Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
Look what the SFPD just confiscated at a rally in the Mission this afternoon - see it in the lower right corner?
Well there we were this afternoon at another rally in the Mission, this one protesting against gentrification in general, and the current plans for the old Kelly-Moore property on Cesar Chavez in particular. In addition to seeing area stalwarts like Tommi Avicolli Mecca and District 9 Supervisorial candidate David Campos, we also saw what looked to be a pair of 24 inch bolt cutters. What could they have been used for? See you after the jump!
First, the issue itself about this property and Walgreen's is ably described by the Bay Guardian here. Some people are for, some are against. What do you think?
It certainly appears that somebody came to the scene with the idea of breaching the nine foot tall chain link fence surrounding the parcel and maybe inviting a few people into the old parking lot. As far as we know, it's not illegal to walk around San Francisco with bolt cutters and there's nothing to suggest to us that any of the organizers were involved with doing anything improper. What we DO know is that there's a great deal of interest in this issue and that there will be a slew of rallies at this location in the very near future.
[Update. Oh, we have always have such clever and helpful commenters! Here's a link to one possible future for the lot at 3400 Cesar Chavez.]
That'll get 'er done.
And its one, two, three, this is what we're fighting for:
The large crowd spilt onto Mission Street. Will they be back tomorrow?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
It is extremely important for the future of the city and, indeed, humanity itself that we preserve this abandoned paint store and its parking facility for the enjoyment of future generations.
They should block the construction and let the area rot further! Maybe a pot club for the space? Or perhaps a gang traning facility?
If I remember right, it is illegal to be running around with a pair of bolt cutters and not be either in a construction zone or have some sort of construction license, I think? I could be wrong, but it is justifiable for a police officer to stop you on the street if you have a pair out in the open. Some people might think it's wrong for the police to do that, these people don't ride bikes in SF.
Maybe they wanted to use the portapotty?
This is awesome! I can't wait for another porn production company to open up!
Put something there, and make the space is used for retail and residential. Empty lots == blight. Should hand out copies to Death and Life to these people? And for frack's sake, make sure you lose the parking lot, we don't need more stinking cars in the mission.
There is a real plan and funding for the Bernal Height Neighborhood Center to build low income housing and a community center in this location but the developers want to build market rate condos and yet another Walgreen's. This is a case where these activist have a plan to stop the gentrification of the Mission but the developers want to thwart the city plan the requires more low income housing development and make a quick buck.
What's Whitey McDreadlock protesting about now?
Oh, and why do you keep blurring people's faces? They are out in public, tough if they get there mugs on the Web when they should be in a birthing studies class or something.
BHNC DOESN'T have a plan OR funding, and their idea is for 100%low-income housing and a day labor hiring hall.
The neighbors and owner wants moderate-income homeownership, an afterschool education center and a Walgreen's.
This ain't gentrification.
Here is the url:
http://3400cesarchavez.net/
Guest #6, indeed, they've worked out everything except the part where the developer would get the financial incentive to actually build and manage the property. Golly, for the life of me I can't figure out why the developer wouldn't want to buy in to that kind of scheme!
Guest: does the "real plan" involve the unilateral seizure of the property from its owners? If not, how do they intend to acquire the property?
Oh goodie. The trustafarian hipsters are playing activist again. Nothing reinvigorates a neighborhood like a vacant lot surrounded by a chain-link fence on a high-profile street corner. Let's keep that corner poor so those fat cat developers don't get any richer. That will show em!
the bhnc is a pay-for-play scheme for ammiano. mecca is one of his shock troops. bhnc is to provide volunteers for ammiano's assembly run. in return, ammiano uses city money to fund the new site. the fbi comes down on jew but not this. the bhnc plan came up way after the housing proposal.
the saddest part about this is that nearly all of the neighbors want something clean and safe there. there's a hospital, church, and school right next to it. none of the fauxsters and angry queers care about the latinos and blacks who want safety for their kids.
this is disgusting. bernal hill is the most racist neighborhood in san francisco, led by ammiano the biggest closet racist of them all. in leauge with sellouts like quesada, saucedo, and marquez. pull up the ladder behind you, kids.
or maybe i'm wrong and latinos like living in sqaulor.
#9, how in the hell is this NOT gentrification?
#13 have any more unsubtantiated, unfounded slander for us?
How can it be "gentrification" if nobody lives there now? Gentrification is where you tear down housing where poor people live and put up more expensive housing. There's no housing at this site yet!
Nothing lends legitimacy to your protest like bolt cutters.
#14, you're the one disputing the term so why don't you explain to all of us how it IS gentrification.
#14,
Is any improvement of a property gentrification? What are the non-gentrification options? Raze the building and give the property to a non-profit and allow the homeless to put tents up?
I'm no expert, but I did major in Urban Planning not that long ago. According to my shaky memory, gentrification is about low-income residents having to move out of traditionally low-income neighborhoods because of rising property values, rents and overall cost of living.
So unless the new development makes it prohibitively expensive for the people living nearby to continue lving nearby, it ain't gentrification. I could be wrong though.
gentrification has nothing to do with buildings - it's a term used by people that are scared of change.
#14: A Coach store and one of Gav's crappy nightspots would count as gentrification. How low is your bar exactly? (If you'll excuse the pun.)
