Newsom pushes business tax cuts and fee delays despite evidence they do more harm than good
The most controversial part of the fee reform package involves reducing the fee developers pay to support affordable housing by 33 percent, then charging a 1 percent transfer tax to subsequent buyers of those homes. Egan estimates developers would save almost $20,000 per housing unit, and that it would take an average of 16 years for the city to recover that money. But for high-rise luxury condos, the city would eventually recover about $27,000 per unit.
"It's a classic make-an-investment-now-to-get-more-later strategy," Michael Yarne, who crafted the policy for the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development at Newsom's direction, told the Guardian.
"If it makes it feasible for projects to be started, then it is worth passing," Tim Colen, a representative of San Francisco Housing Action, said at the Planning Commission hearing, expressing hope that it will help create desperately needed construction jobs and new market rate housing.
But affordable housing advocates and some progressives criticize the policy as completely backward, saying that affordable housing development is desperately needed now, during these tough economic times, rather than a policy that encourages more market rate housing and bails out bad investments made at the height of the real estate bubble.
"What the city needs to do is directly build affordable housing, for which there is a demand," affordable housing activist Calvin Welch told us. "The problem is that the banks don't want to lend these guys money because they know nobody can afford to buy houses at the prices that these guys are demanding."
Debra Walker, who is running for supervisor from District 6 and voted against the proposal when it came before the Building Inspection Commission (the sole vote on a commission dominated by mayoral appointees), agrees.
"The whole argument is that it stimulates development, but it doesn't," Walker said, arguing that the incremental gains (about 25 housing units per year, Egan estimates) will be offset by delayed affordable housing construction. "There would be more economic stimulus by using the fee to build more affordable housing."
Instead, it simply shifts resources to favored entities: from home owners to developers, in the case of the affordable housing fees, or in the case of the tax credits, from the public to the private sector. But Newsom's office just doesn't see it that way.
"The Guardian believes in protecting public sector employees over private sector employees," was how Winnicker formulated our understanding of what the economists are saying. "Most people don't work for the city, and if we can support private sector jobs, that adds to sales tax revenues and benefits the economy. Despite a short-term impact of the tax credit, that's a benefit."
Adam Lesser contributed to this report
Most Commented On
- I understood it just fine - December 19, 2013
- A million guys talk like this Greg dude. - December 19, 2013
- When someone is not known personally then their net worth - December 19, 2013
- Hard to tell if Josh's point was good or bad because he went on - December 19, 2013
- D-Bag detector - December 19, 2013
- There's a place for public transit but there should be more - December 19, 2013
- animal onesies - December 19, 2013
- Bruce's face at the election party for the last city prop on - December 19, 2013
- I think it was a well-reasoned point he was making - December 19, 2013
- Yes, let's scrap all public - December 19, 2013