While authorization to convert the Edward II Inn on the corner of Scott and Lombard from tourist hotel to group housing for transitional 18 to 24 year olds was approved by the Planning Commission in July, an appeal of the approval is scheduled to be heard by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors tomorrow.
In addition, the establishment of a one building spot “Lombard and Scott Street Affordable Group Housing Special Use District” which would help pave the way for the project is back in front of the Board tomorrow as well.
Supervisors Avalos, Campos, Chiu, Mar, Mirkarimi, and Kim are all sponsors of the proposed Special Use District legislation, neighborhood Supervisor Farrell is not.
∙ Support For Supportive Housing…Just Not Here [SocketSite]
∙ Appealing The “Unappealing” Neighbors To Be At Scott And Lombard [SocketSite]
∙ The Cow Hollow Association Might Say Both Are For The Birds… [SocketSite]
∙ Lombard and Scott Affordable Group Housing Special Use District Legislation [sfbos.org]
Most religions bless people who are charitable toward the unfortunate.
Are you still blessed, though, when your charitable acts involve giving away other people’s property?
unwarrantedinlaw
Although the 5p Marina spandex jogging crowd may not find it to be a blessing, it is.
And, it’s a blessing that a community needing some special housing services doesn’t have to be on skanky skid row (I know, I know it’s the uber cool future & I support the mid-market efforts, but right now it’s disgusting). YIMBY rising.
(apologies, my NY roots are showing…)
You can tell San Francisco’s character by the way it always fights against neighborhood social services outside of the designated bad-people area.
unwarrantedinlaw – and whose “other people’s” property is it that is being away, exactly?
And where do you all live? Easy to criticize us in Cow Hollow and the Marina (spandex jogging? give me a break) unless you are a resident here. So fess up, please.
What an awful location for a halfway house, and an extreme waste of taxpayer $$. I imagine almost every neighborhood in the City would oppose this spot zoning.
It’s a stupid project.
$1100/sf for 24 units is poor use of taxpayer funds. We had this discussion on here about a month back, and since then, the math hasn’t changed.
I know it’s much more fun to talk about how the Marina is an evil land full of white fratboys turned finance employees, but it just seems like a lame diversion to me.
As mentioned – this part of the Marina is not very nice. It hasn’t been for years. All kinds of sketch ballz occupy the low rent motels that take government assistance.
I don’t live in the Marina, I don’t go out there, I’m not pushing a NIMBY line. But for this amount of money, is this the best use of tax payer resources? Could we house more transitional use in another area? (and that doesn’t mean 6th & Market).
The Cow Hollow Neighborhood Association will win this battle. Strongest neighborhood association in the City, in my opinion. But at least the Supervisors got to please their pseudo-progressive constituents by painting themselves as fighters of North Side NIMBYism.
Indeed it IS easy to criticize you in the Marina and Cow Hollow when you live, as I do, near the Tenderloin and Western addition where the city puts most of the social service agencies, partly because they will get such whining from the marina and Cow Hollow when they try to put anything there.
This particular project is NOT for “bad people”. It’s for foster kids when they reach 18. We live in a time when Marina/Cow Hollow parents probably have their offspring living at home well into their 20s, maybe 30s. But foster kids didn’t have any options but being suddenly on their own at 18, like falling off a cliff. With this project they will.
I say to the Marina and Cow Hollow: Get used to it.
BT – You’re still not addressing Lurker’s point. It’s a crappy use of funds and a very questionable case of spot zoning.
Yet the rant keep returning to “Marina, yuppies, foster kids, don’t demonize the poor, jogging pants, NIMBY..”
Not the argument here. Seriously – we get it. But is this a poor use of limited resources? Seems like it.
Actually, it’s a GREAT use of resources. There will be a ready supply of jobs for these kids, and almost no competition from the rest of the city.
Lucas will need technicians, secretaries, food service staff and the like. Local restaurants will need staff as well. Local Hair salons, etc., all need staff.
These kids are going to do very well competing for those jobs just because of their proximity. Other employees have to come from the East Bay, which makes them unreliable due to transportation problems and likely to switch jobs. I’d hire these kids in a minute.
Thus, this is actually a STELLAR use of funds. Couldn’t spend them in a better manner. Jobs will keep these kids out of trouble. These aren’t going to be your usual former foster kids.
Great use of funds. Outstanding use of funds.
Thanks tipster, but honestly… I think you’re kind of a nut. The LaRouche support kinda put you over the edge.
Anybody not crazy want to chime in? Thanks.
PS – You realize your rant was contradictory to practically everyt you’ve ever made on this site – now jobs are just easy and readily available? These kids will just get jobs – everyone needs a technician, right? Thosse gigs are all over the place, transitional youth to the front of the line…
Whatever, crazypants.
Ad hominem attacks make you look weak and desperate.
This is clearly one of the best sites in the city for this sort of thing. Worth every penny. Can’t wait to see it built. Will be a real plus for the businesses in the area.
Looking forward to it.
People don’t want social experiment SF style housing in their neighborhoods. None do.
The only difference is that this time the neighborhood is somewhat managed by the people who live there, as opposed to whole swaths of our city where neighborhoods have been run by the non-profit Mafia for decades.
I say fight on, Marina.
Fight on.
The Cow Hollow Neighborhood Association will win this battle
How? The supporters on the BoS have six votes. I suppose a lawsuit can drag things out for a while, but unless you can tip the Board in your favor, you will lose.
The louder and more insane the NIMBY opponents of this project get, the easier they make it for the BOS to vote against the NIMBYs and for this project. John Burton – Chair of the CA Democratic Party – even went so far as to get an op-ed piece in the Chron this week in support of the project.