Two friends are vocally opposed to the gentrification represented by this project, and in the Mission, in general.
They pay $3,500 a month for a Mission flat that rented for $750/mo as little as ten years ago.
Heh.
i do believe #6 14 15 are the same bhnc troll. or sweet little tommi who makes it his business to speak for all the afflicted of the world. never had the ambition to actually get a job and build a life so no one else should have one either. oh, sorry, he's in theater. does one show every five years count?
you want proof about the bhnc scheme? go to the cal sec of state website and look to see who the donors are for ammiano's assembly run.
the city needs to make a stand and say yes to safety and future for the mission. not filth and crime and drugs. if there is a hell ammiano and campos will rot there one day for the lives they helped ruin.
@slosh415:
I think that's a big part of what's going on - that building market rate condos, or "affordable" units that aren't really affordable to people that currently rent in the area, will end up making it more expensive and eventually force people out. People can be displaced directly or through the impact on the neighborhood.
The theme of the current action is "another project is possible" but the proposed project first has to be stopped for alternatives to really be considered.
Uniformed snark and anonymous spinmeistering...how unexpected. I'm latino, I have a family, and I'm against the Seven Hills condo project. I was at the rally today, most of the faces that were there were brown and yeah, poster #13, there were some angry queers there in solidarity with us, and seniors and representatives from labor too. Do queers not have a right to protest against yet another market rate condo project in the Mission. The facts are, most folks in the Mission can't afford to pay $500,000 to $700,000 for a condo. The average latino household in the Mission makes less than $45,000 per year. Is it wrong for people to demand that the City stop approving housing projects that are way beyond the means of the vast majority of the people that live in the neighborhood? BHNC put in a bid for $5.9 mil for this site, an amount that the Mayor's office of Housing vetted as being reasonable for that site. BHNC has a great track record of developing housing for working class folks, what the hell is racist about that?!? Maybe the folks that are attacking BHNC know something I don't, but when you back a luxury housing development while attacking a non-profit developer as racist you seriously undermine your arguments.
Save the Mission: make sure it is full of empty weed covered lots and porn studios. Make sure we do NOT under any circumstances build housing of any level for anyone! Sounds like a great plan for people to have places to live....and sorry kids, developers are just trying to run a business. They can't build on that lot and hand out condos for free like you'd like them to do.
Unfortunately 5 years from now this corner will still be a weed covered lot while the same people are complaining there's not enough housing in SF.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary: "gentrification" is "The restoration and upgrading of deteriorated urban property by middle-class or affluent people, often resulting in displacement of lower-income people."
Unclear to me how you can displace people who aren't there yet.
Ok, you don't like Coach stores and Gav's nightclubs. Either do I (although I do think it would be funny to see the Marina crowd mixing with the crowd that goes to that nightclub on Mission right around the corner from Kelly-Moore). But, really, housing and a drugstore are gentrification? How high is your bar?
I know San Francisco is expensive. I live here too. But you stomping your feet because property owners aren't giving their property away for free to poor people isn't helping. You NIMBYs are the main reason San Francisco can't increase it's housing stock. This project seems very reasonable and if you guys are bringing bolt cutters to protest this then you really are crazy and there is no reasoning with you.
that project looks really great for the hood
how sad are these people
BTW - Not saying one way or the other whether the protest was a good idea, only that a different theme might have been considered.
Screw this, I'm moving to Monaco. Maybe I can protest and have them build me a house I can afford.
missionman you're as anon as i am. no reason to believe a word you say. while you can go see the ammiano funders. go see the bhnc plans. 5.9 million is nothing and would provide zero incentive for a developer. but you know that.
bhnc has no record of anything except for white priveledged dog owners and fighting for their property values and color purity. seems someone has been coopted into the club.
But more importantly: why the Coach hate, friends? They make amazing bags that I can never, ever afford.
For those morons who say BHNC's plan has no incentives for the developer, you're just not getting it. Let's put it into grade school language for you: BHNC pays $5.9M to the owner of the land. BHNC then develops the affordable housing project. BHNC would be the developer. The "incentive" for the owner is they get $5.9M for their land.
Man, I'm surprised some people even know how to cross the street.
As for the boltcutters thing, its possible to arrest someone on the basis of tools they are carrying - for example, its long been a crime to be caught in possession of lockpicks, unless you are a licensed locksmith. The presumption being, that unless you ARE a licensed locksmith, the only reason you'd be carrying lockpicks is if you intended to burglar someone's house. Likewise, the only reason anyone would have a pair of boltcutters at a protest like this would be to illegal cut the fence and trespass onto the property.
those of you protesting today, how much homework did you do on the folks that convinced you to rally in the first place? i recall reading about this last week and if memory serves, the other side of this project is actually a rival developer. how sad is that! you were all just pawns today being used by the man. go home.
question for the anti "gentrification" crowd:
part of the problem with housing prices is due to the limited supply of housing. so, if we can use available parcels and unused land to construct high density housing, won't that help everyone with their rent and mortgages?
even if the newly constructed housing is martket rate, as long as it is high density it should decrease rents. particularly if those people buying into a project like this are first time home buyers moving out of rentals.
but i didn't know squat about this project until 10 minutes ago, so i can't speak with much authority about the pros and cons.
here's the link to the story i read last week that tells you who'se really behind the protest:
http://leftinsf.com/blog/index.php/archives/2037
#35: So the incentive to the developer is to walk away from the site with far less than he'd make if he built and developed the housing himself... and you're calling us the morons?
