• By Patrick Hoge : sfexaminer – excerpt (includes audio)

Chris Fraley was 26 when he returned from vacation in 1995 to find a memo on his desk with two paragraphs of fresh New York state law authorizing an incentive program for spurring conversion of offices to homes in lower Manhattan, which in the early 1990s had widespread office vacancies.

Over the next two years, Fraley played a key role in setting up a program credited with facilitating the conversion of offices into nearly 13,000 homes — and he said he believes something similar could happen today in downtown San Francisco, which currently has a historic office-vacancy rate of 36.9%, according to commerical real-estate firm CBRE.

“It was exciting,” said Fraley, who was founding director of the Lower Manhattan Residential Conversion Program…

“San Francisco has just unbelievable potential in its downtown, because it has such a strong foundation already,” he said. “Now is a real opportunity to create a vibrant, mixed-use 24-hour neighborhood.”

The honey that attracted all those New York property owners was a combination of time-limited abatements on existing taxes and exemptions on increased values following office-to-residence conversions. Recent studies have shown that the cost of conversions is generally too high to justify the investment without incentives.

San Francisco will have the opportunity next year to pursue its own tax-break initiative inspired by the New York program as a result of a new state law going into effect on Jan. 1…

Fraley said the development activity in New York City led to far higher property-tax revenues once the tax grace periods ran out… (more)

By Joe Burn, Sam Mondros, Michael McLaughlin, and Max Harrison-Caldwell : sfstandard – excerpt

Said one neighbor, “He’s not getting a pie from me.”…

Gov. Gavin Newsom just snapped up a new Bay Area home: a hidden mansion in the Marin County town of Kentfield, fitted with outdoor sculptures, a guest house, a handful of walk-in closets, and a swimming pool and spa.

The governor and his wife paid around $9 million — 7% more than the asking price — for the house on less than an acre, in a deal that closed Thursday.

The house has six bedrooms and five and a half bathrooms across 5,609 square feet. A prime example of California modernism, it has numerous floor-to-ceiling windows with views of Mount Tamalpais.

Sources confirmed that the Newsom family bought the home through an LLC. The address is being withheld due to security concerns… (more)

How many ADUs should he put on this site, or how many would he like US to put on the site? And how many servants will it take to keep the place in order?

Via email By Adam Pardew : bizjournals – excerpt

Under pressure from the state, the city is grappling with making space for more homes…

They are eyeing what they describe as “well resourced” neighborhoods.

… Residents of those areas with good resources — Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights and the

Sunset, for instance — have gotten plenty of press for their opposition to the rezoning

effort. Lori Brooke is the co-founder of Neighborhoods United SF, a coalition of

neighborhood groups who are organizing against upzoning. She said there’s no way San

Francisco is going to meet its RHNA goals even with the rezoning, so punishment from

the state is inevitable. Furthermore, Brooke said, the city is already facing unique

penalties, like annual reviews of its progress toward housing construction targets (the

state evaluates other cities every four years)…(more)

Where did this idea of good resources come from? What and who determines which neighborhoods possess good resources? If a neighborhood has good schools, adequate fuel and infrastructure sources now, how far will those resources stretch once the neighborhood population doubles? Will it continue to have adequate resources?

Will the water and fuel and schools continue to be adequate when the population shifts to accommodate a lot of new people?

Look what happened to downtown neighborhoods where density was added for a hint of what is to come. Adding more jobs, housing and resources did not make downtown SF a safer, better more friendly and attractive neighborhood. Removing cars did not improve Market Street, removing traffic removed people.

Show me one neighborhood that was been improved by adding density. I don’t see one. What I see is that most of the taxbase has moved into the stable neighborhoods while the money continues to pour into those new towers in hopes of a new renaissance that resides in the minds of some mega moguls.

