What the preservation vote says about the 2012 supervisors

|
(62)

UPDATE: Important update at the end of this story

What does it mean that a historic preservation law favored by developers and promoted by Sup. Scott Wiener passed the Board of Supervisors 8-3? Maybe nothing. Historic preservation is a strange poliltical issue, favored by some of the wealthy white homeowner types who love pretty buildings (and aren't so good on other issues), and this thing was sold as a way to help low-income people and affordable housing. But the reality is that the Wiener measure will make it harder to declare historic districts, and thus will take away a tool that the left can use to stop uncontrolled commercial development. And remember: The affordable housing community wasn't pushing this bill, and, for the most part, hasn't had problems with historic preservation. The most progressive political club in the city, the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, came out strongly against the measure and urged Sup. Christina Olague, a co-sponsor, to oppose it:

We are extremely troubled that you appear to be buying into the flawed, bogus and self-serving arguments by SPUR and other supporters of this legislation that historic preservation is classist and leads to gentrification, interferes with the production of affordable housing and is a tool of San Francisco’s elite.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

There was a way to address the issues of low-income people in historic districts without making it harder to block inappropropriate development, but Wiener's bill went much further. And while I respect Scott Wiener and find him accessible and straightforward, and I agree with him on some issues, he isn't someone whose basic agenda promotes the interests of tenants or low-income people. His supporters are much more among the landlord class and the downtown folks. The San Francisco Chronicle, which is a conservative paper on economic and development issues, loved the legislation.

So what happened when this got to the Board? Only three people -- the ones the Chron calls "the stalwart left flank of the Board" -- voted no.

John Avalos, David Campos and Eric Mar. They are now the solid left flank, the ones who can be counted on to do the right thing on almost every issue. Once upon a time, there were six solid left votes. Now there are three.

What does this mean for the other key issues coming up, including CPMC, 8 Washington, and the city budget? Maybe nothing. As I say, this issue is complicated. Olague told me, for example, that she's really worried about working-class people who can't afford to comply with the increased regulations that come with historic districts. Her vote doesn't mean she's dropped out of the progressive camp, or that she (or Sups. Jane Kim and David Chiu) can't be counted on in the future. I really want to believe that this was just an aberration, a vote where I'll look back in the fall and say: Okay, we disagreed on that one, but nobody's perfect

Still, it's kind of depressing: The dependable progressive vote is down to three.

UPDATE/CORRECTION: I didn't know when I posted this that Olague had spoken to the Milk Club leadership after the club's statement went out and the club has since issued a correction:

Due to a misunderstanding, Supervisor Christine Olague's position on the Historic Preservation Commission's critical role in the life of San Franicsco was misrepresented in our weekly newsletter. Supervisor Olague is looking into ways to help continue Historic District status for the Queer community, the Filipino community in the South of Market area, and the Japantown area. She is specifically looking for wording that would help these plans remain viable and welcomes any questions on her position and on her plan. Our apologies to the Supervisor for this unfortunate mistake.

Comments

that Lee might lose next time. I said you were an apologist (for Avalos) because you seek to deny Lee's emphatic victory over Avalos on the grounds of those who didn't vote, about whom you can know nothing.

I never said Ross didn't win his election, nor that he didn't have a mandate. I merely said that he isn't fit to serve, based on information the voters weren't aware of at the time of the election.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

backpedal so hard and fast.
Doesn't bode well for the most 'progressive' in SF. Maybe its in their new leadership that may make decisions over favoritism over what's right.

Posted by Guest on May. 13, 2012 @ 8:16 am

Listen to what they had to say back when BART was being built:

BART will be especially effective in destroying neighborhoods," warned the weekly Bay Guardian, which also called the system "the ultimate money drain." But wait, there's more: "It's designed to handle peak-hour commuter traffic, which occurs only three hours per day. ... The other 8,160 hours per year much of its equipment will lie idle and unproductive."

