The sponsors of the proposed ballot measure which would impose a Mission District Housing Moratorium have delivered 15,101 signatures in support of the initiative to San Francisco’s Department of Elections.  And if at least 9,700 of the signatures are valid, the measure will qualify for this November’s ballot.

If adopted by voters, the measure would impose an 18-month moratorium on the issuance of building permits for the demolition, conversion or construction of any housing project with 5 or more units, or the demolition, conversion or elimination of any existing Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR) space, within the Mission unless the permit was for a “100% affordable” housing project.

The measure would require the City to develop a Neighborhood Stabilization Plan by January 31, 2017, with the stated goal of enhancing and preserving affordable housing in the Mission, “such that at least 50% of all new housing be affordable to low-, moderate-, and middle-income households, and to ensure that those units would be available to residents of the Mission.”

And as we first reported last month, the measure would also authorize a simple majority of the Board of Supervisors, versus the super-majority which was needed and failed to pass a legislative moratorium, to extend the term of the 18-month moratorium for an additional 12 months.

The 15,101 signatures in support of the moratorium were gathered in 19 days.

55 thoughts on “Signatures For Mission District Housing Moratorium Delivered”
  1. Everyone who owns property in SF, please vote for it. Would love to cut supply off and further increase my property value!!!! Hooray for these backward thinking politicians. While we are at it, please increase the minimum wage by another $1 an hour so prices increase, stores won’t hire new workers, and then ultimately more middle wage people will be forced to leave. Love it!!!

    1. By the same logic, the best way to achieve your goal of $1 beer, is to ban the bar from accepting delivery of any beers that are more than $1.
      If we ban all beers more than $1, then we’ll all have $1 beers, right?

      We should also place a moratorium on all economics classes at City College, so then we’ll all cease to be effected by economic realities.

      1. Comparing housing to beer is a complete fallacy of composition – they’re completely different markets. The products have very different S&D curves, elasticities of demand, and marginal utilities, three basic Econ 1 ideas, just to get started, and the list of market differentiation could fill a tome, and includes many concepts not encountered until more advanced Econ courses.

        Suggesting that taking Econ 1 & 2 provides one with all the tools necessary to understand economic realities is complete bullshit. It’s like saying that taking Biology 1 and 2 prepare one for performing surgery.

        The modern economic paradigm (based on fin de siecle neo-classical econ) now taught in all Econ 1 & 2 courses was articulated in the 1950s at the University of Chicago and came to widespread prominence in the 1970s after then current accepted econ theory didn’t quickly and easily explain stagflation ( post-Keynesian econ explains it thoroughly).. As the events of the last ten years have repeatedly shown, contemporary economics is in utter disarray: it can neither predict future economic events nor provide remedies that do anything other than exacerbate the problems of economic instability. We idiotically double-down on the same policies that caused the current global economic crisis because it offers a simplistic and easy-to-swallow Theory of Everything: to wit, the market conditions obtaining with beer is just like housing!

        If all you take are Econ 1 and 2, you know less than if you never took them at all. It’s not until advanced economics courses that the subject approaches anything remotely “scientific.”

        Your voodoo makes you feel good, and justifies the status quo. That’s all it’s good for, and that’s why it’s a pestilence that is hard to root out.

  2. If you are going to go to all that trouble to obtain signatures for a ballot measure, why not put something on the ballot that will actually result in more affordable housing being built?

  3. A magic unicorn will provide “affordable housing” according to Campos and his fellow “progressives.”

  4. Hmm, if they build fewer market rate units in the Mission, that should cause more people to substitute by moving to that new hip Divis corridor /nopa area, pushing up the value of my condo which I hope to sell in three years. Excellent!

  5. Is that considered a “safe” number? I would think you’d want at least double the number of signatures. Had I ever seen the collectors I would’ve signed Joe Schmo. I sure hope this doesn’t get on the ballot. Because SF voters, as we know, can be reflexively anti-growth even when it accomplishes nothing (or worse).

  6. these people are completely off their rockers and are going against their own self interests of creating more affordable housing for ALL. its unbeleiveable to me that there are 15,000+ people with such low IQ actually living in SF. no wonder they cant afford. if they are signing this, then they are hardly educated enough to get a decent paying job. way to take advantage of the people, Campos

  7. another example of we have ours and we are already in the mission. screw anyone else new. lets price them out. mission residents seeming want to pull up the drawbridge around their area, even though it has the best public transport in all of SF. assume they dont give 2 sh*ts about the environment

  8. This is only going to get worse if this passes. The 8 Washington ballot measure – the ultimate in NIMBY temper tantrums – was the proverbial shot heard round the city. Its now open season for every NIMBY group in the city to demand moratoriums for their neighborhood.

