President's Column
by SFYD President Luke Klipp
Defining Affordable Housing: Is San Francisco Missing the Mark?
I just read an editorial in the Bay Guardian which talked about the latest high-rise development happening in the Transbay and Rincon Hill areas ("Too many big buildings," San Francisco Bay Guardian, 2/14/07). Essentially, the article rebutted an earlier argument by the Chronicle that said all this housing was good development, and encouraged people to use more transit and live in walking-friendly neighborhoods ("A skyscraper story," San Francisco Chronicle, 1/29/07). The Bay Guardian's rebuttal basically said that, because these new housing units are really pricey, the folks buying them aren't the transit kind of folks. In fact, the Bay Guardian points out that many of those buying condos in the Transbay and Rincon Hill areas work in the once-again booming Silicon Valley, and some are rich retirees (quelle horreur!). Just who exactly are the right kind of people to be living in San Francisco according to the Bay Guardian?
So what's the solution, Bay Guardian? Silence. Check that - the latest "solution" I heard from the Bay Guardian regarding San Francisco's ridiculously expensive housing market was to put a hold on approvals of any and all proposed housing developments for a year. Of course, I have left out that the Bay Guardian argues we need a more sensible housing policy, and I will be the first to concur that we do. But stopping all current projects in the pipeline? That's just favoring obstruction over production. Will that really solve our housing crisis?
One thing that has happened consistently in San Francisco's housing market as the rest of the country sees a contraction in housing prices is that the supply of housing in San Francisco is just so small that prices won't go down. They just keep climbing toward the sky, faster than new buildings are doing the climbing. Meanwhile, working class folks are getting priced out of the City faster than the fog rolls in on a blustery August afternoon.
So, then, what does the Bay Guardian have to say about the housing going up in the Transbay and Rincon Hill areas? First off that these are just ridiculously expensive housing units and secondly that these new buildings are blocking other people's views. On the latter point, I didn?t realize that we are all entitled to views outside our respective living quarters. On the former point, what housing in San Francisco isn't expensive these days? Any comparable condominiums to these new units being built with the amenities and the accessibility they offer would sell for just as much. If you just do some comparables you'll see that this new housing is just part of a larger, over-heated and over-hyped housing market.
But it's luxury housing you say? Well, just for the record, developers don't actually get to set a price for the housing they sell. The price of housing is determined by what people are willing to pay. And the harder it is to come by a unit of housing in a city with so few options already, believe it or not, people will pay a lot more because each remaining housing unit is that much more of a scarce resource. Why do we think developers are jumping at the chance to build a 1,200-foot building with tons of new housing? It's in part because there is such scarce housing in San Francisco now, virtually guaranteeing developers that they will come away with net income by developing new housing.
So what then are the solutions to our housing predicament?
First off, we need to finally get some denser development around major transit stations, and that means West Portal, Castro, Church, 16th/Mission, 24th/Mission, and Civic Center, to name a few locations. And I know what I'm saying here isn't necessarily popular or politically palatable, but if you don't want to live in a dense area, then move to a different neighborhood or to the suburbs. If you want to be able to live close to a major transit hub in a major American city, there is a price to pay which in part is denser development. This kind of development is the sensible thing to do - it gives people options to driving, is more sustainable, and is good for our natural environment over the long term. There has been an ongoing battle over the City's Master Plan which proposes this very solution of denser housing around transit nodes... and the City's political leadership so far has punted on the Master Plan, progressives and moderates alike. We are still awaiting some guiding document which moves us in the direction of sensible housing policy.
Secondly, we need to have not just one tier of what qualifies for "affordable housing," but at least two or more. This isn't a radical notion, as a half-baked attempt was made with Prop. J just a few years ago which, in my opinion, did not go far enough. You need to offer solutions that will allow housing development to continue and will also give an array of options. Shouldn't our teachers, police officers, accountants, transit workers, service staff, and many other average people who earn more than 60% of median income be able to afford a place to buy in the City too? It is simply unacceptable that the only meaning we give to "affordable housing" in San Francisco continues to be those earning less than 60% of median income. Meanwhile, to purchase
"market rate" housing, a person needs to be earning something like 160% of median income, and then they're scraping by to purchase a home. So what happens to those earning between 60-160% of median income? I speak for a lot of young people who get crunched in this housing market when I say that the current housing "solutions" are simply ineffective and pushing a lot of our peers out to the suburbs, if not other parts of the country entirely, much less those not-as-young folks who aren't millionaires and can't afford to fork over half-a-mil just for a studio condo.
Finally, we need to be more creative in our planning code requirements, not only with density around transit hubs, but with height allowances, parking requirements, and mixed-use development. Currently we have too much of a one-size-fits-all Planning Code, which limits what developers can envision, and limits all of our collective imagination in continuing to create a City that is accessible and affordable.
