Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
McGoldrick Seeks to Bring 2-Unit Building Under City Inclusionary Law
San Francisco Supervisor Jake McGoldrick introduced legislation on February 13 that could potentially require builders of two or more units to provide a higher percentage of discounted units than builders of luxury downtown highrises. Prior to July 2006, the city’s inclusionary housing law covered only buildings of ten units or more. McGoldrick sponsored the law reducing this number to the current five, and now wants to reduce the number to two. Ironically, McGoldrick is also carrying legislation that would reduce affordability requirements for developers of downtown condo towers from 15% to 12%. So if McGoldrick gets his way, the same wealthy developers who have benefited mightily from Bush tax breaks will pay less in San Francisco, while the little guy trying to get started in the building industry is priced out.
After making no changes to the city’s inclusionary housing law for four years, the Board of Supervisors may soon consider two changes to the law it passed only last July. Both sponsored by Jake McGoldrick, the net impact of the measures will be to encourage the construction of highrise luxury condos downtown while making it financially unfeasible to construct two to four unit buildings anywhere in San Francisco.
This “Robin Hood in reverse” scheme makes no sense on many levels, but as someone whose organization fights daily against Ellis Act evictions, what bothers me most is this attempt to discourage the building of 2-4 unit buildings. San Francisco needs to have a supply of newly built small buildings so that people will purchase units there rather than have tenants evicted and/or rental units lost through sale as tenancies in common (TIC’s).
Those profiting from Ellis Act evictions routinely claim that they are offering a product---an ownership unit in a small building outside the downtown area—otherwise in short supply. So why should the city further reduce this supply, and at the same time cut the affordability requirements imposed on corporate developers building housing that few San Francisco tenants can afford?
And why is McGoldrick, who has sponsored legislation restricting TIC conversions, now supporting a measure that will encourage them?
McGoldrick has also been a solid vote to restrict incentives for Ellis Act evictions. Preventing the construction of small buildings does the reverse.
The hearing on McGoldrick’s legislation helping the big guys resulted in the measure being held to the call of the chair, so I did not report on it. But it was extremely illuminating.
The hearing described a study found that builders of projects exceeding 100 units have higher housing costs. McGoldrick and SPUR used this study to justify reducing the affordability requirement on projects of 12 stories or more from 15% to 12%.
More
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4230#more
This “Robin Hood in reverse” scheme makes no sense on many levels, but as someone whose organization fights daily against Ellis Act evictions, what bothers me most is this attempt to discourage the building of 2-4 unit buildings. San Francisco needs to have a supply of newly built small buildings so that people will purchase units there rather than have tenants evicted and/or rental units lost through sale as tenancies in common (TIC’s).
Those profiting from Ellis Act evictions routinely claim that they are offering a product---an ownership unit in a small building outside the downtown area—otherwise in short supply. So why should the city further reduce this supply, and at the same time cut the affordability requirements imposed on corporate developers building housing that few San Francisco tenants can afford?
And why is McGoldrick, who has sponsored legislation restricting TIC conversions, now supporting a measure that will encourage them?
McGoldrick has also been a solid vote to restrict incentives for Ellis Act evictions. Preventing the construction of small buildings does the reverse.
The hearing on McGoldrick’s legislation helping the big guys resulted in the measure being held to the call of the chair, so I did not report on it. But it was extremely illuminating.
The hearing described a study found that builders of projects exceeding 100 units have higher housing costs. McGoldrick and SPUR used this study to justify reducing the affordability requirement on projects of 12 stories or more from 15% to 12%.
More
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4230#more
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network