San Francisco Supervisor Daly’s ballot initiative to mandate that 50% of the 10,000 proposed homes for the Hunters Point shipyard and Candlestick Point be affordable (as opposed to the 25% that Lennar has pledged) has qualified for the June ballot as have two competing anti-eminent domain measures.
Proposition 98 prohibits use of eminent domain for private development and phases out rent control, and Proposition 99 which simply prohibits the use of eminent domain on single-family homes and condominiums for private development.
And for the record, we’re anti-rent control (but not necessarily eminent domain).
JustQuotes: No Carrot, All Stick (Or Should We Say Daly Shtick?) [SocketSite]
Eminent domain measures on ballot [SFGate]
S.F. housing measure qualifies for June ballot [SFGate]
And Now Back To The Hugo Hotel (And Eminent Domain On Sixth) [SocketSite]

21 thoughts on “A Few June Ballot Measures Guaranteed To Raise Some Ire”
  1. Much as I’d like to see rent control bite the dust, the strategy of putting a rival measure on the ballot will probably end up sinking both of them.
    As for Daly’s poison pill initiative, trust a “progressive” to stand in the way of progress! I only hope the voters are smart enough to understand the harmful consequences of using his initiative to make a statement that will end up sinking the entire project.

  2. So is Daly protecting the interests of his SOMA condo-owning constituents by restricting the supply of market-rate housing in San Francisco?

  3. The sad thing about the eminent domain measure is that the Supreme Court laid out exactly what would be needed to prevent such problems in the text of their explosive decision. So far none of the California propositions have taken their advice, but instead try to tune the message to suit a specific subset of the electorate.

    My guess is that zzzzzzzz is right and these will both loose, but I like the heavy duty rent control ending one.

  4. Unfortunately, SF rent controlled renters aren’t even going to be affected by 98 if it passes. Which it probably won’t thanks to 99.
    Here’s the “Nuts and Boalts” of it: The measure generally prohibits government from limiting the price property owners may charge others to purchase, occupy, or use their land or buildings. This provision would affect local rent control measures. Specifically, government could not enact new rent control measures, and any rent control measure enacted after January 1, 2007 would end. Other rent control measures (those enacted before January 1, 2007) would be phased out on a unit-by-unit basis after an apartment unit or mobile home park space is vacated. Once a tenant left an apartment or mobile home space, property owners could charge market rate rents, and that apartment unit or mobile home space would not be subject to rent control again.
    Also, I read elsewhere that only an estimated 1.2M Californians live in rent controlled properties. Does anybody else feel like that is a rather small number?

  5. The heavy duty one would also eliminate restrictions on coastal development.
    For that reason alone, it will never pass in California.

  6. Is it just my impression or is it true that vested interests (long-term renters or owners) are always given an unfair advantage by law over newcomers in this state?

  7. And while were are on the subject of vested interests (long term or owners)… dare I mention the inequalities produced by CA Prop 13?

  8. I’d like to eminent domain City Hall, tear it down, and build BMR units there, with strict rent control
    we could relocate all BMR and rent control to the City Hall, allowing the rest of us to have property rights.
    this would allow people to start increasing the amount of DECENT housing supply in the city… which would lower rents and house prices.
    of course
    -govt would be totally against this
    -current homeowners would be totally against this (as it would bring down the “value” of their artificially bloated homes)
    but we can always dream.

  9. I am a resident of the Bayview District and Chris Daly’s measure seems to me to be about as anti-progressive a tactic imaginable for someone who proclaims himself so progressive. Passing of his measure would essentially kill any further substantial and meaningful development of the Bayview Hunters Point. Outside of its direct residents I dont think you will find much of a voice of opposition to the destruction of the Alice Griffith Projects and to those that would argue about a cities responsibility to its poor, I would argue in turn about the cities responsibility to its citizens plagued by the ills of a failed federal public housing system. This is not to say that the ills are created only from within the gates of the projects as they certainly sweep in and out but the Bayview-Hunters Point district has long been plagued by a disconnect of jobs, cash flow and services which gave way to drugs and violence that swept in with cocaine and crack in the late 80’s early 90’s. I built my home from the ground up in 06′ and was a relatively young homeowner for San Francisco (30yrs old at the time) but i look at my block and surrounding areas and most of the homes are being rented out, have been handed down via family trusts with so many having fallen to broken down states, and many simply lost to foreclosures. And so maybe I’m a lot jaded but i look forward to seeing new development bring in a new quality of living, and a new demographic of homeowner with the hopes that existing residents of the Bayview begin to rediscover some value in their own homes, streets and neighborhoods. That simply wont happen if the projects remain and if the development or any development is set to lower and lower standards. The Bayview with its weather, open space (yosemite slough, candlestick point rec area), connectivity could be a great area for many San Franciscans to discover (aside from a 49er game) and i hate to see that promise cut short. Of course i cant truly assume Chris Daly is trying to keep existing community residents in the community either (as much as he’d like them to believe), because I know a lot of families in the community now made up of four (or more) that dont make $64,267 and thus qualify for affordable housing who at the same time are in no position to even consider buying a home regardless how much below market rate it is discounted. Lately the Examiner has run stories about Sunnydale and about Hunters View projects both stories garnering a mix of emotions between sympathy and disappointment. Then again I get the feeling that the actual voting public (of which Bayview Residents are not significant) are going to vote in favor of new housing and open space (which will inevitably be priced, at least to start, lower than city median averages due to neighborhood history and anonymity) as opposed to the woman who’s lived in public housing for 51 years and feels victimized now for her inability or desire not to keep up with changing times.

