What is your position on building housing above current height limits? Does the housing crisis call for greater density in low-lying neighborhoods like the Mission?
Respuestas en español aquÃ.
Hillary Ronen, Chief of Staff for Supervisor David Campos
The idea that NIMBY neighbors are against tall housing projects in the Mission is a favorite talking point of the Mayor and his conservative developer allies.
The people of The Mission have time and time again made it clear that they will support the raising of height limits if it results in a meaningful amount of truly affordable units. Projects that negatively alter the character of our neighborhoods, but only create ultra luxury units with no community benefits, are never supported.
As Supervisor I’ve pledge to build 5,000 units of 100% affordable housing in the next ten years, and at times raising height limits will help us reach that goal. The people of District 9 want us to build affordable housing. And I believe that by rallying the support of the community at appropriate sites we can build tall, build dense, and build 100% affordable.
Melissa San Miguel, education advocate
I grew up in the Mission. I have breathed the beauty and charm of this neighborhood my whole life. It’s clear that we need more affordable housing to ensure that those who have contributed to the neighborhood can stay here, but at the same time we must do our best to protect the layout of the Mission. San Franciscans need many more affordable housing units and we must consider all the options that can help us build them. I am open to increased housing density and taller buildings. However, we must ensure that any changes include an increased percentage of affordable housing units and fit within the character of this neighborhood I love so much.
Joshua Arce, civil rights attorney and Community Liaison for Laborers Local 261
Because we face such a severe housing deficit, which has seen only a handful of affordable units built in the past 7 years, every option that actually delivers more affordable housing for our community must be on the table. As a Mission resident for the better part of a decade I’ve witnessed the rising tide of displacement that’s washed across our neighborhood. The inaction has been unacceptable and today we need thousands of units of new affordable housing just to satisfy existing demand, let alone future growth. Ultimately, we have no hope of protecting the unique culture of the Mission if we can’t build affordable housing for local families.
Iswari España, Training Officer with the San Francisco Human Services Agency
In my opinion, building greater density structures in our neighborhoods is the wrong solution for the housing crisis. Greater density structures are harmful from the environmental and health perspective. These structures destroy natural habitats and cram and confine people into small spaces. In San Francisco, the concept of building over sized structures is only a poor excuse to build Luxury apartments and provide just a few units of affordable housing. This is not a viable solution for the housing crisis.
Edwin Lindo, Vice-President of External Affairs at the Latino Democratic Club
Our neighboring cities to the north, east, and south are not carrying their weight when it comes to affordable housing, and their failure to build should not be solely District 9’s or San Francisco’s burden.
I stand for maintaining the rich character of a neighborhood. I only support raising height limits specifically for affordable housing, as we are doing on Shotwell and Cesar Chavez, where 100 plus senior housing units will be built.
For market rate housing, I would only entertain raising heights, in accordance with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, if it is to increase the percent of affordable units above 30 percent. But the final decision will come from the surrounding community.
43 Questions is a weekly series — started 43 weeks before Election Day — to question the candidates running for District 9 supervisor. Send us your questions to info@missionlocal.com and let us know in comments or in an e-mail if you think candidates have answered as asked.
High density is bad for all species, that’s what she means. And she it right. Besides, there is no “Mission District” if the neighborhood that for a hundred years has been characterized by sunlight, residential low density, two and three story buildings, gets any more Supercized with luxury high rise condos than is already has. They aren’t adding any more streets to the city, only clueless, entitled Techies who could just as well be living in Hong Kong. More density is not the “answer” to a more “affordable” Mission. It’s the way to kill it forever for the people who remain here.
“Greater density structures are harmful from the environmental and health perspective. These structures destroy natural habitats and cram and confine people into small spaces.”
What on earth is this supposed to mean? What natural habitats are going to be destroyed if we build housing over a gas station or a parking lot? And how is it good for the environment, or for anyone’s health if people working in the city are pushed out to exurbs like Richmond or Pittsburgh and spend 3 hours every day in a car?