So long as we keep doing what we've always done, we'll keep getting what we've always gotten. Which is why we need to, as the Bay Guardian rightly insists, develop a more sensible housing solution. But isn't that what we are supposed to be doing with the Master Plan? Where's the backbone of the City's leadership to stand up and say that we have a job to do, and that is to ensure sustainable, intelligent housing development? That's what the Master Plan is all about, much less a sensible debate around housing which acknowledges the incentives for developers to build high-rises in the Transbay and Rincon Hill areas and also the fact that housing isn?t getting any cheaper, particularly if we keep it from being built in the first place.
I'd like to see the Bay Guardian's or the Chronicle's take on either the Master Plan or the need for San Francisco to have more housing just to keep par with demand.
top
David's Telescope
by SFYD Newsletter Editor David Weinreich
Why We Should Respect Blacks
It is sadly ironic that Asian Weekly's editors chose February, Black History Month, to tear up old wounds and incite hatred with their editorial decision to publish columnist Kenneth Eng?s piece "Why I Hate Blacks."
Worse than the author's laughably simplistic arguments and kindergarten-level connections to, well, his elementary school days, is his disturbing ignorance of real history and fact.
It was just over forty years ago, in 1966, that the Bayview-Hunter's Point neighborhood of San Francisco was rocked by race riots, begun by the police killing of a young black man, simply because he was running from a stolen car. These riots lasted three days, and spread to the Fillmore and other parts of the city long neglected and mistreated by authorities.
The Bayview has a long history of marginalization and ghettoization. It just received a light rail connection to the rest of the city, in 2007. California's dirtiest power plant is located in the Bayview and just closed last year. The Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory was also placed in the Bayview between the end of World War II and 1969, causing radiation near the docks. The area has a 60% unemployment rate and San Francisco's highest crime rate.
Of course, until the Fair Housing Act of 1968, restrictive housing covenants meant America's blacks were simply not allowed to live anywhere else - not in other parts of town, and not in our newly emerging suburbs, the supposed bastions of the "American Dream." How? Developers would simply write discrimination into the codes, or CC&R's governing who could live in their development, just as retirement communities are still permitted to do for age floors to this day.
Underlying all this, America's black citizens have not been able to choose their own destiny very often or very easily; yet they have still managed to persevere - indicating incredibly strong will, not weak, as Mr. Eng misguidedly asserts.
African Americans were one of just a few ethnic groups to not come to America by their own volition. As Malcolm X famously said, "We didn't land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us." Yet, despite this predicament, there are over 250 documented cases of slave uprisings in our history going back to 1739, ranging from small to massive. African Americans continued struggle time after time to realize the full promise of liberty stands in stark contrast to our founding principles.
The history of segregation, beatings, tarrings, featherings and lynchings is all well known, as is the KKK, which actually controlled the City Council of Anaheim, California in 1924 and staged public demonstrations there (guess that was before it was happiest place on earth). Martin Luther King Jr.'s philosophy of nonviolent protest caught many Southerners off-guard, and his gracious words in 1963 still ring through America's memory to this day.
Many changes have come over time, especially in the South, but change in the Northern and Western cities has always been more difficult. Racism in these parts of the country have been more subtle. Segregation is de facto, not de jure. A quick trip down the new T-Third Street Light Rail Line is enough to tell any observer that we in San Francisco are still a long way from achieving equality.
While Former President Clinton's "national debate" was a soothing idea, it still gave many of us the ability to find comfort in passing responsibility on to others in 'more racist parts of the country.' Unfortunately, we still have much to do at home, and the best way to overcome our problems is by understanding them through an honest community conversation. How can WE reduce crime in our communities? How can WE clean up pollution; improve housing conditions without displacing the current residents with speculators; improve the schools; get more kids into college and reduce unemployment in our black communities? We have to recognize the wrongs of the past to understand that many Americans have been given a stacked deck of cards. Only when we fully accept that reality can we begin a truly honest conversation about what WE can do to make the situation better.
In other news...
February Meeting Report: Two Special Guests
At our February 13 meeting, we had a full house there to hear Dan Bernal, Nancy Pelosi's District Director, as well as San Francisco District 7 Supervisor (and SFYD member) Sean Elsbernd.
The discussion about both national and local issues was very lively.
We had a very engaged, though sober, conversation with Dan Bernal, Speaker Pelosi's District Director, considering the 'war-and-peace' nature of the subjects we discussed.
This conversation just preceded the historic February 16 vote in Congress to oppose the war in Iraq. This was the result of an effort by Nancy Pelosi to take up the fight for a resolution against just as the Senate version was mired in filibuster; there was, of course, considerable debate over how far it should go in opposition. Dan Bernal answered questions about whether we should next go farther and cut off funding for the war.
