SF Politics and HousingPosted by sasha at 31 Jul 2007 02:37 pm
3400 Cesar Chavez appeal denied
The appeal of the 3400 Cesar Chavez project was denied, by a vote of 6-5, with Mirkarimi, Daly, Ammiano, Peskin and Maxwell voting for the appeal and the rest voting against.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
It was a pretty distressing vote. People were pretty unhappy that Sup McGoldrick and Sup Sandoval didn’t vote with us. There was great turnout by MAC.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Robert, since you wrote that the vote was that “the Supervisors will decide if they value working families, poor people, mom & pop merchants, and day laborers,” I can see why you thought that the vote was “pretty distressing.”
However, the vote was not on Mom, apple pie, or working families (all of whom should be valued) but rather an appeal of the Planning Commission’s mitigated negative declaration under CEQA.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:09 am
It turns out that Barbary Coast Consulting, who represented the developers on this project, held a fundraiser for Jake McGoldrick on Monday evening.
Jake took in several thousand dollars that night due to the efforts of the lobbying firm representing the developer at 3400.
Jake had been known to previously support affordable housing efforts.
It seems that Jake voted against this to bolster up his right flank to oppose the recall and because of a quid pro quo for the fundraiser.
I’m inclined to support the recall in D1 now, if for no other reason then to put all future progressive comers on notice that corruption such as this, not to mention his vote for Lennar, is simply not acceptable.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 8:53 am
Yes! There is a God, at least one that favors common sense!
if you people would put half the effort into fighting things post haste and get a little more proactive, or organized, you’d be doing your people a lot more good.
Trying to overturn a decision on private land use that followed all the rules was just a huge waste of time and effort.
Go raise some money to buy the next piece of land that hasn’t been spec’d and approved for something else yet in the Mission or Outer Mission and help get that developed as all Affordable Housing. I’ll even help you raise the money.
Marc,
Are you one of the folks that doesn’t believe in Recalls but does want the President Impeached? Just trying to understand the degree to which your hypocrisies run.
;)
August 1st, 2007 at 9:07 am
I believe in recalls the same way that Dennis Herrera does not believe in referenda.
Five supervisors plus one corrupt McGoldrick would have made six to send the EIR back had he not been bought off in fear of a recall.
Let’s give Jake something to fear.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 9:22 am
so you are ok with all of us working folks in district 6 wanting to send chris daly packing then, in principal?
you don’t hold it against us?
August 1st, 2007 at 9:28 am
I oppose a recall of Daly politically but support in principle the ability of people to exercise their rights as afforded by the CA Constitution and the SF Charter.
Hold it against you? You don’t stand a chance.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 9:47 am
As one person said it already, thank G-d for common sense. I know “marc” and I have quarelled on this point already, but it’s about time new housing is approved for MY neighborhood, the Mission. Aside from the nation-wide real-estate boom, the greatest factor in inflating San Francisco real estate over the past two decades has been obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism. This project is beautiful, 15% affordable, middle-class, transit oriented, dense, walkable … about all that environmentalists and housing proponents in any other city would want. But is San Francisco? More projects like this may finally BRING HOUSING PRICES DOWN.
It must be noted that about half of the people MAC drug down to city hall for this hearing were immigrants who were off-topic, and had clearly been taken advantage of by MAC through fear and lies. Hell, MAC didn’t even inform their “allies” of their talking points until we were all in line to speak. This was clearly unethical, if not outright distortion of the political process. MAC should be ashamed of themselves - manipulating those they ostensibly represent for their own political crusade.
What is MAC’s solution? Build only projects? Segregate SF’s poor in the Mission, leaving it a dump, full of empty lots? Or are we as progressives committed to mixing many income types in new housing through inclusionary rules and bringing down housing prices through increasing supply?
August 1st, 2007 at 9:54 am
Remember, that recalls can only be successful when an elected strays off of the reservation they were on when elected, that they’ve taken steps to alienate enough of their political base to make it viable.
