LETTERS

TRANSPEOPLE HAVE JOBS

As a transsexual woman, I appreciate the genuine concern that is apparent in your piece concerning unemployment among local transgendered people ["Transjobless," 3/15/06]. However, I have grave doubts regarding the 75 percent unemployment figure that prominently leads the article. The article itself stated that the survey "was not strictly scientific" and that interviewees were identified via "trans organizations and outreach workers." If I may be so bold as to suggest, this methodology is almost certain to lead to an enormous selection bias, akin to estimating the unemployment rate in San Francisco generally by identifying interviewees through a food bank. Those of us who are both transgendered and fully employed are unlikely to come into extensive contact with trans organizations or outreach workers, which are there, after all, primarily to serve the (admittedly large) transgendered underclass, and we would therefore be invisible to the interviewee selection process. The 194 transgendered people interviewed are almost certainly very far from being a representative sample of the transgendered in San Francisco, and this survey almost certainly overstates the unemployment rate among the transgendered.

Laura Riccio

San Francisco

WHY SPUR IS WRONG

The opinion piece by Gabriel Metcalf of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association lays out three arguments that may sound reasonable at first blush [Opinion, 3/8/06]. But they are deserving of more serious questioning, as they are at the heart of major housing-policy debates. To each of SPUR's points:

(1) "Sprawl is an important progressive issue." True that stemming the cancerous pattern of suburban sprawl development is important, and I myself am very involved in regional advocacy as a Greenbelt Alliance board member. But the path to "smart growth" is not predicated on gentrifying neighborhoods through urban infill. Smart development is also equitable development — they should not be viewed as mutually exclusive.

(2) "The supply of funding for affordable housing is finite." True that the inclusionary housing requirement is one mechanism for producing affordable housing as a complement to public funding, and San Francisco took a significant step with adoption of its ordinance four years ago. But the fact remains that the city's affordable housing production needs are not even close to being achieved. Relying on high-end "market-rate" housing as a primary delivery system for affordable housing production seems to only be increasing the imbalance.

(3) "Increasing the supply of housing is part of the answer." True that conventional supply-demand theory suggests that the prices of things can be moderated through sufficient supply. But that assumes the demand has some kind of reasonable limits relative to the ability to create supply. In this regard I believe San Francisco truly is "exceptional" with demand (both real people wanting a piece of the SF lifestyle and speculative capital being "parked" in SF real estate) on an international scale. Two years of increased year-over-year production hasn't dented the price of housing, and, in fact, prices have only continued to climb.

SPUR has indeed "furthered the debate" with its opinion piece, but with due respect to the good intentions of its mission, these are complex questions about housing policy that require more than simple rhetorical answers.

Peter Cohen

San Francisco

TRICKLE-DOWN DOESN'T WORK

Aaarrrggghhh! Nobody gets it! The definition of "affordable housing" is based on a percentage of the median income in the city. Therefore, the more market-rate housing gets built, the more affluent people move to the city, raising the median income, therefore making "affordable housing" less affordable. This is why the trickle-down theory of housing doesn't work.

Rose Skytta

San Francisco

The Guardian welcomes letters commenting on our coverage or other topics of local interest. Letters should be brief (we reserve the right to edit them for length) and signed. Please include a daytime telephone number for verification.

Corrections and clarifications: The Guardian tries to report news fairly and accurately. You are invited to complain to us when you think we have fallen short of that objective. Complaints should be directed to Pamela Pritchard, the assistant to the publisher. We'd prefer them in writing, but Pritchard can also be reached by phone at (415) 255-3100. If we have published a misstatement, we will endeavor to correct it quickly and in an appropriate place in the newspaper. If you remain dissatisfied, we invite you to contact the Minnesota News Council, an impartial organization that hears and considers complaints against news media. It can be reached at 12 South Sixth St., Suite 1122, Minneapolis, MN 55402; (612) 341-9357; fax (612) 341-9358.