The opponents are cooked. All they got is a lawsuit and even that will fail eventually.
Whack jobs unite…on Socket-site!
Gotta love the John Burton reference, sleazeball extraordinaire endorses this project…like he did with Solyndra. He has massively overspent in Sacramento, so he must know what he is doing here locally.
So far the BOS have diligently tried to create a welfare state in San Francisco, and apparently many on SS now believe halfway houses are the preferred property use, over businesses and/or market rate apartment housing.
And spending 3X above market for the next grand experiment to house, drumroll please…24 people, at $450K each.
Huge jobs creator and stimulus for Lombard.
Agree with Longtime Lurker here. This project is dumb at this price, but instead people focus on the Marina frat boy (and spandex?) issue. Not the biggest fan of the Marina myself, but the issue with this project is how cost-ineffective it is, regardless of what part of the city. As Longtime Lurker said, no one’s saying skidrow — but rather why $1100/sqft?
No one’s buying the “We aren’t NIMBY’s. Its just too much money” BS. You guys assume the rest of us must be congenitally stupid not to see how completely transparent you are being. At least the honest NIMBYs have the stones to admit they don’t want poor brown kids living down the street.
The lubeless deep dicking you NIMBYs are going to get by the BOS is going to be wonderful to watch.
GoBlue – so every Marina resident who opposes this based on cost has some hidden motive? Got any other conspiracy theories you’d like to share?
I literally live right around the corner from this project and I have no problem with the concept – but at a price that I would feel is too expensive for most “luxury” housing in SF, I just don’t see how this project makes sense.
So far, I haven’t seen once convincing counter-argument that doesn’t involve bashing Marina residents. It’s getting pretty tired.
GoBlue – you’re boring me to death here. You tried this line last time, and it didn’t work then.
For the eighth time, not sure how I can be considered NIMBY when I:
– Don’t live in the Marina
– Don’t want to live in the Marina
– Don’t hang out in the Marina
– Basically have nothing to do with the Marina
So spare us with the bizarre homoeroticism you’re posting, and at least try to answer the very basic question…
Is 24 units at $1100/sf the best use of tazpayer resources?
Jesus, not rocket science here.
Once again, ditto what Longtime Lurker said. Maybe GoBlue should focus on making a substantive point instead of using silly metaphors and trashing people who live in the Marina.
So far no one, and I mean no one, in any of the threads has been able to defend the cost of this project, and for obvious reasons. Doesn’t matter what neighborhood this is in.
i’m going to put out this fire with gasoline.
1) $1100 per square foot (purchase, not development???) for this property is ludicrous – regardless of final use, thats out of the market. not the best use of funds. someone is working an angle here.
2) foster kids do need a break. maybe even a good place to live in a nice neighborhood until they get on their feet. this project isn’t going to be that. cha argument regarding per square foot unit space is correct. project would be appropriately sized at 10 units, not 24. with kitchens.
3) residential property value on lombard needs all the help it can get. registered sex offenders couldnt devalue it more. not sure that kids would. cha argument is bs in that regard.
4) i feel the future cougars currently jogging in lululemon spandex have been underepresented in the previous complaints against the nimbys.
5) the devil is in the details, and road to hell is paved with good intentions.
foster kids deserve better digs than this overpriced pos hotel conversion.
ill give cha the benefit of the doubt that if the project was new development and appropriately done, there wouldnt be an issue.
oh and some more:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2010/07/26/daily48.html?ana=e_du_pub
chp paid $3.45m for this pos??
total development costs $9.9m for 24 rooms, is 400k per unit. way outta control for sucha small space.
chp is being aspirational, and overpaid for the property. city should not be on board to the tune of $4.4 mil.
Nice to finally see some data amidst all the hand wringing about exorbitant costs. At least billyballs provides some real information. I and another poster in the older thread provided some general information about why these projects tend to cost more than commercial development, though didn’t have specifics on this project. So why don’t the rest of you geniuses put up or shut up on the following information that might be relevant to this project:
– is $3.5 million really high for acquiring land like this, especially since it buys a building rather than raw land (I’m assuming that it will be cheaper to renovate this hotel than demolishing an existing building or finding open land – can anyone confirm that?). How much less would equivalent building/land be in the City?
– how do the projected construction costs compare to similar projects, like the one planned on Ocean Ave, or other affordable housing rehabs? If they are the same, then the location is irrelevant.
– is the total cost of $9 mil significantly higher or lower than similar projects in other parts of the city?
I don’t have time to dig up that info, but maybe those of you who are so jealously guarding the public purse might be motivated to do so. Even if I’m right in thinking this project falls in the normal range, you will feel vindicated that we are spending way to much to help these people no matter where we put them. After all, developing this kind of housing would be much cheaper in Fresno, and you can give them all a bus ticket with the money saved!
I’m not going to even try and calculate the public benefit of having these kids in a relatively safe neighborhood rather than dumped into the Tenderloin, because there is no way I could win with that argument even if I had the data.
katdip, thanks for the affirmation.
giving chp the benefit of the doubt with development costs, and using their 9 million number as a numerator, and 24 units at 200 sf as the denominator yields 1875 per residential square foot.
bear in mind, 4.4 million on that 9 is city funding, i believe non recourse.
take into account this deveoplment would have only a common kitchen, and as such, would need even more renovation for any other future use.
As I predicted, the BOS administered its smackdown yesterday afternoon. With the entire BOS voting against the CHA appeal of the Planning Commission’s CEQA approval, and only one BOS member (Farrel) supporting the appeal of the spot zoning SUD approval. In other words, the BOS pretty much unanimously supported the project and opposed the NIMBYs.