    San Franciscans claims they didn’t want “their” city to turn into Manhattan. Instead, they’ve got something even worse – an entire City whose average rents are LESS affordable than the priciest borough in the formerly priciest city in the nation.

    Fools, idiots and sheep.

    1. it seems like mission residents and telegraph hill dwellers prefer to turn SF into Monaco over New York

  9. this is basically racism; the hispanic population doesn’t want change; but, the history of the mission has always been about change, and different groups of people moving into the community. the mission use to be irish; now its turning chinese/nuevo-rich.

    1. Mission is not turning Chinese, at least not any more than any other neighborhood is (and probably less). But anecdotally, youth (hipster or techie or both) are pretty diverse…certainly trend white, but include Asians and Hispanics and probably closely resemble the demographics of Cal Berkeley and Stanford.

        1. Do you consider Indians Asian, as the Brits do? I would say it’s mostly white, followed by Asian (Chinese, Japanese), and then Indian/ Middle East.

      1. also, the Chinese are the ones really buying; money escaping from mainland. they’re new landlords.

  10. The sad thing is that the poor folk in the Mission have bought the garbage economics pitched to them by Aaron Peskin, Jon Golinger, Tony Kelly and the wealthy top of the hill crowd. “Stop all housing and it will protect you from eviction!”…as they rub their greedy hands and watch their property values rocket skywards.

    1. what the residents need is more education. maybe we need a ballot measure on increasing economic education for poor and middle class san franciscans

    2. It’s the left-wing version of the Tea Party – convincing people to vote against their economic self-interest.

  11. So, let me get this straight – conversion of of buildings SFH and 2 unit buildings into Noe-style luxury houses will continue even in view of the moratorium? Which, I presume, the mission is filled with…and is likely the biggest source of displacement of people.

    Do people not read what they sign? I still don’t know why I care so much – it just makes my property that much more valuable now.

  12. ah! i see the trickle-down-nistas are out in force here today. why sure, wipe out the neighborhood (and people) you got and then build a lot more new stuff – it will turn out great! just like the Western Addition did …

    1. That’s not a good example when it was short-sighted city policy that bulldozed the Victorians and turned a vibrant neighborhood into… well, whatever it is now… not an influx of private investment. The only thing that will slow Mission gentrification is another tech bubble bust followed by a massive economic downturn. This type of city meddling will only accelerate gentrification unless it actually buys the land and builds affordable housing… and then you could very well end up with another Western Addition.

      1. Exactly. Comparing the natural development and investment in the Mission to Urban Renewal that happened in the Western Addition is foolish. As you point out, letting the City and government get involved in development (as what is proposed now) is going to much more harm.

  13. What about the Planning Commission’s own interim zoning control measure in the Mission? Also, the comments on SFist made it sound as though the people collecting signatures for the ballot measure were selling it as a proposal to increase affordable housing, when it does nothing of the sort. Two competing or complementary proposals that will only make long term tenants anathema in the Mission.

    1. The 2 signature gathers who approached me this last weekend in the Mission both said it was a measure to increase or protect affordable housing.

      1. Surprise! An initiative gatherer’s sound bite has little to nothing to do with the initiative! The reason no one should ever sign initiatives unless they actually know, in detail, what the initiative is really about!

        1. Which is why you *read* the initiative in front of you. Most signature gatherers I have seen scavenge around Dolores Park getting signatures while everyone is high and drunk. Yes, this is democracy inaction.

          1. Seen a couple guys in BART getting signatures for this, spending less than 30 seconds with the people signing… Should have taken a video to prove that most of these signatures are just people signing whatever is put in front of them ;-(

  14. God I hope this passes.
    And why must 50% of new units be available to Mission residents? If they reside in the Mission, they already have a place to live.

  15. I would say that 100% of the units are already available to Mission residents, or any other residents, or even non-residents who are willing to pay market price.

  16. anyone supporting this initiative in the “spirit of supporting more affordable housing” is economically uneducated. they are being led by someone who is taking advantage of them. it happens to uneducated or heavy idealogues all the time. an analogy is poor and middle class southern people voting republican. republicans overwhelmingly win the south because they are thought to be more religious and the christian coalition has pushed that agenda. however, republican policies are clearly against the economic interest of these people. Campos is Ralph Reed leading the “christian Coalition” in this example.

    the only people who benefit from the moratorium are current homeowners.

