In Henrik Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People, the main character is a doctor who discovers that the drainage system to the bathing complex that dominates the town’s economy is seriously contaminated. He alerts the town’s mayor, who is alarmed by the cost of repairs and demands that the doctor retract his claim. When he refuses, he and his daughter are fired and their house is vandalized. Despite suggestions that he leave town, the doctor stands by his conviction and stays in the community. Those questioning the Mayor’s $185 million housing bond have not suffered such abuse, but they are already being accused of disloyalty to the cause. Yet just as ignoring the contamination did not clean up the town’s water supply, the city’s affordable housing needs will not be addressed by ignoring unpleasant facts .
As previously reported, Mayor Newsom is submitting a $185 million housing bond for the November ballot. While $135 million is allocated for supportive and affordable rental housing, $50 million is allocated to subsidize homeownership for families earning between $70-95,000 per year. Many of these families earn over 100% of the area’s high median income.These are not the struggling “working families” fighting to stay in San Francisco. As it stands, upscale two-earner couples without children will join with market rate condo developers as the likely beneficiaries of the homeownership portion of the bond.
We have previously addressed the many unanswered questions surrounding the Mom and Apple Pie appeal of “affordable homeownership.” It is a mystery how much public money each family will get, what type of housing will be available for purchase, the number of households helped, whether the subsidized homes can be quickly sold for profit, and whether those eligible for the money must currently live in San Francisco. Other critical details are also unclear.
But what is crystal clear is the politics behind this deal.
The Mayor convened a 16 person working group that met behind closed doors and reached agreement on a $297 million bond. The Mayor then rejected this proposal. He instead put forth the $185 million bond proposal that will be introduced at the Board on Tuesday.
Contrary to coverage in the daily print media, the Mayor did not reach the $185 million figure through “several weeks of meetings between housing interest groups.” It was this process that led to the $297 million proposal. The Mayor’s proposal came from his office, and was then rubber-stamped by the working group.
Although tenants make up 70% of the city, and are those least able to afford the cost of paying for bonds, there was not a single representative of a tenants group among the “housing interest groups” selected for the 16 member Mayor’s working group.
We are not saying input from tenants groups was not part of the final plan—we are saying that no input from tenants groups was even sought by the Mayor and that there were no tenant groups representatives on his hand-picked task force.
While tenant groups were ignored, landlords and Prop J supporters were well represented on the working group and, by the result, had their voices well heard.
Some argue that tenants will support any housing bond while landlords must be satisfied with the specifics. But the truth is quite different. Landlord groups were never going to oppose Mayor Newsom on this issue. He’s been too good to them. Why fight with your ally over a housing bond that landlords believe will lose anyway?
Real estate interests have increased their political capital by going along with the Mayor’s bond. Meanwhile, tenant groups, left out of the process entirely, can be charged with being knee jerk “anti-Newsom” simply by asserting their constitutencies interests.
In contrast to the owners of steadily appreciating San Francisco real estate, tenants in this city are facing very tough times. As was clear from Beyond Chron’s survey of Park Merced residents, many tenants will not vote for a bond that raises their rents in order to help those whose incomes are double their own.
In March, voters rejected 70-30 a measure to subsidize homeownership for only slightly lower income levels as in the new bond. If the $50 million allocated to home ownership in the bond were a stand-alone measure, it too would be soundly defeated. Attaching a politically unpopular Chamber of Commerce/Board of Realtors wish list item to a critically needed supportive and rental housing bond is bad policy and bad politics.
The Board should not accept any agreement that ignores the city’s tenants as a “done deal.” At its May 26 hearing, the Finance Committee should demand specifics about the homeownership proposal. The Committee should also revise the Mayor’s bond by shifting most if not all of the homeownership subsidies to supportive and affordable rental housing.
There is a consensus that the city must do more to address the housing needs of those who cannot afford decent and safe housing. That’s who the bond should exclusively target, and that’s a bond that the necessary 67% of the voters will support.
