CFAH

While the threat of both legislative and ballot-driven housing moratoriums loom, plans to raze the majority of the Mission District block bounded by Bryant, 18th, Florida and 19th Streets and build nearly 300 units of housing across the site could be approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission in three weeks time.

2000-2070 Bryant Street Rendering

As we first reported about the proposed 2000-2070 Bryant Street project last year, the development would level the existing 2000-2070 Bryant Street buildings, including the former CELLSpace turned Inner Mission and Flats Cafe, along with the buildings at 2815 18th and 611 Florida, clearing the way for a six-story development with two distinct architectural styles; 274 apartments; 5,100 square feet of retail space; and parking for 160 cars and 274 bikes.

While the proposed development would add roughly 244,000 square feet of residential space to the neighborhood, it would also result in the loss of roughly 47,000 square feet of Production, Distribution and Repair (hence the wording of the proposed legislative moratorium).

And as proposed, 16 percent of the project’s dwelling units (which rounds up to 44) would be designated as below market rate (BMR) rentals and located within the development rather than offsite.

The Planning Commission hearing for the development is currently scheduled for June 18 at noon.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Serge

    Too bad they don’t intend to re-use the brick building, akin to the Pacific Felt Company building a bit further down 19th at York.

    • Posted by ElitistPig

      Yeah, because you have to maintain that grafitti and this city doesn’t have enough buildings that look 100 years old.

      • Posted by Serge

        You can wash off the graffiti and it’s not like the new design will be immune to it.

      • Posted by Giuliani

        This city does not have enough 100 year old brick buildings. It has too many crappy new window wall buildings. They should absolutely keep the old building.

  2. Posted by zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    How many of the developments in the pipeline could be approved before a theoretical moratorium approval in November?

  3. Posted by Just My Opinion

    If the BoS passes the moratorium, I don’t want to hear one word from any of them about the price of housing. And if any of the voters who care about the price of housing in SF vote any of the BoS back into office who voted for the moratorium, then they deserve what they get. The only way out of the housing crisis is to build more housing.

    • Posted by two beers

      “The only way out of the housing crisis is to build more housing.” – that;s tired and simplistic propaganda. The housing crisis is more complicated than your simplistic neo-classical Econ 1 S&D education can grasp.

      The way out of the housing crisis is 1.to build housing that’s affordable (building “market rate” and luxury housing increases the cost of housing in a neighborhood), and 2. to raise interest rates where they belong, instead of making working people bail out billionaire speculators.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        “The way out of the housing crisis is 1.to build housing that’s affordable”

        So you are suggesting subsidization on a mass scale? how can one justify this? there are plenty of affordable areas within a BART or Ferry Commute. Why pay for a mass subsidization in SF for people who feel entitled to live in SF? I would certainly rather the city spend money on addressing the 3rd world transportation we have. I dont understand why people have to live in a 7×7 area, and many times they feel entitled to live in their 0.5 x 0.5 neighborhood. The Bay Area is big, diverse and there are areas that are 1/3 the price of SF.

        I support a portion of housing for truly BMR, families making under 40K or who ahve gone through a major hardship. However, for families making $90K, why subsidize them? there are plenty of places in Bay Area they could afford. The Vallejo Ferry is an easy commute. So is BART from San Bruno, Fremony, Hayward, Oakland.

        If my family made less than $200K, I can guarantee you we would move to a cheaper area. WHy is that so tough?

        • Posted by Backtotheburbs

          Housing is being subsidized for those who can afford it due to historically low interest rates.

      • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

        What defines a housing crisis then? Come on, Mr. Economist, let’s hear an economics-based argument for the idea of a “crisis”. You see, economically speaking the market is fairly sound. There is no shortage of demand and no shortage of willing suppliers. If there is any crisis, it’s one of inefficient utilization, brought about by restrictions on supply (lengthy permit process, BMR, rent control). You are clearly in favor of more restrictions, not fewer, so be careful who you’re calling out on their economics knowledge. Make a political argument if you want, but don’t disguise it in big concepts you don’t understand.

        • Posted by Backtotheburbs

          How about this for a definition: only 12% of SF residents can afford a mortgage for a median priced SF home.

          Now, the world is a big place – 7 billion and counting. So of course there are enough rich speculators out there to sop up any meager supply (even if it’s all luxury) being generated here.

