— By Kevin Montgomery (@kevinmonty) |
When Supervisor David Campos first suggested putting a temporary moratorium on building market-rate housing in the Mission, the city’s free-market enthusiasts went into overdrive to malign the proposal. But the oft-repeated claim that the moratorium would accelerate gentrification, rather than slow displacement, has done little to curb the public appeal of the proposal.
According to the Examiner, a recent poll suggests that city voters overwhelmingly favor a short-term halt to the approval of new development projects in the Mission District:
Sixty-five percent of city voters polled said they’d support a ballot measure to halt “new project approvals in the Mission District for one year” while a plan to help businesses and nonprofits from being displaced is crafted, according to a survey of 602 likely voters conducted by David Binder and Associates in February.
Beyond naming David Binder and Associates as the pollster, the Examiner does not provide any additional context about survey.
When reached by phone by Uptown Almanac, a representative from David Binder and Associates declined to identify who had hired the firm to conduct the poll or the methodology used. The representative also refused to acknowledge the firm had even conducted the poll in the first place.
[Photo: torbakhopper]
Comments (25)
Can someone explain how halting the development of market-rate housing will solve the housing supply shortage? Is the theory that developers will then be incentivized to build below-market-rate housing? If so, who will pay for it?
It an oversupply of problematic people not a shortage of housing that the district is dealing with.
Are you talking about the high-income people moving to the Bay Area from all over the world? Is the theory that if we stop building market-rate housing they won’t want to live in the Mission District?
Yes, many of them are dumb enough to actually believe that.
As a property owner now, I’ve pretty much given up and ceded territory to the other property-owning NIMBYs and progressive activists that are foolish enough to join them. They will never, ever do anything to make housing more accessible to the lower/middle class here, which really does suck for everyone. But at least thanks to them, homeowners like me will earn some money doing nothing.
Silver linings, I guess.
Candidly speaking, isn’t this proposed moratorium all about preventing a certain kind of demographic from moving into the Mission and thereby displacing existing knicknack and bauble stores that can’t make a sale, even if their first born depended on them, with swanky new upscale food halls and restaurants that cater to the well heeled and upwardly mobile.
This is naked prejudice and provincialism at its worst.
SF has always been a poser town. A bunch of tinhorns with all talk and no trousers.
I’m glad that’s finally changing and this time for good.
Says the used house salesman.
Realtors make bad sociologists, and worse economists.
Really?
Is SF not filled with worthless storefronts operating for who knows what reason, just existing decade after decade, without any real foot traffic ?
One wonders whether they are fronts for some kind of illicit operations unrelated to their primary wares.
Did you even notice the closing of the following store ? Did anyone even bat an eyelid ?
There are countless number of such false-fronts or useless fronts that occupy valuable real estate.
Luv it when one can hardly tell the trolls from the Richie Riches.
As an owner of multiple properties in the mission, I say bring it! I love the idea of halting development- thanks for increasing my property values even more…chumps.
And for for those who think that denying new units will somehow “discourage” those of means from moving here, think again. Now those same wealthy people will be competing for YOUR rent controlled unit. there will be even more pressure on mission landlords to evict, buy out, etc. to supply the new people.
Thanks again…whew…just as rent prices started to stabilize, this’ll sure help to keep the pressure on.
You lefties rock!
As an owner of multiple planets in the universe, I say you’re full of shit!
Unless you’re prepared to identify yourself, you should expect everyone here (with the exception of the other developer funded shills and trolls) to recognize the odor of bullshit scare tactics wafting off you every time you post. So enjoy your your own cleverness while the rest of us go about cleaning up your mess and regulating your employers.
You shills rock!
What the fuck does “identifying myself” have anything to do with my statements? You’re an ignorant child. If you disagree with me, refute my points. Tool.
I think if a real ban was on the ballot it would not necessarily win, or if it did not by this much, once people had a real proposal to read and bitch about.
This is more a poll about “change fatigue” which has come about as it seems like every week Yet Another Longtime Business is displaced, and the replacement is high end boutiquey crappy little stores, yoga studios, and $4 toast/#100000 coffee/$20 “artisan” cocktails and the like. I don’t believe a moratorium on development would lower rents one cent, but I can see how others might think otherwise.
Also, don’t forget the political motives for this by “Supervisor” Campos - he is out of a job soon, and if he wants to run for another office he has to protect certain groups above others. He could care less about your rent payments, just his tax funded shenanigans at City Hall.
