Over 100 Mid-Market area residents attended last night’s Planning Commission hearing, expressing near unanimous opposition to plans to make Mid-Market a Redevelopment Area. A handful of nonprofit landlords supported the Redevelopment Plan, putting them in conflict with the low-income tenants on whose behalf they claim to work. But despite what one Commissioner described as the largest group of speakers he had ever seen, the Commission cared little about criticisms of Redevelopment and appeared to have reached its decision before the hearing began. The battle now moves to the Board of Supervisors.
What was likely the largest turnout of SRO tenants ever to attend a Planning Commission hearing saw over 100 speakers denounce plans for making Mid-Market a Redevelopment Area. But as occurred in the Fillmore in the 1960’s, SOMA in the 1970’s, and the Mission during the dot-com boom, the Planning Commission sided with those wearing suits over the affected residents.
The best way to understand last night’s nearly six hour hearing on Mid-Market is to compare it to a hearing before Supervisors Dufty, Alioto-Pier and Elsbernd in which a mass of poor people spoke in favor of a policy opposed by corporate interests. While the testimony was powerful and often emotional, those listening would not be moved or influenced by anything said.
The comments by Commissioners once public testimony was closed exhibited a shocking confusion of the issues involved.
For example, Commissioner Bill Lee, on his last day as Chief Administrative Officer, stated that Mid-Market Redevelopment was needed because another 9/11 can happen any day and the city must be economically prepared. Lee also claimed that the city is already “subsidizing a lot of artists in Mid-Market, which is taking business from artists at Fisherman’s Wharf.”
Lee was honest enough to admit that Redevelopment would not be buying much land in Mid-Market “because it’s too expensive.” That’s the point Agency opponents were making to show how little affordable housing will actually be created, but Lee failed to realize the connection.
Commissioner Kevin Hughes said that Mid-Market had suffered economic problems since 1970, so he “didn’t buy the argument that the real estate in the area is taking off.”
But Hughes need only read the publicly advertised sales prices of Mid-Market real estate to confirm it’s a hot market, or he could have listened to the Planning Department’s report that 2500 units were in the pipeline (with two large condo projects in the area already approved).
Hughes also made the bizarre argument that Redevelopment’s failures in the Fillmore supported giving it control of Mid-Market. He also stated that making Mid-Market a Redevelopment Area would trigger development without specifying anything in the Plan that would support such a conclusion.
The Commissioners largely ignored the chief issue raised by most speakers: the unaffordability and inadequacy of the so-called “affordable housing.” Instead they focused on minute details about parking, an important issue but one that few residents addressed.
There was much testimony from tenants living in Redevelopment Agency-funded housing owned by TODCO about bad living conditions and unresponsive management. TODCO spoke in favor of the Redevelopment Plan, as did Calvin Welch, once a fierce foe of Redevelopment.
Welch got the loudest boos of the night when he claimed that Redevelopment was our best “defense against gentrification.” Having a close friend as head of Redevelopment sure can reverse one’s views.
Craig Adelman, who sits as the nonprofit representative on the Mid-Market PAC despite working for a private developer, attacked Agency opponents for “fear mongering.” Sadly, his comments demonstrated how some housing advocates have become so obsessed with getting money that they completely ignore the opinions and wishes of those they claim to be helping.
As Commissioner Olague pointed out, the fear of displacement expressed by dozens of residents was a rational response to Redevelopment’s long history of displacement and demolition in SF. Adelman and his fellow critics of the poor should spend time talking to them, rather than arrogantly insulting them.
Every nonprofit housing group who supported Redevelopment noted how it would bring their group money. In contrast, opponents of Redevelopment took time hours out of their lives to express their views despite lacking any economic self-interest.
Redevelopment opponents were joined by a surprising ally: the San Francisco Chronicle. An attorney for the Hearst Corportation asked that the paper’s site at 901 Mission be removed from the proposed Redevelopment Area.
The majority of developers spoke strongly in favor of the Special Use District, but few expressed support for Redevelopment. As one developer attorney who asked to remain anonymous told me. “Everyone knows the Redevelopment portion of this is just smoke and mirrors. It’s the real estate market, not the Agency, that will drive development.”
The battle over Mid-Market Redevelopment now moves to the Board, with a vote likely after the summer recess. The issue will become a citywide struggle, with many new groups and constituencies getting involved.