Gray Davis was so bland that progressives and liberals who voted Democrat automatically did not stand by him in 2003.
The right wing recall of Jake was not viable, but it sure scared him. A progressive recall would be viable because McGoldrick has succumbed to his fears and voted against his base.
Chris has not alienated his base. If anything, the Chron attacks on him have cast him as the victim, a narrative which his base can identify with.
So using a recall as a political cudgel as a “do over” for an election you just lost is generally nonviable electorally, although it would make the consultants a lot of coin.
Basically, you’ve got to have a large segment of the people who supported a candidate jump ship for an recall to succeed.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 9:56 am
How much housing would it take to drop prices?
How far would that housing push prices down?
How long would that downward pressure last?
How many units would one need to construct over time to ensure a continuous downward pressure on price?
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 9:56 am
How is this project “transit oriented”? It’s adding almost 100 parking spaces to what’s already one of the most dangerous intersections in San Francisco. Simply putting it near existing transit lines doesn’t make it “transit oriented”.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:03 am
This is as transit oriented as the proposed 4 400′ towers at Market and Van Ness which would be entitled to .85:1 parking!
The only transit here is the truckloads of money being moved into the pockets of developers.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 10:52 am
thanks marc. i appreciate your opinion on the matter. the challenge we have in district 6 is that anyone with a job does not support daly. we didn’t get enough folks to the polls for black to outnumber the folks escorted out of sro’s to vote for daly. at the end of the day, it really was unethical on the daly camp part. the district is changing almost daily, no pun intended, with hard working people with mortgages and rents moving in by the hour. he’d never win again but we have to live with him for the rest of his term. he does not represent anyone with common sense or any type of work ethic.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:59 am
Sasha,
All new development outside downtown currently has to offer 1:1 parking ratios. I don’t agree with this, and it seems you don’t either. We should work to change this. At the same time, it’s a (f’d up) requirement, and no developer could have done it differently. This was transit oriented because it put the parking underground, had limited garage doors, and, yes, is a moderately dense development located on a major transit corridor.
And Marc, you can apperantly answer everything with rhetorical questions to avoid having to address the ideas of others, but you’ve yet to explain how building only low-income projects, segregted from all other housing, will improve our city and bring prices down. But go ahead and ask more questions which lack any fundamental understanding of economics, or, for that matter, common sense.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:04 am
You all are really in a bind. Most people “with jobs” don’t give a damn about local politics unless they consider themselves San Franciscans politically, like I do and I am employed.
So in order to get your “base” fired up, you all needed to spend $1m before Black even entered the race to attack Daly, to break the law and commit genocide on trees in order to drop literature like it was napalm or like it was human feces on my door handle.
This is all the more reason to stop the march of the luxury condos. Plans are in the works to do so in order to ensure that downtown shills like Rob Black never stand a chance in D6.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 11:16 am
Monkey:
Since the project required a conditional use permit anyway, there’s nothing that prevented the project from including less parking. They were also, I am pretty sure, not required to include employee or customer parking for the Walgreens.
Including parking certainly allowed them to charge more for the condos, though, transit be damned.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:18 am
Though I have come out pretty hard in this forum with my opinion, I think the key is to listen to each other and compromise. At it’s best, the public policy debate surrounding 3400 Cesar Chavez offered points which tempered my own assumptions, and got me thinking about the best way to plan for all of San Franciscans. You who disagree with me, the manipulative tactics of MAC notwithstanding, make some interesting points, and I assure you, I want the same thing for San Francisco: affordable housing for all income groups.
I suppose I’m just frustrated now because it seems that so many who spoke at the meeting - and some who are blogging right now - are unable to see any common ground with other well-intensioned person with whom they disagree. They just talk at you - as can be exemplified by a few posts above…
For instace, perhaps McGoldrick wasn’t part of a gentrification and/or racist conspiracy, but saw the greater good in approving this project. Or maybe he is corrupt … I don’t know. But I believe this project has the merits to be good for the Mission, as well as all of San Francisco. And as long as new developments make concessions to the neighborhood, reflect good pedestrian planning practices, and offer an agreed-upon affordable housing share, I hope to see more.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:21 am
Marc, please answer my question. Talking and talking doesn’t make you right. I’m willing to consider your point if you can back it up with anything.