If y'all have had your fill of snark for the day, check out the comments on the Left in SF post. They're mostly informed and passionate but respectful.
I live a block away from Mission and Cesar Chavez and there's one thing I'm certain about: this neighborhood does not need another Walgreens! There's already four Walgreens within walking distance including one four blocks away at 23rd. I assume Walgreens would be considered a "formula retail store," which means that it will need a Special Use Permit (thanks to last year's Measure G), and I'll be sure to make time to testify against it if it comes to that.
I don't accept that are only choices are the current Seven Hills proposal and an empty lot. There has to be a better option than market rate condos, the bare minimum of affordable housing, a Walgreens, and a parking lot.
BHNC did a great job on the Bernal Gateway Apartments across the street. It's a 100% affordable development, and the residents there have been model neighbors. I never see the cops over there, as opposed to the sketchy public housing down at Harrison and Cesar Chavez.
How the f**k has BHNC got hold of $5.9 mil?
To #39 - I didn't claim that the profit to do the BHNC deal might be less than the profit to made on a market-rate deal. Rather, I was effectively rebutting the moronic ranting that the BHNC provided NO incentive.
There is a difference between choosing between Option A which included profit X but protest hassles and Option B which which includes somewhat lower profit X but no hassles than the choice the anon ranters ranted of one between profit and no profit.
so yes, morons stands.
and could you people just register - the whole guest thing just makes me think its all one sockpuppet for the developer
Captain Disco - problem is, in a market like SF, the marginal addition of a scant 60 luxury units to the overall housing supply is a drop in the bucket and will have zero impact on increasing overall supply enough to lower area rents. Rather, with vacanies so low, those units will get snatched up and have a potential spillover effect in the surrounding area as abutting parcels of land now become ripe for redevelopment as additional luxury housing, driving up rents/housing prices in the area as the area becomes less working class and more upper-middle income professionals.
You folks need to get past the first chapter in Intro to Economics one of these days.
Brock: I dunno, there's something about Coach that just screams Walnut Creek.
Woa! ChinaNob, what you're describing sounds a lot like extortion.
Isn't Tommi Machaevelli that blond model who sued The Price is Right for sexual harassment?
Why is she walking around the Mission with a bolt cutter? Wasn't the settlement enough money for her?
mariconsoy: Heh.
ChinaNob, it's the equivalent of offering someone a McDonald's coupon and a six-pack of Coors in exchange for a brand-new Cadillac. Same as no incentive whatsoever, moron.
Thanks for the link to Left in SF. Joseph Smootes and his organization does not seem to be an honest broker and I would be surprised if they really had the support of the community.
ChinaNob, your sockpuppet conspiracy theory sure fits in well with Joseph Smootes' rantings. Are you him? He alludes to some conspiracy between Home Depot, the Mayor, and the developer in question here. You both seem to think that there are fat cats sitting in some smoke-filled room right now trying to get YOU.
You ever think some people might want to improve their neighborhood and not have a full block of vacant parking lot with a chain link fence?
You and Smootes also seem to come from the same school of economics. I love his little theory that Sutter Homes is conspiring with Walgreens(look, another conspiracy theory!)to drive out the union pharmacy jobs at St. Lukes. Under this theory Sutter is conspiring to let a competitor set up shop across the street! I don't know wny Sutter would do this, but whatever, the Man is out to get you. B
ut please stop holding the rest of the neighborhood hostage while the paid activists resist everything except taking away the property to give it to who your group demands it be given to.
this plan definitely gentrifies the neighborhood. when you stick 51 luxury market rate units in the heart of the mission you gentrify it. put a few of these up and the mission becomes another noe valley or worse. it's that simple. say goodbye to working class residents and latino businesses.
of course we need more housing -- but we need WAY MORE affordable housing. i for one believe it's okay to make money but that a community should have some input on just how much money you get to make when it affects everyone else in the community. why do we value private property and profit more than community? it is possible to still make some money without destroying communities.
someone earlier said gentrification is a word used by people who are just afraid of change. that has got to be one of the most ignorant and insulting things I have ever heard.
please don't tell me that the committed activists who grew up and raised their families in the mission -- and who care enough about thier own community to fight back and not let it be overrun by developers -- are merely "scared of change." they're fighting for something deep, historic, and meaningful. were the sioux and cherokee just "scared of change" when they observed white people encroaching on their land and fought back?
some of us see a priceless value in diversity in terms of class, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, etc. if you don't value this, please move to walnut creek. i guarantee you you'll be much happier and less frustrated than you are here in the city with all these annoying people who are so "scared of change."
The funny thing is all this over a vacant lot which is so so symbolic of the vacant mentality of the Mission rabble. I say if they don't want anything there (and we ALL KNOW nothing will be EVER built there) then they should be allowed their drugs and crime and dirt. And while your at it, don't learn English. It's an evil tool of Whitey. It's like the hoodies in hood. They kill each other all the power to them. This is what they want. I love the connection to the Indians. How about you actually fight the developers with bow and arrows and guns? Show some real cojones. Don't use your Bay Guardian proxies who drink at Zeitgiest and laugh in your faces as to how they use your sad asses for their socialist agenda and protect their house values in Bernal and Noe and Seacliff. This is like every "we are oppressed" fantasy these people couldnt have wet dreamed of.
anybody have confirmation that SF MOH has pledged $5.9MM to the project? last i heard, BHNC stated publicly that they had MOH backing, but senior staff from the Mayor's Office denied knowledge of such a pledge at the same meeting.
