Tongues are wagging over reports that San Francisco Supervisor David Campos is preparing to propose a “moratorium” on the development of market-rate housing around 24th Street in the Mission. But little is known about the actual details of the legislation, in large part because it has yet to be drafted.

What is known, however, is that members of Calle 24 – San Francisco’s Latino Cultural District – are behind the effort.  And it really shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise.

As we wrote when Calle 24 was adopted by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors last year:

The designation of the area which is bound by Mission, 22nd, Potrero, and 25th could pave the way for the establishment of a Special Use District or other Planning Code amendments intended to help “stabilize the displacement of Latino businesses and residents from the area,” preserve Calle 24 as “the center of Latino Culture and commerce in the city,” and ensure “that the City of San Francisco and interested stakeholders have an opportunity to work collaboratively on a community planning process.”

The language for the proposed legislation is expected to be drafted within the next few weeks.

209 thoughts on “Talk Of “Housing Moratorium” In The Mission Shouldn’t Surprise”
    1. Good point. Why stop at rent control? Everyone who bought anything in SF in 1979 should have a lifetime right to continue buying it at that same price from the merchant. While the person in line with me at Safeway must pay $1 a pound for her apples, I should only have to pay 29 cents for mine!

      Campos, get busy! You’ve got LOTS more to do!!

      1. I remember paying only $2.85 for a regular burrito at el farolito when I first moved to the city. I want that again. As a right. Let’s legislate it and call it Burrito Control for locals. Thanks peeps.

    1. yes, a moratorium on market rate will certainly make the mission more expensive. sounds like a brilliant kind of solution that politicians come up with in South america.

    2. He doesn’t know it?

      He looks good in front of a voting base that doesn’t understand supply/demand AND he drives of the home values of his donor base AND drives up the value of his own home. Seems like a win/win/win for Comrade Campos.

      1. Campos is a homeowner and he is not a tenant. He wants the vote but he also likes his home to appreciate nicely. A brilliant move for Campos!

  1. I’m still confused how anyone—especially a District Supervisor—can propose a building freeze of any kind to make way for additional “affordable” housing. Even if the market rate housing moratorium was in place, how does that directly allow for more BMR units? Who’s paying for that? And who’s land are they to be built on? Calle 24 sure as sh!t isn’t building anything.

  2. Glad to see SocketSite has devolved into a bunch of racist trolls. I mean I’m against this too but come on people.

    1. Do you not see the racism in the whole policy of a “Latino Cultural District” that attempts to keep out both businesses and residents who are not Latino? If there’s racism afoot, it’s Campos’s and it’s time he was stopped “by whatever means necessary”.

        1. No. No. Moses has this exactly right. Anytime a Latino group refers to itself as Latino, that is fine and to be celebrated. But anytime an Asian, White, Black, or Native American person refers to a Latino group’s own self-referral as Latino, (such as mentioning that they often speak Spanish) they’re being “racist trolls”.

          Moses, please help us all speak properly! Please list your 10,000 point flowchart for who can say what when referring to different races or cultures. I promise we’ll all stop our lives and spend months memorizing it, lest we might offend you. I’ll drop all of my volunteer work with the sick and elderly, because it is MUCH more important to spend my time learning all the nuances of what you consider to be “racist trolling”.

          Why, just this morning, the woman who heads up one charity I donate to mentioned that last year, the charity was “in the red.” Gadzooks! I just now realized what a racist comment that is, certain to send any Native Americans who may have read that comment into a spiral of depression, requiring years of therapy to overcome the obvious racism hurled their way. This must be stopped!

          And to think that I was considering going to the Cinco de Mayo Parade and actually (gasp) dancing the samba to the music being played! My actions would have been unspeakably racist! Please, Moses, help us!

          1. Just like Chiu was a “situational communist” according to Willie Brown, Campos is a situational racist. Of course, he remains full-on Commie.

      1. As I said, I don’t agree with this platform. I’m all for free-market development especially where it is most practical. However “racist” his platform may be, the reality is these people are losing the fight, and don’t need to kick them when they’re already down. We can make practical arguments for development instead of making ethnically charged jokes and slurs. It’s sh!t like this that gives all of us a bad rep.

          1. Have you seen the Mission? It is dirty and falling apart.

            and for the record, I am a Latino. I hope they build a ton of luxury condos. It will give me more selection when I decide to move UP in life.

          2. what’s racist is assuming what he meant by “these people”. He could have meant Latinos; or he could have meant working-class people; or he could have meant NIMBYs; or he could have meant non-hipsters; etc. It’s your assumption that turns completely neutral words in to “racist” language.

          3. as a black guy in SF, I hardly feel that latinos and asians experience a ton of racism (comparatively), especially harvard trained communist latinos.

      2. why is campos not supporting the revival of the Irish cultural district, which is what the Mission was not too long ago before being pushed out by Latinos, who are now being pushed out by hipsters.

        Couldnt campos come up with something more clever than a moratorium on market rate housing? If he really wants to stop further gentrification, he should propose a moratorium on beards, skinny jeans and fixies. The entire neighborhood would be turned back over to the latinos if he did this. Any hipster would be glad to turn over his million dollar home in order to keep his beard and fixie so he can continue to beleive he’s cooler than regular folks

          1. It was a giant national move, not specific at all to San Francisco. It was the flight to the suburbs, to better quality housing, to more space for the kids. It killed the businesses in many central districts and opened the place to the urban poor, whose presence accelerated the flight to the suburbs. The wealthier and more touristic areas made it through, but the other less interesting areas like the Mission took a big hit.

          2. I think some of them felt that their neighborhood was getting run down and attracting poorer people, so the ones that could left. But I don’t see the Irish crying about it. Nobody trying to resurrect an “Irish cultural zone” relic in the mission. And when Noe got yuppified the Irish didn’t cry about that also. The smart ones cashed out and are happily retired somewhere from th proceeds.

            And before you cry me a river how poor Latinos and that they don’t own squat here in the mission, I got news for you: they do! When the hood was considered undesireable in the 70’s and 80’s plenty of Latinos brought. Only to see their kids run away to the “great burbs.” Now half of them are back at mom and pops house enjoying the newer and safer mission (well after until Campos stopped paying attention to crime here.). And Latino business like la Palma are making bank from hipsters wanting to have an authentic gordita, etc.

            Bottom line. Some people will always be poor, and will consequently have less control over their lives. But don’t make it a Latino thing, cause that’s not accurate and disrespects an entire ethnic group. Campos approach is a cheap shot at divisive politics. All my Latino friends and neighbors know better than this political race card playing nonsense.

          3. Sfrentier

            I’m Irish and Mexican among other things with all my family from the Mission. Previous groups move up and out with little doubt.

        1. I would love to see a French and Italian meatpacking district back in the Bayview, but unfortunately there are not enough French or Italians butchers, if any, in SF to pull that off. There are not even enough Italian nationals in North Beach to make it look even remotely italian. I had the strangest adventure a few years ago with an Italian guy visiting us and asking all restaurants where their cook came from. We stopped at the 7th attempt and finally got our pasta al dente the way it’s supposed to be.