Thanks for the input, Sasha. Though I’m not sure that’s how the conditional use process works, you may be right. I’ll look into it.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:36 am
“I want the same thing for San Francisco: affordable housing for all income groups.”
So why entitle a project where 85% of it is affordable to less than 1% of San Franciscans and fewer Mission neighbors?
Unfortunately, MAC has no solution. Perhaps their drubbing will cause them to examine other options. But I am afraid that some of the Stalinists amongst them revel in “fighting the good fight” and getting their asses kicked just so it gets recorded in the Big Book in the Sky to be there when the scores are all tallied up as to who was most to the left.
Others of us do have creative ideas, and those solutions are in the works for next year. That’s all I can say right now.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“So why entitle a project where 85% of it is affordable to less than 1% of San Franciscans and fewer Mission neighbors?”
Marc–
Where do you get your statistic that the market rate condos will be affordable to less than 1% of San Franciscans?
August 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
For these purposes, shall we assume that these units will be priced at the median for SF?
As of 22 July, the median price for a home in SF was: $828,500
A 20% downpayment would be $165,700. How many San Franciscans could afford to shell out that kind of DP to avoid an expensive loan?
So if the principal is “only” $662,800, then at the three month average 30 yr fixed rate of 7%, it would require a monthly payment of $4409 per month to service. That would require a minimum of $151K of income per year to service.
The median income in the Mission is $59,495. Citywide it is $67,967. This is 39% and 45% of the minimum of what is required to service these notes.
I don’t have the histograms of distribution of income available, but these numbers bolster the notion that the percentage of of San Franciscan who can afford to purchase the median priced new home is in the very low single digits.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
That 7% was not the 3 month average, but reflective of the higher rates applied to jumbo mortgages. Too bad this blog doesn’t allow editing of posts.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
“For these purposes, shall we assume that these units will be priced at the median for SF? As of 22 July, the median price for a home in SF was: $828,500.”
That’s a false assumption. No one thinks the units will cost $828,500. Prices will be based on recent comparable sales.
Based on recent sale prices for the 3 other condo buildings that have been built along Mission St in recent years– at 29th and Mission, at Valencia and Mission, and at 15th and Mission, a better estimate is that a two bedroom apt will cost about $600,000. Of course that is subject to fluctuation, depending on whether prices go up in the next year or so of construction, but predictions are that prices will be stable, and possibly even down, a year from now.
According to the California Association of Realtors data, 18% of San Franciscans can afford to buy a $704,000 home.
http://www.car.org/index.php?id=Mzc0MjA=
The 9 affordable units will be prices in the $200,000s, and therefore will be affordable to a much higher share of San Franciscans.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
[[“I want the same thing for San Francisco: affordable housing for all income groups.”
So why entitle a project where 85% of it is affordable to less than 1% of San Franciscans and fewer Mission neighbors?]]
Marc, you seem likable. And thank you for your thoughts on what wankers MAC is (my words, not yours).
But seriously, stop answering questions with questions. You’re not backing up any of your points. You’ve argued that increasing the housing supply here will not alleviate demand and bring prices down. Why?
Besides it’s productive use of an abandoned lot, this is the reason I have supported this project. Mixed-income housing. How else do we do it? I don’t think it’s a solution to build only subsidized housing in projects. Not only is it segregationist, but it’s ensuring that everyone must slog through a government waiting list to obtain it.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:25 pm
“I don’t think it’s a solution to build only subsidized housing in projects. Not only is it segregationist, but it’s ensuring that everyone must slog through a government waiting list to obtain it.”
Not to mention, it simply won’t happen. There isn’t enough money.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Whoop-de-fricken doo, 18% of San Franciscans can afford to buy a home. What percentage of Mission residents is that? Closer to 1%.