      • Posted by Just My Opinion

        It is really unfortunate that you can’t state your point of view without being condescending, insulting and rude. It really undermines what you have to say, and causes people not to read much beyond your opening sentences. You might reconsider that approach if you want to be effective. I make my comments under the title “Just My Opinion” for a reason. I am not an expert in urban housing issues, nor are you, I suspect.

      • Posted by anon

        “The way out of the housing crisis is … to raise interest rates”
        Yes, higher interest rates do make housing prices go down, but because mortgages become more expensive, that makes housing less affordable than before (expect to rich people who buy all-cash).
        The mass ignorance about even simple economic concepts is staggering, but I guess the human mind will always have a problem assuming causation from correlation.

  4. Posted by Dixon Hill

    A moratorium looks less likely today. On Wednesday, San Francisco Democratic Central Committee voted “No” on the moratorium 13-10. According to the Examiner (namelink): “[t]he Democratic County Central Committee is widely considered the most influential endorsement in city politics”.

    • Posted by 4th Gen SF'er

      & several of the no-voters were threatened with violence & assaulted. There’s video showing this.

      • Posted by Backtotheburbs

        You should provide a link to the source for such aggressive statements. The video shows a bunch of activists chanting and some grandmas yelling. If someone is intimidated it’s likely more because they know what was wrong with their vote. Or they come from or spire to an oppressive regime.

        • Posted by SFrentier

          They acted like a bunch of deranged and restarted children, on the edge of turning violent. That video was disgusting and shameful.

  5. Posted by Just My Opinion

    Also, are they really building a new structure with exterior, surface mounted fire escapes?

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      Where do you see that? I only see balconies. (or, in modern construction parlance, “balconies”.)

      • Posted by Serge

        It almost appears as if there are stairs connecting the balconies in the rendering. I can see where the confusion would be.

        [Editor’s Note: The ladders between the balconies are not an illusion but rather an allusion to the northern building’s throwback design.]

  6. Posted by Dave

    Rather than a moratorium on housing there should be a 5 – 10 year moratorium on new office construction. There is enough in the pipeline – a record amount – to keep churning out new office space over the next 5 – 10 years without more being added.

    A housing moratorium is ridiculous. A more productive initiative would be to up the number of BMRs required in new condo/housing construction and limit the off-siting of BMRs.

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

      Nonsense. The only “productive initiative” is to remove obstacles to construction, including the ridiculous BMR program.

    • Posted by Dixon Hill

      We already have Prop M and there is no need to impose greater limits. For most of the time that Prop M has been in existence, developers have not built up to the maximum permitted amount. This boom will not last forever…the markets will determine how much office to build.

      For that matter, this residential housing boom that we are seeing is highly unusual over the past 30 years, or so. Despite all the moaning in these comments about how city government restricts development, most of the time the scarcity of new inventory is due to lack of interest in the capital markets.

      When this cycle eventually ends, equity investors and lenders will be very happy that every last proposed project did not move forward. An acquisitions officer with a large commercial investor told me (in 2001), “Our best deals last year were the ones we didn’t do”.

      • Posted by Dave

        Part of the boom is an anomaly created by the Transit Center up-zoning and promise of HSR. There is not much net new demand for office space in SF. Companies are leaving not moving to the City. Go to the financial district and there are many for lease signs. Office space is being overbuilt right now and if Salesforce is sold and occupies lots less of its tower and if LinkedIn scales back its SF presence. It’ll just take a few jolts to make it apparent the office building frenzy is way overdone.

        Same in a way for the condos. The market is significantly not local, part time residences for people from other areas and countries. Common in the 4 Seasons condo on Market.

        SF is not a major financial or tech center and a few years from now a lot of the new building may be see through – as in largely empty.

        • Posted by EcceMorons

          Since there’s no rent control on office buildings, they wouldn’t remain empty for long – I imagine the market would just adjust – rent per sq. ft. for office space will just drop in SF. No one want’s their building empty, and they’ll just have to accept lower rent to fill them.

