SanFransplain'

San Francisco's Housing Protests Aren't About Hating Tech, No Matter How Much Industry Yes-Men Wish They Were

The proposed luxury apartment complex at 16th and Mission is one of the most controversial developments to hit the neighborhood in recent years. Activists have labeled it a “monster in the Mission,” fearing its imposing size will usher in a brutal wave of gentrification along Mission Street. The politics behind the protests are complicated, but you’d never know that reading the Examiner.

Over the weekend, San Francisco’s second fiddle daily published a story that ignorantly insisted Mission residents are rising up against the project out of misplaced hatred of techies:

The “monster” is a 10-story housing complex of 350 units proposed above the 16th and Mission BART station — a dream for transit-first advocates. It would be new housing that won’t displace anyone other than customers of a Burger King.

The opposition calls the market-rate development a “monster” because it will attract more tech workers to the Mission. It doesn’t matter that a percentage of the units will be below market rate. The protesters are willing to kill new affordable housing simply because they dislike tech workers.

This is willfully misleading. We don’t disagree that many in the Mission dislike tech workers. But pretending that tech loathing is driving housing activism transcends simple cluelessness.

Ever since the $175 million project was unveiled last October, residents have been quick to outline the real reasons behind their opposition.

The primary concern is that the complex will set an unwelcome precedent. The building will be a glistening harbinger, signaling to developers and landlords that Mission Street is the new Valencia. Many fear the area surrounding the 16th and Mission BART plaza—home to one of the largest clusters of low-income housing and SROs in the city—will be suddenly hit with rising rents and evictions. Those rent increases could impact residents and businesses alike, with worries that local businesses that serve both the Latino and lower-income communities could be pushed off the corridor.

Then there’s the concern that the residents of the new complex, which has projected rents between $3,500 to $5,000 per month, will demand increased enforcement of “quality of life” crimes. And the enforcement of those laws predominately affect the poor, as we’ve already begun to witness in the wake of the real estate-backed “Clean Up the Plaza” astroturf campaign.

While the tech industry may help fuel San Francisco’s gentrification crisis, they are hardly the only force behind it. We know it. Activists know it. The Plaza 16 Coalition, which leads the “No Monster in the Mission” protests, knows it (their “Visions/Demands” page doesn’t even mention the word “tech”). Even the Examiner knows it.

That’s right. An article published just three months ago by the paper accurately summed up the concerns of neighborhood activists:

While the project would demolish only some buildings on the site and not displace any residents, numerous community groups have opposed it because they say it will fundamentally change the neighborhood.

Andy Blue, an organizer with the 16 Plaza Coalition, which was formed to oppose what it has dubbed “The Monster in the Mission,” said there is no question that such a development will be a game-changer for the working-class Latino neighborhood.

So why’d the paper switch up the narrative and make it about techie victimization? The column itself hints at the motivation behind the change:

Doesn’t anyone see how these new units will provide a safety valve to prevent displacement? With 350 people living above the 16th Street BART station, there are 350 people not competing for existing housing in the Mission. […]

If we squander this opportunity to build much-needed housing on a rapid transit corridor connecting San Francisco to the Bay Area, grandma’s words will surely haunt us when we look in the mirror. Because the only monster we’ll see is our own disfigured face.

Naturally, the conservative-leaning paper’s stance is pro-development. And the crowd that champions the “Build, Build, Build” mantra is notoriously loose with reality. It is, after all, a lot easier to dismiss progressive activists as spiteful haters than it is to actually address their concerns.

Will further luxury development on Mission Street spur further displacement? Who knows. But asking that question is far more sane than the belief that setting aside 42 units out of 350 as affordable housing will solve the city’s displacement crisis.

[Photo: Plaza 16]

Comments (22)

A significant affordable housing development is planned for the land formerly owned by the school district - right across the street.

Years ago, I’d have just sit here seething and loathing over this. But as someone in tech who managed to find his way into owning a place, I now see the light, and support all efforts to kill off new housing projects in the Mission. It’s so awesome watching demand keep trending upward while “affordable” housing advocates keep the supply tamped down. My SFH just gets more and more valuable. As if the state wasn’t doing enough to ensure I come out the winner in every political battle over tax and property law, now SF progressives are going to do their part, too!

Thanks, guys! And good luck with all further efforts to demand 100% BMR complexes all under four stories. I’m sure your plans are completely sound, and they will just magically materialize any day now.

Nailed it.

I can’t find solace in this even though I, too, own my home. How many of more of our friends have to leave because they cannot find suitable housing? And if someone dares to grow up and *gasp* start a family, most of them are effectively banished because the housing stock is completely inadequate.

Build More Fucking Housing!!!!!!

won’t be to smug. Wait for your property tax bill….

Yes, and thanks to the magic of prop 13 it will never change. 

What’s the underlying rationale to build more affordable housing here - in the Mission - when there’s plenty in Excelsior and beyond?

