On May 8, about 1000 Mission District residents filled City Hall, protesting the increasing evictions in the neighborhood, and calling for a moratorium on luxury housing in the Mission District. Photo Mabel Jiménez

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote June 2 on District 9 Supervisor David Campos’ moratorium on luxury housing in the Mission District.

Supervisor David Campos’ proposal for a moratorium to temporarily halt the construction of luxury housing in the Mission District will finally come to a vote tomorrow.

Introduced at the beginning of May, the moratorium is seen as controversial, gaining support from some organizations, like Calle 24 and Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA), but strong opposition from others, like Grow SF and San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation (SFBARF).

The moratorium would put a temporary halt to the building of market-rate housing in the neighborhood, initially for 45 days and, if passed, for possibly two more years.

Supporters say the legislation will provide a necessary pause to the unbridled development in the Mission District.

Those against it say the moratorium won’t stop evictions and will actually cause rent prices to increase at a quicker pace.

The chances of the moratorium being approved seem slim as it will require nine of 11 supervisors voting yes, and even even slimmer after the San Francisco Democratic Party (DCCC) decided on May 27, with 13 votes against 10, not to support it.

“It was very disappointing,” Campos said. “But I think it shows the Democratic Party is controlled by real estate interests.”

The four-hour meeting, held by the DCCC on May 27, included a lengthy public comment phase, in which many supporters and opponents expressed their views on the Mission District’s housing crisis.

“Recently there were 18 sites that qualified for affordable housing,” Campos said. “Today, there are actually only 13.”

Those other five sites were taken by luxury housing developers.

Just 7 percent of units currently under construction or approved for construction in the Mission District are affordable.

“By the time the city gets around to buying these properties, they will be gone,” Campos added.

Rick Hall, a Potrero Hill resident who says he loves the Mission District and feels strongly about the displacement issue, has witnessed the vast changes on Valencia Street, and thinks it’s time to send a strong message.

“Things are being gobbled up so fast that if we don’t take a break we’ll lose those sites,” he said.

District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener has been the most outspoken board member against the moratorium.

Wiener said the legislation, if approved, will likely become permanent and risk expanding to other neighborhoods.

“It’s not going to stop a single eviction. It’s not going to stop people from being displaced,” he said at the DCCC meeting.

Without investing more money in affordable housing, the moratorium cannot be successful, according to Wiener.

The group Grow SF supports Wiener’s position on the moratorium.

“At it’s best, the moratorium is an empty promise and distraction away from the real problem,” Grow SF board member Annie Fryman wrote in an email. “There is nothing in the moratorium policy as proposed that ensures any affordable housing will be built there.”

Grow SF is asking for solutions and reforms, saying that excessive building restrictions are to blame for the housing crisis.

“All a moratorium guarantees is to stop the creation of homes,” Fryman wrote. “The low supply we have now will just become more precious and more artificially expensive.”

Luxury housing is just the symptom; according to Fryman “Income inequality in a housing shortage” is the real problem.

“Rather than try to muzzle the symptom of our crisis,” she wrote. “I encourage the DCCC and Board of Supervisors to focus on policies that directly and clearly serve our low-income and vulnerable communities.”

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote June 2 on whether to pass District 9 Supervisor David Campos’ moratorium on luxury housing in the Mission District.