Mission Housing Moratorium Map

If San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors approve the motion this afternoon, the public hearing for the proposed legislative moratorium on any new residential construction, or the elimination/conversion of any existing Production, Distribution and Repair spaces, in the Mission, unless it’s specifically for the development of an affordable housing project, will be held on June 2 at 3pm.

The proposed ‘Urgency Ordinance for an Interim Moratorium on New Residential Uses and Elimination of Production, Distribution and Repair Uses‘ in the Mission is sponsored by Supervisors Campos, Avalos, Kim, Mar and Yee and would apply to the area bounded by Cesar Chavez to the south, Potrero or Bryant (north of 20th Street) to the east, Division (U.S. Route 101) to the north, and Valencia to the west.

Adoption will require nine of the eleven Supervisors to vote in favor of the ordinance.

And if adopted, the interim moratorium would only be in effect for 45 days, during which time the Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with the Planning Department, would be required to find that: (1) the continued development of multifamily housing projects would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety; (2) the interim ordinance is necessary to mitigate or avoid said specific, adverse impact; and (3) there is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact with a less burdensome or restrictive effect, in order to extend the moratorium.

The ballot measure initiative to establish a market-rate housing moratorium in the Mission, which is separate from the legislative push above, remains in play as well.

62 thoughts on “Housing Moratorium Showdown Slated For June 2”
  1. I believe they should rename this the “Help my property value go up even more as I laugh all the way to the bank” bill. Thank you [supervisors], thank you.

    1. Please STOP mentioning this in an public forum. It’s the little secret us SF property owners share amongst ourselves. We do NOT want non-property owners to figure this out. We want them to keep blocking development in SF as much as possible.

      Mum’s the word, eh? Nod, nod, wink, wink.

      1. No, you’re wrong! This will definitly help all the poor people out there with their housing needs.

      2. Yes, this [plan] would raise property values in the short/medium term. But in the long term, this initiative and related policies from the “tenant advocates” reduce the Bay Area’s competitiveness and strangle economic growth. Hardly what we should be rooting for as property owners and residents.

    2. It’s like a headline from The Onion: San Francisco Solves Housing Shortage with Building Moratorium. What f-ing idiots!

      Perversely, its passing may indeed lead to a solution to the problem: Most of the moratorium’s proponents will be living in Antioch in 5-10 years.

      1. i love the fact that the HS is right in the middle of the Mission as well, and very multi-culturally diverse. Evidently all the kids are much smarter than Campos too. Future looks good for SF!!!

        1. That’s the headline.
          “Mission High School Students smarter than Harvard educated City Supervisor”

          1. Get the Mission High School students to attend the hearing on June 2, and have them speak. School should be out by then, right? Put the video on youtube, and the students can use it in their college applications to show how bright and mature they are. College admissions officers love this kind of stuff since most of the country has heard of our housing policies now.

          2. I sent an email to the author of the article on missionlocal suggesting the students attend the hearing on the 2nd. Thank you.

  2. How better to help make housing affordable again than by stopping construction of all new housing…

    Wait, what? This is sheer lunacy.

  3. I will be interested in seeing how the final vote tally of the Supervisors breaks out. Will a Moderate majority overrule the Progressive “Campos” fraction?

  4. “…would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety.”

    This cannot pass without some kind of shenanigans. I’m sure their argument for the above will be comedy gold.

  5. People keep using the rule of supply and demand, as if the Mission was the only place to built in this city. Thanks Campos and Avalos for representing the people of your district and standing up to the naysayers. You have my support, 100%.

    1. I live in the Mission and think this sort of thing is horribly misguided. Developers and owners will just wait out the moratorium and the city and Mission will just be farther behind on building enough living units.

    2. And if they get away with blocking development in the Mission because development can still occur in other neighborhoods, what is to stop the NIMBYs of those other neighborhoods from enacting their own moratoriums? Plus, the MIssion is a fantastic place for more development because it’s one of the few neighborhoods with excellent transit (2 BART stations + near both 101 and 280 freeways) and is also close to jobs, entertainment, etc. It also has a lot of under-utilized space for development, such as the parking lot for the 600 South Van Ness development that SS posted about yesterday.