SFBG also opposed the Transamerica Pyramid, Yerba Buena Gardens, redevelopment of Candlestick Park, AT&T Park, Rincon Hill, Central Subway, Hunters Point Redevelopment and on and on and on. The only development that meets with SFBG approval is that which enriches the Non Profit Inc bottom line.

Posted by Troll II on May. 14, 2012 @ 10:25 am

around at the time:

"We don't want all those rich people being able to come here".

It's not ultimately about the buildings ot structures themselves. SFBG wants to micromanage the demographics of the city to suit their own politics. Successful people and businesses get in the way of that goal. Poor failures are what they need, in spades.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2012 @ 11:06 am

The sale of their property to the highest bidder to an out of town developer really has shaken my remaining belief in the SFBG. It appears all of their high mindedness only applied to others.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

For instance, for years they have been at war with P,G&E out of all proportion to any harm that P,G&E do - indeed most people find them to be a fairly harmless utility.

It never made any sense and the voters have always voted down public power. But that has never deterred them, even to the point of opposing tearing down Hetch Hetchy Dam even though every environmental group wants it torn down and that pristine valley restored.

So SFBG claims to be pro-green but absolutely wants a monstrous dam to remain in place, just to feed their public avarice and hatred of a utility. You coudn't make this stuff up.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2012 @ 12:39 pm

he might have won. instead he ran for sheriff. look how well that worked out for "progressives."

now they are dying off, as they have for a while, and the few in office serve themselves at the public's expense. if you keep jacking up the rents, prevent rental housing from being built (again a tired progressive policy) and you keep on beating up on a creative, young, idealistic entrepreneurial class that came here in part due to the idea you could live somewhere that's Not 100% Mainstream, but who are then castigated as the "1%" for simply having a job and working for a living, well guess what?

YOU LOSE!

The 60s and 70s are done. Get over it. at least one hardcore lefty is going to lose, and the dealmakers and the moneychangers and the pimps for WilLee and Rose will continue to raid city hall. and there'll be no more SFBG to whine about it as it's now a chain paper.

BYE!

Posted by Ross Supporter on May. 14, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

members of the 1%. It's the biggest percentile in the history of man, even enoigh to get Lee elected with 60% of the final vote.

Meanwhile the protests by the 99% are dwindling to a couple of hundred. Too funny.

Ross would have done even worse than Avalos, although I have no objection to Ross standing for office again once his probation is over in 2015.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2012 @ 3:08 pm

Hey Tim, maybe San Francisco has woken up to your foolish and short-sighted brand of so-called Progressivism. Blocking the building of housing causes home prices to go up! Maybe you should go take an Econ 101 course and then you can argue intelligently about the topic.

The rest of The City seems to have woken up, too. The NIMBY brigade is down to three, that is a great thing.

You and your crowd are the ones responsible for driving the working class out of San Francisco and it is up to the real liberals in town to shut you down.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2012 @ 9:25 pm

Over the last few days, Weiner's PR team has been hard at work getting as much positive press about the Weiner in the media in an attempt to bury the story about him getting his anti-historic preservation bill through the Board of Supervisors, that will amongst other things make it very very difficult now to get the Gay Historic Corridor approved for The Folsom District. He knows it is going to look bad to his very gay district when people find out that instead of working on behalf of his constituents to preserve what is left of the iconic Folsom, he has been working with the developers and moneyed elite to raze the area for expensive condos for non-San Franciscans working in the dot.com sector to move in and displace residents who have lived here for decades.

