Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 05:14 PM Apr 2015

Five Reasons Why San Francisco Must Not Give Up Public Land for Market-Rate Development

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29885-chasing-unicorns-5-reasons-why-san-francisco-is-delusional-giving-up-public-land-for-market-rate-development#

Public land should be used for public benefit. This seems like a simple principle, but for some reason this doesn't seem to be the case for San Francisco.

The city owns several large plots of public land that are no longer needed. These include obsolete MUNI yards and reservoirs that have never stored water. In a city where land is so scarce, one would think that these ancient gems would be repolished to meet the city's greatest needs, such as affordable housing and affordable commercial spaces for small businesses and nonprofits.

Instead, like a venture capitalist in the hunt for billion-dollar startups and as elusive as mythical creatures, the city is chasing unicorns. In this bizarre quest, it is proposing to repurpose some of its most precious and long-held assets - its public lands. The city's Public Land for Housing project, which will set the policy for how the city will use its lands for housing, is now underway. Among the goals is to develop 2,000 market-rate housing units scattered among the first five pilot sites - the Balboa Reservoir and Upper Yard in the OMI, 4th and Folsom in the SOMA, 1950 Mission in the Mission District, and Wall 322-1 at Pier 70.

San Francisco's Housing Element says the city is behind in its affordable housing goals by about 16,333 units for households earning up to 120 percent of median, roughly equivalent to the total number of existing housing units in the Inner Sunset neighborhood. An income of $116,500 for a four-person household is 120 percent of area median income. The last thing the city needs to do is abdicate any of its land to create more of the nation's priciest housing.


1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Five Reasons Why San Francisco Must Not Give Up Public Land for Market-Rate Development (Original Post) KamaAina Apr 2015 OP
This happens even in the most "progressive" and overpopulated communities. NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #1
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
1. This happens even in the most "progressive" and overpopulated communities.
Mon Apr 6, 2015, 05:23 PM
Apr 2015

I live in one and apparently even when there's no water and no room for more auto traffic, an influential developer can have his way.

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»California»Five Reasons Why San Fran...