“Supervisor Bevan Dufty has authored a June ballot measure that would give developers who agree to build below-market-rate family-size units the ability to build more units per project site than current planning rules allow.
On Thursday, at a Board of Supervisors committee meeting, members of the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition, or MAC, an advocacy group that aims to keep working-class people in San Francisco, said the measure would not produce enough affordable housing to justify the density bonuses it offered developers — and said they would oppose it.
The measure has the support of the Residential Builders Association, one of the group’s leaders, Sean Keighran, told supervisors at the meeting. Developers would be allowed to put more units into a project site if they provide two- or three-bedroom below-market-rate housing units on-site to meet city laws that require developers to offer 15 of the units on a project site at below-market rate.”
∙ Ballot measure aims to make The City’s housing affordable [Examiner]
MAC continues to get even more ridiculous. I get the feeling that if a developer offered to build a 100% affordable complex, MAC would oppose it because the “greedy” developer wouldn’t be paying the people to live there.
Sounds like the June 3rd ballot is going to have all sorts of crap on it … designed just for an otherwise low-interest election.
MAC hopefully will lose some of its support on the BOS this fall, including Amiano, Daly and others, through term limits.
More affordable 3BR units in the Mission, and elsewhere, is a very good thing.
Does everybody in the RBA have an Irish surname?
EH-they are all from Ireland not just the surnames
MAC apparently will never give in until the revolution
Careful now, mates — we Irish own the construction trades in this town, ya know! 🙂
the problem with this initiative is that it is classic ballot-box planning and offers a one-size-fits-all solution to complex planning problems. the city without question needs more family housing. the question is how to provide this housing in the context of detailed neighborhood plans. the measure for example allows builders the right to dramatically reduce rear yard open space (to 10′). this would undo much of the actual detailed planning work that has occurred in the market-octavia area and undermine other efforts to trade density for a broad range of desired community benefits. the affordable housing defined in this measure incidentally will be for households with close to $100k/year incomes. i wouldn’t necessarily argue that incentives are not needed to produce housing for households in this range, only that voters should consider both what is being traded and what other benefits they might prefer out of such an exchange.
the problem with this initiative is that it is classic ballot-box planning and offers a one-size-fits-all solution to complex planning problems. the city without question needs more family housing. the question is how to provide this housing in the context of detailed neighborhood plans. the measure for example allows builders the right to dramatically reduce rear yard open space (to 10′). this would undo much of the actual detailed planning work that has occurred in the market-octavia area and undermine other efforts to trade density for a broad range of desired community benefits. the affordable housing defined in this measure incidentally will be for households with close to $100k/year incomes. i wouldn’t necessarily argue that incentives are not needed to produce housing for households in this range, only that voters should consider both what is being traded and what other benefits they might prefer out of such an exchange.
Ballot box planning = BAD NEWS.
There is almost always a devil in the details. And voters don’t read the details.
As much as I despise MAC, it sounds to me like Curtis is probably right on the money.
On the other hand, I’m good and sick of seeing this land-grab strategy from MAC and other groups play out so well. The neighborhood is being starved out by them and in the mean time the crime rate is going through the roof. All this due to policies and politics espoused by MAC, Ammiano, Rena Saucedo, and Olague.
I’d rather have over development than the malaise these guys have visited on us.
On the other hand, I’m good and sick of seeing this land-grab strategy from MAC and other groups play out so well. The neighborhood is being starved out by them and in the mean time the crime rate is going through the roof. All this due to policies and politics espoused by MAC, Ammiano, Rena Saucedo, and Olague.
I’d rather have over development than the malaise these guys have visited on us.