Regarding war funding requests not in President Bush's original annual budget, he answered: "I don't believe you'll see the supplemental [war funding request] voted down," but said the Speaker instead encourages the President to end the conflict diplomatically.
He later said the same about a possible attack on Iran. Perhaps Pelosi's pull helped make that a reality. Since the date he spoke at our meeting, the President has called for a regional conference including Iran and Syria.
On issues of more local importance, Mr. Bernal spoke of efforts the Speaker is working on to encourage wind and tidal energy production in this city, to help do our part to work against global warming.
It was an interesting and informative discussion. Keep on charging, Nancy!
To Contact Dan:
Dan Bernal, District Director
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Phone: (415) 556-4862
Email:
dan.bernal@mail.house.gov
Sean Elsbernd was definitely a straight talker. He said all the privacy talk over WiFi right now would be moot, since the approximately 1,500 antennae it requires would arouse so much neighorhood enmity, it would be scuttled.
He sees the main issue with crime being the fear of witnesses to come forward; perhaps more can be done to coax them forward. He opposed the specific Police foot patrol legislation approved by the Board, since he does not believe legislation should dictate specific police routes in the City's Administrative Code. (not to mention this tells the criminals which areas to avoid).
He also said that he feels that, while the Muni Transit Effectiveness Program may be nice, it mainly seems to be currently being used as a crutch to delay real, productive change. He did not propose any specific solutions to fix Muni at the moment, though he did say he believes the Central Subway project is a boondoggle... too expensive for too few new transit riders. But, as he pointed out, that's also a result of how the Muni is able to get funding, as the capital funds for the Central Subway are specific to that purpose and cannot be used to plug the gaps in Muni's poor performance with other rail and bus services.
To Contact Sean:
Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, District 7
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Phone: 415-554-6516
Email:
sean.elsbernd@sfgov.org
Community Cleanup Efforts!
On February 24, the San Francisco Young Democrats joined with Democrats Work to clean up Gilman Playground, located in the Bayview-Hunter's Point neighborhood of San Francisco.
We met at Starbucks (
where else?), for the bus ride down Third Sreet. Once at the playground, we hauled bushes, raked sand boxes and reconstructed bulletin boards inside the playhouse.
Being located right next to Monster Park, the sound of racing dragsters burning through the vacant parking lot broke the early Saturday chill.
If you were unable to join the fun this time around, join us next time, to assist in the cleanup of another playground in the Mission. That'll be on March 24, from 9am-12noon. More details TBA.
Volunteers Needed for
Important Year Ahead
2007 is an important year for California and an important year for SFYD.
Help us in the year ahead by volunteering for SFYD's fundraising and issues and action
committees. Stellar events and initiatives are planned - your talents are
needed. Contact Luke Klipp at
sfydprez@gmail.com
top
Political Classifieds
Editor's Note: The SFYD Newsletter runs a regular Classified Section
in the newsletter for political, campaign, or other related
jobs/advertisements. If you'd like to advertise in the SFYD newsletter,
email the editor,
for inclusion possibilities. If you would like to contact the
advertisers, do so directly as per the advertisement, not through SFYD.
Coleman Advocates' Director of Administration
The Director of Administration is the backbone of our organization. In this position, you will learn A LOT about how to operate a small but effective nonprofit agency as well as about advocacy and organizing around children, youth and family issues in San Francisco. This position manages the day-to-day operations of a multi-faceted and small (staff of 10) not for profit organization. Requires a high degree of organization, foresight, flexibility, and ability to focus on many different things at once. Go to
www.colemanadvocates.org for the complete job description. People of color, bi-lingual persons, and applicants with a deep understanding of San Francisco's unique history and politics, strongly encouraged to apply.
To apply, send resume and cover letter to
info@colemanadvocates or to
Coleman Advocates
Attn: Ingrid Gonzales
459 Vienna Street
San Francisco, CA 94112
Position is open until filled. Need to fill position as soon as possible.
Oakland School District
Serve the ongoing financial needs of assigned Principals and Managers by providing budget training, ongoing budget guidance, budgeting adjustments and additional monitoring and financial operations support.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, LICENSES, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS:
Any combination of education and experience equivalent to a bachelors degree with a major in Accounting, Business Administration and two years experience with public school district budget or fiscal control. California public school district fiscal experience preferred. Customer service experience preferred.
Demonstrated understanding of federal and state compliance policies.
Demonstrated proficiency with computer-based quantitative and statistical tools.
Valid California Drivers License.
REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE OF:
Public school finance
Customer services strategies and techniques
Federal and State compliance rules, regulations and policies
Job listings are usually abbreviated. Please email David Weinreich, Newsletter Editor, at sfydnews@gmail.com for the full version of any of the above job descriptions.
top