        • Posted by Dixon Hill

          Dave, Those are your personal opinions. You may or may not be proven right, eventually, about overbuilding. Regardless, your opinions do not reflect how market dynamics are perceived by tenants, landlords, investors, buyers, sellers, lenders, brokers, or anyone else active in the local office market. If you were to ask any of those market players, they would tell you “all systems go”. You may be the only person in San Francisco who believes there is no new demand for office space.

          Unless you are a major investor, lender, or tenant, none of your opinions/ predictions are relevant to what is moving the office market. And my personal opinions aren’t either. “Follow the money”.

        • Posted by Can't Think of Cool Name

          @Dave, Salesforce won’t be sold any time soon. Reports had Microsoft interested and offering $84 per share (Salesforce was trading at roughly $75 at the time). Salesforce was looking for $107 per share. Talks broke down.

          As for the city not being a tech center, I’ll disagree with you on that. It is a major tech center for a certain part of the tech industry, and the bay area in general amplifies that fact. I believe that the tech industry will only continue to grow in both the city and the surrounding bay area as tech continues to seep into more and more non-tech related industries.

          Just like the NYC metro area is the center for finance and LA is the center for entertainment, I believe the bay area will be/is already the center for tech moving forward. And it will continue to draw people to the area interested in participating in the industry’s growth (and yes, that growth will ebb and flow). I don’t see that changing. And that will be a key contributor to both the commercial and residential real estate market’s dynamics.

        • Posted by cfb

          “SF is not a major financial or tech center” -Dave

          uhh..what? SF is literally both of those things.

          • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

            If SF is a “major” tech center then Milpitas is too.

          • Posted by Can't Think of Cool Name

            @MoD, yes you are correct. If you were to chunk up the “tech sector” into three commonly known parts – hardware, software, and services and not consider some companies that blur the lines between the three, no one specific geographic location would own or lead the region in all three. Form my perspective, that’s why I referred to the bay area in my comment as I did.

            And that is why I say that real estate pressure will be put on the entire region, including the city (and Milpitas as well).

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        @ Dixon Hill, very well said.

    • Posted by Backtotheburbs

      To be fair the moratorium is only on luxury housing. There are voices who claim that market rate housing is the only source of funds for affordable housing. But in the last years only about 70 affordable units have been added in the Mission. So a complete failure …

      A commercial moratorium seems valid, but no official has brought that up.

  7. Posted by zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    “On Wednesday, San Francisco Democratic Central Committee voted “No” on the moratorium 13-10. According to the Examiner (namelink): “[t]he Democratic County Central Committee is widely considered the most influential endorsement in city politics”.

    I agree. Since SF is basically a one party state (Repubs cancelled out by Greens), the DCCC endorsement probably gives a pretty good idea of how an election might turn out. On some level the moratorium proponents must understand this.

    • Posted by Orland

      I was dismayed when the DCCC voted to endorse the initiative to block 8 Washington but it certainly proved to be the handwriting on the “No wall on the waterfront. “

      • Posted by Backtotheburbs

        Hmm, but isnt that openly hypocritical?
        The difference of course is that 8 Washington had wealthy and powerful opponents and not just ‘Latino thugs’.

  8. Posted by Stop Driving

    I’m going to show up in Geneva and tell them how to develop their city and see how that goes over.

    This is beyond ridiculous. We’ve pandered to these people for way too long.

    • Posted by EcceMorons

      It’d be more fun to gather up a few friends and show up at the Campos’ dinner table, and tell them how they’re cooking all wrong, cuz their food isn’t what we like, and demand that they do it the way WE want.

      • Posted by Dixon Hill

        @Stop Driving and EcceMorons: Actually, that’s how it feels to this life-long resident when a bunch of software engineers show-up and immediately start demanding that we build a bunch of new housing for them. Who knows if they’ll even be living here in 5 years?

        If you traveled to Geneva and started telling them what to do with their town, you might find that the Swiss are a bunch of “entrenched NIMBYs”.

        • Posted by san FronziScheme

          What happened when YOU came into town? Pitchforks?

          • Posted by Dixon Hill

            Fronzi–As far as I know the obstetrician at the hospital was not holding a pitchfork.

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            Oh, a native. I am honored. You are a rare breed.

            Still, people in your ancestry had to put a foot in the door. They probably changed the city. Why all the recent hate of new people?