          When you cross path with an European, he will not tell you that he was starving back home, but how he manages to import his Foie Gras. The poor that flock to work in our factories or our service industry are from south of the border now. All these things are beyond our local control.

          Now they are being displaced by people with more money. There’s nothing wrong with that, IMHO. It’s all part of the nature of things. It is utterly idiotic to try and give a protected status to a population, especially when this population is quickly integrating into mainstream America.

          1. There is something wrong with it because there are stil service workers but fewer and fewer places for them to live centrally. It is a terrible problem

          2. Why would service workers have to live in the middle of a city? What’s the benefit to this kind of policy? If a low-paying job is enough to live in a desirable place, when what’s the incentive for any kids to aim for success and get a job that pays well? If working class people cannot stay inn the Mission with their current level of income, then their kids will learn that the position you occupy is earned or inherited, not some kind of community entitlement.

          3. If a device worker is living in SF, then he or she is an idiot and doesn’t know how to manage his money. Why would you feel entitled to live somewhere you can’t afford.? You will never save if trying to live beyond your means. There are plenty of places within a short commute that are cheaper and viable alternatives. This is a region, and not everyone needs to live in the “core”

    2. Agreed. “Market Rate Burritos” “Segregationist” etc. It’s more than a little embarrassing reading this from SF residents.

      1. How is it racist? I’m Jewish. If someone were trying to create a Jewish district with housing price controls, and someone referenced market rate bagels, I don’t think I would be offended. And my people have a stereotype having to do with money. You can see jokes about it on Family Guy almost every Sunday.

        When I read the burrito line, I paused, because that kind of joke is not the norm, but when you think about it, it’s not really racist.

        1. Actually, it never even crossed my mind that the burrito comment was a slam against latinos. This is San Francisco, everyone has a favorite burrito. Even white and asian people, believe it or not. And the mission is known for them. I realize this is a “captain obvious” kind of post…but that’s kind of my point.

        2. I want a Jewish district. Then I can get some decent and authentic Jewish cooking. Of course, me running toward every Jewish woman and saying to them, “mommy, is that you?” isn’t conducive to that happening.

          What is wrong with making and having money anyway? I proudly wear my success since they are a testament to my parents’ educational level, hard work, sacrifices, and high hopes. My family reached the levels it has with the help of our Jewish friends. I am also proud to say I bought a perfectly good leather love seat (the model I wanted) from the IKEA “as is” section for 40% off the regular price. AFTER I interrogated the sales lady about any potential flaws with it. There wasn’t (not a floor sample), they just had too much stock and needed to make room, or the box in which it came in was damaged but not the merchandise itself. I will just go bribe the salesperson in that department to let me walk through the warehouse.

      2. I hate to break it to you but they do in fact sell a lot of burritos in that neighborhood. They even advertise it. If that offends you, then write Campos an email so he can modify his nonsensical bill to protect “Latino-owned businesses except those that might be perceived by overly sensitive people as culturally stereotypical”.

        1. You guys think Campos is actually Segregationist? Consider when segregationism was alive and well in the US and what that meant. Family Guy is a parody. It mocks itself and the ignorance of the everyday person. Am I wrong?

          1. And the comment above was meant to mock. We are calling it a Hispanic neighborhood. The burrito was invented by laborers of Mexican descent. There was no mocking of Hispanics occurring, it’s mocking of the policy of trying to protect a people through price controls, by saying, if we protect their housing, are we also going to protect their food.

            My point about Family Guy was that worse things are said on TV all the time. We are used to off color jokes there, but somehow we have zero tolerance when an individual does it. And yeah, it was a slightly off-putting remark, I really did reread it a couple of times before not being offended.

          2. Burritos are by no means “their food.” Burritos are a non traditional food created for the US market. The burrito stereotype is probably incredibly offensive to most hispanic people in SF. You don’t see hispanic families eating burritos at the dinner table. Any phobia of a largely hispanic/latino neighborhood is surely strengthened by the perpetuation of ridiculous stereotypes. Stereotypes and “racist” jokes are no big deal until you’re the one that is at risk. That’s the difference between racism and prejudice. You wouldn’t care if I said “market rate bagels” because you’re not about to be displaced. You (presumably) have money and don’t care what people say about you because you’re in a position of power. Go ask your grandfather if he finds “market rate bagels” funny. Mine wouldn’t. He’s Jewish too.

            Look. I’m a developer and RE investor. No way is Campos going to get this moratorium, nor should he. I came here (clearly inadvisably), because some of the language in the comments is appalling. The Latino community will likely be displaced the same way the Irish and other communities were. It may be an inevitability, but it’s no excuse to be terrible.

          3. Wow, you can’t be serious. This neighborhood practically bills itself as America’s #1 burrito destination. La Taqueria is included in countless “best burrito” articles and featured on food TV shows. I guess all that attention is “incredibly offensive” to Hispanic people in SF.

            And by the way, how racist of you to point out that since burritos are indigenous to the US it’s not “their food”. So the residents are not American, they are apparently more foreign than the burrito. Also, had you been able to back your feigned cultural sensitivity up with some actual knowledge you would realize that burritos are not a “dinner table” food. It’s a convenient lunch dish you eat with your hands, and yes, Hispanic people eat them. They even go to Chipotle sometimes. Wrap that in your tortilla and choke on it.

        2. My grad school roommate is Mexican (mom and grandparents were originally from Puebla ie. good moles) and she has eaten a burrito maybe three times in her life. She finds it offensive when her entire culture is boiled down to burritos and Chevy’s. Through her family, I have learned to eat and make pozole, nopales salad, tamales, chile verde, carne asada, and moles. She feeds her dogs a mixture of leftovers of rice, beans, and tortillas. I think she would call Campos stupid.

          1. How does she feel about her entire culture being boiled down to not being able to pay market rate for housing?

          2. Actually, she hates living in the Bay Area having grew up in East Oakland. She happily lived in Eureka, CA for work and now lives in Rocklin, CA. So yeah, she isn’t fighting to get a piece of the pie she doesn’t want in the first place.

  3. How would this even be remotely legal? Seems like it would negatively impact the property values of hundreds of people who live in this area.

    1. Quite the opposite … the crumbling shanties along 24th will be worth a lot more when supply is further constrained.

      1. Yes. I am against this idiotic proposition, but just like all restrictions, they will make my market rent higher.

  4. Agree the comments above were out of line, but I also agree that the motivation behind this legislation is racist. Maybe you like the kind of racism involved, as opposed to “bad” racism, but it’s really about saying “we don’t want white techies in our neighborhood”. It certainly isn’t about displacement – because building new market rate housing actually gives the techies somewhere to go, and reduces displacement pressures on the existing housing stock. No, it’s about keeping the Mission Latino and keeping new white residents out. Which is racism.

    1. Exactly. I look forward to seeing the language of this proposed law that prohibits existing landlords and homeowners from renting or selling to white people. And I suppose no permits shall be granted for upgrades of any kind, because it might interfere with the low-income neighborhood character it seeks to preserve.

      1. Yup, granite countertops will be outlawed too. Only sh!tty Formica for any kitchen renovations, to help keep the rent more affordable. Makes sense.