The median priced home is from sfgate, last report.
If most people can’t afford market rate, then it is segregationist to build housing for the slim fraction who can.
I’d prefer to see a waiting list than to have to compete with dollars alone for the attentions of a landlord or a seller, and would prefer to see a community land trust that was democratically controlled by neighbors administer BMR units and affordable projects.
Cheap units might go for $600K, more expensive units might go for north of $1m. The median price is the median price. First you all don’t like census figures, now you don’t like sfgate.com’s median figures. Go figure.
Why would one assume that people who disagree politically can’t or won’t like one another and get along personally? I’ve never got that one.
There are many productive uses of a former paint store. Just because money and corruption trumped on this one does not make it right.
“Not to mention, it simply won’t happen. There isn’t enough money.”
If greed drove the level of community benefits provided by developers, there would be plenty of money.
You all simply want to overload the Mission and SOMA with luxury condos so that you can harvest votes to prevail at election time and see your property values increase even faster.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
You all claim that an increase in supply will exert a downward pressure on price. Surely you are basing your assertions on a model rather than the waving of the hands. Is there a model which would indicate:
How much housing would it take to drop prices?
How far would that housing push prices down?
How long would that downward pressure last?
How many units would one need to construct over time to ensure a continuous downward pressure on price?
Or are you just repeating what you learned in school without understanding it?
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Affordable Housing…one of the great debates of California coastal cities. It is nice to know that Carmel has an afforable housing ordinance in place to ensure that if the market builds more housing, then affordable housing will get built.
These ordinances are little more than lotteries….kind of like life itself.
August 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
According to the link, 18% of San Franciscans can afford to buy a $704,000 home. If the units sell for closer to $600,000, than a substantially higher percentage of San Franciscans than 18% will be able to afford them.
The units won’t cost $828,000, so that number is not relevant to the affordability of the homes to be built at 3400 Cesar Chavez.
Marc, you were the one to bring up an affordability number– less than 1%– that apparently came from thin air. I’m not saying 18% is great– just finding a number based on something other than your imagination.
Here are prices for a comparable condo building:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/01/1587_15th_street_representative_pricing_and_pictures.html
August 1st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Fine. If the number is 20% then you are still not solving the problem for 80%. Those numbers are even more skewed in the Mission.
Why are you promoting housing solutions that only benefit a slim fraction of San Franciscans while enriching scant few?
One more time…
You all claim that an increase in supply will exert a downward pressure on price. Surely you are basing your assertions on a model rather than the waving of the hands. Is there a model which would indicate:
How much housing would it take to drop prices?
How far would that housing push prices down?
How long would that downward pressure last?
How many units would one need to construct over time to ensure a continuous downward pressure on price?
Or are you just repeating what you learned in school without understanding it?
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
In theory…an increase in supply will exert a downward pressure on price. However, you need to include the absorption rate at which these units came into the market to show a downward pressure. My guess and it is only a guess….you would need to something like 10,000 units a year coming on the market to put downward pressure on prices. The more units the farther it would go down. The pressure would last only for a short time until the DOM perhaps reached 6 months and then prices continue to escalate at about 2%.
I dont belieive that the mandated planning process could handle the processing of 10,000 units a year. Unless we have a mass exodus of people, prices will hold firm.
So there is only one thing to do….continue to apply pressure (i.e. extort) money from developers to pay for low-income housing. There are no other choices.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Thanks, Harriet, for answering what the angry men couldn’t and with substance to boot. Unfortunately, those who worship at the altar of classical economics are unable to practice the dismal science to justify their religious beliefs.
We can also offer developers an offer they cannot refuse that makes current exactions look like the pittances they are. Such plans are in the works.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
If the CU (conditional use approval) was appealed (rather than the environmental mitigated neg dec) it would have gone down - whatever you think about the project, they needed a conditional use for a couple of things including the PUD (Planned Unit Development) that provided additional density. Moreover, the parking was not in line (too much) with the new zoning proposed for that area. Given the heat on McGoldrick, it doesn’t surprise me that he voted the way he did. If the CU was the issue, not the environmental, he probably would have felt more comfortable voting the other way.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:27 pm
“You all claim that an increase in supply will exert a downward pressure on price.”