BHNC may have developed quality affordable housing in the district in the past, but their current housing development capacity is mostly dependent on outside resources. its a sad state of affairs for affordable housing development in the Mission: divisive Mission politics have polarized community interests to a point where few causes are furthered.
Can we stop calling these condos "luxury" condos? They're hardly luxurious in San Francisco and the prices actually seem reasonable for a starter condo (considering the San Francisco price premium).
Mcdonald's coupon? really? I see - so you have inside knowledge of exactly how much the developer stands to make on the deal as market rate housing vs. th e$5.9M offered by BHNC? wow - if you do, please enlighten us. otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
as for other who claim i'm a sockpuppet - kindly blow it out your own asses. i'm just a guy with an opinion - i've got no dog is this fight at all.
however, as opposed to the 99% uninformed out there, i happen to be a real estate developer, both multifamily and commercial, so it not like i'm coming at this from left field.
as far as the extortion bit, it would only rise to that level if BHNC was engaging in intimidation or threat of assault/violence in exchange for money or property. in this case, they are engaging in a community protest over land use issues and as far as i can tell, they are'nt saying to the owner "sell us your land and we'll force the protest to stop".
fizzandpop - I was describing it from the perspective of the owner as far as what value he/she can get from the choice of the two options. (i.e. one option more money but more hassles, the other option less money but less hassles) happens all the time - sometimes you make the less hassle choice b/c even though its less money up front, it might be worth it b/c you save in long run or you don't drag out how long it takes to get paid.
however, i was NOT describing it as intentional actions on the part of BHNC.
ChinaNob, you can take your supposed qualifications and blow them out your own just-as-anonymous ass. So far all you've managed to post is NUH-UH MORONS, which is far from any demonstration of fact or knowledge in this matter. So why do you put up or shut up, puppy?
Seems like I was reading somewhere (Yelp?) that folks in the Mission ran off the Slanted Door folks for being too successful in their neighborhood. that's funny.
Never build anything in the Mission. Fuck it.
How about this -- fight any reasonable financially viable development proposal so the lot stays empty for the next 10-15 years (a la Oakwood / 19th St project or the Armory debacle). Let the blight build up, let the property owner clean up graffiti and trash for years or simply throw up their hands in despair and never develop the lot. That ought to add more housing to the mission.
ChinaNob: I realize you think you've got to cover your ass and I wasn't suggesting that you were actually accusing the BHNC of straight-up extortion. But as you should probably know, all real estate is about leverage and it's a very grey area. I'm off to threaten a bartender with withdrawl of tippage if my Stella isn't exactly full to the top. Laters Haters....
Detroit is a good example of what happens when little to nothing happens for 40 years. Stuff burns... and is left standing in its dangerous, burnt up state.
fizzandpop - I don't need to cover my ass - at all. I've got a hell a lot more pull in this city than half the morons posting on here. I could give a rat's ass about BHNC. Rather, I merely wanted to make clear what I was - and was not - stating.
As far as Detroit goes, again, unlike 99% of the folks here, I've actually worked in Detroit and seen on the ground what is going on there. What Detroit is a good example of is a combination of failed national industrial policy combined with out and out racism (i.e. white flight) combined with a local infrastructure lacking in the kinds of industries that could have taken advantage of the knowledge economy (i.e. education, high tech, health care) combined with the effect of the death of the manufacturing economy in the U.S. (see Failed Nation Industrial Policy). Its vicious and its sad, and it was repeated in various cities across the country like Cleveland, St. Louis, Philadelphia, etc.
Finally, I don't necessarily think that the proposal for market rate development is bad, per se. (Although I do think that the Walgreen's component of it shows a distinct lack of imagination and effort - and as someone who has had to pound the pavement to get the right commercial tenancy mix for his buildings, I actually know whereof I speak.) Maybe the condo development is a good thing. I don't really know at this point. What I DO know is that the knee- jerk reactions here of "screw those stupid Mission lefty NIMBYs" does NOT proceed from a single additional ounce of knowledge, experience or forthought than that of those so-called NIMBYs. Instead, its just the flip side of the exact same ignorant coin.
Does the mission really need another empty lot for more homeless, more drug addicts and dealers, more "artist" graffiti taggers, more MS13 gangbangers?
Ooops sorry... make that Norteno gangbangers... MS13 is on the other side of 21st st.
it's utterly disingenuous to present this as a case of either "build 51 market units" or "leave it as a vacant lot." there are alternatives that could be a lot better than the presented plan. they might not make quite as much money for the owner and developer but i don't give a shit and either should you. why must we resign ourselves to an entirely gentrified city? why must we lack imagination?
and #63 there's some unbelievably cool graffiti in the mission and god willing, there always will be. graffiti has played a vital role in the cultural life of this city for decades. just as it has in New York, LA, Paris, Berlin, Buenas Aires, Johanasburg, Kuala Lupur and countless other cultural epicenters across the world. undoubtedly some of you will scoff at this and merely reveal your ignorance.