  5. The thing is the Mission is in fact many distinct neighborhoods, and Calle 24’s is just one example.

    The west Mission (Dolores) is residential and a blend of Castro and Noe Valley. The Northeast is mixed use with lots of artists spaces and lofts and old homes, too, but the clumsy staffers at planning bestowed upon it a bizarre puzzle-board of block by block zoning, placing industrial (think smoke billowing from stacks, literally) right next to schools and family housing. Members of the planning commission can’t even tell what zoning is in a particular block — they need to use a cheat sheet.

    The East Mission to the South is the SF General’s “blowback” corridor and can get pretty ugly. The South West Mission is still wonderfully ethnic with great restaurants and real bodegas, but its under siege with respect to fast moving gentrification, and this is what got the Calle 24 people going. BTW, they actually evolved from a neighborhood improvement group that Campos never really payed attention to — until recently.

    The North West Mission is the Valencia street restaurant and 18th St. Bart and 16th St. mish-mash — now caught up in a wave of large “luxury” condo projects with the largest set for 16th and Mission. This area unlike 24th street suffers from a large number of badly run “centers” with 2 methadone clinics, several very rough SRO’s, etc. They specifically left up the 101 freeway there in order to make the area more gentrification-resistant. But we all know that whole notion is laughable. As is any proposed “moratorium.”

    1. Unfortunately going scorched earth is the only “solution” the radical left has at this point. Trying to drive down prices by actively lowering the quality of life. And it’s terrible for everyone involved.

  6. Let’s not forget tht the Irish and Italians were in the Mission long before Campos and his compatriots. If they, the Irish and Italians, tried to pull something like this, they would be called racists.

    1. The primary distinction between the Irish/Italian forerunners in the Mission and the current residents is the fact that the former largely left on their own accord and the latter fear they are being involuntarily ousted. Two very different experiences.

      1. This point seems lost on everyone. The idea that the loss of the mission is a loss of a Latino neighborhood is bs. It is the loss of a central blue collar neighborhood and race should have nothing to do with it.

  7. Build tall and dense near transit! This area is near one of the largest transit nexus in the Bay Area, and large projects include large amounts of affordable housing, encouraging ownership, and encouraging neighborhood residents to vest in their communities. What is Campos up to with this legislation? It makes no sense.

    1. BART was built under Mission Street and not continued under Market and out the Twin Peaks tunnel at much greater expenses in the 60’s and early 70’s to ENCOURAGE growth in the Mission. 90% of today’s Left was either not born or still living back east when this happened and don’t know/care about the City’s history before they arrived.

  8. Ha I’ll leave this little anecdote. When I moved from 24th street, my entire building had been replaced (except for my girlfriend and I). The landlord had paid every other unit to leave, which meant getting rid of a weird late 20s hippie couple, a waitress/acupuncturist, and an artist.

    Instead I got a mid 20s techie who never left his apartment, and the person that replaced me was an early 30s techie who complained to me that the neighborhood seemed weird and he was only using this as a crash pad at times. I lobbied for a gay couple involved in non-profits to replace me, but he chose the other guy. Maybe the other guy ended up offering more, not sure.

    I’ll leave it to the reader to determine whether an increase in housing might have reduced the power of the landlord in this situation.

  9. This is why “Calle 24” should never have been approved last year. It’s a racist idea put forth by a small group of people to grab power in an historically diverse neighborhood.

  10. I understand the need to address the displacement issue, but ultimately, if enacted, this would do more harm than good in the effort to increase housing units in SF. The areas surrounding the BART stations and the Mission street thoroughfare are most prime for increased housing density/transit-oriented development, as well as Portero.

  11. Campos is getting termed out pretty soon. And he really has no skills for anything other than getting elected to something. He knows his only chance is to play the Latino/identity pandering politics game in order to try to get enough Latino votes to get him into some new elected position, maybe judge or BART board or something. So pander he will until his last day as a Supe. This is just the latest example of it. It’s pretty shameful, but it is sadly savvy politics.

    1. Bingo. It’s a strategy that worked very well for the REAL racists in the South for many, many years, and in some little areas, still does – only their racism has been toned down to “dog whistles”.

      Campos is just one more of many of this newest incarnation – and they don’t even feel the need to use dog whistles. They can spout their racism straight up, and very few are willing to take the heat for standing up to them.

    2. Judge? This is the guy that ignores the constitution every chance he gets! He thinks the 1st amendment only applies to him and his stooges. Want to talk to your tenant about a topic he does not like? Better register with the Kremlin

      1. See Gerardo Sandoval. Exceedingly unqualified. But played the Latino card right into a position as superior court judge. SF has good judges generally, but a few terrible ones who got themselves elected in. Sad that it can work that way for such an important position.

        1. The only reason it “works that way” is not only because politicians play the race card, but also because there are so many folks (like the one I’ve been mocking above) who ENABLE the race card to be played – by being “outraged” by even the tiniest reference to race.

          They honestly believe they’re trying to make things better, while being blind to how much damage they’re encouraging.

          We can make anonymous comments about how the very notion of Calle 24 is, in itself, a racist policy, but what would have happened if anyone had spoken in front of the Board of Supes and pointed that out as the legislation was being “debated”? That person would have been tarred and feathered and tossed out onto Van Ness.

          You practically risk your life by publicly calling people out for playing the race card, so it’s hard to do that, but at least stop validating it, so it finally loses its trump powers.

          1. Agreed, but it is possible to fight back– For example, North Bernal escaped Calle 24 designation by pushing back early in the process (thanks to the Bernalwood blog and a lot of phone calls).

  12. I am all for it.

    All this new market rate housing might start to make a dent into the market price and this would affect my bottom line.

    But BMR? I am not shooting for that segment. I do not care about a 60K or even a 80K/year family. They would never come to SF to compete with my tenants.

    Mr Campos, please make me rich!

    1. I need to be more like you SanFronzi. Campos policies do make us savvy landlords rich but my disdain for the red communism that made my father’s life hell always gets me riled up.

  13. This guy has power because of the votes of LESS THAN 1% OF THE CITY!! District elections need to be abolished in favor of citywide elections! End the madness!

    1. well I for one favor having districts. Otherwise you’ll have more populous or affluent districts making decisions for others. Say there’s a decision to build more social housing, but the majority in high-density SF decides to unite and ship social housing far from them?

      1. Affluence is not the majority of the city and never will be. Most of the city is of moderate and lower incomes. That’s how capitalism works. In fact district elections ensure that affluent districts like Pac Heights have more influential power balances.

        1. The larger the populace a politician is campaigning for, the more it costs which increases the amount of money he or she needs to raise which increases the importance of rich donors. That is how democracy now works. The rich interests in the city would dominate in city wide elections. Good or bad as they may be SFS is right about what would happen if we went back to city wide Supe elections.

      1. Very soon, one of the hipsters will be elected to replace Campos. I heard that Mission district is already gentrified.

    1. How can Sacramento shoot down this? This is strictly a city policy. SF city can have its own rent control, Sacramento currently can not shoot down rent control. Until some day Sacramento has a state law to ban rent control.