Why is he doing this? No one can be sure but clearly he is getting something out of the deal, probably financial backing. So he is motivated by greed and homophobic. Great- a homophobic self loathing gay man in Harvey Milk's old seat. So to hide this from the public, almost daily for the last week, his office has been releasing to the press cute little stories about how he is pro-dog, pro-tamale lady , pro -trees, etc. But if you really want to see what he is all about, slow down next time you drive past Dolores and Market and realize that in that spot Weiner and the other corrupt cronies in City Hall pushed through a nine story condo complex with only .5 parking spaces per unit. Then to make matters worse, they have gotten Whole Foods to go into the bottom floor and this un-needed store will only have about 25 parking spaces available to it. If this scenario is not bad enough, unbelievably, one lane of traffic will be removed from that block in either direction, to widen the sidewalks. In case you have never noticed the sidewalks on Dolores have always been wide enough to drive two cars on them side by side. Apparently, Whole Foods, who is run by a Republican man in Texas, wants sidewalk seating.

Weiner and company says that they want to get people out of their cars. Thats a joke, building a Whole Foods, encourages people to drive to the neighborhood, It will block traffic coming up Duboce and block Market Street while people wait to turn onto the one lane left on Dolores for a valet to park their SUV in one of the 25 spaces. They will have to do that because there won't be much parking left in the neighborhood now. If they really wanted to get people out of cars, why not remove the asphalt over the existing street car tracks on Dolores and run Street Cars again up that once beautiful Street as it was originally designed? Scott Weiner needs to be exposed for what he really is.

A tool for the developers.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 5:17 am

Over the last few days, Weiner's PR team has been hard at work getting as much positive press about the Weiner in the media in an attempt to bury the story about him getting his anti-historic preservation bill through the Board of Supervisors, that will amongst other things make it very very difficult now to get the Gay Historic Corridor approved for The Folsom District. He knows it is going to look bad to his very gay district when people find out that instead of working on behalf of his constituents to preserve what is left of the iconic Folsom, he has been working with the developers and moneyed elite to raze the area for expensive condos for non-San Franciscans working in the dot.com sector to move in and displace residents who have lived here for decades.

Why is he doing this? No one can be sure but clearly he is getting something out of the deal, probably financial backing. So he is motivated by greed and homophobic. Great- a homophobic self loathing gay man in Harvey Milk's old seat. So to hide this from the public, almost daily for the last week, his office has been releasing to the press cute little stories about how he is pro-dog, pro-tamale lady , pro -trees, etc. But if you really want to see what he is all about, slow down next time you drive past Dolores and Market and realize that in that spot Weiner and the other corrupt cronies in City Hall pushed through a nine story condo complex with only .5 parking spaces per unit. Then to make matters worse, they have gotten Whole Foods to go into the bottom floor and this un-needed store will only have about 25 parking spaces available to it. If this scenario is not bad enough, unbelievably, one lane of traffic will be removed from that block in either direction, to widen the sidewalks. In case you have never noticed the sidewalks on Dolores have always been wide enough to drive two cars on them side by side. Apparently, Whole Foods, who is run by a Republican man in Texas, wants sidewalk seating.

Weiner and company says that they want to get people out of their cars. Thats a joke, building a Whole Foods, encourages people to drive to the neighborhood, It will block traffic coming up Duboce and block Market Street while people wait to turn onto the one lane left on Dolores for a valet to park their SUV in one of the 25 spaces. They will have to do that because there won't be much parking left in the neighborhood now. If they really wanted to get people out of cars, why not remove the asphalt over the existing street car tracks on Dolores and run Street Cars again up that once beautiful Street as it was originally designed? Scott Weiner needs to be exposed for what he really is.

A tool for the developers.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 5:18 am

Ridiculous hyperbole. I dont know what to respond to first:
Your xenophobia regarding people coming into your neighborhood (there is only one whole foods in SF?)
Your ridiculous notion that people who live in some parts of SF are actually "non san franciscans" ?
Your anti urban notions about what should be done in SF - no pedestrian improvements - prioritize car trips by adding parking
Your desire to turn a living part of the city into a gay disneyland ride by "preserving" it via the hysteric preservation laws

all in all not a terribly intelligent response typical of SF's urban hillbilly set

Posted by Greg on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 6:01 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.