I can't for the life of me understand why some of you people choose to live ib this city. if you can't handle a little graffiti or the occasional panhandler, please, for godssake, do us all a favor and find a clean, quite home in the suburbs. you'll be much happier.
#63. where in the hell do you live anyhow?
for you to reduce the mission to empty lots, homeless people, drug addicts, and gangbangers is basically racist and certainly shows you have no idea what you're talking about. the mission, despite its problems, is a wonderful place to live with beautiful people and a beautiful culture.
it's attitudes like yours that confirm the deepest fears of anti-gentrification activists. they know there are lots of people in this town who want be happy until san francisco is entirely whitewashed and turned into one giant, pristine, chainstore-covered union street.
Yeah, yeah, we know you activists don't give a shit about the developer's profit. But you're biting off your nose to spite your face. In the process of sticking it to the man and not allowing new development in the Mission the community sufferes through more vacant lots, drug dealers, crime and grit. You're not preventing gentrification--you're advocating for a ghetto.
You activists have to learn that money doesn't grow on trees to hand out to you. You've extorted enough money from people in the city and it's time to let the community have new development. Especially good development that provides new housing and below-market rate housing and other benefits to the community.
I walk past this site every day. I would rather have a reasonable development there--as the current plan calls for. But I'm fine with a vacant lot, grime, and crime if the professional activists at BHCD and their mission hipster activists don't get any money out of this attempted extorition. They want to throw a monkey wrench (bolt cutters) into the machinery? Fine. Then the city should bleed the activists and the mission dry. No more money should come from the city or private developers to these professional monkey-wrench throwers. Let them have their vacant lots and their pie-in-the-sky 100% affordable housing utopia plans. No developer or any honest businessman should ever go into the mission if the BHCD is the local mobster they have to pay off to do anything. Let the activists grow their own money on their imaginary hipster activist money trees and then they can give away money to whoever they want. You want to keep whitey out (as if the Mission would ever turn into Unions st.--please)? Fine. Grow your money on your money tree and give it away to every bum you see--that will keep the Mission gritty and hey--it might be a slum--but it will have some awesome graffiti. I'm sure the hard-working latino families will really appreciate the bums laying in front of the vacant lots as they go to church. Nothing says community like a vacant lot.
SFHawkguy, for the NIMBY + Nonprofit Housing crowd, money DOES grow on trees. The SF taxpayer gleefully gives it to them every day. Until they learn that this sort of behavior won't be rewarded, they will keep doing what they are doing.
The owner should tell them all to fuck off and sit tight. Maybe open the site up as a parking lot to pay the bills. If they city wants to seize the property through eminent domain, as was done in North Beach, then let them.
correction, THE city. Damn typos.
Dearest Guest 65,
What brands of medications do you take? You have to be kidding about graffiti. Hundreds of volunteers work to remove the shit every week. The city also spends tons of money to clean off the vandalism that little punks spray onto to our public spaces [and private property. And you like it?
If you think it's so kool, pls post your address. I'll have some of the people you admire so much pay your part of the hood a visit with some spray cans and glass etchers. As a bonus, we can send the syringe brigade in right after them to give you some glorious litter!
BTW NYC has very little graffiti now, as the punishment for being caught is very severe. The little fuckers have learned that if they spray, they pay so they stopped.
who owns the lot now?
The people, suckafree!
You're right aj. These hipster activists have done pretty well for themselves shaking the city down. I wonder where all of the BHCD funds come from? Did Daly kick some money their way when he extorted funds from developers last time? Developers should stop being short-sighted and stop paying ransom to the likes of Jonathon Smooke and BHCD. I know the City probably supports these professional activists as well. What a waste of money. They make a living throwing monkey wrenches into good development for the community. They make their living by keeping the Mission down.
Btw, walking by this morning a saw a rent a cop in the parking lot. I guess the bolt cutters got the attention of the property owners--as intended I'm sure. Who brought the bolt cutters I wonder? I wonder how many hard-working Latino families actually support these professional hipster activists?
By "the City" you mean "taxpayers". All those affordable housing bonds and special allocations by Daly et al. go to this crowd. (Along with the so called independent Beyond Chron, published by Tenderloin Housing Clinic.)
Do you know how to find out where the BHCD get's it's funds? Is it required to disclose this?
i knew people would cry and whine about any sensible recognition of graffiti.
graffiti is HUGE in the art world, it's influence always growing, and for good reason -- the best graffiti is deep, gorgeous, and mind-blowing. do i need to give you maps of the mission, SOMA, and the tenderloin to show you where to go to look at some? many of san francisco's most renowned contemporary artists were or are street artists and graffiti writers. you may not like graffiti, but MANY people do (just do 3 minutes of research) and it's been part of living in a city since ancient rome and it will be forever.
NYC got rid of graffiti? that's laughable. have you been to brooklyn lately? do a search for nyc graffiti images and you will get a virtually infinite number of pictures as people are shooting and posting them in the thousands daily. check out http://streetsy.com/ which is, interestingly enough, run by Gothamist (and hence SFist) cofounder Jake Dobkin. They can't possibly keep on top of the bounty of illegal street art in NYC. it's THRIVING.
i knew if i said something positive about graffiti it would flush out ignorant comments from people who prefer the aesthetics of chestnut street vs. mission street. again, you prove my point that some folks in this town can't handle a little urban grit or cultural diversity and therefore, for their own happiness, really shouldn't be living in a city at all.