          • Posted by NoeValleyJim

            Anti-immigrant nativism is as old as San Francisco: San Francisco riot of 1877

        • Posted by anon

          wait. “software engineers.” demanding “we” build a bunch of housing. for “them.”

          I. can’t. too.

          much.

          pretzel. logic.

          brain tired.

          Oh wait. I see. “demand” as in supply and demand. then, “demanding” as in what Campos and company did. I see your mistake.

          • Posted by Dixon Hill

            Anon–Your comment is very “clever” and “humorous”. Not really a reasoned response.
            You frequently speak of “the law of supply and demand”, but you don’t seem to understand a lot about how markets work, or the role of government in establishing markets. Someone with degrees from 2 Ivy League institutions once said: “sorry folks, it’s really not as simple as just ‘supply and demand’ (namelink)”.

          • Posted by anon

            actually, your point read this way: “I am a native and these newbie techies are demanding new condos.” And that’s a crock. The people demanding things are the Campos clique and associated. They’re demanding only affordable housing, they’re demanding nothing otherwise.

            Now you’re backpedaling and talking about something else than what you said before. What you said before was twisted in on itself, switching factors and players all around, and was nonsense.

          • Posted by anon

            and, I might add, my response was a well reasoned deconstruction of your take. Your initial take was unreasoned, and nonsense. You are now backing up and broadening, ascribing some sort of supply side take that I never even said. Basically, you’ve got nothing other than “I was born here.” So what, dude. I’ve lived here since I was a kid. Everybody wants to always claim, claim claim in this town. Fine. Claim away. But it won’t work.

          • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

            My wife was born in SF. So were both of her parents and half of her grandparents. Basically, her family has been in the city since 1879. Btw, they came from China and hence suffered extreme discrimination and harassment for three generations from the “we were here first” crowd.

            I’m an immigrant “techie” and thus the source of all evil in the SF housing market (in the twisted view of reactionary losers). So now what, Dixon Hill? Wanna have a pizzing contest about which one of us is more or less entitled to demand that the housing market be restricted in our favor? Or are you going to grow up and concede that a free market has a way of working things out in the long run?

        • Posted by Serge

          Who is demanding what? SF has been gentrifying since 1849 with newcomers arriving steadily since then. People, who happen to be earning a sizable sum, all want to live here. Buildings get built to fill said need.

          • Posted by Dixon Hill

            Serge, My point is that markets run in cycles. And, what seems to be missed a lot in these comments is that markets are frequently wrong. But that isn’t knowable until later. What appears to be a “need” now may not be a need in 5 years.

            Expensive mistakes with our built environment are made all the time and have been made for many decades, going back to 1849. One example: think of all the older homes in the Fillmore area, which were demolished in the 50s for some public housing that is widely acknowledged as junk that doesn’t do a very good job of meeting the needs of the people who live there.

            By moving more carefully, we can avoid building stuff that doesn’t meet the long-term needs of the city, and the people who live and work here. Buildings, properly conceived, can last 50-100 years…or longer. If we act in haste, we may end up with an oversupply of certain types of buildings or buildings in the wrong locations.

            And yes, I do believe that it takes awhile living somewhere to really understand that place. It is hubristic to think otherwise.

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            Well, we do have a supply problem, and it has been going on for a few decades now. Maybe we could call it a trend?

          • Posted by Serge

            DH: I completely understand what you mean, sorry for my brash reply. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Especially about the Fillmore homes being demolished in in the 50s during Urban Renewal. At the time, Urban Renewal was filling demand. But a mere half century later we regret all that was done. There should indeed be more forethought into design, planning, and construction. Once you tear something down, it’s gone. And when you build something new, you’re stuck with it for the unforeseeable future. What is built now will have to be dealt with by future generations. More thought into it will mean greater use over the lifetime of the property.

        • Posted by Hola

          No new comer is demanding anything. Just looking for a place to live. Get over yourself.

  9. Posted by san FronziScheme

    In the name of all SF owners, here is a massive THANK YOU.

    Less supply means higher property values. You’ve increased my net worth by multiples of my annual salary so far, Supes. P.S. Envelope’s on the way. Small denomination as you requested.