      If rent control has a weight of 100, this has a weight of 0.0000000001.

  14. Yea it’s not blatent racism but it sure is classism. I think the poster should have said it will be struck down in federal court. The devolopers including the biggest in the USA, Lennar Corp whom is proposing on the cite where the old electrical building is will pony up the attorneys fees to fight this. It’ll be tallied up as just a cost of doing business and passed ontop of the price of the condos thereby making them even more expensive. Furthermore you lock these developers up in court with attorneys and any good will you might have had in a goal of getting them to shake on including BMRs or a higher precentage thereof will vanish.

  15. Seems like he missed an opportunity to be FOR more structural incentives for building more BMR in the area rather than against something… Wouldn’t that stabilize the area from his perspective?

    This framing puzzles me.

      1. I’m not so pessimistic, although I understand some skepticism having lived in this location fourteen years ago. Generally speaking I think a significant amount of BMR in neighborhoods seeing the greatest change in rent would generally be a stabilizing thing. @Sam’s example above needn’t happen. I say build more market rate and BMR – just generally more.

        1. Why do we need to stabilize anything? If anything many Mission buildings could do with a major safety retrofit. Now that’s stabilization that actually matters, and you can’t do that by restricting the market.

  16. Stopping new housing development and reducing housing supply is in the interest of the most San Franciscans except a few newcomers who likely do not vote.

    With a reduced new housing, property value will increase. This benefits the homeowners and landlords.

    Reducing new housing also benefits the rent controlled tenants. With fewer new housing, fewer higher income newcomers will arrive. This guarantees that rent control regulation will stay forever. This benefits the rent controlled tenants.

    Homeowners, landlords and rent controlled tenants probably control 90% of the SF votes. The 10% residents in non-rent controlled apartments are mostly young tech workers who mostly do not vote. And the future newcomers can not vote today anyway so it is not a concern for politicians.

    As a result, “Housing Moratorium” is a safe and wise policy for every city politician. If someone can stop SF housing development for 20 years successfully, this person will become the most popular SF Mayor!

    1. It goes beyond this too. Dispite what many on here think there is an effect of new expensive housing stock on the old because the new stock improves the area by supporting SWPL businesses and making the hood more comfortable for more interlopers thereby putting more pressure on the old rent controled places

  17. That comment is ABSOLUTELY okay.

    Campos and his ilk are continually going on about preserving the “Latino Character” of the Mission. So apparently it’s just fine for him to engage in racist, exclusionary rhetoric (and actual legislation) to pander to his Latino constituents but it’s wrong for anyone to call him out on it? Nonsense.

  18. Do not worry about this, folks. Move to Bayview!

    Bayview is a great community of mostly homeowners. Homeowners love gentrification. Everyone on Socketsite will be welcomed by Bayview residents. It is close to downtown, SoMa, dog patch. With a lower rent and much lower property price, you will love it.

    Move into Bayview and move out of Mission!

    1. Bayview is one of the areas that has been gaining in Latino population since 2000.
      The population density of the Mission actually has declined since 2000 due to the displacement of lower-income Latino families by more wealthy non-Latino households with far fewer children (big drop in school age children in particular).
      Mission Loc@l evaluated the population shift from the 2000 to 2010 census (brief article at namelink):
      “The Mission’s status as a destination neighborhood for new Latino immigrants could be overtaken by places like the Excelsior, which gained about 1,800 new Latino residents, and Bayview Hunters Point, which saw an increase of about 2,000, according to the 2010 Census.”
      For those interested in a longer time perspective, Susanne Jonas, UCSC prof:

    2. A bit too far for my taste. Even though it’s not so much the distance that matters but the miles of boring almost-nothingness between BV and downtown. There are a few pockets of life here and there, but not enough to make the BV inside the moat.

      1. I disagree. Bayview is connected to dog patch, which is connected to mission bay, which is connected to the ballpark, which is connected to downtown! See how that works? And with all the development going on in all those areas, the cool bayfront parks, that warriors arena, etc., the area is becoming a quite the destination.

        The mission is totally done as far as buy and hold. Unless you buy like those nob hill and pac heights investors do: put your 40% down to get a 5-7% return, hope for a few easy tenant turn overs and raise the rent. Good if you’re very rich already (and lazy) and looking to park your money in class A real estate. At today’s prices, the mission is pretty much the same story.

        But the fun part of investing is forecasting which neighborhoods are about to jump the shark. My last two property investments were in Bayview. Oh, and one is a landlords wet dream: I actually nabbed a post 1979 construction bldg; that’s right folks, no rent control :). And rents in BV now are as good as rents were in the mission 3 years ago. See how fast that is? I expect to be printing money with this one.

        I love buying in at $200-300 PSF, doing my highest and best use repositioning, and knowing the value is at least $600 PSF. And it all cash flows great. After I finish these two projects I’m basically done: will have more money coming in every month than I know what to do with, and a ton of equity. Personally I like to choose neighborhoods with schwag. I thought about other hoods, but Bayview has the biggest changes and long term potential IMO to become a great hood. Crummy projects getting torn down, the shipyard development, new condos all over the place, yup, Bayview is the next Mission. I can ffffeeeellll it!

        1. Actually, a large industrial area runs between the residential area of Dogpatch and the residential area of Bayview. The Pier 70 project will fill in some of it, but there will still be about a one mile wide industrial zone from the south edge of the Pier 70 development to Evans.

          1. Dogpatch population was 800 in 2008. Did the population increase a lot since then?

            Will this industrial area be converted to high rise condos and offices? I feel that it will most likely become high or mid rise condo buildings. Industrial use is a waste and Dogpatch has no long time neighbors to fight against the new development. My only concern is an oversupply of new condos in Dogpatch and BV.

          2. Bayview competes with many other neighborhoods. Most of the people that live in Bayview and have a job, drive to work. It was that way in 1990 and today. The 3rd St lightrail only increased the transit mode share a small amount. That means for most potential BV residents, it competes with all the other neighborhoods on 101/280 in SF as well as those down 101 like San Bruno.
            It is 3-4 miles from the SF central business district, which means it completes with all the rest of SF for people that work downtown.
            Because BART is much faster then MUNI, people can live in Daly City and get to work in downtown SF faster than people that live in BV. Not to mention many neighborhoods in the east bay which are closer or similar in commute time to downtown SF because of BART.
            There is also an industrial zone that cuts through the middle of BV. The industrial zones are really why anyone ever lived in BV: to be able to walk to work at the shipyards, etc.
            People settle for BV, they don’t aspire to it.

          3. Yeah, and I have done the walk / cycle a few times. The upside is that it’s flat. The downside is that it’s not very exciting and it looks longer than it actually takes.

          4. If I were 25 and had no kids, I might consider buying in the Bayview (or, better yet, Western Addition). It is clearly on the way up. I’m a big fan of two BV restaurants – Old Skool and Radio Africa. Check them out. But nevertheless you’re looking at many, many years before BV is really a decent neighborhood. You’d have to put up with an awful lot of inconveniences during that time period, and frankly, life is too short – better bet IMHO to buy a smaller place in a good neighborhood.