"Urban grit" != "cultural diversity."
"you prove my point that some folks in this town can't handle a little urban grit or cultural diversity and therefore, for their own happiness, really shouldn't be living in a city at all."
At least someone in the community sees the beauty in a vacant lot surrounded by a chain-link fence. I really like all the grime on the sidewalk there as well. I guess I have to be a mission activist to see the beauty in that.
[76] Put up or shut up. Give us your address so your place can be a candidate for spraying with the adorable and artistic graffiti you like so much.
Cultural diversity has nothing to do with punks vandalizing public and private property.
Oh, "vandal":
vandal One who willfully or maliciously defaces or destroys public or private property.
Hipster activists, you say? Does anyone have any pictures of these "hipster activists" at Mission and Cesear Chavez yesterday? I assume by "hipster activists" you mean young white people. Looking at Jim's pictures above, I see more brown than white in the crowd.
As far as I know, most of the people at the protest were members of the Mission Anti-displacement Coalition, which is predominantly made up of native Latino San Franciscans. I took a quick look at MAC's myspace page, and I don't see any "hipster activists."
I understand that disparaging hipsters is a great way to gain the moral high ground in a San Francisco argument, but it loses its power when you use it indiscriminately like that.
Ok, does professional activist work for you? First of all, without hard evidence (like polling data) all we have is our anecdotal experience. It's been my experience that the animating spirit of the anti-gentrification/affordable housing folks comes from college-educated, white, hipsters that are not native to the Mission. Yes, I understand you guys cloak yourselves in the garb of a grass-roots citizen movement--of course you do. But even if you do have the support of the "natives"--your opposition to this project is misguided. If you truly do represent the native Mission dwellers then too bad for them--they will have a vacant lot on that high profile corner for a decade to come--at least.
But ok. Let's have some sunshine on you professional activists that are not all mission hipsters and many of whom are brown. Let's find out where are our taxpayer dollars going. Let's find out exactly what the funding sources of these non-profits are. How much money goes to the professional activists? What are their salaries and what other expenses are they racking up? What true benefit are they providing the City and the neighborhoods? Why are they getting city money?
As a new neighbor to this area and as a long-time citizen of SF I will do everything to stop this shakedown of the City to fund you hipster activists. You're preventing real housing from coming to the City and you're NIMBY politics hurt San Francisco.
The day before this blog went up, I learned that MOH has not released any funds to BHNC, nor is it about to.
So BHNC has no money lined up yet?
This project seems to fit the zoning for the area and is already approved isn't it? They are getting 9 BMR units under the plan. They should take the fight elsewhere this is a more than decent project for that area
From this article in the Sunday Magazine is a short sentence that tells the real story -- how strong arming of the poor by the povery profiteers like the BHNC is the only way these charlatans get protesters to show up.
"Karla and her mother are talking about a homeless coalition they joined a month ago. They were promised good low-income housing if they participated. But at the recent Monday meeting, Karla got angry that people in the group were looking at her and whispering. She demanded to know what they were saying. She made a scene.
Now, Karla is saying, she is worried that she has blown their chance at leaving this $725-a-month studio with its leaking bathtub and a landlord who locks them out of the laundry room."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/08/CMGCOQJDJF1.DTL
Again, it disingenuous to keep saying we can either have 51 new units for rich people smack dab in the working class heart of the mission or we can have a vacant lot. MAC is NOT advocating for vacant lots. They are advocating for affordable housing! If the developments in the mission aren’t primarily affordable then they will drive up rents and eventually push out the working class families. What is so damn hard to understand about this?
And what, may I ask, is wrong with being paid $30K a year in foundation grant money to work as a community activist? It's okay to make millions upon millions of dollars a year as a real estate developer but it's not okay to make what amounts in this city to near poverty wages to fight for the rights of the underprivileged and underrepresented, many of whom are so busy working two jobs and raising families that they can’t possibly adequately advocate for themselves and attend weekday protests? Many "professional activists" as you refer to then with such inexplicable disdain, work their asses off for very little reward and our some of our city’s most admirable citizens.
I can’t understand a worldview that demonizes community activists. Honest to God, what’s wrong with you people? What selfish motive do you suspect these “professional activists” have? It can’t be money. I’ll tell you that much. Cuz they ain’t makin’ shit.
Guest #85 is being completely disingenuous. MAC is advocating for two things:
1. The taking of the owner's legitimate private property without just compensation. If BHNC or its advocates wants to buy the owner out at a fair market price, they can certainly make an offer, or get the city to seize it using eminent domain, but this has thus far not happened.
2. The funneling of private property at a below market price along with city subsidy to a nonprofit housing organization, in this case BHNC.
Of course guest #85 also shows his (his?) ignorance of basic economics. More supply of housing does not push prices up - it pushes prices DOWN because it meets demand for same. And housing where there is today an empty lot can't possibly drive rents up - since there's nothing to drive up.
MAC and their ilk can't stand the idea of middle class families buying their own property without their help, so this is why they oppose market rate housing. SF taxpayers have no obligation to help them.
