Proposition D is an example of how urban planning and development can be a win-win for everyone with no negative downside. This is not to be confused with the proposed Warrior's stadium project that is not on the ballot. This development is sponsored by the San Francisco Giants and is located on the asphalt parking lot across from the Giants ballpark as well as on Pier 48, both of which are currently used for parking for Giants games and other special events. They are owned by the city through the Port of San Francisco and subject to the state's Public Trust. It is supported by the mayor, the Board of Supervisors, the Port and Planning commissions, and all other relevant government agencies as well as most housing and other community leaders and organizations. Former Mayor Art Agnos called it "the best project I've seen in 47 years in this city." It is only on the ballot because it is on Port land and required to be submitted to the voters under city ordinance. It would increase the height limit on up to 10 of the 28 acres in Mission Rock.
Prop D addresses many critical city and neighborhood issues. It provides for the construction of some 1,500 new rental homes with 40 percent affordable for lower and middle-income individuals and families �" the most ever for a private project in San Francisco history. It dedicates eight acres to parks and open space, including a major waterfront park with family oriented features, recreational opportunities, and space for community festivals and public gatherings. It establishes an urban green in the heart of Mission Rock that will serve as the social hub of the neighborhood, including retail and cafes. The dilapidated Pier 48 will be renovated to historic standards to become the expanded home for Anchor Brewing, San Francisco's oldest and largest manufacturing business. There will be more than ample parking with a total of 3,100 parking spaces, including an aboveground parking garage with up to 2,300 spaces.
Once completed, this development will be managed and maintained by Giants Enterprises, a non-baseball component of the Giants organization. This will ensure that the project, in all its components, will be managed by a local, conscientious, and community-oriented organization, not some disinterested management company hired by an out of state developer. This is a San Francisco project through and through, reflecting San Francisco values. It should serve as a model for future proposals. We strongly urge a yes vote on Prop D.
Proposition I: Suspension of Market Rate Development in the Mission District. No. There is no question that housing affordability and supply are crisis issues in San Francisco. Basic laws of supply and demand have driven up rents and prices to stratospheric levels. A total moratorium on building would not help the situation. It would make it worse.
Prop I would suspend the issuance of city permits for demolition, substantial renovation, conversion or new construction of any housing project of more than five units unless the project was 100 percent defined as affordable for a period of 18 months (extendable by 12 months by the Board of Supervisors). It would also suspend permits for renovation or building of many business use properties such as repair shops, art studios, or recording studios.
One does not create additional housing by stopping building altogether. Likewise, one does not create affordable housing by choking off current funding for affordable housing, much of which comes from city law requiring a certain percentage of all new housing construction to be affordable or, in the alternative, paying an equivalent fee into the city's Affordable Housing Fund. And rather than bringing down rents, halting the creation of new housing will only drive rents higher on existing units. In the meantime, this proposition will not stop evictions; it will not stop buyers from buying existing properties and driving up prices. All it will do is aggravate the housing affordability crisis. Vote No on I.
Proposition A: Affordable Housing Bond: Yes. This proposition would authorize the issuance of $310 million in general obligation bonds to partially address the chronic shortage of low income and affordable housing. These funds will permit the city to develop and maintain its affordable housing supply. This is part of Mayor Ed Lee's goal of adding 30,000 low-income and affordable housing units to the city stock by 2020. The bond has been sized so that it will not generate an increase in property taxes. There is no greater need in San Francisco than the lack of affordable housing. Vote yes on A.
Proposition B: Paid Parental Leave for City Employees. Yes. Current city law gives a city employee 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a new child. If both parents are city employees, they must split the permissible leave time. This Charter amendment would permit each of the parents 12 weeks of paid leave. Additionally, current law requires city employees to use up other accrued paid leave time, such as sick leave, before drawing parental leave benefits. This provision permits the employee to retain up to 40 hours of sick leave at the end of paid parental leave. The amendment is about fairness and preserving true family values. Vote yes on B.