By Thomas K. Pendergast : richmondsunsetnews – excerpt

Efforts by State Sen. Scott Wiener and San Francisco Mayor London Breed to rapidly increase the City’s housing supply are getting roasted by advocates, activists and politicians concerned about land speculators fattening their portfolios at the expense of small business owners and residential tenants.

“We’d like to prevent the displacement of small businesses and currently affordable rental housing which are the consequences of when you do blanket upzoning and you don’t have a thoughtful way to grow housing in the City,” said Lori Brooke of Neighborhoods United SF, which she said is made up of 60 neighborhood associations across the City now pushing back against Breed’s proposal to upzone major commercial corridors throughout the west side of the City.

Upzoning is a term used to describe changes to zoning codes made for increasing the amount of development allowed in the future on any given parcel. In the Richmond District, for example, the standard zoning for most parcels is 40-feet tall or four stories.

“We want to promote affordable workforce housing, which is the moderate, low and very-low-income units. We want to push for smart, affordable growth without overbuilding the luxury housing,” Brooke said.

They also want to “reset” the housing crisis narrative…(more)

Reality Check wanted! Voters will make some important decisions as they weigh in one the candidates and their plans on how to grow the city. After months of media coverage their can’t be too many people who are not aware of the importance of the density issues that effect all the neighborhoods. Throw in the street closure issues and the next city leaders should have a good idea of how the majority of the voters feel and what they want to pay for.

By Natalia Gurevich : sfexaminer – excerpt (includes audio)

What a difference a year made for San Francisco in the eyes of state housing officials.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development gave The City a Prohousing Designation on Friday, as part of a larger program recognizing jurisdictions that have proactively sought to speed up housing construction by enacting policy changes. It also includes access to state funding.

State officials issued the San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review a year ago Friday, strongly criticizing The City’s sluggish and complex processes for approving and building new homes…(more)

I’m not so sure about the year ago part, but, the tone from Sacramento has conveniently changed as of late. If San Francisco is all of a sudden in compliance does that mean we are dropping Builder’s Remedy, or are we in compliance because we are under Builder’s Remedy? Is this turn-about about protecting our Mayor by making the city look good? Stories abound about crime being down and the Muni is all of a sudden doing better. Will this honeymoon season continue after the elections are over? One can only hope so

RELATED

Stare Labels SF as a pro-housing city, one year after criticizing city’s slow housing progress. Leading some of us to wonder whether or not the party is waking up to the possibility that the state’s position may not be supported by the voters and the heavy-handed nature of the state overrides may be turning people away from the party line in other areas. In most regards, civil rights are on the ballot this year.
We shall see if this sudden friendly stance continues after the votes are counted. The voters may take out some revenge this year in a way that may not be that pleasant for the ruling class.

By Chuck Collins : inequality – excerpt

Our new report breaks down how wealth concentration is depriving Americans of access to affordable living spaces.

The housing affordability crisis – and how to solve it – has become a major focus during election season, for good reason. Millions of American families struggle to afford and keep a roof over their heads, find themselves unsheltered, or have become frustrated in the hope of owning their own home.

The over-focus on expanding housing supply through for-profit development misses a key contributor to the housing crisis: the concentration of wealth and power. The challenges of the U.S. housing crisis go beyond supply or fixing local land use regulations. The billionaire class and billionaire-backed private equity investors have become a driving force in the U.S. housing crisis.

A new report, Billionaire Blowback on Housing: How concentrated wealth disrupts housing markets and worsens the housing affordability crisis, coauthored by the Institute for Policy Studies and Popular Democracy, examines the myriad ways that billionaire investors are harming local housing markets and diminishing the supply of affordable housing… (more)

RELATED:
Billionaire Blowback on Housing

A comment:

Here’s why they want to up-zone to build luxury units in mid- to high-rise buildings as this article correctly points out:

“Wealthy investors are acquiring property and holding units vacant, so that in many communities the number of vacant units greatly exceeds the number of unhoused people.”

Investors can hold luxury units vacant ONLY in buildings that come with doormen and security apparatus to keep empty units secure.  You can’t do this in a 4 to 6-unit building with only 4 floors and hence, the push for taller buildings. 

On Oct 14, 2024, at 4:26 PM, zrants <zrants@gmail.com> wrote:

By James Salazar : sfexaminer – excerpt

The Port of San Francisco and Fisherman’s Wharf business owners agree parts of the area need maintenance and repair. That’s where the agreement ends.

The Port Commission voted Tuesday to endorse the term sheet for a $550 million revitalization of Pier 45 and a parking lot currently operated by SP+ Parking, beginning progress on an effort that would construct a seafood market, food hall, and events center and performing arts space that port officials say will revitalize the wharf’s surrounding area.

But local fishermen contend the area’s many vacant storefronts and lack of industrial facilities are matters that can be handled in the immediate future, and more quickly restoring economic activity than the Pier 45 project.

Sarah Bates, a member of the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association, told The Examiner that she and her group members have “deep concerns” about Pier 45’s proposed redevelopment. She said portions of the proposal could displace longtime waterfront tenants. A group known as Revitalized Fisherman’s Wharf LLC, which includes former Boudin Bakery owner Lou Giraudo and Mission Bay Development Group’s Seth Hamalian, initially sent the proposal unsolicited to the port in February 2023.

The Triangle Parking Lot, owned by SP+ Parking, would house a beverage garden and outdoor plaza, a visitor center, a public open space and short-term vacation rentals. Of the project’s preliminary estimated cost of $548 million, $185.9 million would go toward infrastructure investments along the pier. Officials also plan on seismically retrofitting the seawall. Construction of the project’s first phase isn’t expected to begin until 2028 at the earliest.

Bates said additions like the beer garden could be located anywhere in The City, rather than carving out space along the wharf.

“As working fishing families, we can’t simply relocate for the sake of an amusement park,” Bates said. “Fisherman’s Wharf should be for fishing.”…

(more)

Are we looking at another issue for voters to weigh in on? A new mayor may think otherwise. Let’s ask the candidates where they stand on this one shall w
e?

By James Salazar : sfexaminer – excerpt

The Port of San Francisco and Fisherman’s Wharf business owners agree parts of the area need maintenance and repair. That’s where the agreement ends.

The Port Commission voted Tuesday to endorse the term sheet for a $550 million revitalization of Pier 45 and a parking lot currently operated by SP+ Parking, beginning progress on an effort that would construct a seafood market, food hall, and events center and performing arts space that port officials say will revitalize the wharf’s surrounding area.

But local fishermen contend the area’s many vacant storefronts and lack of industrial facilities are matters that can be handled in the immediate future, and more quickly restoring economic activity than the Pier 45 project.

Sarah Bates, a member of the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association, told The Examiner that she and her group members have “deep concerns” about Pier 45’s proposed redevelopment. She said portions of the proposal could displace longtime waterfront tenants. A group known as Revitalized Fisherman’s Wharf LLC, which includes former Boudin Bakery owner Lou Giraudo and Mission Bay Development Group’s Seth Hamalian, initially sent the proposal unsolicited to the port in February 2023.

The Triangle Parking Lot, owned by SP+ Parking, would house a beverage garden and outdoor plaza, a visitor center, a public open space and short-term vacation rentals. Of the project’s preliminary estimated cost of $548 million, $185.9 million would go toward infrastructure investments along the pier. Officials also plan on seismically retrofitting the seawall. Construction of the project’s first phase isn’t expected to begin until 2028 at the earliest.

Bates said additions like the beer garden could be located anywhere in The City, rather than carving out space along the wharf.

“As working fishing families, we can’t simply relocate for the sake of an amusement park,” Bates said. “Fisherman’s Wharf should be for fishing.”…

(more)

Are we looking at another issue for voters to weigh in on? A new mayor may think otherwise. Let’s ask the candidates where they stand on this one shall w
e?