    • Posted by SFrentier

      That’s why I’m keeping my mouth shut on this moratorium. Restrict supply further, and increase existing property values, especially in the mission where I already own a few? Yes please 🙂

      Plus as a bonus I get to revel in the perverse logic of actually benefitting from a completely asinine idea, that of a building moratorium. SF’s a great place for those us that like to live life driven by the values of irony. Cause it’s here in spades.

      Cheerio.

      • Posted by san FronziScheme

        Great Market Rent = GOOD
        Great equity = GOOD
        Prop Taxes stuck due to Prop 13 = GOOD
        No downtime in my rentals = GOOD

        Heck, I think I might just join the hecklers to keep SF just as it is today!!!

        • Posted by SFrentier

          Yes that’s quite accurate, from the pov of small property owners like us…who are smart/determined enough to avoid low rent RC units at all costs. I used to think that to be financially independent as an SF LL, you needed 20+ units. With the situation as it is, no, half a dozen or a dozen and you’re set…especially if you can manage to convert to condos. Exit strategy when we want to purchase a home overseas will be a cinch!

          All the preposterous and perverse SF “housing”politics have helped me a lot. Mastering complicated and highly inefficient markets is the bomb!

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            Home(s) overseas: done. Thank you rent control!

  10. Posted by Brian M

    Millions of dollars for a house built on sand and muck.

    The Faults are acting up a lot lately. Not sure this would appeal to me based solely on the location. Even with good engineering.

  11. Posted by Orland

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; when it comes to housing, market forces vs political power = stalemate in this town. What we need is compromise and concerted action to look after the interests of all who care about and want to live in OUR City.

    The right to develop any housing must include a BMR requirement of at least 33% with additional mandate that, if not on site (my preference), they be built within the neighborhood. I think it should initially be limited to the Mission with a mind to include others depending upon results and need.

    Now, BUILD, BUILD AWAY!!!

    • Posted by 4th gen SF'er

      No to BMR. Just NO NO NO. Enough with the giveaways to keep the progressives in power. NO.

  12. Posted by anon

    who pays the subsidy necessary for any builder to be interested in building 33% bmr? you?

    • Posted by Backtotheburbs

      Surely they can skimp off of the 100-1000% profits just a little …

      Or maybe housing, like other human necessities like water or air, should not be under market control since the market is driven by maximizing short term profit. Or govermenmt bailout if things go wrong,

      • Posted by anon

        100-1000? nonsense. necessity should not be market driven = not the society we live in, “short term profit” is not really even applicable as many of these ventures take years and years, and the government bailout aspect is precisely what you actually want.

        • Posted by Backtotheburbs

          Hmm, but you seems confused. Did you check how much SF spends on the homeless? Did you know that water and electricity rates are regulated? What about FHA, Obamacare, food stamps, social security? And millions of other aspects of the market? Don’t forget corporate or small business subsidies.

          We live in a society which schizophrenically oscillates between social democracy and 19th century industrialism. It is a society of extremes in many, many aspects. Without rebalancing the future is grim for all.

          • Posted by SciLaw

            SF spends 169 million on the homeless a year. Why don’t you request Campos to take some of that budget and use it for BMR housing? By the way, your definition of “luxury housing” is actually “market rate housing”.

            Actually we don’t live in a society with child labor or indentured servitude so your 19th century industrialism comment is mere hyperbole. Yes, we take steps to try to provide a support network in the country. In no way does that justify a right to BMR housing in a specific neighborhood.

          • Posted by anon

            what are you even saying? first you say 100-1000 percent profits. let’s start there. that’s nonsense. then we’ll get to your other ravings.

          • Posted by Moto mayhem

            Why is it grim? Explain

        • Posted by Backtotheburbs

          You sound shocked by the profits? Or willfully want to conceal information? What are your numbers? Here are mine.

          And yes, some government bailout is absolutely warranted. Think of disaster aid or pandemic. But not when a bunch of greedy wealth mongers miscalculate and can’t support their usustainable kingly habits anymore …

      • Posted by Moto mayhem

        Why are people who can’t afford SF required to live here. What about other cheaper area with decent commutes via Bart, and ferry

        • Posted by Orland

          Why allow “ability to afford ” be determinative? Why must you be so exclusionary? There is no reason that gentrifying forces need displace people already apart of the neighborhood. There is no reason housing cannot be added to the mix purposely within the means of those who cannot afford market prices. Why do you insist on making it otherwise?