Are we to guarantee lower income individuals - and whole families of a certain descent - accommodation in the choicest neighborhoods? 

What about middle income families, who are being enmasse forced to move elsewhere? 

What is this if not classism and naked populism by vested interests and the political actors that rely on those vested interests?

Did the Irish and Germans who were once economically displaced from the Mission, similarly given preferential treatment?

Why do you have to play to the gallery, every chance you get, in a manner reeking of demagoguery ?

If the rationale for rent stabilized housing for certain sections of the society is based on an assumption that those sections tend to stay and put down roots in the city unlike “tech transients” who pick up and leave in periods of economic downturn, has that assumption been ever corroborated by long term data?

The Irish and German’s weren’t economically displaced. They left because of the influx of brown people. It’s called white flight.

Yeah, most racists can’t tell the difference.

yup.  My bigoted relatives who left use phrases like ‘too mixed’ and ‘in transition’ to describe the old neighborhood………’3rd world country’ usually comes out after a few drinks.

That’s not true of SF families that lived in the Miss/Castro/ etc, they do not use those terms.  They all became very liberal at some point and most of the Italian & Irish (not as much “German” btw) families are pretty mixed at this point and have been mixed for a long time.

I know that’s what your lefty professors told you in school, but that’s not the whole story. But hey! Always stick with knee jerk slogans and ignore the real history of the neighborhoods you claim to care about!

FYI, this is an opinion piece by the Ex’s resident conservative. As such, he can try to push whatever narrative he wants.

You are right - it’s not about Tech.  It’s about the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) push by greedy developers and the politicians they have bought.  TOD is the massive rich get richer scheme that is ruining SF , gentrifying out our lower and middle class and diverse culture. It’s marketing propaganda is pushed with a cult like evangelism by all the usual “non-profit lobbyist groups”.  TOD enriches the 1%, but has co-opted the left into supporting their enrichment by declaring it “green” and providing a pittance of units deemed “affordable” (that few real people can afford).  Keep up the fight to preserve our Mission District from further destruction.

TOD is the massive rich get richer scheme that is ruining SF , gentrifying out our lower and middle class and diverse culture. 

So you want people to stay poor - whether long time residents or transients ?

Is that the ethos of SF - “lets all be comfortably poor and wallow in our collective misery ?”

Today I learned that public transit is a 1% conspiracy. That’s a first.

I’m sorry but we need the housing, we need probably 100 more of these.  If we had any kind of reasonable transit we could build these all over the Sunset and Richmond, but we don’t.  The mission does, this is quite literally sitting on the best transit option in the entire metropolitan area. 

The gritty  punk Mission ended in the 80s, moving into the more yuppie/artsy/party atmosphere of the 90s, and the gentrified/hipster atmosphere of the 2000s.  The 2010’s it becomes a fancy place to live, it’s inescapable.  Whether you block this project or not, as people live or get bought out, wealthy people come in. 

We have to build enough to satiate demand, wait for another downtown and our kids generation can maybe enjoy the SF some people remember from the early to mid 90s.  It’s just not gonna happen for us, but if we build enough we can ensure some future contingent gets to at least have a shot

Well said.

Any proposal is better than what’s there now – the disgusting BART plaza is hands down the best car commercial I’ve ever seen.

> The primary concern is that the complex will set an unwelcome precedent. The building will be a glistening harbinger, signaling to developers and landlords that Mission Street is the new Valencia

Um, I think that ship’s sailed, Kevin.

Yeah. Personally, I find Mission Street to be a lost cause (it’s inevitable at this point). But I still respect the protester’s perspective and know what the Ex said is bullshit.

It’s funny to see people squeal at this development, when you consider what the original plans for this are were - basically eliminate everything in the vicinity of the BART station and  build another Embarcadero Center-like development. I realize that history means nothing when people talk about such issues but it’s worth noting anyway.

The current status of much of that area sucks. I mean, really? Defending the Walgreens many “activists” OPPOSED when it was built? Come on.

If only we had leadership that wasn’t either a) beholden to the developers and the greeheads and the like (i.e. The Mayor and the City Family) or b) beholden to screaming and yelling and passing “non binding resolutions” and always throwing money down the rat-hole called the “affordable housing fund” that BUILDS NOTHING.

Instead, why not put this land to good use for everyone - not every fucking new development has to have starting rents at 3500+. Ground floor retail does not have to go to shitty chain stores. There’s plenty of room to build housing for people who can afford market rate AND build needed workforce housing that doesn’t oust current residents. Why not make incentives for renting to locally owned businesses for retail space so they too can have a nice place to do business?

Oh wait. That would mean being reasonable and trying to come up with something genuinely creative and smart. We all know how that never sells in Oh So FUCKING SMART Rich San FranFUCKINGcisco.

Go back to your bullhorns, platitudes and tired cliches. The rest of the world is laughing at you and not in a good way.