          5. There are plenty of “25 and had no kids” folks in SF. Bayview is a good option for them and many others.

          6. Almost no one commutes by bike from Bayview. Most of the census tracks there had zero bike commuters. The only neighborhoods in SF with similarly low bike share are Treasure Island, Seacliff, and Twin Peaks.
            Given it’s isolated location at a corner of SF near the water with some spectacular views, Bayview maybe the next Seacliff. Just give it time, a long time.

          7. You TOTALLY got Bayview wrongo, Jako.
            1- the T line is a big improvement. Plus, BV has good bus transit.
            2- it’s awesome for Silicon Valley commuters. Why? Get on/off 101 or 280 before it back up the *ss into the rest of the city. Huge difference getting off 101 before Cesar Chavez than afterwards.
            3- BV has great weather, good housing (as in nice neighborhood Victorians, plus new condos- your choice), views and culture. BV has gravitas and schwag. Daly City? Not so much. Plus, it’s in “da city”. Unlike Oakland.

            ‘fcourse there is competition from those aforementioned (lesser) areas. Just like pac heights has competition from preside heights, the marina, sea cliff. So what?

          8. Another BV destination: Flora Grubb. That is like an outdoor museum of succulents with a great shop/cafe. It’s my favorite retail in the city. I take out of town guests there. It’s awesome.

          9. @SFrentier, Bayview’s current transit commute mode share is 29%. That includes all transit, not just the T-line and MUNI bus. In 1990, long before they built the T-line, Bayview’s transit commute mode share was 26%. So, of course the T line is an improvement, but not a big improvement. Thank you Willie Brown. Too bad it wasn’t put underground to Marin St when Mission Bay was vacant and Dogpatch less active.
            For commuters to the valley, it is even better to get on 101 south of San Bruno Mt or even better than better all the way south of SFO. They have nice weather on the penninsula, better schools, much less pollution and crime.
            And if you are going to fight the traffic an extra 5 or 10 miles to get into the southern end of SF, then what is really great is to have the dual option of using either 280 or 101. Huge difference commuting on 280 vs 101. Many better neighborhoods than Bayview along nearby 280.
            BV certainly has plenty of ways it could and most likely will improve very slowly. Those should bring higher values. Values capped by the competition from many nicer neighborhoods south and north, west and east.
            Somewhat more honest appraisal of BVHP can be found in the SF general plan:

          10. T line is BayView is a waste of money. It would have been way better served with a new Caltrain stop with all central subway money devoted to electrified Caltrain to a metro service level and to TBT. Local bus service was little different than the T

          11. Jake- BV will gentrify much faster than you think. You’re ignoring the giant shipyard project and what’s happening in candlestick (short term.) 5 years from now it’ll be quite different. 10 years from now it’ll be super different.

            You’re also not looking properly at human psychology. Younger people, tech workers, etc. are interested in BV because it’s a hood they can put their stamp on. These types of people want to partake in a neighborhood changing, so,they feel part of that change. The mission was like that 10-15 years ago. Now it’s über expensive, much more established and edging on conformity. BV still gives urban pioneers a glimmer of hope of putting their mark on things.

          12. BVHP boomed with the wartime heavy industry and was very hip in the 1940s and 1950s. It went from 10k population in 1940 to 50k in 1950. It was a mixed neighborhood for the time with about 75% white, 20% black. By 1970 it had lost most of the white population and was about two-thirds black. There is an excellent brief study of this and the connection with the Fillmore/Western Addition debacle, isolation via hwy construction, and some of the other topics frequently discussed on SocketSite.

            When Mission started gentrifying in the 1990s it was about 80:20 renter to owner occupied. Bayview is about 50:50 and a good portion of the 50% renter are in public housing. It is much harder to drive-out/gentrify owners than renters and impossible to ‘gentrify’ public housing. Also, a big part of the pressure on the Mission has been the loss of PDR jobs. SF has lost 100k PDR jobs over the past 40 years, and the Mission had a much larger percentage of PDR workers than SF in general or Bayview today. Even now part of the pressure in the Mission is developers buying PDR buildings where Mission residents work, tearing them down, and building condos the workers can’t afford to buy.

            BVHP has a lot of promise, it has also received a lot of promises from SF mayors going back to the 1970s. Today BVHP has low-performing schools, gang violence, one of the highest infant mortality rates of any ZIP code in California and more liquor stores than grocery stores.

            I’ve personally spent plenty of time there and in the Mission. The Mission was cool in the 1980s. BVHP is no where near as prime as the Mission was by the mid 1990s when the internet boom hit. And everything you’ve said about “human psychology” is much more likely to apply nearterm in Oakland with a long rich history and in the center of the east bay than in this very isolated corner where SF has long done it’s very dirtiest work.

            But maybe if you clap louder.

          13. The difference between us, jake, is that I, put my money where my mouth is. All your little stats (which I know about already btw) about PDR, and BV back 60 years ago speak little of what will happen in the next 5-15 years. (And your conclusion that high home ownership in BV deters gentrification in ass backwards; those owners ain’t the bad guys. Bad guys are mostly renters or in soon to be demolished projects. Homeowners will continue to cash out or stay put in an improving BV.) And the reason you can’t compare mission mid 90’s to BV today is because we ain’t living in the mid 90’s now! Duh. I’ve made bank in the mission, and I’ll be making bank in BV in the next few years too. While you’ll keep geeking and misinterpreting irrelevant stats…

          14. Mission is not a good comparison to BV. I think BV should be compared to Potrero Hill. They are close by geographically, both have a large homeownership, both have public housing soon to be rebuilt.

            The only difference is that BV will have the largest number of new condos. The new development will double BV population with most of the new population higher income gentrifiers.

            Rent controlled tenants are much harder to gentrify due to the protection and a strong resistance. Was Potrero Hill gentrified faster than Mission?

          15. Good point BayviewSF. And yes, Potrero was always ahead price wise of the mission. Until the last 2 years, whereby the mission has caught up. And like BV, Potrero is also “isolated” from the center. While I personally didn’t want to live in Potrero as its harder to walk to different hoods, plenty of other people didn’t have that issue. (I’m basically a flâneur collecting rents, and quite enjoy walking to different hoods to try new restaurants and cafes during the day.) but I’m not a good example. A better example is all the hard working W-2 yuppies that love Potrero. Well they’re starting to love BV too. And that’s what I care about.

          16. Potrero Hill plus Dogpatch is an even better comparison than just PH. Many of the same issues/opportunities remaking the former industrial port waterfront.

            BVHP should also be compared with Excelsior/Portola. I’ve had friends that bought on both sides of 101 in previous waves of ‘gentrification’ going as far back as the 1980s and they all did fine. There are plenty of opportunities to do the same now. Hopefully, SFrentier, you will make bank too.

            BTW, for long term investors, SFUSD has made improving the low performing schools in Bayview, Mission, and some other neighborhoods a priority for a few years now. They are in the “Superintendent’s Zone” and get extra staffing and funds. There are plenty of facts to support the view that BVHP has been and will continue to get better/nicer/pricier without need for clownish boosterim.

