Amongst the items on the agenda for San Francisco’s Land Use & Economic Development Committee this afternoon, the establishment of a “Lombard and Scott Street Affordable Group Housing Special Use District” at the corner of Lombard and Scott.
The new one building “District” would facilitate the redevelopment of the Edward II Inn into 24 units of supportive housing for young adults transitioning from foster care. As plugged-in people know, the Cow Hollow Association hasn’t been very supportive of the plan, at least not if it happens in their neighborhood. But elsewhere? Apparently that would be fine.
Also on the Committee’s agenda today, the amendment to San Francisco’s Planning code establishing Section 139: Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings.
∙ Land Use & Economic Development Committee Agenda: 9/12/11 [sfbos.org]
∙ Lombard and Scott Street Affordable Group Housing Special Use District [sfbos.org]
∙ Support For Supportive Housing…Just Not Here [SocketSite]
∙ Establishing Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings [sfbos.org]
∙ It’s (Not Just) For The Birds [SocketSite]
“Young adults transitioning from foster care”…rrright. Sounds like a marketing ploy to me. I think the only transitioning in this neighborhood is from the Bridge Motel to San Quentin.
Keep it out!
It’s no more a ploy than “tax cuts create jobs.”
It’s high time someone other than Cow Hollow Assoc gave some pushback on this project: nobody takes their NIMBY objections seriously nor should they.
The correct objection is the ridiculous price that this conversion will cost the taxpayer – over $1100/sqft I believe. That’s luxury-penthouse kind of money – that is what happens when the non-profit housing sector gets in on the feeding trough of unregulated public funds: hopefully that’s what the Committee will focus on although I’m not holding my breath with Mar, Cohen and Wiener on board.
The only NIMBY I feel sorry for is the poor guy with the (now not-so-)new empty building on the next corner who spent less than this per sqft on a brand-new (privately-funded, soon to be bank-owned I’m sure) building and cannot sell his condos or rent his stores due to the spectre of this new unanticipated spot-zoning next door.
Agree with BobTheBuilder – the city’s schools desperately need more teachers and yet we, the taxpayers, are having to pay over $1100 per square foot for a foster “youth” (they’re over 18 so not sure why it’s even called this – should be “adult”) transition center?
From what I’ve heard they didn’t work with the community at all – rather bulldozed over all of the neighborhood concerns. Not exactly a way to win friends.
Sugarcoated PR ploy…a for-profit housing venture financed by taxpayers. Find a tourist hotel in the Tenderloin at $250/sf, not this shady arrangement.
Aside from the ridiculous construction cost, Lombard commercial is down on its luck these days, but allowing this use isn’t the answer. I don’t blame the Cow Hollow Association for not wanting to allow this precedent. Two times I have seen people assaulted in front of the Walgreen’s on Lombard/Divis, and the gangbanger days at Paragon/Gravity bar were just great. I live on Scott Street, NIMBY to the core.
Perhaps the neighbors should stop complaining and reach out to the youth that are going to be living right beside them. Volunteering on the weekends might not be a bad idea, after all, with all of the negative reactionaries in the press, why would the new residents think twice about committing a crime against people that are already bad mouthing them? I wouldn’t. Never underestimate the value of being a good neighbor.
Knowing very little about this project, can someone provide info or a link or something describing why this location was chosen? It seems like expensive real estate and an expensive project. How does choosing this location make the project’s end-result better?
(no point-of-view yet…simply looking for information, thanks)
If you support putting this blight into this neighborhood, don’t congratulate yourself for being a good and charitable person, you’re not. Other peoples’ money will finance it, and other peoples’ property and lives will be negatively affected.
You are correct. After all, it might give competition to the shopping cart derby that can be seen all over Cow Hollow.
“supportive transition center”
oops
Bridge Motel II
2017 – economy recovers, shoot, how did we get halfway houses all up and down Lombard Street? What were we thinking?
Oh, because anyone who stood up for the quality (and existing zoning regulations) in their specific neighborhood got labeled as a NIMBY fanatic screwball…
GEORGE CARLIN on Homelessness and Golf: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbSRCjG-VLk
“The correct objection is the ridiculous price that this conversion will cost the taxpayer – over $1100/sqft I believe. That’s luxury-penthouse kind of money – that is what happens when the non-profit housing sector gets in on the feeding trough of unregulated public funds: hopefully that’s what the Committee will focus on although I’m not holding my breath with Mar, Cohen and Wiener on board.”
This is stupid money at $1100/sqft, NIMBYism or not. The city would be better off buying an existing building and converting it to this sort of use. This is an extremely inefficient use of money, regardless of whether the neighborhood is engaging in NIMBYism or adopting this facility with open arms.
Although the expense of the project is the valid concern, it is 100% not the reason for the objection by the neighbors.
Best to throw money at these social problems, it has been working really well to date. I financed a 67-room SRO masterleased by the City of SF and run by an experienced housing group (rehabed an existing building) for approx. 50% of what this silly project will cost. And that was 2007! Imagine where how far those same dollars would go today.
And it is misplaced.
And the residents aren’t crippled 5 year old orphans.
I also know very little about this project, but it seems to me that the strongest argument, and the one that will provide the largest legal ledge to stand on if it comes to that end (I am not a land use attorney), is that the proposal is a particularly egregious example of spot zoning (as BobTheBuilder pointed out).
Bringing up the cost of the project and how it would be cheaper to build on some other site (that happens to be in a neighborhood that the complainant doesn’t live in) and that the planned residents are all potential criminals just detracts from your credibility.
To be sure, from the sounds of it, this project would be cheaper to build on the *same* site! I’m guessing some other people would need to be in charge, though.
Love all the attitude and sneering “Tenderloin” references. If more subsidized housing is to be built in SF, Lombard is the perfect place to put it. I’m sick and tired of everything undesirable going in the Tenderloin/Mid-Market. But, as a matter of fact, in an era when so many middle class kids are living with their parents well into their 20s, it should surprise no one that kids without parents need some help getting started also. Just kick all the Momma’s boys out and tell THEM to get a (non-existent) job before you jerks assume that foster kids are automatically headed for “San Quentin”.
Translation: Bigoted yuppies in the Marina don’t want “those” people moving in the neighborhood. Here’s hoping the haters lose at every step of the way. When this gets built (and it WILL get built), I’ll be the first one in line to cheer it on. Everyone is perfectly happy to sequester affordable housing in SoMa, the TL, Bayview and the Mission. Its high time for the ENTIRE city to take some effing responsibility for housing San Franciscans of ALL income levels.