Proposition C: Expenditure Lobbyists: Yes. Lobbyists who are paid to directly contact city officers to influence their official actions are required to register and file periodic disclosures regarding their lobbying activities. The proposition extends those registration and disclosure requirements to any person or business who pays $2,500 or more in a calendar month to solicit, request, or urge others to directly lobby city officers. This would include not only full-time lobbyists but also individuals, businesses, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and trade associations who also attempt to indirectly influence City officials by hiring lobbyists. This measure, put on the ballot by the San Francisco Ethics Commission, reinstates the law as it existed prior to 2009. It will bring our reporting requirements in line with those of Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, and the state of California. This is a transparency measure that will bring into the open hidden influences of special interests. Vote yes on C.
Proposition E: Requirements for Public Meetings: No. This is a well-meaning measure crafted by students in an American government class at San Francisco State University along with their professor. We say well meaning, because the intention is to further bring transparency into public access to government board and commission meetings. However, this measure has unintended consequences that would render public meetings essentially unmanageable. For example, the measure would permit members of the public (from anywhere in the world) to submit public comment electronically and then require the Board of Supervisors and other commissions to translate it into English if it is not already. It also permits a board, commission, or committee member, or a group of 50 or more members of the public, to request that discussion of a particular agenda item begin at a certain time. Public meetings on controversial issues often go late into the evening. This provision would make the orderly conduct of business impossible. State law and San Francisco's Sunshine Ordinance, approved by the voters, set rules and procedures for public access to city meetings. They function well and give full access to everyone. There is no need to add these draconian measures. Vote No on E.
Propositions G and H: No on G; Yes on H. These are related measures that address what constitutes clean and renewable energy. Prop G was essentially proposed by PG&E to limit San Francisco's CleanPowerSF program, which provides an alternative to consumers to PG&E. A compromise on defining where San Francisco can acquire its energy was reached by all interested parties, and Prop G was rescinded in favor of Prop H, but it was too late to take G off the ballot. Prop H would express voters' preference for the CleanPowerSF program's planned approach, which is to use "California-eligible renewable resources" to the extent feasible, plus surplus Hetch Hetchy power, to deliver electricity to San Francisco customers. Vote No on G and Yes on H.
Proposition J: Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund: Yes. Many long-term businesses have been forced to close or relocate due to the rapidly escalating rental rates or because property owners do not choose to enter into long-term leases (making it economically unfeasible for the small business to invest in upgrades or infrastructure improvements). Prop J creates a Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund that would provide grants to businesses listed in the Registry of Legacy Businesses that was created by the Board of Supervisors by ordinance in 2015. Prop J defines a legacy business as businesses that have operated more than 20 years if the Small Business Commission finds that the business "has significantly contributed to the history or identity of a particular neighborhood or community and would face a significant risk of displacement." It would limit the number of nominations of legacy businesses to 300 per year. Legacy businesses could receive an annual grant of up to $500 per full-time equivalent employee in San Francisco. Property owners who lease space in San Francisco buildings to legacy businesses for terms of at least 10 years could receive an annual grant of up to $4.50 per square foot of leased space. What we don't like about this proposition is it is another example of ballot box legislating. The 2015 ordinance can be modified by the Board of Supervisors and the mayor. Prop J would require going back to the voters, which is inefficient. But, on balance, we consider the advantages of maintaining a neighborhood's culture and identity and preserving long-term businesses the greater good. Vote Yes on J.
Proposition K: Surplus Public Land: Yes. This measure is still another way to address the housing crisis in San Francisco. It has long been the policy of the city to use real property the city owns but does not need to build affordable housing, which is defined as households earning up to 60 percent of the area median income. It has not proven effective in producing much affordable housing for a variety of reasons that Prop K seeks to remedy. It would expand the allowable uses of surplus property to include building affordable housing for a range of households from those with very low income such as the homeless or those earning under 20 percent of the area median income to those with incomes of up to 120 percent of area median income. For certain developments (those with 200 or more units) mixed income projects would be allowed for housing for households earning up to 120 percent of area median income, as well as housing for middle-income and even market rate housing. But in all circumstances, at lease 33 percent of the total housing units must be affordable. It also strengthens the process for identifying what city properties are surplus. We would have preferred that this be addressed directly by the Board of Supervisors rather than placed on the ballot, but it does contain certain flexibility that will permit changes without returning to the voters, and, like J, the good far outweighs the bad. Vote Yes on K.
From October 8: Vote no on Prop F
The arrival of the technology revolution and the sharing economy has had significant impacts, some good and some bad, on the lives of ordinary residents as well as visitors to San Francisco. Nowhere is this more evident than in the practice of renting out rooms in residential units or even entire units to visitors. Much anecdotal evidence indicates that this has been a boon for residents and visitors alike: residents can make a little extra money to make ends meet in a city where rents and other costs are constantly increasing; and visitors get the opportunity to experience San Francisco neighborhoods and also spend money with neighborhood businesses. But the impact turns negative when short-term rentals have the effect of removing housing supply from existing stock; when landlords abuse the concept to turn whole buildings into de facto hotels. So the mayor and the Board of Supervisors in consultation with all stakeholders (housing rights activists; hosting platforms such as Airbnb, VRBO and HomeAway; and those who host or don't like hosting) set out to establish regulations that would preserve the advantages of short-term home sharing without incurring the negative effect of removing permanent housing.
This resulted in San Francisco's Short Term Rental Law, adopted in 2014, which requires that only permanent residents may offer a residential unit for short-term rental. Before offering a unit for short-term rental, the permanent resident must register the unit with the city's Office of Short Term Residential Rental Administration and Enforcement. The permanent resident may not rent the unit for more than 90 days a year if the resident is not living there during the rental period. If the permanent resident is physically living in the unit, there is no cap on the number of days that s/he may host a guest. San Francisco's 14 percent hotel tax must be collected and paid to the city, which is estimated by the controller to amount to between $10 and $15 million annually. Violation of the law is a misdemeanor. Certain interested parties (residents of the building containing the short term rental unit or who live within 100 feet as well as certain housing nonprofits) may sue violators. The city may sue the hosting platforms. In 2015, reform legislation was enacted strengthening the enforcement mechanism and creating a "one stop shop" to enforce the law.
Proposition F would junk the carefully thought out compromise legislation adopted through the normal legislative process after thorough public hearings and consultation with all interested parties. We think this proposition is a bad idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the existing law has not been given a chance to work. In fact, the city has already sued a number of landlords for several hundred thousand dollars for abuse of the law.
A careful review of Prop F reveals numerous defects. It would limit short-term rentals of a unit to 75 days per year even when the host is physically living in the unit. We can find no valid public policy for such an arbitrary limitation. There has been a great deal of public testimony from permanent residents who have lost their jobs, have a sick partner, or just can't keep up with the cost of living that this limitation would create severe hardship by decreasing their supplemental income. Further, if a permanent resident rents a room for even one night, s/he is faced with onerous public reporting and notice requirements that would violate that person's privacy and discourage many people from trying short-term rentals at all (and we suspect this is the sponsor's intention).
But there are two flaws in the proposition that we consider fatal. First, once it is adopted by the voters, it can only be modified by going back to the voters. The whole sharing economy is evolving with breakneck speed and any regulations need to have flexibility. Usually, if an existing law shows to be inadequate in any way, it can be modified by the Board of Supervisors and the mayor. Not so with Prop F. The process would be delayed by signature gathering and the election cycle.
Additionally, it gives a broad private right to sue both the violator and the hosting platform to any person who thinks s/he spots a violation with a right to collect special damages even when none are proven, as well as attorney fees. This opens up the door to frivolous litigation from neighborhood busybodies and lawyers for no valid public purpose.
The sharing economy is here to stay. Home sharing is part of that new economy. Government must be vigilant to see that the law is enforced and that unforeseen problems are addressed quickly. Prop F is not the solution. Give the current law a chance to work. Vote no on F.