        2. Excelsior/Portola will improve as well. However, BVHP location is better for commuting and closer to jobs in downtown, SoMa, Mission Bay. It has T-line, 3rd street commercial, waterfront view. UCSF employees could definitely prefer BVHP over Excelsior/Portola.

          And Excelsior/Portola price is not lower than BVHP. I think Portola is pricier now, maybe due to lower crime?

          1. Crime and demographics can change over time since people move around. However, geo location, views and neighborhood layout will stay the way it is. Assume the same demographics and crime stats, can you find a strong competitor to BVHP?

            BVHP is next to Potrero, Bernal, Portola and Visitacion Valley, bounded by freeways.

          2. Excelsior borders on two BART stations and has a higher percentage of transit commuters. Portola feels more suburban with the only retail being on San Bruno at one edge and a big park on another side.

            Bayview has the potential to have a unique core along 3rd and could be a nice little town within the city. Some kind of mix of neighborhood retail like Irving and light industrial/office like Brannan in the early 1990s before the dotcom boom. The vies and waterfront could be spectacular.

            One unusual asset BV has is the big data center at 200 Paul. All the fiber that connects downtown SF to the valley runs through the gap in the hills where 101, 3rd, and Caltrain converge. Much of it interconnects with 200 Paul. More bandwidth there than many countries.

            If they are building all these new units without fiber to the home run from 200 Paul, then it is a scandal. When you are running sewer pipes and power lines, the incremental cost is small. And the fiber should be owned by the city or the community. Does anyone know?

          3. Don’t know much about those fiber optic cables, but I can’t imagine any specific hood (even if this was in pad heights) getting preferential internet plumbing over everywhere else in the city.

            As for excelsior, it’s more old school e.g. stuck in the past, so that limits its transformational energy. I know someone from the late 1990’s living there, and doggone it, mission st there still feels like it hasn’t left the early 70’s. No hipster cafes, perhaps an ironic bar, and mostly cheap-grub Chinese or Mexican restaurants. Unlike BV, which was basically so f*cked up in the 90’s, that it had nowhere to go but up. Add in all the new redevelopment plans, high home ownership, and most people there are ripe for a change. A big change. Ain’t nobody be talking about no building moratorium in BV!

            Sorry if I was a bit snappy earlier, but I just closed on a killer off market deal in BV, so I’m suffering from Master Of The Universe syndrome 🙂

          4. You may notice an unusual number of manholes lining Paul Ave between the train tracks and the freeway. Many of those are to access fiber running under Paul. Under the manholes are the splice boxes where a technician can connect to the fiber bundle. These are scattered through SoMa and FiDi from the dotcom buildout and where you see a cluster there are usually multiple carriers that have lit the building. 200 Paul is lit like a xmas tree.

    3. Commercial development will follow population. When there are a critical mass of middle income and high income residents, restaurants and shops will pop up. Third street corridor can easily become popular.

      Also, with the planned 10k new housing in BVHP, population will grow for sure and gentrification will be very fast due to a lack of resistance. In some way, BV will gentrify faster than Potrero.

      1. Already happening. BV has more hip restaurants and cafes than any other D10 hood, and certainly more than sleepy Daly City.

  19. Anyone who rents in San Francisco should be paying at least $3000/month regardless of the size or amenities. Evict all renters both commercial and household who pay less than this and the problem is solved.

  20. Let’s not forget the labor unions have a dog in this fight. Any moratorium means less jobs thus I’m sure they’ll be bending ears at City Hall.

  21. The building moratoriums in SF, Oakland and Emeryville can”t happen soon enough. The local residents are literally and figuratively being bulldozed from their long-time homes. And why? Because hundreds of tech companies have decided to set up shop or add more jobs in the area even though the housing is fully occupied and even though the tech companies refuse to build housing for the tens of thousands of employees they hire each year. There are plenty of places in the US (and world) where housing shortages aren’t so acute. Let the so-called “smart tech companies ” set up shop in those areas that could use the economic boost like Detroit, Cleveland, Indianapolis and a few of the Chinese “ghost cities.”

    The Bay Area housing crisis is caused primarily because the south bay and peninsula have imported hundreds of of thousands of jobs but have refused to build housing for them, forcing the housing displacements on well-established communities like SF, Oakland, Emeryville and other housing dense communities. After the south bay and peninsula towns collectively add a few hundred thousand housing units, other towns to the north can consider additional housing to locations where existing families won’t be displaced by recent job migrants. Until the peninsula and south bay step up to add hundreds of thousands of housing units, the cities most effected by displacement should add housing moratoriums and large tech companies should move their operations far from California.

    1. This is one of the funnier posts I have read all day.

      [Editor’s Note: Why? It’s perfectly fine to disagree with a position, or even to tear it apart, but at the very least take the time to respond in kind.]

    2. so you want the people who brough an economic boom, tons of jobs, tons of money, tons of tax revenues, tons of smart people, more money for social services, more charity to pack up and leave. You basically want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Why? so housing can be cheaper. So starbucks baristas can keep living in the city? ive been here is 20 yrs and think SF is much better now than it was 20 yrs ago. more vibrant, smarter people, better conversations, friendlier, cleaner, better restaurants, less crime, etc. Why would we want to stop the progress when the city is actually getting better. the one area that the city has gotten worse at is transportation policy and not being able to plan ahead enough to have modern transportation. they havent done a great job with the homeless or efficient spending money, the govt still stinks, but the private sector jobs and the people they bring have made SF much better and have put it on the map as a world class city and an economic engine.

      1. The Bay Area was a great place way before the tech companies arrived. In fact, it was a much better place because it wasn’t such a mono-culture of technology employers and families along the entire economic spectrum could afford to live in sections of almost every town other than the most exclusive areas.

        High housing prices don’t help regular families. Even homeowners are stuck in their homes because they can’t afford to move up to the next level. High rents don’t help regular families and the threat and fear of eviction and displacement have never been higher. Congested roadways and dysfunctional transit don’t help regular families. Companies that encourage people to work more than 40 hours per week don’t help regular families

        Between the east coasters and heartlanders migrating to the west coast for the high pay and great weather, and large immigration streams from Asia for the high pay, better job opportunities and squirreling some wealth away from the prying eyes of more unstable governments where they once lived, many parts of the Bay Area have become an region where only fairly rich people (and a very few lucky poorer people who get subsidized housing) are able to live. The jobs and housing imbalance is so far out of kilter that either the peninsula and south bay start building hundreds of thousands of housing units or the largest companies need to move their entire operations far from California, hopefully overseas or at least the Mid-west where they could use the economic boost. The Bay Area will always be a great place to live and work even if the largest 50 private companies move their entire operations outside the state. And the Bay Area won’t miss their workers either. Those are the cold facts.

        1. Do you still remember 2008-2012 recession? None of the largest 50 private companies moved and we had an unemployment of close to 10%. If we do ask the largest 50 private companies to move out, unemployment rate might go up to 40%.

        2. You’re so far removed from reality that it’s actually funny. How, exactly, do you plan to roll back the Bay Area to the 1980’s? Lay down the bong and live life in real time. Life’s short buddy!