Actually, I didn’t make that claim. I did question your “less than 1%” statistic.
I supported the project because it supplied 9 affordable units, plus the developer is paying for traffic calming, greenscaping, and a community space. I also don’t think anyone will be displaced by the project. Most of the housing built along Cesar Chavez in recent years has been affordable housing, and that housing is immune to gentrification pressures. How can one prove that anyone will be displaced by the construction of this building? Walgreens, though not my favorite retailer, serves elderly and chronically ill people, and is not a gentrifying agent either.
MAC and BHNC, on the other hand, had no money or real plan, though they claimed they did. If MAC and BHNC prevailed, the space would be an empty lot for years to come.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I know, let’s not do anything. Perfect!
Can’t wait to see these “plans in the works”.
If you could convince developers to subsidise affordable housing while still building housing people are ready to shell out $800k to live in this location, you’re crazy to say no. San Francisco is never going to be able to accomodate everyone who makes $45k/year or less, that is the classical economics and geography lesson of the day.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
marc,
i spent a couple of hours in your hood today, treat and 17th. it was ridiculous to say the least to look for parking. it will only get worse. the parking regs are ass backwards, like everything coming from our stupidvisors. every new development should have 1:1 parking as part of the superstructure, either underground or in the first few floors, don’t care. you cannot let a new development introduce more cars onto the surrounding streets. it has to be zoned to have zero impact and that can’t happen with less than 1:1 parking. guess who it hurts when you don’t do this? the working poor that drive into or out of the mission, not the new condo owner. think about it. here’s another tidbit. give someone with a new condo a safe place to park their car, they will be much more likely to leave it there and walk down the street to community transit, since they don’t have to move their car every day or check it for vandalism. common sense, no? we’d never expect that from city hall though of course.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:18 am
Thanks for dropping by, james, now let us chart our own future, okay?
Our neighborhood gets by just fine on 1:20 or somesuch offstreet parking ratios because so few Mission residents own a car.
I am sensitive to the needs of the driving, working poor, but at the end of the day, the health, traffic, environmental and MUNI impacts of more parking trump the need to find a convenient space. The more parking built, the more cars will end up on our streets competing for parking. That’s the way it works–build it and they will come.
All human beings are the evil capitalists when it comes to private autos and their environmental impacts, even the working poor. There is no margin for writing the enviro costs of human impacts off the books any more.
-marc
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:33 am
The assumptions about the unaffordability of the units are not based on fact. First of all, you can get a mortgage from a REPUTABLE lender (I know because I got one from BofA) for 5% down), which would be about $30K. A lot, but not unreachable. We got our downpayment by living without a cell phone, cable TV or high speed internet for 3 years ($7K), and by living outside the City knowing we were saving to be able to return.
Yes, the monthly payment is high, but most people don’t buy houses or condos alone. They buy them with someone else, which reduces the cost.
Plus, where is it guaranteed that anyone has a right to live in San Francisco? I would love to live in Seacliff, but do I have a right to live there?
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 am
Hi Citizens,
Was this fundraiser specifically for McGoldrick?
or is someone trying to skew facts?
Thanks!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:20 am
Yes, it was for McGoldrick to fight the recall and for McGoldrick alone.
Seven Hills had no prior history of contributions to Jake’s other campaigns.
Jake had cosponsored a resolution calling for 64% inclusionary for the Eastern Neighborhoods.
Jake had also voted to sustain the appeal of 2660 Harrison on similar theoretical grounds.
There is no evidence that Jake received any contributions from the developers of 2660.
-marc
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 am
Note that the fundraiser was by Barbary Coast Consulting, not by Seven Hills. Barbary Coast are a political lobbying firm who represent Seven Hills, but they also represent many of the major powwer players in town, including SEIU. If Barbary Coast wants to throw you a fundraiser, you go. Unlike other supervisors, McGoldrick is facing a potential recall, and needed to raise money.