  10. Vote No – Don’t allow elected officials to cop out and use ballot box legislating and ballot box budgeting to ram through their special interests. The only thing I voted Yes on in February was the Parks bond – that made sense to me as a benefit for everybody. This is the wrong time to be messing with economic items when the City is looking at a $4 billion liability for retiree healthcare insurance that they haven’t set aside a dime to pay (by the way, that’s one ballot item I will vote Yes on – to stem the bleeding kinda, it is a worthy step).

  11. Hey g,
    I can guarantee you Daly thinks nothing at all of his “SOMA constituency.” If he did we wouldn’t have the problems we have south of market with vagrancy, crime, and general street filthiness.
    You know what he cares about? Power. He buses in the poor slobs from the Tenderloin and actually gets them to think he cares about what happens to them.

  12. Getting rid of rent control would be like amputating a limb. It would be extremely destructive to the social peace in this city. (I’m a homeowner.)
    We’re headed for nasty, harsh, times and something like this is of a piece with nasty.
    Chris Daly is an anti-social jerk from the burbs, acting out of entitlement not insight or compassion. He’s vermin just as much as the rats who want to get rid of the working classes in SF.
    This country wouldn’t be in this deep pile of poop if we didn’t have an addiction to blaming our own people and treating our own like trash. Time to quit kissing rich butt people: fact is, rich butts don’t produce good livelihoods. They produce something else – a good example of which is the toxic waste that is threatening to bring down our financial system.

  13. Getting rid of rent control would be like amputating a limb. It would be extremely destructive to the social peace in this city. (I’m a homeowner.)
    I disagree, so long as you pair ridding rent control with smarter zoning/building policies.
    if we had SMART policies, it would be just fine.
    I would
    -eliminate rent control
    -open certain areas of the city to higher density living
    it doesn’t have to be skyscrapers… you could for example make all Bayview a 4 story high neighborhood.
    Imagine the increased density if every building were 4 stories high. It would be more dense, but also still more neighborhood like. You could fit THOUSANDS of new housing in a place like that, AND you could make larger units.
    the new supply in the city would drop the housing expenses.
    we restrict any building, so that nobody can get a permit to build.
    when they can, that permit is worth GOLD because of how hard it was to get.
    thus, the only thing built is high cost housing.
    meanwhile, the rent control housing gets more and more dilapidated by the day, because what rent-control landlord will put money into the unit, when they know they can’t recoup their cost, and they know there are 1000’s of people that would jump to live in their crappy unit?
    people always imagine that SF is “European” (please, whatever). well then, build like the Europeans do.
    do a google image picture of Paris or London or Berlin or whatever.
    Compare what it looks like to SF.
    still think SF is “European”?
    and FWIW: many neighborhoods in Paris are significantly more neighborhoody than those in SF.

  14. meanwhile, the rent control housing gets more and more dilapidated by the day, because what rent-control landlord will put money into the unit, when they know they can’t recoup their cost, and they know there are 1000’s of people that would jump to live in their crappy unit?”
    I’m sick of this tired old lie. Rent control in San Francisco allows a landlord to pass through an additional 7%/year in rent increases to cover increased maintenance and operating costs. In addition, a landlord can pass through the full cost of capital improvements.
    As a person who has rented a variety of places in San Francisco — from illegal in-law studios to single family homes — my experience has been that most landlords have no problems maintaining or even improving their rental units.

  15. Getting rid of rent control would be insanity. How about having no middle class left in SF? That’d be fun. . . conservative idealists should wake the heck up.

  16. Hunter’s Point/Bayview Area will never change. With all the new developments in the area built in the last decade, violent crime and murders have continued to rise. You know why??? It’s the people.

  17. Ron, you are right…it is the people. I’m not gonna argue thats its not the people that create the violence and crime, but of the development that has taken place in the last decade, what part of it has been to change the demographic of the population or to effect the quality of life in the district? Only in the last two years have you seen residential development begin, beyond that the only development had been the light rail, and that hasnt been operating a full year yet. Only in the last year or two has there been anything to build around, and with the development of the shipyards, candlestick cove, 5600 & 5800 third, the heights I think maybe finally you will start to see a population shift coinciding with a cash influx to the area. I think thats when you will start to see a real change. Obviously Ron you have no real experience of being in the Bayview, and dont understand the issues that have led to it being what it is or how they can change. But all that doesnt really matter, does it because I can tell you’ll never bother to step foot in the bayview until a few years down the line when San Francisco Magazine or 7×7 prints some kind of “Discover Bayview” piece. God knows i’ve seen a lot of faces in Dogpatch lately who i know had never heard of it till 6 months ago. I guess you figured Mission Bay and SOMA would never change either, how about the Embarcadero?

  18. Monkey – thanks so much for the comment, I really needed a good laugh. While I’m recovering from the resulting cramp in my side, would you please point out for me precicely what the “middle class” is? Or, for that matter, how that “middle class” would be driven out of San Francisco sans rent control? Would YOU leave San Francisco if the city were to do away with rent control? I know I wouldn’t, and I’m hardly wealthy, and hardly a beneficiary of rent control…
    Tell you what. I’ll wake up just as soon as you learn to use that brain of yours to good effect.
    And for the record, I think all of these initiatives are misguided – the real initiatives should involve dividing San Francisco into no less than 5 independent townships. Go ahead, let the “conservative nutjob” blah blahs fly…

  19. Rent control should be abolished IMO, but failing that, it should be tied to renter income. There is no good reason that some schmuck with a six-figure income needs his/her rent protected and I’m beyond tired of some horse’s patootie with an MBA at a party bragging about his low-rent and gaming the law to make money renting out individual rooms to the tune of higher than his own rent.
    And it’s not like this has been a one-time occurrence.
    Rent control was a well-intentioned idea that has now ballooned out of control. Let landlords charge what the market merits.

  20. 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!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *