Community forum planned on Mission gentrification

|
(109)

The recent debate about high-end retailer Jack Spade seeking to open up shop in the former location of Adobe Books has placed concerns about gentrification in San Francisco’s Mission District to the front burner yet again.

To spark a dialogue about an appropriate community response to the changing fabric of the neighborhood, community activists have organized a discussion forum scheduled for Monday, Sept. 23.

As rents soar, countless longtime businesses and residents are being priced out of the Mission. From the event description:

“How do we, as a community, feel about this? What can we learn from each other as we consider how to confront the issues of a changing neighborhood and city? Coming from our many perspectives, are there matters that some, most, or all of us can agree upon? … What urgent and long-term actions can we take to support existing local businesses and maintain the diversity and unique character of the Mission District? These are just a few of the questions we may discuss at this meeting.”

The meeting will be hosted at the Center for Political Education on Valencia Street, and participants will represent a host of local businesses and community organizations including Calle 24 SF, Eviction Free San Francisco, Encantada Gallery, the Mission Neighborhood Resource Center, PODER, Shaping San Francisco and the Valencia Corridor Merchants Association.

The discussion will be moderated by Rose Aguilar, host of Your Call on KALW.

The event will be held at 522 Valencia on Monday, Sept. 23 at 6pm and is free to attend.

Comments

If you really thought that and had any integrity, you'd leave.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 4:41 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 5:47 pm

this is simply a Mumiy Troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that Mumiy Troll is the best band ever to come out of Vladivostok

the barrier is put in place to signal there are simply not enough missiles being fired in most rock videos

proceed at your own risk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2xIQO4c-Bc

Posted by Mumiy Troll barrier on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 6:51 pm

But fewer lies than 99% of the other nations….

Posted by Guest on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 4:15 am

yourself, you lose the debate. Why? Because that means you are biased, and look and cite only evidence that supports your cause.

I respect objective analysis and discovery. I do not respect those who try and skew the system to suit their own ideology.

Ask people what they want; do not tell them what they should want.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 8:32 am

This, from someone who advocates against communities.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 12:22 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 4:12 pm

Because that is a synonym for bias and prejudice.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 4:37 pm

this. amen.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 1:59 pm

agreeing with when you post a reply this far down the page.

At least cite the opinion you are agreeing with, else your approbation is unintelligible and meaningless.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 2:13 pm

squalor and seek to preserve it rather than investing and developing a neighborhood to improve it.

Posted by anon on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 2:16 pm

crime-riddled projects?

Because it's more important that they are "affordable" than that we have the kind of people who improve neighborhoods, are better suited to the emerging economic fabric of the Bay Area and who yield more revenues to the city?

More failure; less success is the rallying call of the left.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 2:29 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 2:32 pm

read on? I've already read on and suffered no loss, injury or damage.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 2:48 pm

More precisely, luxury and affordable with no middle is the deal that the nonprofit housing mafiosi cut on behalf of "the most vulnerable."

The booster meme is that a property is underdeveloped and thus squalor unless it is redeveloped into luxury condos.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 6:44 pm
Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 6:56 pm

If each unit of housing does not cover its costs on infrastructure or city operations, then existing taxpayers will see a continued decrease in the quality of government services as they are stretched further to cover more people with incrementally less money per capita.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 7:17 pm

people keeping more of their hard-earned money, rather than throw it around on government projects. Most do not trust government.

Anyway, cities make profits from development - that's why they encourage development.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 7:52 am

Last I checked City spending is FOUR TIMES the spending per capita of the City and County of Philadelphia and $800 MILLION more than the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County COMBINED - which has THREE times the population.

How insulting to correlate City spending with the "quality of government services"- I guess you haven't seen the condition of our streets lately??

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 10:30 pm

san francisco is a lot more expensive than philadelphia

so of course things cost more here......

Posted by racer x on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 11:13 pm

And part of why is it so expensive is that we overpay city workers, thereby fuelling inflation locally.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 7:42 am

You forgot, it must be a CHEAP dump….,

Posted by Guest on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 3:46 am

Families that own real estate have very long time horizons. A choice piece of property that is currently a weedy lot used for parking and/or porno (both lucrative cash businesses so not much income gets reported to the IRS) might be a parcel set aside for a grandchild to develop 20 years later. Wealthy families can use their current real estate wealth to buy in potential gentrifying locations and hold onto the parcel for decades before maximiizng its value.

Over time the incomes of the new residents in the neighborhood may go up, which increases the land's value. Over time the city may allow upzoing to the area with higher heights and denser development, both of which increase the land value. And best of all, the $1 million weedy parking lot bought in 1985 willl be taxed at low Prop 13 tax rates even though the parcel might be worth $20 million by the time the family decides to develop it for its full potential or sell it off to a developer who does the same.

When there are 2000 people who want to live in SF during any given week and there are only 100 open apartments/condos available, of course the richest/highest incomes will be the ones who get the available apartments/condos. Since there are thousands of people who can afford very high rents and condo prices, those are the households developers will build for since that is how they maximize profits. it's just basic supply and demand and profit maximization rules taught at every high school.

Because private developers only cater to the richest segments of the housing market, it's time for the city and state to get into the housing construction business in order to build housing affordable to households that do not make more than 150% of median income.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 20, 2013 @ 8:52 pm

Ideally, development fees would be set such that developer profits were limited to a fair return on investment.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 20, 2013 @ 9:21 pm

and who would define a "fair return?"

Would the same type of people who think a 100$ parking ticket is a good idea be the same people who get to decide what a fair return on something is?

Posted by Matlock on Sep. 20, 2013 @ 10:18 pm

They would go to the City to build transit and affordable housing similar to how the Plaza Hotel bypassed the nonprofit affordable housing mafia, only for a range of incomes between 150% AMI and very low income.