          • Posted by cfb

            Well said, Orland.

          • Posted by Futurist

            Can’t afford to live here? Either up your income, or move where you CAN afford.

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            Why must you be so exclusionary?

            Do you understand the deep irony of your statement? People who want to keep the status quo are precisely against the newcomers.

            If that’s not exclusion for you, I suggest you should get a refresher course in tolerance.

          • Posted by Orland

            I’m not being exclusionary. I’m allowing for change by addition while also seeking to limit wholesale displacement which seems to be the intent of many here.

        • Posted by 4th gen SF'er

          @Moto – completely agree. No one has the “right” to live here. Not even me, and I come from a long line of people who have been here and have actually moved around into several districts.

          • Posted by Futurist

            Fronzi never reads. I’m not against the “newcomers” or anyone. My statement was simply about the reality that if one cannot “afford” to live in SF, then find a place that one CAN afford. Or increase your income so that you can.

            Pretty simple logic.

          • Posted by Orland

            “Pretty simple logic.”

            Utterly simplistic dumbness is more like it. There are other models than pricing people out of their homes.

    • Posted by Orland

      Me? To an extent. All of us. I would expect a healthy contribution to the BMR financing to come from the proposed bond measures earmarked for building affordable housing. Just one of many approaches to address what is a very serious problem.

      • Posted by anon

        OK, a bond measure. A bond designed to subsidize developers so that they can build 1/3 BMR and still make an acceptable profit. What would an acceptable return be, in your book, just hypothetically? The model is that a bureaucratic office would dole out this supplemental cash to developers upon certification of occupancy.

        • Posted by Orland

          Sounds workable. Oh, I don’t know what exactly breakdown on the split makes sense and is both fair and feasible, but yeah, a collaborative private-joint effort makes sense where a policy decision has been made for the City to create housing and there are projects in the pipeline carrying an obligation to also create the same thing. Also makes sense to make provision for upzoning such projects both to lessen the financial “burden” on developers and to increase the number of units all around.

          • Posted by anon

            you have so many strong words on here for somebody who is basically just pie in the sky, don’t you?

          • Posted by Orland

            Better than in the gutter, anon.

          • Posted by anon

            always with the strong words that don’t have any real critical thought behind them. At the end of the day your whole take on the moratorium idea is, “maybe it’s a good idea, who the heck knows.” And yet you are on here blasting away with little dis words left and right. So fake.

  13. Posted by Booger

    The Campos supporters are slowly tightening the noose around their own neck. Id say, give them what the demand! Give them a moratorium so that we can accelerate housing values in the Mission and accelerate the gentrification in the neighborhood.

    When the new youth who can afford to live in The Mission move in, violent crime will decrease and tax revenues will increase. This will help to beautify the neighborhood!

    I’d say it’s a win/win. We win and the Campos fans can beat their drum into silence.. In less eloquent terms, FUG Em

    • Posted by 4th gen SF'er

      Exactly my thinking. This is going to be a win win. The moratorium will clear out the gangbangers faster than anything. I have popcorn and I’m sitting on the sidelines laughing.

      • Posted by Orland

        You people with your ethnic cleansing (no other word for it) disgust, shame and embarrass me all at the same time. You’re destroying San Francisco

  14. Posted by booger

    They are so stupid, they think that they will be able to yell louder as more people get removed from the city. The flaw in their logic is that if they lose one supporter to gentrification, then they will each individually have to yell louder. This will be fun to watch over the coming years. If the real estate market doesn’t get them, inflation and fires will.

  15. Posted by Jon ennis

    Most agree, don’t evict people for new projects. But this project will not displace any folks that are working class mission dwellers. Probably only the two sellers of the land. Seriously, go take a walk around this block if you really care. I live around the corner. It’s a jumble of underutilized warehouses that don’t need to exist in downtown SF. It’s going to add 44 BMR units where there are none, and a ton of housing for the growing SF workforce. This is the right project for the right site. Not all are.

  16. Posted by Booger

    I live and already own in the Mission. It’s a cess pool in most parts. The market for what people are willing to pay should dictate housing prices.

    If Uber creates thousands of new millionaires who want million dollar condos in the mission, then we should start building them now.

