6 ms·

The SF board of supervisors has voted on resolutions opposing this bill several times now. If you care about housing and live in SF, take a second look at your

by Gimpei 7y ago

The SF board of supervisors has voted on resolutions opposing this bill several times now. If you care about housing and live in SF, take a second look at your supervisor. Their votes may not make a difference with respect to SB50 but they can certainly block housing in the city and too often they do.

justinzollars 7y ago
They all need to go. Not one is a housing advocate. All spend their energy to limit housing. They say they are for affordable housing, but their mandates are designed to exclude both groups of people and housing.
- yonran 7y ago
  Not quite all of the BoS. Of the 4 misleading resolutions that the SF BoS passed to oppose SB 827 and SB 50 (https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20SB%2050.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20S...), only Sup. Ahsha Safaí and Mayor London Breed (and Jeff Sheehy and Vallie Brown, who are no longer in city hall) voted against the resolutions and in support of SB 50. It’s important to pay attention to which supervisors do what so that they can be held accountable on election day.
  - justinzollars 7y ago
    They all say they are for affordable housing - but as I mentioned above the mandates are designed to exclude and prohibit housing. The results are clear very little actually gets built.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    Is there any reason to think they're not reflecting the will of their voters?
- bsimpson 7y ago
  It makes me sad that my supervisor got replaced with Dean Preston, whose entire persona is crafted around housing policy; yet, he is so staunchly against actually building housing. He's the epitome of everything wrong with SF Supervisors: they pit communities against each other to create political gridlock and build voting blocs for reelection, but do fuck-all to actually solve San Francisco's problems. No matter how many times they say "gentrification" in the same tone as "boogeyman," it won't refute basic supply-and-demand. Inaction just makes all the problems worse.
  - chooseaname 7y ago
    > they pit communities against each other to create political gridlock and build voting blocs for reelection, but do fuck-all to actually solve San Francisco's problems. Sounds remarkably like national politics.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - justinzollars 7y ago
    Dean is a nice guy but I believe the way he looks at the problem is naive. He believes land lords are to blame for high costs - but I see this as a function of what the market is willing to support. He could guide the invisible hand of the market if he would allow more housing. But he favors character of the neighborhood over housing.
    - Twixes 7y ago
      Landlords are to blame for squeezing people like lemons (which extracts a lot money from software engineers and the like while leaving lower classes without decent housing), but the underlying problem is indeed insufficient supply. But what's really being done about either of these things?
      - justinzollars 7y ago
        No they are not. You could become a landlord and find out for yourself. Or you could simply do the math. Mortgage plus Insurance plus Earthquake insurance plus upkeep plus taxes. Costs are incredible. The only way to bring down rents is to increase supply. Everyone else is lying to you.
avocado4 7y ago
Election turnout in SF is abysmally low. Those who do turn out are mostly homeowners who really want to keep the prices growing.
- thedance 7y ago
  Nobody has ever lost a re-election race for SF district supervisor. It’s effectively a lifetime appointment.
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    > lifetime appointment There is a 2-term (8-year) term limit (each member can run for re-election 1 single time before being termed out), so this summary is false on its face. In recent elections several incumbents have won re-election by only 2 or 3 percent. It is entirely plausible for an unpopular member to be unseated by a well organized challenge. Before 20 years ago, the elections were at-large, so what you’re going on with this complaint is a pretty short time frame (maybe a couple dozen individual elections involving an incumbent). The SF board of supervisors (and its elections) doesn’t seem materially different than other American political offices.
  - yonran 7y ago
    This November a supervisor will lose re-election, since both the current incumbent Ahsha Safaí (who supported SB 50 as well as housing developments in his district) and the previously termed-out John Avalos (who opposed SB 50) are running for re-election in District 11 (Excelsior and Ingleside).
    - baddox 7y ago
      I think "re-election" generally refers specifically to an incumbent winning an election, rather than just any time someone wins more than one election.
      - yonran 7y ago
        Avalos is running for the same office that he held 12 to 4 years ago. In San Francisco, BoS members are termed out after 8 consecutive years but can come back after waiting a term.
hcknwscommenter 7y ago
It's so frustrating to me. I happened to have the radio on last night and the local NPR reporter stated seven times in six minutes that the bill failed because a bunch of groups who are nominally highly in favor of more housing just didn't think it went far enough (e.g., too much market rate housing not enough affordable, too focused on urban areas not enough suburban ex-urban, on and on and on). Classic shoot-yourself-in-the-foot move. At least it was a start. You can always try and improve it later. Now, we have nothing.
danem 7y ago
Hijacking this comment to point everyone to https://yimbyaction.org/ https://yimbyaction.org/.
jayd16 7y ago
>If you care about housing and live in SF [...] What people don't seem to understand is if you live in SF you probably have housing that's working for you. Lots of people can't live in that city. Guess what? If they don't live there they can't vote there. I'm not sure why but even as people decry NIMBYism they seem to think there's some groundswell of support that's somehow suppressed. At this point we should just make Fresno really desirable too or something.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > At this point we should just make Fresno really desirable too or something That's my rather unpopular opinion. Could just force the Tech Billionaires, VC's and lords of finance to point the fire hose of money somewhere else for a change.