“When reached by phone by Uptown Almanac, a representative from David Binder and Associates declined to identify who had hired the firm to conduct the poll or the methodology used. The representative also refused to acknowledge the firm had even conducted the poll in the first place.”
SEEMS LEGIT.
This.
For those who want to increase the supply of housing to lower rents in SF, Palo Alto, and everywhere else in the Bay Area, come to the San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation (SFBARF) on April 7.
7 April
7 PM
7 Heron St
http://www.sfbarf.org/pages/scandal.html
“”I think they (SFBARF) are a sham group that is acting as a shill for market-rate developers and other pro-development groups,” said Sara Shortt, executive director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, a tenants group. “I find it offensive that they are purporting to represent the voice of renters.”
Shortt said that Sonja Trauss has “no experience or qualification in the field of housing,” lives in Oakland and doesn’t speak for San Francisco renters.”
“Jeremy Stoppelman, CEO of Yelp…. donated $10,000 to the group’s founder, Sonja Trauss, a former private school math teacher who began working full-time on promoting real estate development at the beginning of the year.”
“SFBARF previously raised $10,000 from San Francisco Moderates and a second source that Trauss declines to name.”
http://upstart.bizjournals.com/entrepreneurs/hot-shots/2015/03/30/pro-de…
yeah and what exactly has Sara Shit Shorts done to alleviate the housing crunch in SF? involve herself with more regressive restrictions, that allows only the rich and the entitled poor to live here? Yeah, I thought so.
Nice baseless attack. I’m not a shill for developers and neither is Sonja. Why “progressives” in this city continually side with rich homeowners to drive up the cost of housing is beyond me. And yes, I’m a renter who has lived in the Mission for 5 years. I’m not on a lease and know that if anything goes wrong with my master tenant I’ll be forced to leave SF.
Great!
Maybe you and Sonja Trauss can explain why a group that claims to be representing San Francisco renters does not support the rent control laws in San Francisco?
SFBARF’s mission statement: “SFBARF are people who believe SF’s housing crisis can be mitigated by increasing the housing supply. We organize renters to testify in favor of new building projects at neighborhood meetings and hearings.”
They don’t take an official position on rent control. If you scoff at that, then consider that there are still many tenants in San Francisco who don’t have any sort of rent control on their homes, and thus aren’t necessarily well represented by other tenants’ rights groups that focus heavily on protecting the rent-controlled.
Those other tenants’ rights groups not only support existing San Francisco rent control laws, they support strengthening rent control and extending it to rentals not currently protected.
There’s no reason why SFBARF could not follow suit, while also advocating for more housing supply.
So the question remains: Why would Sonja Trauss and SFBARF refuse to support existing rent control laws while claiming to represent San Francisco renters?
lookit fool, you can’t extend rent control on anything constructed post 1979. Heard of Costa Hawkins? It’s a state law to prevent cities like esseff from becoming Leningrad.
Also, we have had increasingly restrictive rent control for 35 years here. How well has it worked? Why is it a failure? Simply. So many people get a an entitlement from RC that they hang on to their apartment for ever. Hence, there are far fewer turnovers and vacancies than normal markets. limited availability = higher prices. Econ 101.
And the kicker? There are plenty of people benefiting from RC who don’t need it. Think of every well paid techie, professional, etc that has rented for longer than 3 years. ALL THOSE people are now taking advantage of below market rent; meaning they have an incentive to stay in their unit longer and longer; meaning less units available for rent to new people. How exactly does that contribute to lowering housing costs?
Do you speak for Sonja Trauss and SFBARF?
I’m just trying to find out how they could claim to represent SF renters while failing to address the most central issue to most of those people, since roughly 72 percent of San Francisco units are rent controlled.
As for you, I don’t recall asking your opinion.
But since you felt the need to froth your mouth all over, I’ll ask you this: If you hate rent control so much, why did you become the “owner of multiple properties in the mission”? It’s the sort of unbelievable contradiction that would lead any person of average intelligence to assume that you are simply an anonymous and clumsy liar.
1- I don’t hate rent control fool. It actually helps me make more money, as the rent on newly vacated units is sky high due to it. So thanks.
2- didcha ever stop and think that I can still on rentals in SF and like or dislike RC? Also, many units I have are off it, so Chaa-Ching for me bro.
Rent Control needs to be reformed. It should not be granted to high income tenants.