A controversial market-rate housing development on Bryant Street has faced strong opposition from some groups since last year, when developers reworked their original proposal and came back earlier this year with more affordable housing on-site.
Still, opponents were unimpressed, and we decided to ask candidates for District 9 to weigh in on the issue.
What is your position on the 2000 Bryant Street development? Should it be built as planned?
Respuestas en español aquí.
Melissa San Miguel, education advocate
I believe we need to increase the amount of affordable housing. I believe we must maintain the character and culture of our neighborhoods. I believe that unions are absolutely crucial in any project. The 2000 Bryant Street development and our community have benefited from the efforts to increase the share of affordable housing in this project. As a Supervisor, I would continue the fight to make sure we can squeeze as much affordable housing as we can, and ensure that the work done on those projects is 100 percent union.
Joshua Arce, civil rights attorney and Community Liaison for Laborers Local 261
Last year, I helped lead a community-labor alliance to oppose 2000 Bryant, aka “the Beast.” While our stance achieved some concessions from the developer, many concerns remain, including levels of affordability and the need to break ground for construction of affordable units concurrently with any market-rate housing.
We know current Supervisors held private meetings with developers of projects behind closed doors without community input, making agreements exempting projects from the new affordable housing initiative. This is not progressive and not acceptable. In any new development the community must have a seat at the table and a greater say in projects.
Iswari España, Training Officer with the San Francisco Human Services Agency
As a long-time resident of the Mission, and as a district candidate I am in complete solidarity with my neighbors. I do not support the project as it stands. I have been to several meetings with the community and I understand their frustration, the developer is shifting the responsibility to build affordable housing and provide 1 to 1 PDR space to the City and consequently us. While City officials sit back and refuse to support our Districts, I do. My campaign will continue to support the voices of our people in the community.
Edwin Lindo, Vice-President of External Affairs at the Latino Democratic Club
Mr. Podell must listen to community. The community is sophisticated and very clear: unless this project reflects the needs of the community, there will be opposition. Dedicating one-third of the land, without building the necessary affordable housing on-site, does not get us to solution that benefits this community that is in a housing crisis.
The community will not be susceptible to offers that are more of the same tricks. As Supervisor, I will champion legislation to require all housing built in San Francisco have at least 30% affordable housing built on-site (without exception) and require that all affordable housing be accessible to those making 20% to 60% of AMI.
Hillary Ronen, Chief of Staff for Supervisor David Campos
2000 Bryant will be one of the first projects to move forward in the Mission since the start of the affordability crisis. This deal will set a precedent for the number of affordable units required for large scale projects in the neighborhood.
The current project is a creative alternative to the first proposal and the developer should be encouraged to continue his out-of-the-box thinking.
However, the current project still only offers the bare minimum on inclusionary (35% is the minimum requirement for land dedications) and doesn’t replace the industrial uses that were previously there.
I believe that a fair deal for the developer, community, and residents is around the corner and I will support the project when that deal is reached.
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 email@example.com and let us know in comments or in an e-mail if you think candidates have answered as asked.
Disappointed that almost 24-hours after posting my note about Arce’s claims, he’s not shared a response. Sure would be great to have all of the candidates engaging with the public on the web and providing answers to questions about their claims and positions.
Arce claims that Supervisors held closed door meetings with developers and made deals with them. If true, then Arce should provide the names of the Supervisors and who they met with, known terms of any agreements and what he’s done to make these meetings transparent.
Additionally, will Arce not hold any private meetings with developers, if he’s elected? Is he committed to only meeting with them in public forums?
It’s one thing to claim private meetings took place, quite another to show us the proof and outcomes of said meetings, and to hear what the person making those claims would do differently about controversial projects in the Mission.
Ronen says a deal is around the corner? Is that because your boss has made a deal with Podell, or because you’re taking donations from his lobbyist?
What happened to the promise on-site affordable housing? If the land is dedicated it won’t be built for years? Why are you selling out our community?