Again we have been besieged by another piece of very badly written text. So, this letter is really written to Mr. Werner:
I accused BeyondChron of being a mouthpiece for Chris Daly, not you. Frankly, I can’t understand what you are trying to say in anything you write, so I couldn’t say if you were acting in a similar matter or not. I accuse them of this because all their articles are so openly biased, but try to say their opinions (and yours) are the truth, I think that is disingenuous.
More, I find it laughable that you have essentially said that I am giving a “right-wing spin”. No, I am not right wing. I believe that what this city needs is smart idea that actually do something for the communitiy. Has Chris Daly done this? No, he has helped his friends, but look at District 6. It is much worse off now than it was before he came into the scene. Is he working for his community? I don’t think so. Has Mayor Newsome done anything for the city? Definetly. It is disgusting that every time someone disagrees with you they are branded a Republican or right-wing. This is the same behavior that the Republican party did with the word ‘liberal’ afterall. To set the record straight – no, I am definelty a democrat, I am not right-wing, but I certainly do not consider myself a ‘progressive’. I do believe the so-called progressives are hurting our community and hurting the Democratic party.
Lastly, when did I ever mention anything about trying to deny you your right to publish? It is all well and good to get on the soap box and cry censorship. I don’t like the overwhelming right-wing biased media either, but if what you describe in your article you believe to be censorship, I’d strongly recommend you look up the word in the dictionary. You could use the word propaganda, that would be accurate (and oddly enough what I accuse BeyondChron for), but censorship misses the mark.
Alan Collins call’s Plan C’s goal of promoting homeownership for the working and middle class a “Big Lie” – because surveys that show only 11% of San Francisco families can afford to buy a home here. I have several responses. First, those surveys Mr. Collins refers to measure affordability of the median home in San Francisco. How many people do you know who buy a “median” valued home as their starter home? Halfway between the least expensive and most expensive? An average value home? No one. No, first-time homebuyers start out with a home on the low end of the affordability spectrum. The 11% percentage would look a lot different if we asked how many people can afford “starter” homes in the City.
Another response to Mr. Collins would go something like this: just because not enough people can afford a home in San Francisco is not a reason to try to expand homeonership affordability into lower income levels. Right?
And finally, although I don’t know Mr. Collin’s views generally, it’s probably a fair guess that he identifies himself as a “progressive”. I find it really ironic to have pro-homeownership policies challenged by progressives on the basis of affordability, when one of the principal forces driving higher housing prices in San Francisco is the tooth and nail fight by progressives to stop market rate housing construction and condo conversion. The Bay Guardian has openly called for a moratorium on market rate housing in San Francisco, and progressives have led every fight against expanded condo conversion. Progressives are entitled to criticize our efforts to expand homeownership. But if you’re going to push policies that will drive home prices even higher, don’t criticize homeownership on the basis of the affordability problem that you have helped to create.
Regarding Mike Sullivan’s reply to Alan Collin’s Plan C letter:
Mr. Sullivan, why don’t you answer your own question and tell us how many people in San Francisco can aford a “starter” home as you put it, and then please tell us how many “starter” homes are on the market already or are being built, and how much these “starter” homes are going for?
Regarding the Civic Center Hotel, the attorney for the U.A. Local 38 Pension Trust Fund stated that retrofitting the hotel would clean out the retirees’ fund. Someone needs to prove this, and needs to prove how much the cost of retrofitting has risen in the past 13 years and if that is the reason the fund would be cleaned out, which I have a hard time believing.
When the attorney said this, I rebutted by saying that they could have taken advantage of the low cost city loans for retrofitting, and then Supervisor McGoldrick called the attorney up again. He asked if the market rate for loans has gone down so low that it is no longer important to take advantage of the city’s loans, but I ask, WHY WAS THIS AN ANSWER?(that I could not rebut). Then they should have taken advantage of the market rate loans.
I’m sure the pension fund earns interest. I guess what I’m asking is if anyone has really looked into whether or not the cost of retrofitting, which the attorney embellished, would really clean out this trust fund.
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: email@example.com
or by writing to:
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102