    3. JayJay, lets get your support straight. you support higher housing costs in the mission, less housing despite having a BART running through it, and support discrimination against other races moving into the neighborhood?

    4. The Mission is by no means the only place to build in the City, and in fact relatively little has actually been built in it.. SOMA, Dogpatch, Lower Potrero Hill/Showplace Square, Hunters Point all have active developments. WHY should the Mission, which is right on top of TWO BART stations, be exempted from sharing the responsibility of housing San Franciscans, particularly when the proposed housing is being built on vacant lots, or marginal commercial development and not displacing a single solitary Mission resident. SO SICK OF MISSION NIMBYS!

    5. He only represents a sliver of the people in the Mission. He certainly doesn’t represent me, or anyone I know.

  6. I do sympathize with the concerns and goals of Calle 24.

    However, a ban on building any class of housing is self-defeating and a requirement that all new housing in a given neighborhood be “affordable” is exclusionary by working to eliminate housing attractive to a people (affluent) who wound want to live in the neighborhood. It also makes for a less diverse and attractive Mission and has the very unintended consequence of forcing those people into finding ways to acquire existing stock thus leading to displacement of current residents.

    Compromise is in order. I think the BMR requirement attached to new development in the Mission should be increased (say to 33%-40% range) with a healthy contribution from the public funds subject of the current bond measure proposals and mandate that the BMR units be built within the designated district.

    1. I realize it’s not the San Francisco-way, but for just once, can we not eschew the usual market forces vs political power standoff resulting in stalemate and little accomplishment? Can we not agree upon a mutually acceptable goal and work together to mutual benefit and the betterment of the City as a whole?

      Using the above (or reasonable facsimile) as model, we should be acting in concert to vigorously pursue development by identifying those properties best suited for residential development with the least impact on the existing community and bring together owners, developers and financiers to facilitate building on a fast-track basis. Prioritize governmental action through Planning and other agencies necessary while expediting whatever zoning changes, abatements, etc to effect putting shovels in the ground ASAP.

      It really cannot be so difficult to work together to achieve a balanced approach to maximize all the good this city has to offer..

      1. Actually, it is difficult to work together when groups like Calle 24 show up at public outreach meetings by developers and shout and scream and completely disrupt the proceedings by demanding nothing short of 100% “affordable” (subsidized) housing.

        1. No, that’s just part of the current lamentable “process.” How else to respond politically to the current market dominated (i.e., the greatest harm done to the most people for no good reason) housing policies? We currently have each side’s initial negotiating position neither of which is palatable. How about accommodation by each side to accomplish what should be an attainable result? A Mission vitalized by an influx of investment in increased housing opportunities with concomitant amenities without wholesale displacement. Positive incremental change and growth.

          1. Most new construction in the Mission isn’t displacing anyone – housing is being built on empty lots, vacant warehouses and gas stations. Try again.

          2. fishchum, homeless people live in those parking lots and there are a lot of drug deals there, so we are displacing the drug dealers. Oh the horror of it all! Great news headline: “Campos stands up for the right for drug dealers to have an open a dirty place to deal drugs to kids!”

  7. It’s crazy that five supervisors are that radical. I don’t think they’ll get enough votes to pass, thankfully.

  8. this is what happens when you automatically re-elect incumbents, who have no idea how economics or the constitution work, without question. Hey, you recognized the name so darnit ,vote for ’em!

  9. Campos is basically saying that the white Mission residents can go F themselves. They have no place here and add nothing to the culture, hence having to put the brakes on more whites moiving in.

    1. not just whites, also african american, indian american, asian american, european american, native america, ad nauseum. he is promoting pure discrimination and anti-diversity

  10. A couple of other thoughts:

    (1) the primary reason 16th and Mission and 24th and Mission were chosen for the BART stations is because of their development potential. The “ancestors” of Campos nixed housing development around them in the ’60s and ’70s and thus contributed to the housing shortage in the Mission and all SF today.

