We are not talking about the same type of development today as in the midcentury decades. In those days, “redevelopment” was a euphemism for the wholesale destr

We are not talking about the same type of development today as in the midcentury decades. In those days, “redevelopment” was a euphemism for the wholesale destruction of entire neighborhoods by use of eminent domain, whether the residents liked it or not. Promises to maybe someday build replacement housing which the old residents could afford were never kept. The “redevelopment” process also had a funny way of only happening to minority neighborhoods. This was indeed gentrifying wealth extraction, and racist to boot. The housing developments which get fought over in SF today are not demolishing tenants’ existing homes—indeed SF has laws preventing demolition of housing which has been tenant-occupied at any time in the last several years. These developments would only add new supply to the market. Turning a Nordstrom valet parking lot into new housing (24% of which is below market rate) is not the same thing as wiping out thousands of exiting homes to build pricier ones. Anti-development sentiment is very understandably fed by the memory of the vast harms of the “redevelopment” years. But we have to recognize the difference.