A People’s Plan for the Eastern Neighborhoods
For decades, new building owners have been purchasing industrial and residential land and building higher-priced condominiums, forcing thousands of families of all nationalities—most of them minorities—out of work, out of housing, and out of San Francisco.
To counter the offensive of gentrification aimed at lower-income minorities, the Mission Antidisplacement Coalition (MAC) was formed.
The fruit of that struggle has been a prospective, although, non-binding resolution initiated by MAC and other organizations to build 64% affordable housing in the Mission, SoMa, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill, and the Central Waterfront. These areas, the eastern part of the city, cover collectively about one fourth of San Francisco.
But a very different plan, coming from the Planning Commission, is going to be considered by the Board of Supervisors in a few short weeks—a plan that does not contain nearly enough affordable housing. It relies on private developers to provide a paltry 15 to 20% of units developed as “affordable.” From experience, such inclusionary housing requirement very, very rarely produces affordable rental units.
To pacify the people, the Planning Department optimistically predicts that up to 28% of the units produced under their plan would be affordable. But even 28 out of 100 units built as affordable housing would not suffice to meet the need for affordable units.
Up to now the market has failed to produce affordable housing in the city. When there is a market failure, it is the responsibility of the government to correct that failure.
MAC is organizing for the City of San Francisco to enact through rules and regulations, el Plan Popular (the People’s Plan).
The Mission Antidisplacement Coalition is fighting for allowable heights in the Mission Street Corridor between 17th and 23rd Street not to exceed a limit of 55 feet. In other words, according to MAC, five-story tall buildings.
The Mission Area Plan (MAP) passed by the Planning Commission is recommending that heights along Mission Street between 17th and 23rd streets reach 85 feet.
With no increased affordability requirement, this would mean that eight-story buildings would loom over a stretch of 55-foot existing buildings in the Mission District. It would also raise the value of the land which would not lower the price of housing. That was the case in SoMa where for the last ten years thousands of units have been built with no lowering of housing prices.
MAC is proposing that new development keep within the heights of existing buildings. If developers want to exceed the height limits, MAC proposes that developers contribute more affordable housing units to society in exchange for being granted an exemption from the planning code.
MAC further proposes:
- At least 30% of all units be sold/rented at below market rate;
- Inclusionary units for sale—at 80-120% San Francisco Area Median Income;
- Inclusionary rental units at 60% San Francisco Area Median Income;
- Inclusionary units, affordably marketed to existing Mission residents.
The next question is how the new affordable housing will be paid for:
- Establish a set-aside of 2.5¢ of every local property tax dollar—this set-aside would generate an estimated $33 million dollars each year for the next 15 years.
This housing should:
- Encourage a diverse unit-mix, with at least 50% of the new units required to have two bedrooms or more;
- Ensure that 40% of funds dedicated to new housing development assist very low-income households with incomes less than 30% of San Francisco median income;
- Ensure that 60% of funds dedicated to new housing development assist low-income households with incomes between 30% and 80% of SFMI.
During the mayoral campaign of 2003, Matt Gonzales proposed taxing property owners whose houses were priced at one million dollars. Gavin Newsom campaigned for taxing property worth two million dollars. Make it a demand to the government, not low-budget property-owners, to tax the multi-million-dollar corporations for housing for all. Regardless of income, nationality, religion, or legal status.
Depending on the outcome of the plan, parts of it would serve as a blueprint for other areas.
There are two other points of contention that are contradictory and running in opposite directions. On the one side is the move by the Mayor to make San Francisco the biotech capital of the nation and world. The Planning Commission is polishing the groundwork in three areas of the new restructuring:
- Biotech
- Digital media
- Green sector technology
The other side of the coin is that folks at a Hispanic church meeting told of a tally of one or two Hispanic, homeless immigrants a month dying in the streets due to lack of shelter or housing and lack of medical care. While affordable housing is in short supply, and while services are being cut, this can be expected to continue.
The new official rezoning plan of the Mission leaves many questions unanswered with a dubious future looming ahead of us: Will the character and flavor of the Mission and of San Francisco be destroyed if restructuring takes place in the Mission, Showplace/Potrero Hill, SoMa, and the Central Waterfront?
“No income” should not translate to “no housing” in English, Spanish, Russian, or any other language.
Hearings will be held in September. Contact Mission Antidisplacement Coalition for information on hearings at 415.531.4239.
Yolanda Catzalco