouraged landlords to increase rents, says Jasper Rubin, associate professor at the Urban Studies and Planning Program at San Francisco State University, and the combination of factors has created a dire living situation for the city’s low- to moderate-income residents.
“It’s wealth, not a huge housing stock and a lot of demand,” Rubin says of the crisis. “Costs for rental units have skyrocketed as well as ownership, and it’s been incredibly disruptive. Even though there is rent control and tenant protections are fairly strong, evictions have increased dramatically.”
While Francisco’s affordable housing policy requires developers to dedicate 12 percent of new units as affordable housing units, tenants in buildings not protected by rent control worry about losing their homes to new market-rate housing or being evicted unfairly.
Gabriel Medina, Policy Manager at the Mission Economic Development Agency, says the area has seen the displacement of 8,000 Latinos in the last 15 years and the Mission has lost more than 3,000 residents between 2000 and 2013. In addition, the neighborhood sees 230 evictions per year.
“We’re not growing as city in the Mission because of the glut of luxury condos that have come and changed the Mission from an immigrant gateway for the Irish, Italians and then Mexicans and Central Americans because it was affordable to essentially a rich person’s playground with tons of bars, tons of high-end restaurants and housing that 85 percent of the city of San Francisco can’t afford,” Medina says.
“[Culture] is what makes us so special and we’re slowly homogenizing that with luxury towers, and as a result, we’re having high income disparity because those middle class, living-wage, blue collar jobs are being displaced for service industry jobs which don’t pay the rent.”
Rubin says the Mission has long been the site of unrest because of the housing market and believes the proposition is a response to several developments in the neighborhood that have pushed local residents to action.
“Folks in the Mission are saying, ‘There’s just not enough affordable housing. We need to stop any development until we can get a better project that will serve the neighborhood and not just introduce another gentrifying building.’”
Rubin calls the proposition symbolic and understands why many in the Mission are behind it.
“I completely understand the frustration, and I understand the desire to say, ‘Okay, we don’t really care if this is effective or not. We just want to do something. You do lose some money for affordable housing, though not much. On the other hand, if you do prevent those buildings from being developed, and if you actually could because of the moratorium, negotiate better terms, then it’s an effective measure.”
What Good Will Proposition I Do?
Supporters for the proposition like Medina say it will give the city an incentive to plan for the community and give the Mission a chance to come up with strategies to stall evictions, stabilize businesses and create affordable housing, all the while preserving the history and culture of the neighborhood. It’s also an opportunity to set a positive precedent for future legislations.
“[Proposition I] shows that people here are not only thinking about our own needs for the neighborhood but we’re thinking about how this can be a model for other neighborhoods that are going to face the same income-inequality crisis,” Medina says.
What Do the Opponents Say?
Those against Proposition I, including U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and Mayor Ed Lee, say Proposition I is against state laws and will ultimately cost taxpayers more than $1 billion. They also say passing Proposition I will stop the construction of nearly 1,500 homes, both market-rate and below market-rate, doing nothing to solve the housing crisis.
In addition, the city’s Office of Economic Analysis released a report in September that concluded the temporary moratorium of market-rate housing would not change rent rates, prevent resident displacement or stop upper-income families from moving into the neighborhood. The report, written by office Chief Economist Ted Egan, also states that market-rate housing lowers nearby property values and notes that market-rate housing developers “are required to either dedicate a certain percentage of the project’s units as affordable, build affordable units off-site, or pay an in-lieu fee to the Mayor’s Office of Housing for affordable housing”
To that Medina argues, “It actually delays 85 units for up to 18 months. So it doesn’t stop housing…100 percent affordable housing will still get developed. They’ll just be delayed 18 months. But the process to develop housing is typically three to five years. It’s not significant. And of those 85 units, only 12 percent of those are affordable, and in our analysis, the current approved pipeline for housing is only 7 percent affordable. So really, of those 85 units, you’re looking at like 10 or less of those would even be affordable,” he says. “[After] losing 3,184 people from our neighborhood who now need homes, we know that just building luxury condos does not restrict supply in the sense — it houses more people.