According to the Chronicle article, Seven Hills donated to McGoldrick previously. It is not known whether Seven Hills donated more money Monday night, because the donors from Monday night have not yet been reported.
There was a difference between 2660 Harrison and 3400 Cesar Chavez. 2660 Harrison was on PDR zoned land that is part of the Eastern Neighborhoods planning process, which is determining a process for deciding which PDR land to preserve as industrial, and which to allow to be converted to housing. 3400 Cesar Chavez’s use was consistent with its zoning for housing over retail.
While McGoldrick’s actions raise legitimate questions, it is false to imply that the only difference between 2660 Harrison and 3400 Cesar Chavez was cash in McGoldrick’s pocket.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:12 pm
McGoldrick had not received any contributions from Seven Hills partners until the recall was underway.
3400 Cesar Chavez is part of the Mission Planning Process.
Just as there was a study to determine the EI of market rate housing on light industrial, so should there be a study to determine the EI of market rate housing on residential affordability.
I don’t hold Barbary Coast at fault for instigating vote purchasing. I do hold McGoldrick at fault, as he is the repository of the public trust, for selling his vote to save his political skin from a recall that probably was not going to happen.
But now it will.
-marc
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
The article mentioned that Barbary Coast held a fundraiser for Sup. Peskin. Since Barbary Coast also represents SEIU, does that mean that Peskin should not vote on city contracts with SEIU unions?
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Entities with interest before government should be prohibited from contributing to the political campaigns of elected officials.
Elected officials who take money from entities with interests before government should be required to recuse themselves from participation in those matters.
-marc
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“Entities with interest before government should be prohibited from contributing to the political campaigns of elected officials.Elected officials who take money from entities with interests before government should be required to recuse themselves from participation in those matters.”
I agree.
Though if McGoldrick had recused himself, the 3400 Cesar Chavez appeal still would have failed. Also, Peskin, and I assume a number of other supervisors, have taken money from Barbary Coast fundraisers.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
If McGoldrick hadn’t taken money from the developers, then he wouldn’t have been compromised and his vote would have been his vote, not an appearance of corruption.
-marc
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Folks:
Alex Clemens of Barbary Coast Consulting here. We’ve written an open letter, and we encourage you to read it here: http://www.barcoast.com/Barbary%20Coast%20Open%20Letter%20-%20August%202,%202007.pdf
Thanks.
- Alex
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:17 am
marc,
thanks and i agree that our impact as humans is being felt on the planet but i am frustrated that we are not attacking the low hanging fruit on that subject. do you know about the coal burning power plants in the midwest that generated as much co2 in a day as all our cars in the entire country? makes the prius effort locally seem quite futile.
back to parking. i still think people should be spending more time with their kids at home than looking for parking and any mandate to a developer to build less that 1:1 in a new complex is forcing them to do just that.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:34 am
The CU could have been appealed on the grounds of the project being neither necessary nor desirable for the neighborhood, but the appeal of the EIR was an attempt at a broader attack on the role of market rate housing in general.
I used to really dislike the MAC years ago but as housing prices have tripled while real wages have fallen, I have come to realize that they were and are correct on the policy.
The main problem with MAC is that they tend to focus exclusively on the impacts on Latinos in the Mission. Not that those impacts aren’t serious nor is there anyone else telling that story, but their language alienates other folks who live in the Mission who are likely to be allies and do not have a progressive conscience on issues of racism.
The economic pressures facing the Mission impact on the poorest the most intensely and in a society permeated by racism, that means that people of color are the hardest hit. In the Mission, that means Latinos are bearing the brunt, and their story should be told first and foremost.
But this is not an exercise in being right but losing, because if a broad coalition of the non-rich in the Mission were to be created with Latinos getting the affirmative action front row seat and political power that reflects that, then our chances of stopping the flood of market rate condos in the Mission are that much greater.
-marc