By Calvin Welch, HANC Board
Every thinking San Franciscan knows that this November’s election is critical to countering the national catastrophe of Donald Trump. But far too few realize that the same ballot has crucially important housing measures which will impact our daily lives almost immediately, and, if passed, will defeat “Trumpism” at the local level.
The September 10th HANC General Membership meeting will discuss four ballot state and local measures of critical importance on the November ballot: local propositions C, I, and J and State propositions 1. Former District 5 Supervisor Dean Preston will tell of his four year fight to get affordable housing funded with a transfer tax similar to current Proposition I and the lessons he learned in that fight. Quintin Mecke, Executive Director, Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) will explain why Props C, I, J and State Prop, 1 are critical in determining who lives in San Francisco. Scott Feeney, one of the three official proponents of the Prop I campaign, will present as well
Poll after poll, at both the state and national level has shown that “affordability” is the primary issue of concern to the vast majority of Americans. A key element of that concern is the affordability of housing. Nowhere is that truer than San Francisco. While the national press repeatedly names “housing” as a component part (along with health care, food and gas) of the “affordability crisis” it never actually defines what an “affordable housing” program would contain other that repeating the mindless position of “we need to build more housing” as if building more overpriced housing will somehow magically make it affordable.
The market got us in the housing affordability crisis and one must be certifiably brain dead to believe that market rate housing developers, if given free reign, will build so much housing that they will lower housing costs. That is not how the capitalist housing market works, as we have shown time and again in San Francisco. We have approved over 75,000 housing units that have not been built because market rate developers are waiting for prices to RISE, not fall, before they build.
San Francisco, like Newsom’s California, has removed nearly all local procedures to housing approval on the books, starting with ending a public process that gave a meaningful voice to existing residents’ housing needs. We now build housing for a population that our local tech elite wish were here, not the people who actually live here.
The remaining LOCAL policy not removed by state pre-emption is the ability to raise local funds to “write down” the market rate cost of the development of housing. There is no “affordable” sheet rock, lumber, shingles, architects, engineers or carpenters. All are sold at “market rate”, a cost that now exceeds the income of the overwhelming majority of San Franciscans. The only way new housing construction can be provided at a price affordable to most San Franciscans is with a local development subsidy that reduces the final price to a level able to be afforded by households who critically need the housing - families, seniors, service workers, and folks “at-risk” of becoming homeless- which is currently the majority of San Franciscans.
The state has mandated, through the Housing Element, a requirement that San Francisco identify where some 82,000 new housing units will be built between now and 2031. Some 47,000 of these homes must be affordable to households of moderate, low and very low income. Through amendments to the Housing Element requirement authored by State Senator Weiner, if the City does not “build” market rate units required then all state funding for affordable housing could be withheld (an impossibility since the City does not build any housing units) ! The price tag for the 47,000 affordable units required by Wieners bill comes to some $25 BILLION! Newsome, Wiener, the YIMBY’s and Mayor Lurie have not identified how or when $25 billion will be made available to San Francisco to meet its state imposed (and laughably impossible) housing mandate other than restricting state affordable housing funds THAT CURRENTLY DO NOT EXIST. If the City does not meet its impossible housing goals then market rate developers can get any project they proposed approved without public hearing or oversite!
Propositions C, I and State Prop. 1 all provide direct subsidy to write down the cost of development or acquisition of affordable housing. Prop C will produce about $125 million a year to go into a dedicated City Housing Trust Fund created by popular vote in 2012 with the approval of a ballot measure drafted by CCHO. Prop. I would extend and dedicate an increase in the transfer tax on real estate valued at $10 million and above first passed in 2020 but redirected by former Mayor London Breed away from affordable housing. It would generate about $120 million a year and dedicate that amount for affordable housing production and tenant protection. State Proposition 1 is a bond that would provide some $11.25 Billion for affordable housing production for both low income tenants and moderate income homeowners.
As can be seen, these sources will not cover the $25 billion needed to produce the affordable housing requirements of the state Housing Element “mandate” in the required time. The absurdity of the state mandating affordable housing programs and then providing less than half the cost of one city meeting that mandate should be clear to all. For Mayor Lurie to attack Proposition I as a “slush fund” when in fact his office will control it is not only absurd but fails to properly portray his administration’s failure in even proposing a way forward to meet the affordable housing requirement imposed by his allies at the state level.
Come join us for this discussion: 7 PM September 10th, Community Room (ground floor) , Park Branch Library, 1833 Page Street, or online.