“Supervisor Chris Daly has championed a ballot initiative to require that at least half of all housing built in the planned Hunters Point-Candlestick Point development be affordable to San Franciscans with household incomes between 30 percent and 80 percent of the county’s median.”
“It’s nothing new for Daly to use the ballot to pressure developers into offering more affordable housing or other benefits to The City. In 2004, Daly looked to the ballot to prompt a developer of Trinity Plaza to offer more affordable housing, and in 2005, Daly negotiated with developers of five downtown residential towers, Rincon Hill, to pay a record-setting $55 million in impact fees after threatening to put the development on the ballot.”
∙ Daly’s measure could ‘kill’ Bayview development [Examiner]
∙ JustQuotes: The Redevelopment Of Hunters/Candlestick Point [SocketSite]
rediculous.
instead of some silly govt interference through price fixing, why not just change zoning laws to allow more housing development?
if the development process was smoother then we’d get more building. More supply=lower prices.
I’m continually astonished at how little SF realizes that the sky high RE prices are due primarily to artificially created housing supply issues…
then again, I’m sure the NIMBYs and those who already own homes know exactly what they are doing. Block all development, creating a housing shortage, which makes current dilapidated housing stock priceless…
daly is a total moron and is truly anti-progressive
When is his term up? He is awful. Let’s aspire to turn SF into a communits sewer like Berkeley.
It’s premature, but in the upcoming election, please don’t vote for any supervisor endorsed by Daly.
District elections are what yield wack-job supervisors like Daly. He’d never pass muster if the whole city had to vote on him. I wish we’d return to citywide election of supervisors, or perhaps a hybrid of half district-based and half at-large supes.
The problem, as always is what they define as “affordable” and how they decide who gets to live in ’em. The consistent problem with San Francisco is that we love to build expensive condo towers, and we love to blow taxes on developments for the poor, but we really don’t do anything for those who work for a living but aren’t rich enough to by a million dollar luxury condo, but because they work and pay taxes, don’t get any benefit from the city’s dumping of money into “nonprofits” who are great at building their own empires, but don’t care a whit about anyone that isn’t super poor.
And then the Guardian wonders why it is that SF is so “gentrified” and has such a gap between the rich and the poor.
I have to disagree with the notion that District elections are the problem. The problem is voter apathy – residents are the managers of these folks, and we’re not managing them. Granted, working folks’ time is already limited. If voters really don’t like the person representing them, there’s a recall process …. I’m shocked no one is pursuing it.
Why not ban all market-priced construction. Then all property owners will be uber-wealthy as supply will never increase and prices go even higher. Brilliant, Daly!
========
But middle class people really get the shaft. Why not middle class housing? How about the people who have a household income of 75-150k. They frequently don’t earn enough to buy market-priced housing and earn too much to qualify for affordable housing.
And I don’t buy this need for affordable housing. I’ve been a janitor, factory worker, forklift driver, etc, and worked my a$$ off for the last 15 years, saving tons and not taking vacation and now I can practically live wherever I want. No one gave me jack. I worked for it! What a novel concept!
This idea (and Sophie Maxwell’s previous incarnation of it) is insane – if Daly/Maxwell think legislation like this is actually going to result in more private development and delivery of affordable units to this economically struggling area they need to go back to Econ 101 class. These areas are marginally feasible to develop market rate housing in already and by adding more affordable housing requirements it makes them even less so. If anything, the affordable housing requirement should be eliminated in this area – the market price of the units will wind up being affordable just due to the below average appeal of the area. More restrictions are going to result in absolutely no development (aside from subsidized public housing) happening in this area.
The whole idea of subsidizing “affordable housing” is a joke, but this is what you get when you have decades of stupid policy decisions, which in SF consist primarily of rent controls, draconian planning restrictions (near as I can tell) and prop 13. At this point, it would take a few generations to fix it….
Now that government has created 90% (or more!) of the problem, the population can think of nothing better than to look to government as the solution, criticizing the government for not “fixing” the problem it created (it all becomes clearer once one understands that the government is not trying to fix anything). Good situation for the government – be the arsonist, and then get called in as the fireman too!
“More restrictions are going to result in absolutely no development (aside from subsidized public housing) happening in this area….”
I think that’s *exactly* what Daly wants – no market-rate housing whatsoever. The Guardian has repeatedly editorialized in favor of a city-wide ban on market-rate housing, so this is just more of the same. This might benefit the non-profit developers and the handful of people who snag a unit in one of the subsidized developments, but everyone else loses out. It’s amazing this kind of nonsense is even taken seriously.
Anyone read the article on SF Gate regarding the Sunnydale Housing Project aka “the killing fields”? It’s a horror scene in those parts of the city. Chris Daly would have the rest of the city suffer the same fate as Sunnydale if it were up to him.
Increase supply = lower prices. We need to build more developments, but without affordable housing subsidies. These subsidies drive up the prices of the other units, because the developer still wants a certain return on the development. He can have condos worth $500,000 or $1 million condos with $250,000 affordable housing condos (price is negotiable, just making a point). I agree, the hard-working middle class gets screwed. My family came from nothing, put each generation through school, and now my brother and I are in the upper middle class (still can’t afford anything in sf, though). We need to stop throwing so much money at the poor and rich (tax benefits), and start helping the hard-working middle-class. A flat tax would be a start,
As I said earlier: “assholes.”
Anyway, this is great. Thanks Daly for propping up our property prices. It’s inane proposals like this that keep developers from building in the first place.
Screw the Google Effect. The Daly Effect will keep prices high.
Thanks dumbass!
Let’s put Daly in charge of the SF Housing Authority and then he can fix all the problems that our current housing for the poor has.
Good for Daly. He has my support. Get you greedy property landlords nervous! Good to see…. Go Daly!
LOL. “lowincome” clearly is someone who doesn’t understand that Daly’s actions are actually helping property landlords by hindering new construction.
I don’t think those people are nervous. In fact, many of them are part of the unholy alliance of Non-Profits, Developers of Low Income Housing and NIMBYs that have been helping to keep property prices high.
Someone here needs to take a class or two on Economics.
All Daly wants is to create a legacy for himself doing whatever it takes to boost his personal ego. He only cares about his own career doing whatever he can to prolong it!
Whatever Daly is planning now will surely benefit Daly later, whether financially or career wise. You will see. It will come out sooner or later!
why not just change zoning laws to allow more housing development?
Because most of us like San Francisco the way it is. If I wanted to live in Manhattan, I would have moved there a long time ago.
But I am against F, too. It doesn’t make any economic sense.