Note, I think that the affordable housing organizations would get more sympathy from homeowners and others if they didn't keep trying to promote "affordable" units to the exclusion of market rate units.
BHNC: why not buy your own damn land and get your own damn permits instead of interfering with someone else?
earth to #86 , have you ever seen a neighborhood gentrified before?!
let me spell it out for you. when rich people move into neighborhoods that were formerly working class they drive up the rents and force out the poor folks. this happens all the time. ever been to the east village or brooklyn?
you don't lower neighborhood rents in places like SF or NYC by building fancy new condos. It just doesn't work that way in real life, your simplistic supply and demand economics aside.
only rich people can afford market rate condos. when the rich people move in they demand fancier restaurants, stores, and cafes. the fancier restaurants, stores, and cafes in turn attract increasingly more rich people who are willing to pay ever higher rents to be near all the hip new stuff.
the working class people can't afford to shop, eat, or drink in any of these new places. Meanwhile their landlords plot devious schemes to evict them so that they can be replaced with white tenants earning 6-figure salaries. in a few years the neighborhood has been almost completely gentrified.
Again this shit happens all the time and glossy new condo buildings are a huge part of it.
Some would argue that the arrival of neighbors who own homes, pay taxes, and generally act responsibly is a good thing. Better certainly than a vacant lot.
But I ask again. If it's so great for the neighborhood for these wonderful nonprofit housing organizations to build wonderful nonprofit affordable housing for people whom you, personally, approve of, #85, why don't they just buy their own damn property and do it?
#86: Basic economics does not apply to San Francisco real estate. There is a finite amount of available land in this city, and there is voracious demand for market rate housing. 51 new condos won't drive down prices. But it will eliminate one more prime piece of land that could be used for something more innovative than condos, the bare minimum of affordable units, and another friggin Walgreens. I still think this proposal is dead on arrival because this neighborhood does not need another Walgreens, and I don't see how they're going to get a Special Use permit for it.
You can demonize the protesters as professional activists or hipsters, but the fact is that there are a lot of people in the Mission that consider affordable housing the biggest issue in the City. It's their right to make their views heard.
Prime piece of land not owned by you. How much should we bet that this obstinacy will result in fewer total BMR units in the neighborhood and a blighted empty lot at this site
None of this "affordable housing" is cheap or free. It costs far more to develop this stuff (with big subsides) than just allowing the market to supply housing (with the 15% BMR)
Supply and demand could work in SF to some extent if we allowed it to and we could have more mixed income neighborhoods without the blight and concentrated poverty if we allowed it to
The gentrification train has already left the station and there aren't enough subsidies in SF to keep the Mission as it is.
What gets lost in this whole discussion is people like me, 4th generation SFian who just wants a chance to own a modest condo. No I am not poor nor am a rich.
As Mugatu once said, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" For the love of G*d! There's market rate housing housing springing up all over all over the Mission District. According to the City's ow General Plan 64% of all new housing construction needs to be affordable in order to keep up with the City's need. Here's a link to a guardian article that explains it:http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=2378
This is according to the calculations of the Association of Bay Area Governments, not some mythical "white hipster actvists." Even the City's own shrotsighted Planning Department recognizes this. This is why the City's proposed rezoning plan for the Mission calls for much deeper inclusionary requirements and calls for large sites to be targeted for aquisiton with money from MOH. Here is a link to the City's draft Plan:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/Citywide/pdf/final_mission_area_plan_draft_reduced.pdf
I know that some of you here are more interested in spinning on behalf of Seven Hills Properties and cheap race baiting, but for the rest of you, who may have an interest in the important policy discussions that are happening in the City, you may want to know the real context of this project before claiming that we need more market rate housing or that we don't need more affordable housing.
I live around the corner from that spot and thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. I'm on the fence about the houseing part. I would definitely like to see more affordable housing but the reality is the developer/lot owner has the right to build market rate housing. We need more housing. I don't know if it's worth a lengthy fight over that.
BUT we definitely do not need another Walgreens. And we definitely do not need another 100 car parking lot in such a transit-rich area. That's so wrong. So I'm against it for those 2 reasons.
Affordable housing don't grow on trees. Indeed it costs a ton to develop. Direct subsides from people like me who don't make enough to buy anything but certainly am not poor enough to get on the gravy train
How about we just allow the market to supply housing (including the reasonable 15% BMR subsides) and see what happens. Or do we expect there to magically come billions to support non profit housing?
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2006/04/zillow_is_a_lot.html
Missionman,
I get it now. Those that disagree with your radical housing agenda are shilling for developers but you are an unbiased source of information. Thanks for setting us straight.
I do appreciate you linking to City Planning document though. I bet not many people outside the professional activist community are aware of it. It reinforces the impression I have of how the game has been rigged the last few years in favor of the professional activists. The activists have somehow shook down developers and convinced the City to fund people (activists) whose full time job is to advocate for a radical housing plan. I'm guessing the Planning Department you deride has been deluged by activists who are being paid to do this for a living--as well as the others they convince to join them (bolt cutters welcome!). So when you claim "the community" is behind you how much of that is really the paid activist community and their political enablers in City Hall? Give me a budget of $100K or so and I gurantee you I can find a bunch of hooligans to march on City Hall and speak up for whatever cause you want.
It all comes down to people showing up at planning and other CAC meetings and holding the sock puppets appointed to the CACs to represent "the peoples' point of view" to actually represent the peoples' views.
