The housing crisis #2
From "moderate" Joel Engardio in the Examiner (Strangest thing: Some agreement in SF housing debate):
“There aren’t enough roofs for all the people who want to live in San Francisco,” said Christine Johnson, 35, who directs the local office of the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) and also serves as a planning commissioner at City Hall. “Unless we make dramatic changes to how we think about and produce housing, we risk losing everything that makes our city special.”
More from Engardio:
...But he[George Wooding] is skeptical that 17 acres of open space at Balboa Reservoir can become a mini-Mission Bay on the Westside. There is a plan for 1,100 new homes at the site. Johnson would like to see 2,000 units. Wooding said 500 should be the limit. “What good is 2,000 houses if it takes 40 minutes to get on a train?” Wooding asked. “I like the idea of transit villages, but transportation has to come first. I hate it when we build things half-assed and then end up chasing mistakes.”
This is the thing about pro-development advocates in San Francisco: they never met a highrise they didn't like or a housing proposal they didn't want to make bigger.
Unlike Calvin Welch, they apparently think we can build our way to affordable housing here in San Francisco. That assumption ignores the demand side of the housing equation: San Francisco has long been a jobs center for the Bay Area but gentrification is making it increasingly impossible for working people to live here.
That is, the demand for housing is distorting the housing market so much that the supply part of the equation is less relevant.
Unlike Calvin Welch, they apparently think we can build our way to affordable housing here in San Francisco. That assumption ignores the demand side of the housing equation: San Francisco has long been a jobs center for the Bay Area but gentrification is making it increasingly impossible for working people to live here.
That is, the demand for housing is distorting the housing market so much that the supply part of the equation is less relevant.
But folks like Johnson---and the Chronicle's editorial board---insist that Brisbane, a town of 4,282, must allow a housing development for 4,400!
From a Chronicle editorial:
But the proposed development would bring big changes to Brisbane. The plan would more than triple the city’s population over the next 30 years. Change is hard, and Brisbane residents don’t want it. Just 16 percent of Brisbane residents wanted to see the Baylands parcel developed as housing, in a recent city-commissioned study.
Gee, I wonder why the people of Brisbane don't want to triple the size of their town? The Chronicle and SPUR aren't asking Brisbane to do something that's merely "hard"; they're asking that town to essentially commit suicide.
Would it be okay with the Chronicle's editorial board if the population of San Francisco is tripled? This is nuts.
See also Joel Engardio: Man in a bubble and Tunnel visions.
More on the housing issue tomorrow.
See also Joel Engardio: Man in a bubble and Tunnel visions.
More on the housing issue tomorrow.
Labels: Examiner, Housing in the City, Neighborhoods, SF Moderates, Smart Growth, SPUR, Traffic in SF