    If that means that people who can’t afford to live in SF must move, they couldn’t afford it anyways! If our restaurants can’t hire enough servers, then the housing market will be less attractive and prices will fall.

    Everyone has a voice but not every voice must be heard or reasoned with.

    • Posted by Orland

      Oh right, let “the Market” rule unvarnished — the greatest harm to the most people for no good reason other than the greed of a few.

      Well, you’re wrong in thinking you will so easily silence those voices. It’s called politics and too often in this town it’s the whole City that comes out the loser for it.

      • Posted by san FronziScheme

        We are so far removed from that, your comment doesn’t make sense. Between a taking of other people’s property and cutthroat capitalism there might be some sort of compromise.

        But you can’t convince someone whose livelihood depends on not understanding basic math. This is the main reason behind the crazy reasoning of the pro-rent-control loonies: they just can’t afford SF.

    • Posted by Backtotheburbs

      Really, we should cater to Uber?
      Interesting, sounds like you have skin in the game.

      why Uber but not SF State, MUNI, SFUSD, preschools and daycares? The list of essential professions being priced out is vast. Is Uber essential to SF (and society in general)?

  17. Posted by Booger

    Orland,

    Most people are in rent controlled buildings. I am not for harming them. They already live here. All new development should be at what the market can bear. If those who already live here can’t afford to move or buy up, that’s too bad.

    • Posted by Backtotheburbs

      All those renters live in fear of eviction and are usually one random life event from having to leave permanently. Sounds good?

      There is an old saying that the a sated person will never understand a hungry one, I’ll let you extend the analogy.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        whats so bad about living in vallejo, san bruno, south san francisco, oakland, san leandro and other places that are reasonable commutes from cheaper areas? most reasonable people would choose to move if they couldnt afford to live here.

        • Posted by Backtotheburbs

          Don’t people already live there? Havent you heard of rampant gentrification in Oakland? Get out and read up.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            people move around. Im sure there are people in those other area willing to rent or sell to those people who cant afford in SF.

      • Posted by san FronziScheme

        These are not hungry persons, since they can afford “some” rent. They can find cheaper housing, just not in SF. There are a lot of cheaper decent cities. Living in SF is a privilege, not en entitlement.

        • Posted by Backtotheburbs

          Owning property in SF is a privilege subject to a slew of regulations. And the residents of the city are entitled to high quality services and essential support that every city requires. Without the transport infrastructure to support your ‘bus them in’ fantasy, it’s not even feasible. It sounds like you prefer services like the 20 year old ride share driver who doesn’t know where ‘Hayes valley’ is etc. Or constant turnover at your 5$ coffee place, whereas before peoole knew names and could connect.

          You are also welcome to buy even more expensive property in Monaco, London, Manhattan, Tokyo. Although their appreciation doesn’t compare to SF. It sounds like you prefer the speculative trajectory?

          • Posted by san FronziScheme

            You make no sense in your response. You are shoving a lot of frustrations together and creating a boogeyman that is more a reflexion of you than the virtual opponent you are trying to describe.

            I love all our city services (except I think we have built a way too nice welcome mat for the homeless, and that we deserve a subway in par with Paris or London). I have NEVER used Uber, always cabs. My coffee never costs more than $2.75, always much less. I find Blue Bottle ridiculous and pretentious and you will not find me there ever again.

            Yes I do own property in other locales in Europe (not Monaco, unfortunately, but same coast). Was it for speculation? Absolutely never. I am a small time landlord with hopefully enough common sense and knowledge of basic math. If a property sells for a price that enables me to sleep at night, I will buy it. The proof I am not a speculator: I always pay off my mortgages much earlier than the due date. speculators will play with the bank’s money.

            Now what annoys me is people who never took a chance, never went past their bias (eeeevil greeeeedy landlords) and are basically mooching thanks to self-serving rent-control then think they’re for social justice. I started from nothing, zero, zilch. Loser leftist parents, $1500 in my pockets when I landed in the US and no idea what I was doing but with the will to work hard and sacrifice.

            Then I see throngs of rent controlled tenants who are basically under home arrest because they can’t move out. They survive and slowly rot in the hell they created. That’s no way to live.

