Mission Moves: Housing and the election, baby!

The November election is already here? So you’re saying I’ll soon finally get some sweet respite from the cheesy political ads interrupting my late-night Hulu binges? 

This special edition of Mission Moves seeks to demystify (and update) a few of the upcoming housing/urbanist ballot measures. Unfortunately, you’re on the hook for multiple others. 

Let’s take a swing at D & E, the talk of the town. 

The rundown: 

So, you know San Francisco is in a housing crisis, in large part due to a slow permitting process. 

Both D, basically Mayor Breed’s measure, and  E, the Board of Supervisors’ baby, seek to resolve this by fast-tracking the approval process of projects that meet certain standards. 

It sucks, because they have similar names, and are basically identical. Each defines a project as eligible for fast-tracking if it falls into one of the following categories:

1. 100-percent affordable.
2. Mixed-income (both market-rate and affordable housing) but adds more affordable units than required by city law.
3. Educator housing. 

What are the differences between D and E? 

Difference 1: Income eligibility for 100-percent affordable housing. 

The city limits who can apply for affordable housing based on income. Generally, 120 percent of the area median income has been the maximum household income for a unit, but the city has still embraced higher area median income for certain buildings in the past. 

So, what would each proposition do to income eligibility?

• D raises that eligibility maximum to 140 percent of the area median income for some units within the project. That increase would be offset by lower eligibility elsewhere in the project, so that the average affordability of a project would be 120 percent of the area median income at maximum. 
• E sets a unit maximum of 120 percent of the area median income, which is generally accepted as the affordable housing cap currently. The overall average affordability for the project would be set at 80 percent of the area median income, targeting a population that earns much less. 

• In other words, D allows for some households to have a higher income, and raises a project’s average affordability higher overall. 

How high or low are those incomes? In 2022, a single individual would be at 120 percent of the medium income at $116,400. A family of four earns $179,600.

At 140 percent of the area median income, a single individual could earn $135,800;  a family of four, $209,500.

Difference 2: The definition of ‘increased affordability’

The differences boil down to how many affordable units a mixed-income project should provide in order to get benefits.

• D states a project must include the number of affordable units required by present law, plus an additional 15 percent. A large mixed-income 100-unit project already requires 22 units. Under this definition, a project would add three units, for a total of 25, to trigger streamlining. 
• E says a project must include the number of affordable units required by present law, plus an additional amount equal to 8 percent of the total project units. So, in a 100-unit project with 22 required affordable units, eight more units would be added to trigger streamlining. Thirty affordable units would be created in total. 

Difference 3: The type of labor used 

• D mandates workers with prevailing wages
• E mandates a “trained and skilled labor force.”

Myth-busting:

• Does Prop. D change the definition of affordable housing? 

Nope. That is enshrined in the City Charter, and still requires folks who live in affordable housing to pay no more than 30 percent of their income on rental projects. 

The misconception probably originated from a misinterpretation of Prop. D. regarding its 140 percent unit cap, which is higher than the general 120 percent unit cap. 

Even with a higher cap, the rent would be restricted depending on the rent in a neighborhood, said Todd David, the executive director of Housing Action Coalition, which is sponsoring Prop. D. The rent can’t exceed 80 percent of the area median rent, which David argues would safeguard lower-income communities from pricier units.  

Food for thought: 

Is there a market for higher-earning area median income units? 

• The city’s Small Sites program, which allows nonprofits to acquire small properties and preserve their affordability forever, is having filling its units open to those who earn 120 percent of the median area income. Staff reasoned that higher earners can afford homes on the private market for similar prices, while skipping the annual government oversight and the long lottery process associated with affordable housing. 

• Nevertheless, a report by the city in 2020 showed the dire need for moderate-income housing, in which earners make between 80 and 120 percent of the area median income. Those earning that much include labor workers, teachers, and firefighters.

The city already allows up to 160 percent of the area median income for certain groups and types of housing. 

• In 2019, San Francisco voters approved Prop. E, which allowed educator housing to be streamlined. To make the projects pencil out, income for these properties range from 30 percent of the area median income to 160 percent of the area median income, about 20 percent higher than Prop. D is requesting for its maximum cap. 

• One social housing project, which would be funded primarily through Prop. I, if adopted, will be for teachers. The project, on Mission Street, would offer units for sale. That project, too, envisions a mix of 80 percent to 160 percent area median income units, according to a proposal submitted this year. 

Extra reading: 

 You can never be too informed. 

• Original propositions in the ballot.
• SF Public Press explainers for D and E.
• Excellent SF Chronicle deep-dive by Noah Arroyo.

My past coverage of this topic: 

• To get more affordable housing, what are we willing to give up? —Mission Local
• Affordable-housing charter amendments compete. What’s the difference? —Mission Local