    (2) Despite its name “Mission” latinos are relative newcomers to the area. At one time, the latino neighborhood was centered on Broadway just north of Chinatown. Mission Dolores was an Irish parish, and only recently has a latino pastor rather than an Irish pastor. The Lutheran church across the street still has Mass in German.

    Mr. Campos needs to learn a little history about the history of the city in which he is a newcomer.

  11. Isn’t California around 50% Latino at this point? We live in a diverse city and state. I don’t see any justification for a 24th Street Latino zone. Trying to have government manage the ethnic composition of the Mission is racist.

    1. Elected by a bunch of young hackers with yellow fever. She once told me that nobody should be allowed to make money from real estate.

      1. Yellow fever? Isn’t that malaria, spread by commie flying insects? I am still waiting for an apology from those who voted for Kim. Not forthcoming? Good luck with renting anywhere else in the City.

  12. this is such a great idea….a few more moratoriums and I will be able to retire when I sell my 2nd unit for 5X what I paid for it 10 years ago.

    thanks David Campos!! Our little plan worked. you’re BRILLIANT!!!! (Not)

  13. is it just me or does “the elimination/conversion of any existing Production, Distribution and Repair spaces” directly reference auto body repair shops like the one on 600 van ness and on 16th? Seems like these lots would be prime candidates for development why further try to protect them?

    1. Medalist. Pure conjecture. If you eliminate the PDR spaces, you have the potential to eliminate the local jobs associated with them. If you eliminate enough PDRs, the local jobs are gone and the workers (and families) might lose their ability to stay in the Mission (assumption: in low cost rent controlled apartment) due to no jobs for their set of skills (working in a PDR space) and the apartments move to the current market rate – rented to the evil Google/Twitter/Uber employee Net result: Campos losses his support group and does not get re-elected.

  14. So we have got Wiener carving out sub-districts where people can build units in their backyards in areas zoned for one and two family houses, and we have got this group of lunatics stopping multi-family development on un- or under-developed land in the Mission. We have got to stop this spot-zoning. We are one city.

  15. @Just: actually we are one *metro region*. When can we get some sensible regional planning that doesn’t install blinkers to the rest of the world at John Daly Blvd and the bridges? Granting independence to San Mateo in 1856 was the beginning of the end for San Francisco …

  16. Housing moratorium to solve a housing crisis. We couldn’t make up “solutions” this stupid if we tried. The City needs more affordable housing and fewer Supervisors like Campos, Avalos, Kim, Mar and Yee ….

    1. That depends on what one means by “housing crisis.”

      If one means housing is too expensive, then I agree this is nonsense and indefensible.

      If one means gentrification and new housing are changing the character of neighborhoods and leading to long-term, poorer tenants being displaced as a result of that gentrification, then a moratorium is not necessarily “stupid” at all. I disagree with this moratorium for a slew of reasons. But it may very well help to slow the “problem” that its backers are concerned about.

        1. Not at all. But it may slow gentrification and displacement (frankly I have no idea, but it may — and that appears to be the objective here).

          1. but the real problem is longterm, and often the Latino landlords, who know they’re sitting on goldmines. they’re the ones selling without a care for the longterm Mission tenants who are being displaced. they’re the ones with longstanding relationships to the people. all this stuff about the new buyers, who don’t know the folks? unfair. Campos’ proposal will not work. You cannot stop people from selling to the highest bidder.

          2. That’s simply illogical. A moratorium may make the gentrification process look different, but it will still occur. Buyers will buy whatever is available- if it’s new condos, fine. If it’s older Victorians that are flipped, etc. that will sell also. The moratorium will just make the process more contentious, and mission RE that much more precious. Allowing for the expensive condos at least provides a substantial outlet for the eager new buyers.

Leave a Reply

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