        3. All you have are reactionary opinions (everything was better in the good ol’ days) and totally unsubstantiated theories about what helps “regular families”. We have record-low unemployment, record-high household incomes, more housing, better housing, and both the streets and mass transit are safer by a very wide margin than back in those days you’re longing for.

          Your “mono-culture” argument is probably the most ridiculous of all, especially since you base everything on “regular families” who used to have it so good back when only families bought houses and unmarried people lived in apartments, the gays were confined to the Castro and the Latinos to the Mission.

          1. SF has a ridiculous rent control, which is the reason of all the ridiculous words from certain population. If we get rid of rent control, there will be no more arguments like this.

            I do no think Cold Fact even believes his own words. The only reason for these kind of words is to protect a ridiculous rent control. Nothing more.

            What “displacement”? If there is no rent control, there will be no “displacement”. Why was there no such fighting against “displacement” from the Irish? Because the ridiculous rent control did not exist then. If the ridiculous rent control was there, tenants with below market rent will fight against “displacement”, no matter what race or ethnicity they are.

          2. life is much better for regular families due to the tech boom. Most regular families like to have jobs

          3. Life is not better for Campos and Avalos. Tech boom has announced the end of the career for Campos and Avalos.

        4. tech workers are <10% of workers in SF.not sure how that makes things "mon-culture" I totally disagree with everything you say, as referenced in my earlier post. The tech boom has made SF a much better place

          1. Mono-culture is defined as: hey you kids, get off my lawn. My friends are a bunch of 20 and 30 year-olds, mostly. We probably look like techies, but we’re really mostly upper middle class professionals. Biomed, lawyers, finance, design, and even doctors and nurses. We are people with good jobs that have extra money because we are mostly unmarried with no kids, in our prime earning years. When someone says “techies,” what they mean is a demographic change towards a lot of middle aged professionals.

          2. @ frog

            This aversion to “techies” and the “mono-culture” is the exact same thing that we heard in the 80’s with the fear of the “yuppies”. SF survived the yuppies and if anything, the city is nicer than it was in the 80’s. It’s ironic that many of the most vocal complaints about the “techies” are from people who moved here following the supposed ruination of the city by the “yuppies”.

          3. So pretty much it’s history repeating itself. Except this time we don’t prop up our collars and it’s lofts instead of pink stucco?

        5. Ever since the Gold Rush SF has been subject to change, and each new wave priced out someone else. Dot-commies started flocking to SF 20 years ago. Now some of them are in cushy rent controlled situations. But yet 20 years ago they were the ones chasing “regular families”.

          1. Care to expand? The fact of the matter is many “it was so much better before” nostalgics create their own ideal history. This is especially true of the anti-gentrification crowd. The idealized “blue collar workers”, and times when people were more neighborly and the talk about “real people”. All constructs that have little to do with reality. People are people. New people chase the previous ones and the only path to real stability is owning your own place. That would be the actual value that Campesinos should try and promote…

          2. Exactly. People change and they change the places they live. The “Greatest Generation” who are credited with saving humanity tyranny were also overwhelmingly racist, homophobic, misogynistic people who espoused religious morals, smoked, drank and polluted the planet to near extinction. The majority of the “regular families” who inhabited SF before the first tech boom stood idly by and hardly gave a crumpet when gays were dying off in alarming numbers.

            The SF of today is not perfect, but it’s better, more diverse, and more tolerant than ever.

          3. Each new group simply did not price others out. This is totally false. Quick story. When my uncles came back from Vietnam they used to move from flat to flat in the Mission/Noe/Eureka Valley area for cheaper rent. They hardly worked. Hippies, gays and others came to SF into the early 90s and found relatively cheap rents as did immigrant groups. My grandfather has a flat off Valencia he paid rent on with meager savings and social secuirity. It is tiring to hear people equate the displacement today with anything like the past

          4. Oh, I get it. So when, say, Salesforce hires a new person and that person is looking for a place to live, he or she doesn’t look for a place that’s for rent or for sale. No, they find a “regular family” somewhere and then they, what, threaten them at gunpoint? Break into their house and move all their stuff to the curb? Bribe the landlord or mortgage lender to evict them? What exactly is it these newcomers do that’s so reprehensible? Is it a crime to want to live in certain neighborhoods in SF?

            And what exactly is it people think their anti-development NIMBYism or apartheid policies like this latest Campos brain fart will accomplish? The first step in solving any problem is understanding its causes. You clearly don’t have a clue.

          5. Before the civil rights movement, if you wanted to make a land grab, it was more efficient to use the government to do it wholesale than have to takeover building by building. From the original displacement of the natives, through chinese exclusion, japanese internment, and 50 years of post war “urban renewal” that has evolved from bulldozing the western addition and yerba buena to the kinder gentler projects underway along the waterfront from Mission Bay to Candlestick.

            In 1994, One South Park was a garment sweatshop. The Chinese ladies would line up to catch the bus back to Chinatown. And on the weekends discount shoppers were bused in from the suburbs to buy $10 dresses and such at motley stores clustered between South Park and the decrepit pier that became the Giants ballpark.

            Then the Internet boom happened and more than $100 billion in VC money washed through SF by the end of 2000. I know many people that flocked to SF for the sweet ‘bribes’ of the vc money and I have friends that left when their landlords doubled their rent. Similar thing happened in the valley starting decades before, only there the investor funded newbies were mostly grabbing farmland and displacing farmworkers.

            You can see how the VC money pumped up the prices. SF Median two-bedroom asking rent doubled from 1981 to 1994 ($525 to $1050 nominal, during 63% CPI increase). Then it doubled again in only 6 years from 1994 to 2000 ($1050 to $2100, during 16% CPI increase).

            The visible manhattanization of SF is the downtown skyline, but the Wall Street money and financialization of the economy reach everywhere in SF. What was a small stream in 1980s SF became a gusher in the mid-90s. And the spigot is still open. SF is currently taking in about a billion dollars a month in VC money. Without it Twitter couldn’t have lost a billion dollars while making hundreds of newcomers multi-millionaires.

            Besides, the latino community is just trying to do something like what the asian community has done. Just ask Mayor Lee about his days as a long-haired radical community organizer (namelink) or former Mayor Feinstein about the I-Hotel.

            “To my mind, I was getting rid of a slum,” Walter Shorenstein.

          6. That’s an eloquent post jake, but I’m not quite sure where you’re going with it, politically/solutions-wise. Otherwise, I’m tempted to title/summarize it simply as “That’s Progress!”

          7. Zig,

            OK, I didn’t follow your comment. I was mentioning the different waves of growth, like the Gold Rush, Dot Com, etc. Of course neighborhoods will individually improve or worsen.

    3. It’s hard to say what’s more absurd about this post. The idea that tech companies are responsible for building housing or the notion that a building moratorium would ease displacement. Or maybe the assertion that there’s a single “cold fact” in said reactionary diatribe.

      At least it clears up the mystery of how totalitarian plan economy fetichists like Campos get elected in this city.

  22. why does Campos think he can subvert the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, which was years in the making?

    SF chose to make the Mission and SOMA more dense, after years, and years of expensive, drawn out, vetted, argued, voted upon, and vetted again, study. The plan was put into place to account for population growth! Why Campos thinks he can get away with this stuff is baffling.