by Gimpei 7y ago

justinzollars 7y ago

They all need to go. Not one is a housing advocate. All spend their energy to limit housing. They say they are for affordable housing, but their mandates are designed to exclude both groups of people and housing.

yonran 7y ago
Not quite all of the BoS. Of the 4 misleading resolutions that the SF BoS passed to oppose SB 827 and SB 50 (https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20SB%2050.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20S...), only Sup. Ahsha Safaí and Mayor London Breed (and Jeff Sheehy and Vallie Brown, who are no longer in city hall) voted against the resolutions and in support of SB 50. It’s important to pay attention to which supervisors do what so that they can be held accountable on election day.
- justinzollars 7y ago
  They all say they are for affordable housing - but as I mentioned above the mandates are designed to exclude and prohibit housing. The results are clear very little actually gets built.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Is there any reason to think they're not reflecting the will of their voters?
bsimpson 7y ago
It makes me sad that my supervisor got replaced with Dean Preston, whose entire persona is crafted around housing policy; yet, he is so staunchly against actually building housing. He's the epitome of everything wrong with SF Supervisors: they pit communities against each other to create political gridlock and build voting blocs for reelection, but do fuck-all to actually solve San Francisco's problems. No matter how many times they say "gentrification" in the same tone as "boogeyman," it won't refute basic supply-and-demand. Inaction just makes all the problems worse.
- chooseaname 7y ago
  > they pit communities against each other to create political gridlock and build voting blocs for reelection, but do fuck-all to actually solve San Francisco's problems. Sounds remarkably like national politics.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- justinzollars 7y ago
  Dean is a nice guy but I believe the way he looks at the problem is naive. He believes land lords are to blame for high costs - but I see this as a function of what the market is willing to support. He could guide the invisible hand of the market if he would allow more housing. But he favors character of the neighborhood over housing.
  - Twixes 7y ago
    Landlords are to blame for squeezing people like lemons (which extracts a lot money from software engineers and the like while leaving lower classes without decent housing), but the underlying problem is indeed insufficient supply. But what's really being done about either of these things?
    - justinzollars 7y ago
      No they are not. You could become a landlord and find out for yourself. Or you could simply do the math. Mortgage plus Insurance plus Earthquake insurance plus upkeep plus taxes. Costs are incredible. The only way to bring down rents is to increase supply. Everyone else is lying to you.

avocado4 7y ago

Election turnout in SF is abysmally low. Those who do turn out are mostly homeowners who really want to keep the prices growing.

thedance 7y ago
Nobody has ever lost a re-election race for SF district supervisor. It’s effectively a lifetime appointment.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  > lifetime appointment There is a 2-term (8-year) term limit (each member can run for re-election 1 single time before being termed out), so this summary is false on its face. In recent elections several incumbents have won re-election by only 2 or 3 percent. It is entirely plausible for an unpopular member to be unseated by a well organized challenge. Before 20 years ago, the elections were at-large, so what you’re going on with this complaint is a pretty short time frame (maybe a couple dozen individual elections involving an incumbent). The SF board of supervisors (and its elections) doesn’t seem materially different than other American political offices.
- yonran 7y ago
  This November a supervisor will lose re-election, since both the current incumbent Ahsha Safaí (who supported SB 50 as well as housing developments in his district) and the previously termed-out John Avalos (who opposed SB 50) are running for re-election in District 11 (Excelsior and Ingleside).
  - baddox 7y ago
    I think "re-election" generally refers specifically to an incumbent winning an election, rather than just any time someone wins more than one election.
    - yonran 7y ago
      Avalos is running for the same office that he held 12 to 4 years ago. In San Francisco, BoS members are termed out after 8 consecutive years but can come back after waiting a term.

hcknwscommenter 7y ago

It's so frustrating to me. I happened to have the radio on last night and the local NPR reporter stated seven times in six minutes that the bill failed because a bunch of groups who are nominally highly in favor of more housing just didn't think it went far enough (e.g., too much market rate housing not enough affordable, too focused on urban areas not enough suburban ex-urban, on and on and on). Classic shoot-yourself-in-the-foot move. At least it was a start. You can always try and improve it later. Now, we have nothing.

danem 7y ago

Hijacking this comment to point everyone to https://yimbyaction.org/ https://yimbyaction.org/.

jayd16 7y ago

>If you care about housing and live in SF [...] What people don't seem to understand is if you live in SF you probably have housing that's working for you. Lots of people can't live in that city. Guess what? If they don't live there they can't vote there. I'm not sure why but even as people decry NIMBYism they seem to think there's some groundswell of support that's somehow suppressed. At this point we should just make Fresno really desirable too or something.

Gibbon1 7y ago
> At this point we should just make Fresno really desirable too or something That's my rather unpopular opinion. Could just force the Tech Billionaires, VC's and lords of finance to point the fire hose of money somewhere else for a change.