  17. Wouldn’t it be lovely if we tried a petition for a ballot measure to do the one thing that will make housing more affordable: BUILD MORE.

  18. This wouldn’t be an issue in the first place, if city government stepped up to the plate and used their multi-hundred million dollar affordable housing fund to build some affordable apartment buildings themselves on some of the unused and underused parcels of land that they already own in the Mission district.

    For example, the one they own right across the street from the so-called “Monster” could easily be built up with a couple hundred affordable housing units for a fraction of what the city now spends on subsidizing the purchases of affordable condos.

    Decades of chronic under-building caused this problem. We’re not going to solve it by putting further restrictions on future building.

  19. SF WILL NEVER BE “AFFORDABLE.” It is geographically impossible. There is not enough land to make it “affordable.” (Although affordable is not the appropriate term, because SF is affordable, which is why the real estate is being snapped up quicker than it can come available. It’s just not affordable for the “right” type of people).

    Everybody is wasting their time and energy in trying to legislate “affordable housing.” Let’s spend our energy on issues that can actually make a difference, like the homeless and drug addicts decaying on the streets and the pee smell that permeates everywhere. It’s a pretty gross city and needs plenty of improvement.

    1. Not impossible at all. From 2009-2012 thousands of SF homes were quite affordable. There are still relatively affordable places in SF if you look in certain neighborhoods. Prices have leaped since 2012, and it is true that SF has become far less affordable since then. But there is certainly no “geographically impossible” bar that makes it so that SF can “never” be affordable. That is a false line from the realtors’ marketing playbook.

      That said, I’m all for cleaning up the homeless mess as well. And I agree that SF city resources (which are ample) are not spent wisely.

      1. When I was in elementary school in the mid 90s I went to a field trip to the Exploratorium. I remember thinking the city was so cool and telling my mom I wanted to live there, and all she said was “it’s so expensive.” SF has always been pretty exclusive. It has been “more affordable” than it is today, but it will never be affordable for a regular wage earner, not as long as the Democratic Pro(Re?)gressive establishment is in charge.

        1. Coming from someone who thinks that starting two wars and cutting taxes was a good fiscal idea is bloody rich….

          1. Definitely wasn’t my idea. I’m a true progressive, not a Bay Area “tax and outlaw everything” fauxgressive.

      2. The only way new housing will be affordable is if the city pays for and builds it. Even if it buys some of the private lots left in the mission, it’ll be a dent in the bucket. All this social engineering nonsense will continue to perpetuate a city of wealthy elites that can afford it (indeed owning here is like a blood-sport-pride-achievement-badge) and entitled elites that won the housing lottery or milking their rent controlled apartment if they moved here years ago. It’s all a recipe for continued unrest and social clash. Alas, we get the city we deserve! But in the meantime, sheer lunacy like this moratorium will greatly benefit mission property owners, especially us with multiple properties. The SF left has continued to shower me with gifts. It’s crazy!

    2. SF is ALWAYS affordable, right now it is very affordable to the majority of the San Franciscans. Most people are paying a very low rent due to rent control.

  20. Looks like everyone who signed this has a very skewed understand of economics. They believe building new housing increases prices, so by that token, they should also believe that if you start tearing down housing to reduce supply, that will reduce prices.

  21. It’s sad seeing the amazing development happening in DC juxtaposed with the rubbish that is SF. I love SF but it’s a gritty, fairly nasty city that could be so amazing. I walk by so many buildings in the Mission that are just hell holes. DC had a ton of those run down buildings but developers were allowed to move in and create gorgeous neighborhoods that attracted all kinds of shops, restaurants, and cafes. It’s just sad seeing this kind of bullshit hold the city back. Sure this will increase my property values but it’s not going to make the city a better place to live.

    1. what’s the answer to this then? Let neighborhoods remain dilapidated, run down, undeveloped and cheap? or let it become uber expensive and dilapidated like what the mission is now? I don’t see progressive housing policies providing good answers. And now the city of SF paid close to $400k per affordable rental unit on south van ness? That makes no sense to me. If I had to pick DC or SF when it came to housing development it’s no question which ended up in a better place.

  22. also pretty sure it’s not race but income behind people moving out of gentrified neighborhoods.

Leave a Reply

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