[su_slider source=”media: 27973,27972,27971,27970″ limit=”25″ link=”image” target=”blank” width=”700″ height=”460″ autoplay=”0″ speed=”500″][su_menu][/su_slider]
[su_label]Housing Rights Column[/su_label]
During election time we know that moneyed interests will bombard us with spin and half-truths, but this year the āNo on Iā forces have really outdone themselves. Fearful that they will lose millions in profits if Proposition Iāthe proposed 18-month moratorium on luxury housing in the Mission Districtāpasses, the āNo on Iā forces have already sent a barrage of unwelcome emails, mailers, Facebook posts, and tweets, all misrepresenting what Proposition I will do.
By now, most of us have heard the ābillion dollar lie,ā that Proposition I will cost the city $1 billion. Opponents of Proposition I repeat this claim even though the city controller has determined its cost to be only āup to $1 millionāāthatās 1,000 times less than the āNo on Iā forces claim. With their big money, the realtors and developers will continue their distortions hoping you wonāt read the controllerās statement in your Voter Handbook.
More recently, the āNo on Iā forces have pointed to a study commissioned by supervisors Scott Wiener and Mark Farrellāboth foes of Proposition Iāclaiming that the report says Proposition I will increase rents and cause displacement. Iāve read the report several times now. It says that rents for vacant units will increase by only .3 percent (thatās three-tenths of one percent) during the 18-month pause in luxury development. In light of the fact that rents over the past 18 years have increased at a rate of 9.2 percent, a year, a .3 percent increase is infinitesimal. As to displacement, the report said that there was āno evidenceā that Proposition I would cause displacement, contradicting its opponents.
Itās interesting that the report was written by Ted Egan, the cityās economist and a chief backer of the cityās āsupply-sideā strategy. This āstrategyā lets developers build āmarket-rateā housing (affordable only to the top 15 percent wage earners) claiming that the benefits will ātrickle downā to the remaining 85 percent of us. But Mr. Egan has also stated that we will have to build 100,000 market-rate units before the city will be affordable.
According to the Planning Department 2014 third quarter Residential Pipeline report, San Francisco has built 30,000 units since 2007, 25,000 of which are market-rate, yet rents continue to climb sharply. So why hasnāt the ātrickle downā trickled down?
Mr. Egan says that it makes common sense that luxury housing causes gentrification and displacement, but claims that there is no āstatistical correlationā between the two and therefore no connection. Really? Putting $2.5 million condos at 20th and Valencia streets doesnāt cause gentrification, displacement or increased rents?
Mark Twain once said, āThere are lies, damned lies, and statistics.ā Now, Iām no economist, but I can see right through Mr. Eganās statistics. He measures displacement only by the limited number of āno faultā evictions (i.e. Ellis Act, or owner move-in) reported to the Rent Board, which are a small fraction of all evictions. Real world displacement includes evictions ranging from non-payment of rent, ālow faultā evictions, buyouts, harassment and constructive evictions. Our chief economistās use of incomplete data shows the failure in his conclusion and the bias in his report.
Big money has already given us a heavy dose of lies, damned lies and statistics. The anti-Proposition I forces are hoping that if they say something loudly and often enough people will believe them. Letās make sure voters learn the real facts about Proposition I.