    1. Don’t worry, this silly mission building moratorium will never see the day of light. I don’t know what campos was smoking when he agreed to publicize this, but he’ll probably regret it in a few days, as he realizes he’s the laughing stock of numerous city agencies.

      1. Actually, I disagree with myself.

        As a long time resident, 21 years in SF/Mission, and a stakeholder with multiple mission district properties, I am actually all for this moratorium. By limiting new developments, and turning the mission into an exclusive Latino theme park, we are sure to increase existing (i.e. moi) property values. Exclusivity breeds desire (that’s Advertising 101 folks) thus even further increasing newcomers’ desire to rent or buy here. I am very pleased that the Honorable Supervisor Campos is thinking of us long term residents. *curtsies*

        1. Exactly. I generally strongly disagree with silly policies and proposals, but with every one they implement I make more money. So I’m kind of torn.

          1. I sense the irony in your posts but regardless this is a fine example of the – I’ve got mine – attitude in SF. From the property owners pleased scarcity drives there appreciation, to the Nimbys that block changes to their neighborhood and prevent new homes, to the rent controled tenants paying a fraction of what thier neighbor pays for the same unit only bc they been they longer. And now apparently a whole ethnic group and area of the city.

  23. The connection to one race or group is ridiculous and offensive. The loss of the Mission as a blue collar neighborhood is sad for San Francisco. I feel something is lost when I see it today. The alternatives for poor blue collar people are inferior and the irony is in a loose way the new migrants to the Mission are the kids of the same type of people who abandoned the cities and zoned out of existence any possibility of created dense new areas like the Mission making it most scarce and now desirable. F’ed

  24. They asked for more housing: the market delivered. Of course developers want to make a buck and will sell at market price.

    Now Campos and others realize new housing = new people, and especially new people different from the people currently there.

    What were they expecting? Something for nothing?

  25. Campos is trying to forbid new housing to drive out newcomers to come to SF so that he can keep his “progressive” votes.

    If Campos is smart, he can have a more direct policy to do a “Human Moratorium”, no new human is allowed to move into SF. This way, encourage all the builders to build as much as possible to improve SF citizen’s life. At the same time, forbid any new human move into SF. This way, quality of life will improve, both rent and housing price will decrease.

  26. you know who is selling most of the properties that Campos gets mad about, right? Latinos. Where’s that righteous indignation? Why only go after the buyers? The sellers know full well who is living in the properties they are cashing out on. The one sided nature of this whole thing stinks, too.

      1. Sellers typically do not care who the buyers are or what the neighborhood composition will be after they left the area — sellers want the highest return on their investment with little to no contingencies. Having sold two properties in SF, this is pretty much the mindset.

        1. yes, of course. but it doesn’t change the fact that the Camposes of the world are only going after one side of the issue. What about the Latinos selling in the Mission who are ruining the character of the neighborhood? Should they be required to only sell to other Latinos? That’s the logical conclusion to this sort of wrong headed thinking.

          1. Fair Housing Law prohibit discrimination based on race. If Campos forbid some race to move into Mission district, he will need to go to jail.

  27. Putting aside for a minute the sheer racial bias of this moratorium, what upcoming development projects will this actually impact??? Most new developments in the mish are occurring north of 22nd st anyways. Parque Niños? Even the one on So Van Ness and 26th is out of the “cultural zone”. Unless I’m missing something big, this is in actuality much ado about nothing/political posturing.

    1. So all of us were tricked by Campos? His only purpose to get some attention was achieved perfectly with this nonsensical statement about stopping something that does not exist.

      1. There was some talk about restricting commercial/business use on 24th st. But yes, except for that, I don’t know of any housing development project that would be stopped by this. Not even proposed new projects Parqué Ninos as its between 22nd and 23rd, and the SVN project mentioned above is between 25-26th st. So yup, this will stop nada, zip new housing developments in the mish…it will only make 24th st into a precious and protected Latino district. Fine by me.

          1. yeah I know of one that is in the works right at 24th and Folsom. definitely in the zone. definitely would be effected

          2. Because I know jack, that’s why. So Niños and that chicken place on Folsom/24. Maybe one ot two other undiscovered gems. That’s about it….basically nada, zip. Certainly compared to the added RE value of being in a previous Latino theme park. Yeah sure, the designated area is a bit rough around the edges NOW, but 20 years from now this’ll be precious. Real precious. Go ahead campos, I dare you to get make this happen- add value to my RE holdings in the area- thanks!

          3. If you were attached to the Saitowitz one, you sure wouldn’t be calling this nada or zip I bet. Anyway, there are more up and down 24th st that haven’t been covered on here.

    2. It reminds me about the protest against Google Bus and anti-tech protests etc. It is so low to waste people’s time.

    3. Parque Niños is within the designated area “bound by Mission, 22nd, Potrero, and 25th”, as it says in the SocketSite post above. It is almost at the very center of “San Francisco’s Latino Cultural District”.
      I’m not sure what this unannounced legislation will say or do or if it will pass and be upheld, but I still think SF should buy that parcel next to the park and make a much nicer park from the combination.

  28. The Latino Cultural District runs to Cesar Chavez St. The legislation is a mix of history and tour highlights (pdf of legislation at namelink). It concludes by quoting San Francisco’s poet laureate, Alejandro Murguía, calling Calle 24 “the belly button of the universe” – I am not kidding. It sets the boundary as:
    East: Mission St
    West: Potrero St
    North: 22nd St
    South: Cesar Chavez St
    Additionally: La Raza Park, Precita Park, and Mission Cultural Center

    1. Yeahbut the moratorium is only to 25th. Don’t know why diff from above geo. Maybe they’re lazy. Maybe they’re stupid. Maybe they think they can’t land grab that much (but I doubt they’re that smart.)

      1. maybe they stopped it at 25th because there’s a lot of potential development sites (including the old karate studio next to the gas station at CC & S. Van Ness). Plus the Bernal Neighbors to the South who probably wouldn’t be on board and could be a force if mobilized.

        1. The moratorium would be on the entire Latino Cultural District, according to SF Business Times and Campos. SS just reported it incorrectly. The following four points of the proposal have been on Campos facebook for a week:

          1) Prioritize affordable housing projects located in the North Mission – including the 17th and Folsom, Shotwell and Cesar Chavez, and 1950 Mission sites.
          2) Slow the North Mission land grab by placing interim controls that stop market rate development in the Cultural District.
          3) Protect current small business by creating interim controls on high end restaurants and the merging of retail units.
          4) Create a Japantown like Special Use District that protects the cultural and historic assets of the Latino Cultural District.

          1. Thanks for the deets. Yeah, cumulatively all that will definitly have an I pact, especially if they derail all the north mission projects. That area has a lot more potential than around 24th st.

            But for existing property owners, there is no direct negative effect WRT existing properties and their values. The mission will continue to be popular, just more precious and protected. For new people that want to move/live here, yeah this is a significant negative. Once again, do everything to protect rent controlled tenants and the existing population, while making the area in general more expensive, more exclusive, and create an even greater chasm between the wealthy and those of modest means.

Leave a Reply

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