The Supreme Court says that government can take all it wants so long as it leaves investors with a fair return on investment which is 6-8%. Housing in San Francisco produces many times that level of profit, does not cover its infrastructure costs at construction time, nor under Prop 13 does it cover its own city services costs over a longer time horizon much less contribute to cover other costs.

If the polling is accurate, HAC and SPUR's "we need more housing" spell has been broken.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 6:45 am

housing costs. That's why the fees and setasides and fees remain modest - because they can be counter-productive.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 6:59 am

Yep, cut them until they bleed!

Posted by marcos on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 7:31 am

As a RE investor, the less new build the better!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 8:15 am

Nobody ares what you or anyone else thinks is a fair return. The return that matters is the return that the investors are willing to accept.

If the city offers 8% and I can get 10% investing in Marin, I'll go there.

The city needs the money and so isn't in a great position to demand whatever it thinks it would like.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 7:45 am

the other way about. Just ask any city official in Detroit.

Posted by anon on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 8:03 am

- what else would you expect? The simple fact is that there are plenty of people who can afford to live in Sf or move to SF. And if you are not one of them, then Oakland is half the price and very close.

There is a home for everyone who wants one - just not at a price that everyone can afford.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 7:01 am

And the City gets to take a much bigger cut than it currently does and should unless you expect for taxpayers to be subsidizing profitable developers.

That's socialism, right, corporate welfare?

Posted by marcos on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 7:32 am

It's simply less of an extortion.

In practice it's all negotiated anyway, and developers walk away if the sums do not add up.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 8:16 am

They have what you ask for, it's called public housing and fit only for cockroaches

Posted by Guest on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 3:49 am

In any other city $3000/mo. would get you a high end 1 brm luxury apt. Only in SF does it get you a decrepit flat in the Tenderloin. Build enough luxery apts and maybe people who can afford it will live them rather than renting the rest of the housing stock at obscene rates.

Which actually raises the second point. The problem with housing in SF in general and the mission in particular is not one of gentrification. Gentrification implies the conversion of rental units to occupant owned units, often with a decrease in density, and corresponding pressure from the new residents for community changes that cater to owners rather than renters. That's not the case in any neighborhood in SF. Instead the poor and working class are being forced out due to skyrocketing rental costs.

Posted by nico on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 10:32 am

it is not really apt for the Mission - a large area that sub-divides into a number of neighborhoods that range from high class to ghetto. There are pockets of high-end housing but entire blocks remain low rent and grim.

And yes, part of the problem is that the poor have to compete with the affluent and they cannot. But that's hardly the problem of the affluent and you cannot blame them for simply wanting to live here.

We need more construction but new build of BMR is constrained by cost and the unwillingness of the SF voters to pay more in taxes to fund it. That just leaves building market-rate homes to relieve the demand excess while funding BMR's through set-asides.

It's never going to be a 100% solution and many of those who are not fiscally strong will probably find that they are happier elsewhere. 'Twas ever so.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 10:49 am

Thank you for this nice article Thank you for taking time to share it with the readers, I am more than happy to have come across it. Keep up the good work.

Posted by goldiehearn on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 1:40 am

Interesting post and thanks for sharing. Some things in here I have not thought about before. Thanks for making such a cool post.

Posted by yepi on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 8:07 pm

Ummmm. Its kind of ironic that people are bitching about the mission being developed since that was planned in the 1960s with BART which has been operational since Nixon was president.

Posted by T Wayne Pickering on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 10:00 pm

Ummmm. Its kind of ironic that people are bitching about the mission being developed since that was planned in the 1960s with BART which has been operational since Nixon was president.

Posted by T Wayne Pickering on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 10:01 pm

reaches. Studies in the UK show that a new subway line increases home prices by 20%-25% in areas affected.

Indeed, we sometimes build transit where there is little evident demand or economic activity, like the T-line, AKA "streetcar to nowhere", simply to appease a poor black community.

So-called "advocates" have it 100% wrong - transit drives growth which drivers higher revenues, which is why investment funds itself most times. That is why municipalities fund infrastructure and give tax breaks and subsidies.

The Mission is still a work in progress though. stand at 16th and Mission (I prefer not to) and you can see more squalor than you can shake a stick at. More investment and more policing is needed there.

Posted by anon on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 8:12 am

Hello, i am glad to read the whole content of this blog and am very excited and happy to say that the webmaster has done a very good job here to put all the information content and information at one place.

Posted by Motor Training School on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 2:05 am

Hello, i am glad to read the whole content of this blog and am very excited and happy to say that the webmaster has done a very good job here to put all the information content and information at one place.

Posted by Motor Training School on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 2:09 am
Posted by anon on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 1:43 pm

Gentrifiers against gentrification. LOVE IT!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 1:52 pm

gentrification. If there are fewer units of high-quality housing in an area like the mission then people will have to pay more for them, meaning that my untis are worth more.

Likewise I should oppose new build because it increases supply and therefore deflates prices.

There are some sound reasons to seek to constrain improvements to the Mission, and that may well be the rationale of many progressives who claim to care about the poor but really just want to see higher RE prices for their own homes.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 2:11 pm

idea: get a better paying job -- preferably one that's not subsidized by us tax payers. thanks.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 2:05 pm

We cannot improve our situations through education, effort or taking risks because we are helpless and need a nanny state to help us.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 2:12 pm

Post new comment

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

Also from this author

  • Police provide explanation of Bernal Heights Park shooting at emotional town hall meeting

  • San Francisco's untouchables

    Is San Francisco trying to help the homeless -- or drive them away?

  • Draining the tank

    Students push UC system to divest from fossil fuels, joining an international movement gathering soon in San Francisco