Oh, back to the earlier comment. Who submitted the photo? Who blurred out the faces? Can we have a photo with faces showing, please? (So if I see them with bolt cutters in MY hood I can call the cops?)
Yeah, the blurring of the activist faces is one indication of the author's bias. His describing Mr. Snooke's opinion piece as "ably describ[ing]" the issue is the real big indicator of his bias. The acitivistas are clearly using this as a show of force to try to intimidate the City and the developers. Too bad sfist took the bait and is prromoting and whitewashing the activists extortion efforts.
My reading (best guess) of the picture is that the guy in black was in possession of the bolt cutters. The woman in the blue is probably an activist that is trying to talk the police out of arresting the bolt cutter guy. And the woman in dreds is probably and activist as well and she's filming the incident becuase the police are the enemy to these people--they were simply exercising their right to carry around burglary tools while protesting.
Guest at #76:
Where do you live? Because I live blocks from this site and have for 9 years. The "graffiti" that you're so freaking in love with is just tagging on whatever clean surface these little gangbangers can find. This isn't Beat Street. This isn't some artistic expression born from hip hop culture (or any other) it's just little shits tagging "MS" "XIII" or whatever that makes our neighborhood look shitty.
[98] SFHawkguy:
A guess as to who the woman in blue is would be Renee Saucedo.
This guess is based on her hair, height, t-shirt logo and La Raza Centor Legal banner as well as the subject matter (her personal day labor program stands to benefit from the MAC/BHNC venture).
I suppose her face has been blurred because she is supposed to be elsewhere working at her job, and instead she is particpating in this protest (while drawing a salary).
She, and others, draw a salary, the genesis of funds from which her salary is drawn is the General Fund. In essence, we are paying her to work against us.
what's the address of that lot?
i wanted to look up who the owner was today
3400 Cesar Chavez
thanks sfhawk. that address shows a trust that owns it. when i looked up the old kelly-moore paint store on google maps however, the address was 3414 which didn't come up anywhere online.
Renee Saucedo is quoted in subsequent articles about this activity. Perhaps she would enjoy activists with tents and bolt cutters on her property?
[104] aj:
I bet she would enjoy that. Go for it! (The other condo owners may object, though.)
She lives at 3321-17th Street in D6.
Does anyone know where one can get a copy of the BHNC proposal for the site?
[106] guest:
There is no proposal from BHNC. Just an vague idea of what they would do if they had legal access to it and if they had funding, of which they have neither.
I'm a Brooklyn resident. The market price cracks like a whip. If you try and regulate around it you just get ghetto housing projects that concentrate poverty for generations. If you think that "affordable housing" does anything but create de facto segregation you're as clueless as white people with dreadlocks and indigenous peoples tats.
Buy land where you can afford it or accept the market rental rate. Don't like it? Nobody promised you a rose garden.
::whiny voice:: 'But what about the people?'
The people need to learn to take care of themselves.
great post guess. i think we should annex daly city, brisbane and south san francisco for this exact reason. make the boroughs of sf like nyc and build that affordable housing there.
Damn, and I thought people got chippy on DCist!
It seems like this same debate is taking place in urban centers across the country.
That's great thinking, 108. Really spectacular. Just because you're a privileged brat who's never had to give a thought about another human being in your entire spoiled rotten life does not mean that your greed is justified or even healthy for you.
...but you'll find that out when you try to find a place to eat or at least *gasp!* buy groceries and someone to cook them for you or try to buy gas or a place to drop your emotionally neglected children off so you can sit at home eating bon-bons while your hubby "works" (his secretary) when no poor people that do these kinds of jobs for shit pay CAN'T find affordable housing in your bougie paradise.
Yeah, I suspect all over this country rich people are going to find out how to take care of themselves once people actually start moving to markets they can afford. Not because they want to but because they're forced to. I'm in Austin and I know I'm one more rent increase from seeking out affordable housing elsewhere (DON'T MOVE TO AUSTIN, BTW. TEXANS GOT BLOODLUST!).
What I'd love to see though, is a week of protest where everyone in any major city that's not earning a living wage just refuses to work for a week so that people in large cities can see how dependant they are on low income people to cook and clean and care for them and sell them shit.
the same lady who assisted with the cutting of the fence just inferred that two members of the board of Supervisors took bribes in exchange for their support for the project. how dignified - first destruction of private property, now wild allegations of graft and corruption. she's a classy community leader, all right...
Bklyn here,
I worked my way thought a crappy state college because it was all I could afford and got the chance to bartend my way though a good law school becasue I worked harder than every person I know. All that earned me the privilege of working 75 hour weeks and eating 3 meals a day at my desk. Do I want your pity? No. If you want what I have, come and try to take it from me. I can guarantee that you've never worked as hard a day in your life as I have ever day of mine.
Do I need the working class? Of course. Do they need me? Also affirmative. Do we need to live in the same neighborhood? No. That is what we have public transportation for. I should know, I take it to my place of employement every day.
Well dearest activists for slums, the party is over. Aaaah, you lost-e-poo!
Now that a decent building is going up on the lot, will you fling yourselves in front of the cement trucks? Don't be shy now!
Well, until we meet again when you try to save another rat invested lot, vayan con el diablo.