      • Posted by anon

        “All those renters live in fear of eviction”

        That’s propaganda, and it’s lame. Cut it out with the silly, alarmist, ignorant, agitprop postings bud. Many, many renters paying relative peanuts in rent controlled buildings are safe and sound. Why? because others in their buildings are paying much closer to market rent.

        • Posted by Backtotheburbs

          Propaganda?

          I wrote fear of eviction, not actually getting evicted. And of course there are some tenants who are doing quite well and paying market rate. There have been lots of aarguments over how many hundreds or thousands of evictions is too much or not enough or a crisis. The number misses the point. First of all. It’s incomplete because it doesnt count intimidations or buyouts. And second, life happens and people are just a fire or flood or injury/disease etc from having to move far away. Because rents and properries have increased 100% or more in recent years.

          I know the higher paying tenant view well. There is really no comfort in that. It’s very simple math. The profit from selling condos or TICs or airbnb is astronomical and instantaneous compared to collecting rent and of course dealing with rent controlled tenants. That is what is happening in previously cheap but desireable hoods. It is rampant speculation and it is displacing thousands and thousands of people in just a few years. No one except speculators and the wealthy are prepared for this.

          On top of that these cases of renters paying peanuts are the most vulnerable because landlord have no incentives to do maintenance not to mention improvements. I can tell you first hand that landlord intimidation is real and it is scary.

  18. Posted by 4th gen SF'er

    My family built SF. You’re most likely someone who “came here later”. If anything, it’s people like you who destroyed this city, the trustfunder left really wrecked us.

    • Posted by Backtotheburbs

      Well, by the looks of it your family under built. Quite a it, no? Not to mention tons of ugly, poorly designed, crappy housing and commercial properties that don’t serve basic needs.

      SF is beautiful naturally, but with few exceptions not because of its urban design and planning.

      If your family had built Paris, London, or even NY that would be a different story.

  19. Posted by 4th gen SF'er

    “You people”, you mean multi-ethnic me? Please. If anything you’re the carpetbagger, and frankly, gangbangers shooting each other in the Mission/HP/3rd St/Haight/Little Hollywood, etc has been a huge issue. You can always move out. Frankly, I’m thrilled with the gangbangers being removed & more areas being less crime ridden.

  20. Posted by soccermom

    Democracy in action is an ugly bird. Has everyone seen the footage from the Democratic Party meeting after the housing moratorium vote? (namelink)

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      disgusting behavior for adults. Basically crying and whining because they didnt get what they wanted.

      • Posted by san FronziScheme

        I wonder how many of them are living in rent controlled apartments paying 1990 rent. Of course they want no change at all: they’re saving 10s of 1000s per year thanks to policies that benefit them. More people paying market rate means they have less relative weight and one day they’ll be as obsolete and awkward as Dodos.

  21. Posted by Backtotheburbs

    You should visit Saudi Arabia or Russia if you think this is bad …

    • Posted by soccermom

      I’m not sure ‘Not as bad as Saudi Arabia’ is a useful standard for evaluating behavior here.

      It does demonstrate how a few people willing to go ‘full crazy’ can have an outsized impact on local politics. This crew will no doubt be at the Planning Commission meeting.

  22. Posted by Pablo

    Hopefully they beat the deadline. The City really needs more affordable housing – and residents smart enough to not vote for Campos.

  23. Posted by David

    what SF needs is a creative public/private partnership to increase density and housing stock.

    id like to see the city approach building owner with under-utilized spaces and offer to partner with them to add rental housing, they could do something like this:

    1- city offers to pay for 100% of the development costs to add units vertically. gets fast tracked through planning and partnered with LOCAL labor and builders.
    2- owner can have 2 options after the development a) assume the development costs via city financed lending at very low interest rates in exchange for permanent below market rate units (no qualifying, no lending requirements, etc). -OR- b) buy out the city with a new market rate loan with the restriction that the units must stay on the market at below market rate for 10 years. The units must always remain as rentals and property is exempt from TIC or condo sales, ellis act. etc. AND- all the restrictions are transferable to the new owners etc etc etc.

    incentivize property owner to make this a win-win for both. otherwise you just keep making the supply problem worse.

    • Posted by Orland

      I suppose there’s a place for it, but sounds way more complicated and potentially inefficient in developing housing units (both market rate and “affordable”) than simply identifying vacant and underutilized properties for development.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles