Should SF residents vote for Proposition F or Proposition G tomorrow?
- added June 2, 2008
- 8 responses
-
-
-
- mshen
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- San Francisco (759)
- Housing (126)
- Local Politics (7)
- Urban development (3)
- San Francisco Election (2)
- Proposition F (1)
- San Francisco Housing (1)
The two competing ballot proposals concern redevelopment in the Bayview/Hunter's Point neighborhoods.
Prop F supporters say:
"Proposition F guarantees that 50% of the housing in the proposed Bayview-Hunters Point development is affordable to working families. This means that people with incomes under $92,000 per year can purchase the new homes at below-market rates - so valued members of the San Francisco workforce can live in the city they serve."
Prop G supporters say that guaranteeing 50% will scare off the builder, The Lennar Corporation, and pretty much dash hopes for any redevelopment; they propose a lower percentage, around 25%.
Would love to hear comments on how people plan to vote - I'm up in the air but leaning toward Yes on F, no on G. It's one of the harder ballot questions I can remember in recent years.
Prop F supporters say:
"Proposition F guarantees that 50% of the housing in the proposed Bayview-Hunters Point development is affordable to working families. This means that people with incomes under $92,000 per year can purchase the new homes at below-market rates - so valued members of the San Francisco workforce can live in the city they serve."
Prop G supporters say that guaranteeing 50% will scare off the builder, The Lennar Corporation, and pretty much dash hopes for any redevelopment; they propose a lower percentage, around 25%.
Would love to hear comments on how people plan to vote - I'm up in the air but leaning toward Yes on F, no on G. It's one of the harder ballot questions I can remember in recent years.
-
I'm not in the city this year, so haven't kept up with the propositions. However, one of my strategies on ballot measures that I was unsure on was to look at the list of supporters on each side. Generally I would be able to tell how I should vote based on which groups were supporting either side of the issue.
-
Yeah, Lennar had paid for a suspicious number of the ads supporting Prop G in the voter guide... that said, Supervisor Maxwell, who represents the Bayview, is also supporting it, and claims the community supports it as well. Who to believe?
-
Prop. G offers viable vision for Hunters Point
"Proposition G would offer a nonbinding but nevertheless critical public expression of support for a proposal by Miami's Lennar Corp. to develop up to 10,000 homes, about 700,000 square feet of retail space as well as artist studios, green-tech-research facilities and more than 300 acres of parks and open space in and around the old shipyard. As part of the project, Lennar also would rebuild the Alice Griffith public housing project. ...
The one potential deal killer to these intriguing possibilities is Proposition F, which would impose highly prescriptive formulas to require that at least half of the new homes would need to be affordable. This measure, pushed by Supervisor Chris Daly, is reckless and unrealistic. It is not backed by any studies showing its feasibility. Lennar has argued that passage of Prop. F would force it to forego the project. And the measure would almost certainly deter other potential developers." -
"If Proposition G passes, the groundwork will be laid to turn the huge abandoned Hunters Point Shipyard into 10,000 houses. A public housing project could be rebuilt, and toxic hot spots will be cleaned up. Some 300 acres of parks and open spaces are planned, in addition to the possibility of a new NFL stadium for the 49ers.
If Proposition F passes, the developer has said it couldn't afford to do the project because half the housing would have to be available to low-income earners. That means no housing, no parks and no 49ers. Nothing." -
as someone who worked in the public schools in hunter's point during the mid 90's, i'm well aware of how destitute certain areas are with lack of resources and extreme pollution. but i'm also aware of the 'culture' that live there and how beautiful it really is considering its grim history with crime, gangs, poverty, and pollution.
the fact that, historically, its a primarily black neighborhood with low to no-income housing units, junk yards, the heavily polluted naval yard, and artist warehouses, makes it the most neglected district in SF. but there have been so much changes in HP over the past decade.
Slowly but surely, the neighborhood had begun to change to what seemed like another gentrification project, with new MUNI tracks and growing local commerce, akin to what happened in the Mission district, when locals where pushed out to accommodate the lifestyles of dot com invaders who brought in the numerous starbucks and skyrocketed rents. In HP, it's a bit different. There seems to have been upgrades in the standard of living in the neighborhood but the community stayed the same.
I agree that gradual development is needed to uplilft the well-being of the district and the people that live there but openly and abruptly gentrifying it with unaffordable housing developments is not the way to go.
The neighborhood should be developed with its residents in mind. They should be empowered and given the resources they need to develop a better quality of life instead of simply imposing another housing development that would ensure another gross displacement of its poorest residents into the streets like what happened in the Fillmore and Geneva when they proposed the same thing 20 years ago.
I say Yes to F.-
-
-
-
- pressrecord
- 3 months ago
-
-
"The problem with Prop. G is that its promises are, for the most part, just that: promises — which could well shift at any time, driven by the bottom line of Lennar Corp., a financially stressed, out-of-state developer that has already broken trust with the Bayview's low-income and predominantly African American community.
Lennar has yet to settle with the Bay Area air quality district over failures to control asbestos dust at a 1,500-unit condo complex on the shipyard, where for months the developer kicked up clouds of unmonitored toxic asbestos dust next to a K-12 school.
So, the idea of giving this corporation more land — including control of the cleanup of a federal Superfund site — as part of a plan that also allows it to construct a bridge over a slough restoration project doesn't sit well with community and environmental groups. And Prop. G's promise to build "as many as 25 percent affordable" housing units doesn't impress affordable housing activists.
What Prop. G really means is that Lennar, which has already reneged on promises to create much-needed rental units at the shipyard, now plans to build at least 75 percent of its housing on this 770-acre waterfront swathe as luxury condos...
There's more: The nice green space that you see in the slick Lennar campaign fliers is toxic and may not be fully cleaned up. Under the plan, Lennar would put condo towers on what is now state parkland, and in exchange the city would get some open space with artificial turf on top that would be used for parking during football games. Assuming, that is, that a deal to build a new stadium for the 49ers — which is part of all of this — ever comes to pass." -
the most important thing to consider is how feasible prop F is. as an architect, i can say that it's obvious that 50% BMR (below-market-rate) housing is HIGHLY unfeasible. don't get me wrong, i think it's a great idea to promote affordable housing, but 50% is an unrealistic percentage. ...did they even hire a financial analyst (w/a construction management/development/architectural background) to see if this is even remotely possible?
developers pay for projects to be built. my guess is that they won't be willing to pay for a project where they're losing money b/c half of the housing is BMR. some developers may be interested in constructing affordable housing, but i'm pretty sure that they're more interested in not losing money, unfortunately.
NO on F.
Login/Registration is required to add a response.
