To the Editor…

by on February 5, 2016

Subject: SF Housing Politics Exposed


If there were not so many egregious errors in Randy Shaw’s article about 1481 Post Street I would assume it to have been written by (1481 developer) Alvin Dworman. The inclusion of the lovely but misleading architect’s rendering that makes it look like a neighborhood-compatible building with surrounding blue skies is a further affront to those of us nearby who would suffer from blocked light, shadow, noise, wind-tunnel effects, adverse density and extremely dangerous traffic issues.


Since I can’t cover them all, I’ll point out just a few of the serious misstatements in this damaging piece:


Yes, the zoning calls for a 240-foot height limit; but ADCO is certainly not considering “260 feet.” Their tower would reach to 436 feet.


The idea that ADCO would consider including even one affordable unit in this luxury tower is laughable. These are elegant condos (read the promotion!) that will sell at top market prices.  Many opponents would be happy to meet with any ADCO or city representatives who could propose the inclusion of a significant number of affordable units. Opponents – who have worked successfully with other developers in the area to ameliorate the adverse effects of their projects – have only been stonewalled by ADCO’s insistence that the firm will absolutely not consider any less harmful design.


1333 Gough, also owned by ADCO, hardly consists of HUD-subsidized units; they are rent-controlled apartments. Every time a unit is vacated – which ADCO’s Linda Corso reports averages about 10 per year – it is then offered at market rate. A good bit of the “community improvements” touted by ADCO are improvements to their own 1333 Gough building that will benefit no one but the increasingly affluent tenants therein.


Lastly, as one who has had a number of friends at the Sequoias who received, or continue to receive, expensive care despite having run out of funds, I strongly doubt the nonprofit can be correctly described as “remarkably lucrative.”


Fran Moreland Johns

Filed under: Letters to the Editor