The Past, Present and Future of Mission Street

Photo by Ana Aguilar.

It seems like the talk of the Mission these days is what’s going to happen to Mission Street. There are some visible signs of change, from the new condos apartments on 15th and Mission to the behemoth crane on 22nd and Mission. Former Mission Local editor, Lauren Smiley, wrote a comprehensive piece explaining the changes on the street. It’s well worth the read.

Filed under: Mobile, Today's Mission

You may also like:


  1. landline

    A slight correction. The newly opened development at 15th and Mission is rental housing, not condos.

  2. John

    Rigoberto Hernandez, are you by any chance related to the “community organizer” whom you cited: Roberto Hernandez?

  3. marcos

    So long as the nonprofits get paid, anything goes.

    When does “the community” get to vote for the nonprofits?

    • John

      The community gets to vote for the Mayor and Supervisors who in turn empower and fund the non-profits.

      So I guess despite your endless “war on non-profits”, you failed to convince a plurality of the “community”.

      • marcos

        Prop B in D9:

        Yes: 3131 No: 6669

        Olague supported 8 Washington, the Mission opposed it by more than 2:1. The nonprofits lost on Eastern Neighborhoods and are out of touch with the voters of D9.

        This piece pretty much outlines how the nonprofits are selling out the Mission for their own little private piece of the pie. They’re admitted prostitutes, all they’re quibbling over is the price. I don’t think that the neighborhood is consenting to this act of intercourse.

        • John

          so, not even 10,000 votes in total?

          You dine out on the 8-Wash result in a low-turnover election while all around you building cranes send you the message that you lost the war.

          And you needed a billionaire to achieve even that.

          • marcos

            We’ve lost the war because prostitutes have asserted leadership in our interests without our consent. They jealously guard their position. so that even as they lose, there are only rewards, no consequences for them. The consequences, they are left for the little people.

          • John

            Yeah, yeah, marcos. You’re a stopped clock on how everyone has sold out except for you.

            Don’t quit your day job.

          • marcos

            I’m too busy raking in the coinage at my day job to spend much more time with the prostitutes. The video footage of the approval hearings for rezonings are in the public record.

            I predicted what would happen, how it would happen and when it would happen accurately. The nonprofits cut deals with developers that accepted those bad outcomes.

            Many other noncombatants from progressive campaigns saw the writing on the wall as well. That is why the people who mobilized to win elections in the 2000s have gone back to their day jobs like I have–there is no reason to donate time to politics when it gets stolen and consumed for no tangible public benefit.

          • John

            It’s called compromise and it is how things get done. The class of 2000, had they remained intact and pure, would have achieved nothing.

            In the end, you did not have the support of the people, else one of that class would have become mayor.

          • marcos

            When the Mayor’s office has financial control over the ethically compromised nonprofits, then the problem becomes that corrupt nexus, the community’s problem, rather than an electoral problem. But you like corruption.

          • John

            But we elect the mayor, so it is really the people who have financial control over the non-profits.

            We voted for this system.

          • marcos

            The Mission did not vote for this mayor yet this mayor decides who to empower in the Mission.

          • John

            The Fed trump the State, the State trumps the City and the City trumps a zip code within the city.

            You know how these things work.

          • marcos

            The question is whether the neighborhood supports the compromises that the prostitutes are making and I suggest it is no. What the citywide officials do has little bearing on what our neighbors think except to spur further opposition.

          • John

            Wrong, the neighborhood has no independant jurisdiction to control planning issues. That is a city mandate and we influence it in city-wide elections.

  4. pete

    Wow. Didn’t know about all the extortion Hernadez et al engages in. They’re against every project until they get paid….scumbags.

    • marcos

      They get paid, the rest of the neighborhood gets screwed, the developers get filthy rich.

      • John

        How do we “get screwed” just because a few new homes get built, creating BMR funds and soaking up buyer demand that might otherwise increase the pressure on the existing housing stock?

        Why would we all be better off if nothing ever got built? Should we take out housing as well? Would that be even better?

        • marcos

          Their own protestations are that the projects that they allow through so long as the piper is paid are deleterious to the community. Deleterious, that is, until they get paid.

          I fail to see how paying the piper fractions of pennies on the dollar makes a project of any magnitude less of a negative impact for the community.

          I agree with the prostitutes that these projects are bad for the community. I disagree with them that paying them off makes them less bad.

          • John

            OK, so you still cannot describe how the community is harmed by building some new homes?

          • marcos

            I leave that discussion to the ethically compromised nonprofit prostitutes.

          • John

            OK, thank you for finally admitting that you cannot explain how the community is “harmed” by building some new homes.


          • marcos

            Why would I need to waste the keystrokes on this when the prostitutes who are selling out our community to speculators for their own benefit stipulate to as much? Your quarrel on that account is as much with them as with me.

          • John

            I disputed your premise that new homes harm communities. You cannot support that premise, evidently.

            If your premise fails, then so do any conclusions that you claim follow from that.

          • marcos

            The premise is that of the prostitutes who cut deals with the pimps. I agree with them. But it they who are trumpeting that proposition far and wide and they seem to forget about that if you pay them enough. So either they are lying or they are hypocrites. I think that they’re hypocrites.

          • John

            Whatever, it’s a non issue. Stuff is getting built and nobody is being harmed by that.

            Works for me.

          • marcos

            The activists say that evictions are skyrocketing because the neighborhood is attracting very high income residents. Part of the cycle of gentrification involves the emplacement of high end condos in a moderate income neighborhood. You are wrong.

          • John

            marcos, where is the evidence that new condos cause evictions?

Comments are closed.

Full name required to post. For full details, read our Policy